Oaks- Religious Liberty

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Let's keep it simple...

 

And the gray areas between dictating civil law and participating in the creation of civil law?

There is no stark boundary that divides the two. That is why we need civility, reasonableness, and dialogue to work out how we can work together to solve tricky middle issues amicably.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think reading the decision that way to avoid the religious free speech issue isn't enough to excuse the court for singling out the particular religious beliefs of Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals.  

From a paper I published in a Rutgers law journal :

This was a direct assault upon religious teachings.  There should be no reason to condemn the coalition between the LDS Church and the Mormons.  That isn't "tradition" but it was the lobbying effort of two major religious groups in support of Proposition 8.  Where else can you find argument in a court decision striking down legislation because it had the support of a lobbying effort from a labor union, or the Communist Party?  

As my paper points out, the real reason for Proposition 8's passage was the overwhelming support the black churches gave for Proposition 8 (this was the same election as Obama's first), according to polling data.  But, the fact that religious coalitions lined up to support the Proposition is no reason to strike it down.   The Court in the Prop 8 could have easily found reasons other than the speech of religions to strike down Proposition 8.

I say this coming from the position of one who supports the rights of gays to marry, and who believes that Proposition 8 was, indeed, an infringement upon the civil rights of gays.  But, I also think that free speech trumps basically any other right that isn't clearly and plainly spelled out in the constitution, as the right to marry is not.  Really, what is the harm in letting religious groups have their say in lobbying efforts?   Why can't major religions endorse political candidates?  Unions can; trade groups can.  Elder Oaks' position that there is a current and present threat in the U.S. against the rights of religions to speak out was no better manifested than in the Proposition 8 fight.

Prop 8 was not struck down because it had the support of a religious coalition. Judge Walker ruled against Prop 8 based on equal protection  under the constitution of the United States.  The same basis for each and every other ruling that was handed down by every federal and district court in this country including the US Supreme Court.

Judge Walker's ruling didn't say churches didn't have a right to religious speech,  He only said that religious speech is not a reason to deny someone their civil rights.  He also said that churches formed a coalition to deny gay couples their civil rights based on religious beliefs, not on constitutional law and therefore had no weight in a court of law.

Direct assault on religious teachings???? CFR his ruling somehow limit religious speech or that religion in any way must limit their religious teachings?   Churches are free to teach and speak about any of their beliefs.  It doesn't mean it is a legal reason to deny someone their civil rights.  

[Shadrak]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

Well said!

[Shadrak]

3 hours 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'm pretty sure it's the same 8 form the weekend conference.

Quote

1.   A “core value” of Western civilization is the concept of inherent human dignity and worth. This concept—based on religious belief—is, of course, fundamental to the protection of human life and to the pursuit of all that is good for humanity.

      2.     Our robust private sector of charitable works in the United States originated with and is still sponsored most significantly by religious organizations and religious impulses. This includes education, hospitals, care for the poor, and countless other charities of great value to our country.

      3.     Many of the most significant moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and persuaded to official adoption by pulpit-preaching and persons who had a clear religious vision of what was morally right.[6] Examples include the abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights movement in this country.

      4.     Our society is not held together primarily by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by those who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their internalized norms of righteous or correct behavior. For a large number of our citizens, religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to produce such voluntary compliance. There is, therefore, a strong public interest in the teachings of right and wrong in churches, synagogues, and mosques. It is sincere faith in God—however defined—that translates religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits a nation. Thus, the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wisely observed that “the social goods associated with faith flow almost exclusively from religious participation, not from affiliation or nominal belief.”[7]

      5.   Along with their private counterparts, religious organizations serve as mediating institutions to shape and temper the encroaching power of government on individuals and private organizations.

      6.   Religion inspires many believers to service to others, which, in total, confers enormous benefit on communities and countries. (Remember the Mormon Helping Hands?)

      7.   Religion strengthens the social fabric of society. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has taught: “[Religion] remains the most powerful community builder the world has known. … Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history.”[8]

      8.   Finally, Clayton M. Christensen, who is hailed as a worldwide thought leader on business management and innovation, has written that “religion is the foundation of democracy and prosperity.”[9] Much more could be said about the positive role of religion in economic development.

