Oaks- Religious Liberty

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I think the concern is that if members (and others with similar beliefs) choose to stop defending the church's teaching against SSM in the public sphere, then the shift in attitudes accepting SSM will proceed more quickly, particularly in LDS communities. I recall during the height of the SSM debate that many supporters of traditional marriage argued that the public's shifting attitudes may stabilize, or even revert back to their view, once the effects of SSM were seen. They analogized the debate to abortion. Others (like myself) who SSM, argued that a better analogy is interracial marriage. 

From what I'm seeing in my church community, church leaders are correct in their sense that members are ceasing to publicly defend the church's teaching. When the subject comes up in church circles now, few want to talk about it and we move to a different subject. The silence is even more extreme with the youth (where I teach) considering that most of them support SSM (or at least do not oppose it) and many of their leaders hold similar views since the youth leaders tend to skew to younger and mid-age adults.

The real concern is not that the public (or government) is ready to seriously attack the church at this time. The concern is that, if current trends continue, the church will reach the point where there is no longer support within the members, just like what happened with the racial priesthood ban.

Good comments, I agree with your observations.  I think this could also explain the reason for the November 2015 policy.  By alienating the LGBT members and their families, then the base church members don't interact with these people as much which reduces the risk in the minds of church leaders that their base will start to see LGBT as good people just like anyone else.  I think this strategy may backfire though, because the church isn't a closed isolated community and people are influenced by media, culture, and the larger community trends.  

[Nevo]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Decisions made in Canadian courts have no bearing on US law. 

No, of course not. But there is no reason to think that similar challenges won't occur in the US. Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) laid the groundwork:

Quote

This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs. . . . However, "[n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/574.html

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the IRS was justified in revoking Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because the university's racially discriminatory policies were at odds with the "governmental interest . . . in eradicating racial discrimination in education."

It doesn't take much imagination to see how this same reasoning might eventually be applied to religious schools with discriminatory policies towards LGBTQ persons.

[thesometimesaint]

57 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I think the concern is that if members (and others with similar beliefs) choose to stop defending the church's teaching against SSM in the public sphere, then the shift in attitudes accepting SSM will proceed more quickly, particularly in LDS communities. I recall during the height of the SSM debate that many supporters of traditional marriage argued that the public's shifting attitudes may stabilize, or even revert back to their view, once the effects of SSM were seen. They analogized the debate to abortion. Others (like myself) who SSM, argued that a better analogy is interracial marriage. 

From what I'm seeing in my church community, church leaders are correct in their sense that members are ceasing to publicly defend the church's teaching. When the subject comes up in church circles now, few want to talk about it and we move to a different subject. The silence is even more extreme with the youth (where I teach) considering that most of them support SSM (or at least do not oppose it) and many of their leaders hold similar views since the youth leaders tend to skew to younger and mid-age adults.

The real concern is not that the public (or government) is ready to seriously attack the church at this time. The concern is that, if current trends continue, the church will reach the point where there is no longer support within the members, just like what happened with the racial priesthood ban.

Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. IE; I'm well passed the age where I can legally drink booze. I still choose to not drink the stuff.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Jefferson produced "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," declaring "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

I think people today champion him on the basis of some of his works as the architect of religious freedom when, in fact, he was not.  He advocated freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.  He was not a religious man, and he considered such men as incompetent.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Non-discrimination is the new enemy and biggest threat to his version of religious freedom, which is for his beliefs to be the dominant influence in society. And if not society at large, then at least maintain total control over the bits of territory he has in the name of religious freedom.

Imagine his world where a religious belief trumps almost any other law or value in the Constitution, simply because that value is secular. It's like he doesn't see the irony that religious freedom is a secular value.

Non-discrimination is the new enemy?  Says who and defined by whom?  Discrimination remains the ultimate tool of society and is fully active in today's "enlightened" society.  The only thing that is changed is who gets to discriminate and for what reasons.  

