Oaks- Religious Liberty

[carbon dioxide]

21 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

In other words, if the Church wants a cease fire in the culture wars, not only must it cease its external advocacy, but it must also change its internal church policies.  

And you wonder why some are worried about an existential threat to religious liberty?    

Why would the church want a cease fire in the culture war?  A cease fire in this world means to engage in a cease fire with the devil.  When one takes upon the name of Christ, they can expect opposition.  We are to endure through our trials not find ways to buddy up with the opposition.  I don't know if there is a threat to our religious liberty.  I still have not been oppressed by anyone.  But I guess this is one reason we have a 2nd Amendment.  If the time comes that we receive strong opposition by force, we defend ourselves. 

[carbon dioxide]

10 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

As Sleeper Cell said, it's not speech that is at issue, it's religious practice, the free exercise of religion. I'm sure that the end game of secularists is to alter the current landscape of some religious practices. Particularly religious discrimination against LGBT people. While it's not there yet, it definitely could be soon and that could change that part of the first amendment.

I am confident that before that would happen, the country would have to go through a civil war and the secularist win.  I bank on the non-secularists winning because they would have a cause to fight for.   Perhaps the Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim can unite together and fight on the same battlefield.

Edited September 16, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[James Tunney]

24 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

As Sleeper Cell said, it's not speech that is at issue, it's religious practice, the free exercise of religion. I'm sure that the end game of secularists is to alter the current landscape of some religious practices. Particularly religious discrimination against LGBT people. While it's not there yet, it definitely could be soon and that could change that part of the first amendment. 

Maybe religion should get more involved in politics. As you said, it is no longer taken for granted that all religious ideals are good and given deference, thus it's losing its prominence. To maintain its voice, maybe more politicking is needed? 

I know that is what "religious freedom" claims it is about, but all of a sudden this is an issue for religious persons because the Court sided with the LGTBQ community.  Religious people including the church got involved in the anti-same sex marriage side and were defeated.  As a result, all of a sudden, in an effort to play the victim, religious people are now claiming that there is some danger to their religious practices because the gays can all of a sudden get legally married.  To me, it is about speech and not practice.  No one is saying that gays should be allowed to be married in the temple and I don't think any court would force this to happen.  It is simply a case of religion speaking out against gay marriage, religion losing in the free speech arena, and then religion mis-characterizing their defeat as a case of a religious practice problem.  I don't see religion being forced to change their beliefs as a result of a small minority gaining civil marriage rights.  So, I think the religious practice claim is a red herring. 

[James Tunney]

27 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am confident that before that would happen, the country would have to go through a civil war and the secularist win.  I bank on the non-secularists winning because they would have a cause to fight for.   Perhaps the Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim can unite together and fight on the same battlefield.

I don't think there is any support for this view.  There is no reason to have a war simply because some small minority gained some rights.

[James Tunney]

39 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would the church want a cease fire in the culture war?  A cease fire in this world means to engage in a cease fire with the devil.  When one takes upon the name of Christ, they can expect opposition.  We are to endure through our trials not find ways to buddy up with the opposition.  I don't know if there is a threat to our religious liberty.  I still have not been oppressed by anyone.  But I guess this is one reason we have a 2nd Amendment.  If the time comes that we receive strong opposition by force, we defend ourselves. 

Go get some ammo buddy.  I will see you at the range.  Although I don't think your religious war will materialize, I still love to go shooting.

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would the church want a cease fire in the culture war?  A cease fire in this world means to engage in a cease fire with the devil.  When one takes upon the name of Christ, they can expect opposition.  We are to endure through our trials not find ways to buddy up with the opposition.  I don't know if there is a threat to our religious liberty.  I still have not been oppressed by anyone.  But I guess this is one reason we have a 2nd Amendment.  If the time comes that we receive strong opposition by force, we defend ourselves. 

Elder Oaks called for one:

"Our main message is that we should all cease fire in the culture wars and join in efforts to achieve fairness for all."

And good luck with your 2nd amendment rights in a future police state.

[The Nehor]

On 9/14/2016 at 3:56 PM, carbon dioxide said:

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.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has suffered enough. Let's not get a bunch of deranged yahoos together and do it again. It was funny the first time but that would be overdoing it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am confident that before that would happen, the country would have to go through a civil war and the secularist win.  I bank on the non-secularists winning because they would have a cause to fight for.   Perhaps the Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim can unite together and fight on the same battlefield.

I am planning to be one of the prophesied cowards who refuses to take up his sword against his neighbor and so must flee unto Zion for safety. Good luck in your civil war which will break down the basic infrastructure we are now dependent on and will result in the deaths of millions even without you all shooting each other. Have fun.