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

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Shadrak

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

 

 

 

 

You might want to read some good biographies of Jefferson.   He was anti-religion, anti-clerical, and the title of "Deist" doesn't really apply to him.  He did not believe that clergymen should hold public office or say anything in the public marketplace of political ideas.  The article I published on this subject, which I cite above, cites many major Jefferson sources.  I suggest Fawn Brodie's biography as she was the first to accurately assess the Sally Hemmings stuff.  Don't be tricked into right-wing sources which adopt him as their hero.  He was a left-wing radical and a major sympathizer with the atheistic French Revolution.  He was a major slaveholder who fought to uphold slavery and, of course, he abused his position by sleeping with his slaves.

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Prop 8 was not struck down because it had the support of a religious coalition. Judge Walker ruled against Prop 8 based on equal protection  under the constitution of the United States.  The same basis for each and every other ruling that was handed down by every federal and district court in this country including the US Supreme Court.

Judge Walker's ruling didn't say churches didn't have a right to religious speech,  He only said that religious speech is not a reason to deny someone their civil rights.  He also said that churches formed a coalition to deny gay couples their civil rights based on religious beliefs, not on constitutional law and therefore had no weight in a court of law.

Direct assault on religious teachings???? CFR his ruling somehow limit religious speech or that religion in any way must limit their religious teachings?   Churches are free to teach and speak about any of their beliefs.  It doesn't mean it is a legal reason to deny someone their civil rights.  

 

 I guess anybody can believe whatever they want about what the record says, particularly when it comes to religion.  As to CFR -- I cite my published -- peer-reviewed -- paper at Rutgers on the subject.  Being peer-reviewed does not necessarily mean my peers agreed with me, but it does mean that the paper's premises cleared enough hurdles to be deemed colorable and credible.  The record is what it is.  And my position does not include several things above you attribute to me.   I know that Elder Oaks agrees with me as he has cited my paper.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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

From what I saw, the fact that Canada has socialized medicine was frequently being referred to in the debate over the decades as well as other issues.  Perhaps you don't notice not being primed to pay attention to any mention.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 I guess anybody can believe whatever they want about what the record says, particularly when it comes to religion.  As to CFR -- I cite my published -- peer-reviewed -- paper at Rutgers on the subject.  Being peer-reviewed does not necessarily mean my peers agreed with me, but it does mean that the paper's premises cleared enough hurdles to be deemed colorable and credible.  The record is what it is.  And my position does not include several things above you attribute to me.   I know that Elder Oaks agrees with me as he has cited my paper.

From your paper you submitted

Quote

On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.45 The Court held that, under the Equal Protection Clause, the proposition could satisfy neither the higher strict scru- tiny test nor the lesser rational basis test.46 The proposition pro- ponents advanced several arguments in support of rational basis review, including the argument that “tradition” supported the no- tion of heterosexual marriage to the exclusion of homosexual mar- riage.47 “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law.”48 

 

Your paper does not support your claim that Judge Walker limited religious speech, it only shows that he ignored it as a basis for his ruling.  And he was correct in doing so.  This was the CFR.  Your paper does not address that issue.

Quote

CFR his ruling somehow limit religious speech or that religion in any way must limit their religious teachings?   Churches are free to teach and speak about any of their beliefs.  It doesn't mean it is a legal reason to deny someone their civil rights.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

You tell 'em, California Boy!  You oughta know better what's in Bob Crockett's paper than he does!  I mean, just because he wrote it doesn't mean anything!  Silly Bob Crockett!  

 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Shadrak said:

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? 

Ahh... Interesting.  I might have missed that without the full context of this quote.  Your points about the wall between church and state and the costs and benefits of leaving political neutrality are interesting.  I don't think churches are always politically neutral, so its a gray area.  

I agree with your last statement about criticisms as well, and it would be interesting to understand his position better.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

But in what ways would this realistically happen?  It sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.  Think about this in the context of other religions that aren't as popular in the USA as other places in the world.  Hinduism, Buddhism, I haven't seen any attempts in the public space to not respect these religious views that certainly are far from majority views. 