US Armed Forces discriminate on the basis of gender - there are no standards or at least they are lowered to the point of being laughable so that all genders and all abilities can play soldier.  Performance is cast off in favor of the new preferred model of "inclusiveness" and "equality".  

Equality is good unless some become too equal.  For example, the Ivy league schools turn a blind eye to Asian performance in favor of racial preferences because everyone knows - just cannot prove through empirical analysis - that racial diversity somehow creates a superior society....at least in the eyes of the new elite that tells us it is better.

The more things change the more they stay the same.  Now, we just have a bunch of blind elites telling us things are better because "they" know better as our society is destroyed in favor of....whatever they tell us is better. 

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

I think people today champion him on the basis of some of his works as the architect of religious freedom when, in fact, he was not.  He advocated freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.  He was not a religious man, and he considered such men as incompetent.

That is not true. He was a religious man(He was a Deist), just not a fan of mixing religion and government. Which all the Founders were well aware of. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. We are free to believe or not to believe any religion. IE; I am free to not believe Hinduism. I'm am free not to believe Atheism. With some 40,000 Christian religions in the US alone. Which Christian one should the government require me to believe? Considering the history of religion in the affairs of government. Maybe it is a good idea to keep them separate.

[Buckeye]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. IE; I'm well passed the age where I can legally drink booze. I still choose to not drink the stuff.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. I fully agree with the Joseph Smith statement you're quoting. But the church does not simply trust members to abide by the WOW prohibition on alcohol. The church places consequences on obedience, such as limiting temple recommends to those who abstain. 

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, Nevo said:

No, of course not. But there is no reason to think that similar challenges won't occur in the US. Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) laid the groundwork:

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the IRS was justified in revoking Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because the university's racially discriminatory policies were at odds with the "governmental interest . . . in eradicating racial discrimination in education."

It doesn't take much imagination to see how this same reasoning might eventually be applied to religious schools with discriminatory policies towards LGBTQ persons.

Oh, I agree with that. I think eventually universities that continue to discriminate against gay people will find themselves in the same spot at Bob Jones U. But not churches.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Decisions made in Canadian courts have no bearing on US law. 

But they do have influence.

[Shadrak]

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Non-discrimination is the new enemy?  Says who and defined by whom?  Discrimination remains the ultimate tool of society and is fully active in today's "enlightened" society.  The only thing that is changed is who gets to discriminate and for what reasons.  

Dallin Oaks said it in this talk in Texas. It seemed to be his main point, secular nondiscrimination vs religious freedom. He doesn't define it, but certainly the underlining reason for the entire Religious Freedom campaign are protections granted (current and future) to LGBT people which go against his religious beliefs. He wants to discriminate on religious grounds but he's afraid secular laws will trump that right and societal attitudes will further marginalize LDS people. So which is the greater right: religious discrimination to maintain a religious tenet or secular nondiscrimination? I would suggest that whatever group you want to discriminate against, replace that group with mormon or any racial or ethnic group of your choice and see if religious discrimination is still the superior position.

Quote

Despite the clear social values of religion, powerful forces are seeking to weaken the free exercise of religion. Often this involves seeking to dilute or replace this First Amendment guarantee with other rights or priorities, such as the powerful emerging right of nondiscrimination...

How should we resolve current conflicts between nondiscrimination and the free exercise of religion? Our main message is that we should all cease fire in the culture wars and join in efforts to achieve fairness for all. In our pluralistic society all must learn to live peacefully with laws, institutions, and persons who do not share our most basic values...

As the powerful emerging right of nondiscrimination has been accommodated in the law, many rank it above the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion, contending that religious freedom must be curtailed wherever it conflicts with nondiscrimination.[17] To such I say please respect the laws that provide unique protections for believers and religious institutions...

Elder Ronald A. Rasband gave an appropriate warning in a BYU address a year ago. Said he: “Our society has become so blinded by its quest to redress wrongful discrimination against one class of people that it is now in danger of creating another victimized class: people of faith, like you and me...”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-dallin-h-oaks-religious-freedom-dallas

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

It has been discussed. It will likely be discussed more in the coming years. 