[Shadrak]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I know that is what "religious freedom" claims it is about, but all of a sudden this is an issue for religious persons because the Court sided with the LGTBQ community.  Religious people including the church got involved in the anti-same sex marriage side and were defeated.  As a result, all of a sudden, in an effort to play the victim, religious people are now claiming that there is some danger to their religious practices because the gays can all of a sudden get legally married.  To me, it is about speech and not practice.  No one is saying that gays should be allowed to be married in the temple and I don't think any court would force this to happen.  It is simply a case of religion speaking out against gay marriage, religion losing in the free speech arena, and then religion mis-characterizing their defeat as a case of a religious practice problem.  I don't see religion being forced to change their beliefs as a result of a small minority gaining civil marriage rights.  So, I think the religious practice claim is a red herring. 

Religious freedom = religious discrimination. It's now suddenly an issue because it's more politically correct than saying we're anti-gay. The church is not concerned about performing gay marriages in temples. They are concerned that LGBT people will become as protected a class as race and religion is, where even religious discrimination becomes difficult. It's about losing federal dollars at universities, tax exempt status as a charitable origination, the ability to professionally counsel people that gayness is wrong, and make educational, hiring and other decisions outside chapel walls based solely on sexual orientation. That society will look so askance at this position that mormons will look backwards and ignorant and suffer professionally. They are fighting for the right to go on as they have before and that society leave them alone, or at least they can be exempt from the rules the rest of society follows, like the Utah Compromise.

Oaks mentioned that the Plan of Salvation would essentially fall apart if the church accepted gay marriage, if the church accepted homosexuality. It's a big deal and even the hint of forced acceptance anywhere in the church's program will be fought.

But who knows. Maybe it is just fear mongering and a red herring.

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Religious freedom = religious discrimination. It's now suddenly an issue because it's more politically correct than saying we're anti-gay. The church is not concerned about performing gay marriages in temples. They are concerned that LGBT people will become as protected a class as race and religion is, where even religious discrimination becomes difficult. It's about losing federal dollars at universities, tax exempt status as a charitable origination, the ability to professionally counsel people that gayness is wrong, and make educational, hiring and other decisions outside chapel walls based solely on sexual orientation. That society will look so askance at this position that mormons will look backwards and ignorant and suffer professionally. They are fighting for the right to go on as they have before and that society leave them alone, or at least they can be exempt from the rules the rest of society follows, like the Utah Compromise.

Oaks mentioned that the Plan of Salvation would essentially fall apart if the church accepted gay marriage, if the church accepted homosexuality. It's a big deal and even the hint of forced acceptance anywhere in the church's program will be fought.

But who knows. Maybe it is just fear mongering and a red herring.

What if scientists ultimately show that people are born that way? How would that affect the plan? Scientists seem to be divided on the issue but I grew up with a relative of one of the twelve and we all knew he was gay from the beginning. He is gay today. So perhaps all of this is unjustified fear over a small minority.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A mayor of a neighboring city is trying to make a name for themselves fighting the hypothetical threat that the tiny Muslim community here is going to bring in Sharia Law. There are idiots who eat the rhetoric up. I have seen attempts in public spaces to not respect those religious views.

I agree there are examples of this, but I don't think you'll find any mainstream movements that garner a significant enough following to do long term harm.  I guess we can hope at least that the natural corrective mechanisms of the market will correct for these outliers.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not want minorities or majorities setting laws based on their unique moral preferences. We have to legislate some but our government was designed to limit the tyranny of the majority.

This is interesting that you say you don't want the majorities setting laws based on unique moral preferences, but I think thats exactly how the system works today.  At any rate, it sounds like you are more libertarian in your views or at least for limited government intervention.

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would the church want a cease fire in the culture war?  A cease fire in this world means to engage in a cease fire with the devil.  When one takes upon the name of Christ, they can expect opposition.  We are to endure through our trials not find ways to buddy up with the opposition.  I don't know if there is a threat to our religious liberty.  I still have not been oppressed by anyone.  But I guess this is one reason we have a 2nd Amendment.  If the time comes that we receive strong opposition by force, we defend ourselves. 

Tread carefully here. Advocating 2nd Amendment remedies isn't part of the Gospel.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Shadrak said:

I'm not sure where you picked up from me that the church should give up all their religious liberties or can no longer control their membership. What I do think is that religious freedom is not carte blanche to practice every whim of religious belief. There are limits both within the law and within what's acceptable in society. As Oaks kept saying, non-discrimination is now a powerful force because it generally makes sense to have everyone, including minorities, on equal terms in the market, in education, in jobs, in the law. It's going to be tough to promote and defend religious discrimination outside of the chapel.

The last statement wasn't very clear, thanks for calling me out on it. I meant the church does not (present tense) now have to change its policies, because the law allows the policies. But in the future if/when laws change they hopefully won't (future tense) have to change too much to accommodate them. A small change would be something like not expelling a  BYU student for any homosexual expression. If straight students don't have to be celibate, gay students shouldn't either. The church wouldn't have to change its doctrines or religious practices with this kind of change.

