Oaks- Religious Liberty

[thesometimesaint]

It has been a bit of wavy line between private religious schools can mandate for their students and the rights of US citizens to criticize(decline to fund) those actions. IE; A school can dictate no interracial dating, and the courts have ruled that they are free to teach such. What those schools can not do is claim a tax exemption because of it.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Shadrak said:

The church could do something similar with LGBT issues if the time came when society and the law no longer tolerates this type of discrimination. It will be especially acute in the places where religious practice and the public square intersect, like universities or charities that rely on federal money and must deal with the public at large where it's expected similar rules apply between all parties. Within the more insular walls of the chapel religious discrimination will still be very strong and allowed.

So a church which requires its own members to actually follow its moral teachings is engaged in “religious discrimination?”  At this point, the word “discrimination” has lost all meaning, except as a prejudicial epithet.   

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

So a church which requires its own members to actually follow its moral teachings is engaged in “religious discrimination?”  At this point, the word “discrimination” has lost all meaning, except as a prejudicial epithet.   

Your words above twist beyond meaning the issue at hand.

It's not just Mormonism's "own members" that BYU is requiring to follow the Faith's moral teachings...  BYU requires admitted students of other Faiths to live according to Mormonism's moral values, and even former LDS members who subsequently convert to other Faiths (or leave religion altogether) during their tenure at BYU, to avoid even publically discussing their faith-transitions while still enrolled at the university.

And while private schools are CERTAINLY free to set their own rules for admission and ongoing attendance (including the private right to discriminate based on the founding institutions' own religious beliefs), it's definitely not "freedom of religion" to allow non-LDS students to convert to Mormonism, but expel LDS students that convert to other Faiths (or leave Mormonism altogether).  As such, schools who intend to keep discriminating against other religions and stifle freedom of speech should not be surprised when they receive push-back in the form of boycotts or the loss of public (tax-payer) subsidization.

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Your words above twist beyond meaning the issue at hand.

It's not just Mormonism's "own members" that BYU is requiring to follow the Faith's moral teachings...  BYU requires admitted students of other Faiths to live according to Mormonism's moral values, and even former LDS members who subsequently convert to other Faiths (or leave religion altogether) during their tenure at BYU, to avoid even publically discussing their faith-transitions while still enrolled at the university.

And while private schools are CERTAINLY free to set their own rules for admission and ongoing attendance (including the private right to discriminate based on the founding institutions' own religious beliefs), it's definitely not "freedom of religion" to allow non-LDS students to convert to Mormonism, but expel LDS students that convert to other Faiths (or leave Mormonism altogether).  As such, schools who intend to keep discriminating against other religions and stifle freedom of speech should not be surprised when they receive push-back in the form of boycotts or the loss of public (tax-payer) subsidization.

I was not aware that students of other faiths were forced to attend BYU.  

Don’t you believe that “freedom of religion” includes the freedom of two willing parties to enter into a faith-based agreement?  And for either party to be able to hold the other to the terms of their agreement? 

To use the prejudicial word “discriminate” to describe what you acknowledge as the exercise of a  “private right” makes a mockery of the word.  Sure, you can point to one of the dictionary definitions, but isn’t its use in this context sort of analogous to those evangelical Christians who insist on using the prejudicial word “cult” to demean the LDS church?

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I was not aware that students of other faiths were forced to attend BYU.  

Don’t you believe that “freedom of religion” includes the freedom of two willing parties to enter into a faith-based agreement?  And for either party to be able to hold the other to the terms of their agreement? 

To use the prejudicial word “discriminate” to describe what you acknowledge as the exercise of a  “private right” makes a mockery of the word.  Sure, you can point to one of the dictionary definitions, but isn’t its use in this context sort of analogous to those evangelical Christians who insist on using the prejudicial word “cult” to demean the LDS church?

Am I on either Candid Camera or The Twilight Zone...?!?

Sleeper, I never said that students of other Faiths are or have been forced to attend BYU.  Many members of other Faiths choose to enter BYU and agree to abide by it's standards.  However, historically, there have been problems when LDS students who leave Mormonism and/or convert to other Faiths are denied their transcripts/credits when attempting to transfer to other schools.  Such behavior certainly seems to fall beyond the realm of "freedom of religion."  From what I understand it was only recently, when faced with losing some of it's Law School's accreditation, that the University school soften (although not eliminate) such verbiage from it's Honor Code.