I find that piece encouraging in a sense.  But seriously.  I can't imagine this happening. 

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I expect the Church would "get by." But having to pay tax, with less tithing revenue coming in, would definitely impact the Church's ability to carry out its mission. The Church currently spends an enormous amount of money building and maintaining meetinghouses and temples. It also spends a lot on church education and subsidizing church schools. All of those things would be adversely affected.

But as he said in that linked piece, we wouldn't have to subsidize the Church's land holdings with out taxes. 

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I think the threat is very real. The process is already well underway in Canada. Here is an excerpt from a recent legal brief filed by the Law Society of British Columbia defending its decision to deny accreditation to a religious university's law school:

 

I agree with Gray.  Canada is not the US. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they do have influence.

Not sure if they do or not. They certainly can't be cited in legal arguments, right?

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Oh, I agree with that. I think eventually universities that continue to discriminate against gay people will find themselves in the same spot at Bob Jones U. But not churches.

It'll be an interesting day when BYU becomes a secular school...but in the end it might be what's best anyway. 

[Gray]

Just now, stemelbow said:

It'll be an interesting day when BYU becomes a secular school...but in the end it might be what's best anyway. 

I look forward to the day when armed government agents storm the campus and start stocking the vending machines with caffeinated Coke. 

[bcuzbcuz]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I find that piece encouraging in a sense.  But seriously.  I can't imagine this happening. 

But as he said in that linked piece, we wouldn't have to subsidize the Church's land holdings with out taxes. 

I agree with Gray.  Canada is not the US. 

Canada is not the US. You have no idea how pleasing that is to see in print.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not sure if they do or not. They certainly can't be cited in legal arguments, right?

Canada law is not precedential. It could be cited for persuasion. And it could be cited to inform the reader as to the law in Canada, if that were relevant for some reason. But it's not controlling in any sense on a US court.

[Storm Rider]

7 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

Dallin Oaks said it in this talk in Texas. It seemed to be his main point, secular nondiscrimination vs religious freedom. He doesn't define it, but certainly the underlining reason for the entire Religious Freedom campaign are protections granted (current and future) to LGBT people which go against his religious beliefs. He wants to discriminate on religious grounds but he's afraid secular laws will trump that right and societal attitudes will further marginalize LDS people. So which is the greater right: religious discrimination to maintain a religious tenet or secular nondiscrimination? I would suggest that whatever group you want to discriminate against, replace that group with mormon or any racial or ethnic group of your choice and see if religious discrimination is still the superior position.

I wonder what your exercise would yield if we replaced whatever group you want to discriminate against, replace that group with "murderer" or any other unfavorable group of your choice and see if religious discrimination is still the superior position.  

You see, when you begin waving that preferred group of choice - the all important LGBQT is the golden cow of choice in our media driven world today - you have done nothing but made a new group a preferred group.  What exactly about that group is so special?  What do they bring to society to make it better?  Let's look - horrible health problems because of their sex lives; social mores that are typically frowned upon for everyone else (think thousands of sex partners here), open marriages, much higher suicide rates.

This preferred group comes with a giant closet full of problems that have been locked in the closet and no one is allowed to talk about lest we rock the boat and actually begin discussing what is so beneficial of pushing this group into a preferred status.  

It is not a pretty picture and it will be become a pretty picture simply because it has become a preferred group.  

I think it is appropriate for societies to discuss openly, honestly, what is best and what is not.  Some things are not healthy and should not be promoted, supported, or forced on others to accept regardless of their religious preferences or demands for "inclusiveness".  

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Take a look at this quote again.  Oaks is saying that religious-based views are not free to participate in this free market process.  Do you agree with his statement?  Why would they not be just as free to participate as any other interests?  

I think you've misinterpreted this statement, it was a rhetorical, incredulous statement pointing out it's duplicity. Oaks is saying the exact opposite, he's wondering, if secularists can be political, why can't religionists also speak up.