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that the first amendment protects virtually any form of religious expression (short of something on the order of human sacrifice), as long as it is conducted within the walls of one’s church or within the walls of one’s home.  On the other hand, you don’t believe the first amendment gives any protection to the free exercise of religion (other than free speech), outside the chapel or one’s private home.  Is that a fair summary of your position?

[Sleeper Cell]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 10:59 PM, James Tunney said:

What if scientists ultimately show that people are born that way? How would that affect the plan?

What does “being born that way” have to do with the plan of salvation?  Believe me, I was probably “born that way” in ways far, far worse than that.  Isn’t being subject to temptation an integral part of the plan?  

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that the first amendment protects virtually any form of religious expression (short of something on the order of human sacrifice), as long as it is conducted within the walls of one’s church or within the walls of one’s home.  On the other hand, you don’t believe the first amendment gives any protection to the free exercise of religion (other than free speech), outside the chapel or one’s private home.  Is that a fair summary of your position?

Religious beliefs do not trump the laws of this country.  As long as religious beliefs are within the bounds of the law, then you should be able to do and believe anything you want, including human sacrifice.  The trouble is, human sacrifice does violate federal and state law, as does discrimination in most cases.

[The Nehor]

On 9/16/2016 at 8:39 AM, hope_for_things said:

I agree there are examples of this, but I don't think you'll find any mainstream movements that garner a significant enough following to do long term harm.  I guess we can hope at least that the natural corrective mechanisms of the market will correct for these outliers.  

I don't trust the invisible hand of the market as much as many do. Plus the invisible hand is an amoral psycho. Classical economists knew the solution for an excess of available labor was that many would starve and the market would self-correct. Not sure I am willing to blithely accept that as a solution to a market imbalance even if it is effective.

On 9/16/2016 at 8:39 AM, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting that you say you don't want the majorities setting laws based on unique moral preferences, but I think thats exactly how the system works today.  At any rate, it sounds like you are more libertarian in your views or at least for limited government intervention.

It is often how it works. There are exceptions. For example interracial marriage was legalized nationwide in 1967. Majority approval for this did not hit until 1995. The courts were ahead of the people in that case.

I am not a libertarian. I am a cynic. Libertarians believe that government gets in the way of people and that it can be a bully. I agree but I also think government is a natural corrective to other social, economic, and physical bullies. I want a government strong enough to protect us from other bullies but not strong enough to overwhelm us. I want a kind of armed neutrality where economic, political, and social interests contend with each other regularly so no one truly wins and I sometimes get left alone to do my thing. Libertarians seem hopelessly naive to me. I have worked in the business world too long to believe it is more efficient or well-planned or less wasteful then government or to believe they make rational decisions based on their own self-interest as many libertarians love to think they would.

[Shadrak]

8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that the first amendment protects virtually any form of religious expression (short of something on the order of human sacrifice), as long as it is conducted within the walls of one’s church or within the walls of one’s home.  On the other hand, you don’t believe the first amendment gives any protection to the free exercise of religion (other than free speech), outside the chapel or one’s private home.  Is that a fair summary of your position?

Part one is a fair summary (within limits of the law for which religions don't get exemptions, like human sacrifice), part two is partial as "any" is too absolute, but I do think it should more limited than it is now and will likely be more limited due to greater deference to non-discrimination than religious belief now receives in the public square. That's Oaks and the church's fear, of course. 

Religious Freedom to the church is the ability to discriminate and receive religious exemptions to laws everyone else must follow. The zone of religious exemptions and discrimination is pretty broad right now. Will and should this zone narrow to only include the chapel and running the church but exclude church businesses or universities? If other similar entities have to follow non-discrimination law, why not church owned? Oaks agrees to limits on exemptions, like government employees, he's just trying to stave off further capitulation to the force of non-discrimination. But it's a difficult fight to promote discrimination.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Religious beliefs do not trump the laws of this country.  As long as religious beliefs are within the bounds of the law, then you should be able to do and believe anything you want, including human sacrifice.  The trouble is, human sacrifice does violate federal and state law, as does discrimination in most cases.

Actually all Christians believe in human sacrifice. Albeit the only one that counts is the one done almost 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine.

[Shadrak]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Religious beliefs do not trump the laws of this country.  As long as religious beliefs are within the bounds of the law, then you should be able to do and believe anything you want, including human sacrifice.  The trouble is, human sacrifice does violate federal and state law, as does discrimination in most cases.

Not entirely accurate. Religious exemptions from the law are granted, such as employment discrimination or Title IX in education, which are the freedom's Oaks is primarily talking about.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Not entirely accurate. Religious exemptions from the law are granted, such as employment discrimination or Title IX in education, which are the freedom's Oaks is primarily talking about.