Are you talking about when a sports figure gives praises to God for an achievement, and how others ridicule those statements?  Is this the kind of social suppression you talk about, because I think you could make a case that atheists are socially ridiculed by the religious in the same ways.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Can you give some more examples where this actually is happening?  You can't make someone respect your POV in the free market of ideas.  What morality are you suggesting can't be legislated?  Many of our laws seem morally based, murder, theft, indecency, fraud, alcohol sales, gambling laws, etc.  In a democracy you have to have a majority agreement to legislate any laws, morally based or not.  Would you want minorities to be able to set laws based on their unique moral preferences?  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You tell 'em, California Boy!  You oughta know better what's in Bob Crockett's paper than he does!  I mean, just because he wrote it doesn't mean anything!  Silly Bob Crockett!  

 

Thank you for supporting me in my CFR.  If someone makes a claim, then they should be able to back it up.  I am giving Bob Crockett that opportunity to defend his position.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

It's legitimate to call for increased mutual respect, but that's not really a religious freedom issue. No one respects the Westboro Baptists, and their religious liberty remains intact. 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

From what I saw, the fact that Canada has socialized medicine was frequently being referred to in the debate over the decades as well as other issues.  Perhaps you don't notice not being primed to pay attention to any mention.

Sure, in political debates, the actions of other countries can be influential. But they're can't be used as legal precedent in court decisions. 

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's legitimate to call for increased mutual respect, but that's not really a religious freedom issue. No one respects the Westboro Baptists, and their religious liberty remains intact. 

True. The principle that name-calling shuts down conversation is by no means unique to discussions involving religious speech. The same principle holds for any group - business, congress, family, etc.

One reason I'm supportive of Oak's call for more civil discourse is because I want the church to remain the conversation - even on points where my views differ - because that will temper the church's dialogue and help hearts to change more quickly within the church. If society isolates the church, then we'll be prone to turn down a course like the Westboro group. So long as we're players there's no chance of that.

PS - I love the quotes in your sig line.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

True. The principle that name-calling shuts down conversation is by no means unique to discussions involving religious speech. The same principle holds for any group - business, congress, family, etc.

One reason I'm supportive of Oak's call for more civil discourse is because I want the church to remain the conversation - even on points where my views differ - because that will temper the church's dialogue and help hearts to change more quickly within the church. If society isolates the church, then we'll be prone to turn down a course like the Westboro group. So long as we're players there's no chance of that.

PS - I love the quotes in your sig line.

It's interesting to read the comments on Elder Oaks FB page where he calls for a cease fire. It becomes clear, very quickly, that many believe a cease fire means that the other side must stop firing but that they are still free to attack because of the rightness of their position. One guy agrees with the call for a cease fire and immediately calls gays perverts and sickos. That kind of talk poisons the dialogue. It would be fantastic if the church took the lead in the cease fire because I see much of the cultural firing back at the church is in retaliation for comments and behaviors. Still, both sides have responsibility to be civil but it is useful to remember that just because something is said diplomatically, or with a smile, doesn't mean it is necessarily civil.

 

https://www.facebook.com/lds.dallin.h.oaks/

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

True. The principle that name-calling shuts down conversation is by no means unique to discussions involving religious speech. The same principle holds for any group - business, congress, family, etc.

One reason I'm supportive of Oak's call for more civil discourse is because I want the church to remain the conversation - even on points where my views differ - because that will temper the church's dialogue and help hearts to change more quickly within the church. If society isolates the church, then we'll be prone to turn down a course like the Westboro group. So long as we're players there's no chance of that.

PS - I love the quotes in your sig line.

I support the call for more civil discourse too. Heated discourse just makes everyone more polarized.

Glad you like the quotes, thanks!

[Shadrak]

22 hours 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".  

While your response is a bit off topic, I wonder why it's so hostile. The idea of the exercise was to show a bit of empathy. Sort of a "liken the scriptures to yourself," but "liken the discrimination to yourself," would you still endorse it? 

Your exercise is pretty easy to figure out, unless you want to equate mormons to murders then I can't say anything, your reasoning makes no sense. Is there a question in your mind that murderers should not be discriminated against, they shouldn't be treated differently? 

The only thing that makes this group special is that it has been traditionally discriminated against and putting special protections around these types of discriminated groups is how we attempt to remedy and correct future actions. From the screed you wrote it looks like these protections are needed.

Apart from the picture you paint, LGBT people are our family members, neighbors, and coworkers. Treating them with kindness and normalcy is all that's being asked. Why is that so difficult?