He doesn't fully address why there's a wall between church and state, why it's beneficial or detracting, or the benefits churches get while maintaining some type of political neutrality and would churches be willing to give them up to be more political.

Unfortunately, he wants to enter the political arena but not be subject to much criticism about it. He calls it retaliation, like boycotts, protests, being called nasty names by other citizens, thought of less by employers etc. I wonder if he thinks there should be laws against other citizens from this type of criticism? 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You see, when you begin waving that preferred group of choice - the all important LGBQT is the golden cow of choice in our media driven world today - you have done nothing but made a new group a preferred group.  What exactly about that group is so special?  What do they bring to society to make it better?  Let's look - horrible health problems because of their sex lives; social mores that are typically frowned upon for everyone else (think thousands of sex partners here), open marriages, much higher suicide rates.

This preferred group comes with a giant closet full of problems that have been locked in the closet and no one is allowed to talk about lest we rock the boat and actually begin discussing what is so beneficial of pushing this group into a preferred status.  

It is not a pretty picture and it will be become a pretty picture simply because it has become a preferred group.  

I think it is appropriate for societies to discuss openly, honestly, what is best and what is not.  Some things are not healthy and should not be promoted, supported, or forced on others to accept regardless of their religious preferences or demands for "inclusiveness".  

Surely if gay men are so poorly off, we ought to be encouraging them to settle down in monogomous same sex marriages.

Of course as far as I'm aware the statistics for lesbians are better than for heterosexual couples, but I guess they don't count?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Gray

[Buckeye]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I wonder what your exercise would yield if we replaced whatever group you want to discriminate against, replace that group with "murderer" or any other unfavorable group of your choice and see if religious discrimination is still the superior position.  

You see, when you begin waving that preferred group of choice - the all important LGBQT is the golden cow of choice in our media driven world today - you have done nothing but made a new group a preferred group.  What exactly about that group is so special?  What do they bring to society to make it better?  Let's look - horrible health problems because of their sex lives; social mores that are typically frowned upon for everyone else (think thousands of sex partners here), open marriages, much higher suicide rates.

This preferred group comes with a giant closet full of problems that have been locked in the closet and no one is allowed to talk about lest we rock the boat and actually begin discussing what is so beneficial of pushing this group into a preferred status.  

It is not a pretty picture and it will be become a pretty picture simply because it has become a preferred group.  

I think it is appropriate for societies to discuss openly, honestly, what is best and what is not.  Some things are not healthy and should not be promoted, supported, or forced on others to accept regardless of their religious preferences or demands for "inclusiveness".  

No surprise that I disagree with your conclusions. But you're correct to ask why LGBT should be deemed a group for special protection. In a nutshell, it's precisely because of the attitudes displayed in your comment. LGBT people have normal problems the same as hetero people. But they also have had to deal with a disparaging view of society that cast them as inferior, dirty, unhealthy, contaminating miscreants that need to be locked away to protect the rest of us. Thankfully, those attitudes are quickly changing, even in the church. I dare say that if you posted this comment on a church message board the church PR department would promptly have it thrown in the "Professor Bott Garbage Bin." But the fact that people with attitudes like you exist in sizeable numbers demonstrates why a protected class is needed. Hopefully the day will come when that is no longer needed.

[Buckeye]

More news on this subject. Elder Oaks just delivered an address at BYU in which he apparently gave 8 examples of attacks on religious freedom. Unfortunately, the DN article only states 2 of them:

 

Quote

 

His eight examples of threats to religious liberty centered on higher education and included a California proposal to deny state funds to students at private colleges and universities that rely on religious exemptions from Title IX nondiscrimination requirements.