If they are within the laws of the land then there is no problem.  However don't be surprised if federal laws change regarding discriminating against gays to be more in line with the civil rights act that protects other minorities.

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If they are within the laws of the land then there is no problem.  However don't be surprised if federal laws change regarding discriminating against gays to be more in line with the civil rights act that protects other minorities.

Possibly, hopefully, only time will tell. But as exemptions based on gender and religion are a-ok, I don't hold much hope about less discrimination against gays.

[Sleeper Cell]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Religious beliefs do not trump the laws of this country.  As long as religious beliefs are within the bounds of the law, then you should be able to do and believe anything you want, including human sacrifice.  The trouble is, human sacrifice does violate federal and state law, as does discrimination in most cases.

And the laws of this country are not supposed to trump the constitution of this country.  Including the “congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of [religion]” part.  That is a far cry from the idea that religious freedom is whatever the people who control the government say it is.

Do you believe the first amendment gives any protection to the free exercise of religion (other than free speech), outside the chapel or one’s private home?  

I presume you do not mean to suggest  that human sacrifice is comparable, in any way,  to “discrimination in most cases.”   And surely, not when it comes to religious schools whose students voluntarily agreed to abide by its faith based rules of conduct.  After all, they could have chosen to attend one of the many thousands of secular schools in the country.  Or, for that matter, a religious school whose rules were more to their liking.   
 

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

And the laws of this country are not supposed to trump the constitution of this country.  Including the “congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of [religion]” part.  That is a far cry from the idea that religious freedom is whatever the people who control the government say it is.

Do you believe the first amendment gives any protection to the free exercise of religion (other than free speech), outside the chapel or one’s private home?  

I presume you do not mean to suggest  that human sacrifice is comparable, in any way,  to “discrimination in most cases.”   And surely, not when it comes to religious schools whose students voluntarily agreed to abide by its faith based rules of conduct.  After all, they could have chosen to attend one of the many thousands of secular schools in the country.  Or, for that matter, a religious school whose rules were more to their liking.   
 

We heard all of these arguments before.  First when slavery was abolished.  Then when women were given the right to vote.  Then when interracial marriage became legal.  Then when the civil rights act was passed in the 60's

What do you think will happen?  Why do you think YOUR interpretation of the constitution is the correct one.  Freedom of religion is hardly the only right guaranteed in the constitution.  The courts weigh ALL of the rights that are guaranteed, not just one and they arrive at a decision.  I have little doubt on how they will weigh ALL of the rights guaranteed in the constitution on this issue.

 Religious schools can do whatever they want as long as they do not receive government funding.  After all, it is not a right to receive government funding if a school decides to go against federal law.  Perhaps the courts will carve out a special ruling on religious schools.  I don't know.  They haven't in the past when it comes to discrimination.  I guess we will see.

[Sleeper Cell]

15 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Part one is a fair summary (within limits of the law for which religions don't get exemptions, like human sacrifice), part two is partial as "any" is too absolute, but I do think it should more limited than it is now and will likely be more limited due to greater deference to non-discrimination than religious belief now receives in the public square. That's Oaks and the church's fear, of course. 

Religious Freedom to the church is the ability to discriminate and receive religious exemptions to laws everyone else must follow. The zone of religious exemptions and discrimination is pretty broad right now. Will and should this zone narrow to only include the chapel and running the church but exclude church businesses or universities? If other similar entities have to follow non-discrimination law, why not church owned? Oaks agrees to limits on exemptions, like government employees, he's just trying to stave off further capitulation to the force of non-discrimination. But it's a difficult fight to promote discrimination.

Which may be why the proponents of “marriage equality”  choose to paint their opponents as “pro-discrimination,” rather than “pro-liberty.”  

Wasn’t there a time when liberals generally defined freedom in terms of “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?” (IIRC, this was pretty much accepted by most everybody else).  Now, it seems that “your right to swing your fist ends when my nose gets out of joint.”   No need to demonstrate that the particular instance of  “discrimination” (a.k.a.  exercise of one’s freedom)  has done real harm to anyone.  Not even a recognition of the possibility that it may be a matter of two conflicting rights, with the “right” of not suffering discrimination outweighing someone else’s right to religious liberty,  When it comes to religious liberty and discrimination, all that seems necessary is for a member of a “protected class” to say they are offended, and that particular religious liberty is redefined out of existence.  

BTW, could you give me an example of a  “Part 2”  religious activity (other than speech) which you believe is protected by the first amendment?

[thesometimesaint]

You don't have the right not to be offended. However we have come to expect that public actions must meet public demands. IE; If I make and sell wedding cakes to the public, I can't refuse to sell that cake to you.