You are right that problems do need to be discussed and addressed. But I'm not sure this caricature you've painted is accurate nor does everyone agree that they are necessarily all bad. Maybe this is why you haven't heard anything about them? 

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for supporting me in my CFR.  If someone makes a claim, then they should be able to back it up.  I am giving Bob Crockett that opportunity to defend his position.

You're attributing positions to me I haven't taken.  Judge Walker didn't ever hold that religious free speech was restricted, nor have I ever said or suggested such.  Walker held, among other grounds for his ruling, the Prop 8 had the backing of religious groups with improper opinions on the subject.   It's like you coming to an auditorium to hear me make a speech, throwing a dead dog in the middle of the audience, and pointing out that I failed to mention the dead dog.

It's like a judge saying that he's going to strike down a minimum wage ordinance because (1) it violates the Contract Clause, (2) it violates the Takings Clause and (3) unions backed it.   

If a judge says that legislation should be disfavored because it has the backing of religious groups, that is indeed an assault on religious free speech.  You like to cite the other grounds for his ruling and say -- not so fast, he had other grounds.  Well, it doesn't work that way.   If there are five grounds for striking the legislation, and one of them is the one that is the focus of my paper, it is an affront on free speech.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I support the call for more civil discourse too. Heated discourse just makes everyone more polarized.

Glad you like the quotes, thanks!

I wonder how civil discourse can be done. If different groups rights are at stake, how does one discuss them civilly, especially if one or more of the groups consider a loss of rights an existential threat? 

What does a "ceasefire in the culture wars" look like? Oaks has been calling for one for the last 6 months, as far as I can tell. Is the continued campaigning against SSM (such as  in Mexico) or November Policy what he means by a ceasefire? 

[thesometimesaint]

23 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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. 

I choose to follow the WoW.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You're attributing positions to me I haven't taken.  

I will take that as a retraction of what you said in your first post on page 2 and what I had an issue with.  This is what you said in that post.

Quote

Free religious speech is at risk in the United States.  The federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8 cited as a major reason for his decision the fact that major religions backed Proposition 8, with their intolerant attitudes. 

What he actually said is that religious beliefs and tradition is not a legal reason to take away someone's civil rights.  His decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution as you referenced in your paper.

 

Quote

On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.45 The Court held that, under the Equal Protection Clause, the proposition could satisfy neither the higher strict scru- tiny test nor the lesser rational basis test.46 The proposition pro- ponents advanced several arguments in support of rational basis review, including the argument that “tradition” supported the no- tion of heterosexual marriage to the exclusion of homosexual mar- riage.47 “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law.”48 

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by california boy

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Shadrak said:

I wonder how civil discourse can be done. If different groups rights are at stake, how does one discuss them civilly, especially if one or more of the groups consider a loss of rights an existential threat? 

What does a "ceasefire in the culture wars" look like? Oaks has been calling for one for the last 6 months, as far as I can tell. Is the continued campaigning against SSM (such as  in Mexico) or November Policy what he means by a ceasefire? 

I'm not really sure what Elder Oaks means by that. His style seems to be to speak in very very general terms, like he wishes to insinuate something without directly saying it. The church however has yet to offer a ceasefire in the culture wars. 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I will take that as a retraction of what you said in your first post on page 2 and what I had an issue with.  This is what you said in that post.

What he actually said is that religious beliefs and tradition is not a legal reason to take away someone's civil rights.  His decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution as you referenced in your paper.

 

 

There's that dead dog again.  I retract nothing.   My paper says what it says and my post says what it says.  I know the gay community wants to read Judge Walker's ruling in a way that makes it as inoffensive as possible to free speech, but that isn't possible.  I am sympathetic to your cause but I also see the threat to religion in his ruling.   He didn't have to get into all of that.   The Ninth Circuit didn't.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/12/2016 at 5:17 PM, Nevo said:

I quickly perused the website last night. I'd been wondering what has been driving the Church's recent push on protecting religious freedom. The article, "Why Religious Freedom Matters," answered my question:

I think the leaders are right to worry. The days of tax-exempt status, Church-run schools, and the freedom to proselytize publicly may well be numbered (see, e.g., the recent drawdown of missionaries volunteers in Russia).

If that happens, we will know the First Amendment is effectively dead.  I would also anticipate a violent reaction to it.  Perhaps a second great civil war.