Also on his list was what he called a more common and more personal challenge to free speech — labeling opposing arguments as "hate speech" or "bigotry."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865662338/Elder-Oaks-urges-BYU-students-to-support-religious-academic-freedom-and-vote-despite-ugly.html

 

 If someone has the time to watch the whole thing (see here:http://www.byutv.org/watch/event/10ad3cac-5d05-46e5-86cb-600a686033ac ) they could give us the full run-down of all 8.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

More news on this subject. Elder Oaks just delivered an address at BYU in which he apparently gave 8 examples of attacks on religious freedom. Unfortunately, the DN article only states 2 of them:

 

 If someone has the time to watch the whole thing (see here:http://www.byutv.org/watch/event/10ad3cac-5d05-46e5-86cb-600a686033ac ) they could give us the full run-down of all 8.

I don't get why he thinks criticism of religious viewpoints infringes upon religious freedom. Should people not be allowed to criticize religious opinions? Should free speech take a back seat? 

[Buckeye]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't get why he thinks criticism of religious viewpoints infringes upon religious freedom. Should people not be allowed to criticize religious opinions? Should free speech take a back seat? 

Name-calling is not real criticism. It's just a conversation-ender. I'm glad that Oaks (and other LDS) are feeling the sting of this as we've been quite guilty of it ourselves. For example, church authorities have frequently chided those who support SSM as "giving into political correctness." Hopefully Oaks' vision of a true dialogue will come to pass. His analogy of a curtain between church/state is apropo. Light passes both ways. Society has been blessed when religious bodies have spoken on issues such as civil rights, women rights, child interests, employment conditions, and so forth. In like manner, churches have been blessed when society has spoken on these same issues. As a prime example, the LDS church I love has been blessed to live in a land that showed a better way with respect to treatment of blacks. I'm convinced this example helped pave the way for the hearts of church members and leaders to repent.

Back to your question, Oaks may not like criticism of religious opinions (he is, after all, the one who said that members criticizing leaders is wrong even if the criticism is correct). But he understands that participation in the public forum will lead to critiques. What he's trying to tamp down is the meaningless name calling and "othering" of the LDS. Even though we have been guilty of the practice, it's still wrong for others to do it to us.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[Damien the Leper]

Let's keep it simple...

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you about the clothing bans in France, this is a bad step of discrimination.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting that your stake had a fireside on this issue, I would be curious to understand what exactly members were encouraged to work on accommodations about specifically?  When you say practice your faith privately, I'm not aware of any threats to private practice, but when you say practice your faith publicly, what does that mean?  What is it about public practice that is in jeopardy, and what do you think needs to be protected? 

Little things. Toning down extracurricular activities on Sunday where possible. Basic accommodations from schools for early morning seminary. Working with community officials on both secular and religious activities taking place in the community (locally we have a few traditional ones in my city that the LDS Church and other Churches participate in).

The worry about public practice is that it will be edged out. Probably not legally (I think the Ten Commandments in Courthouse people are all idiots on both sides) but socially. That talk of and the appearance of religious behavior in public will become offensive in itself to the point that it is socially suppressed. If that happens then legal suppression may start to naturally follow.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Oaks, I'm not saying he should shut up or disengage.  I think he should present his case and where his ideas are not agreed upon, he should negotiate and compromise and continue to have conversations.  That is what I meant by the free marketplace of ideas.

That is what he wants to be able to do. We are relatively good about taking our licks when we lose in the political process. When we become social undesireables we go out in the desert so we can be left alone. Then others follow and try to suppress our faith within our desert. The problem is we are running out of free deserts to run to.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Take a look at this quote again.  Oaks is saying that religious-based views are not free to participate in this free market process.  Do you agree with his statement?  Why would they not be just as free to participate as any other interests?  

They should be but there is a growing sense of social scorn when they do. If it were just the normal scorn you get for opposing I think it would be business as usual but churches tend to get told that not only are they wrong but that they should shut the hell up for vague reasons. We get told you cannot legislate morality and similar ridiculousness as if we are the only one who has a moral viewpoint and that religious ideas have less merit because they are based on religious precepts. This is not a good thing for religious freedom.