In answer the question posed in your second paragraph, please note that my previous comment makes it explicitly clear that I believe that :

Quote

 

private schools are CERTAINLY free to set their own rules for admission and ongoing attendance (including the private right to discriminate based on the founding institutions' own religious beliefs)

However, I'm not sure that "converting to another Faith" is against any agreement made between students and the BYU admissions office.  Can you point out that such is the case...?

You suggest that my use of the word "discriminate" is prejudicial.  Yet I have ready many, many comments on this board by self-professing devout Latter-day Saints advocating in favor of "discrimination" against something that is believed to be immoral (and using those very terms, by those who support it), which they say is not only perfectly appropriate, it's even desirable.  Your attempt to blame me for my equal employment of the accurate word (and my use of it in it's typical legal context, by the way) is puzzling.  If you suggest my use of it is analogous to "those evangelical Christians" who use the word 'cult' "to demean the LDS Church," I presume you're just as indignant at all the legal findings that classify such behaviors against same-sex couples as "discriminatory," as well as equally upset by your fellow devout Latter-day Saints that candidly admit that some things are worthy of "discriminating."

Perhaps, in order for me to better understand your point of view, can you answer me these three questions:

1.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against either same-sex couples by refusing to admit them as active students or faculty? 

2.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against against former Latter-day Saints to convert to other Faiths or leave the LDS church in cases where they refuse to continue their admission and participation as active students or faculty; or in cases where the administration has denied transcripts/credits to such?

3.  If the above questions do accurately reflect your position, can you at least see that many of us who are not LDS could reasonably consider it to be a form of discrimination, based on the commonly-held legal definition of the term "discrimination," as it has been widely applied to protecting people based on their religious affiliation, gender, and/or sexual orientation?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Am I on either Candid Camera or The Twilight Zone...?!?

Sleeper, I never said that students of other Faiths are or have been forced to attend BYU.  Many members of other Faiths choose to enter BYU and agree to abide by it's standards.  However, historically, there have been problems when LDS students who leave Mormonism and/or convert to other Faiths are denied their transcripts/credits when attempting to transfer to other schools.  Such behavior certainly seems to fall beyond the realm of "freedom of religion."  From what I understand it was only recently, when faced with losing some of it's Law School's accreditation, that the University school soften (although not eliminate) such verbiage from it's Honor Code.

In answer the question posed in your second paragraph, please note that my previous comment makes it explicitly clear that I believe that :

 

 

However, I'm not sure that "converting to another Faith" is against any agreement made between students and the BYU admissions office.  Can you point out that such is the case...?

You suggest that my use of the word "discriminate" is prejudicial.  Yet I have ready many, many comments on this board by self-professing devout Latter-day Saints advocating in favor of "discrimination" against something that is believed to be immoral (and using those very terms, by those who support it), which they say is not perfectly appropriate, it's even desirable.  Your attempt to blame me for my equal employment of the accurate word (and my use of it in it's typical legal context, by the way) is puzzling.  If you suggest my use of it is analogous to "those evangelical Christians" who use the word 'cult' "to demean the LDS Church," I presume you're just as indignant at all the legal findings that classify such behaviors against same-sex couples as "discriminatory," as well as equally upset by your fellow devout Latter-day Saints that candidly admit that some things are worthy of "discriminating."

Perhaps, in order for me to better understand your point of view, can you answer me these three questions:

1.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against either same-sex couples by refusing to admit them as active students or faculty? 

2.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against against former Latter-day Saints to convert to other Faiths or leave the LDS church in cases where they refuse to continue their admission and participation as active students or faculty; or in cases where the administration has denied transcripts/credits to such?

3.  If the above questions do accurately reflect your position, can you at least see that many of us who are not LDS could reasonably consider it to be a form of discrimination, based on the commonly-held legal definition of the term "discrimination," as it has been widely applied to protecting people based on their religious affiliation, gender, and/or sexual orientation?

We allow non-LDS to enroll in the BYU system on a space available basis. They pay an addition tuition that tithing normally covers. It is still a good education for the money. To willfully violate the rules is in effect stealing money from the other students who do follow the rules.

[Shadrak]

12 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I was not aware that I had ever suggested that legalizing gay marriage, per se, infringed on anybody’s liberty.  Not quite sure what you mean by “marriage equality.”  

So a religious school can have a faith-based honor code, but only as long as its provisions are acceptable to the  government (i e., acceptable to whoever is control of the government at the time)?  Sure, its not that difficult -- but that’s not liberty.  

BYU students have voluntarily agreed to follow BYU’s  honor code.  That’s liberty. True, it is a condition of enrollment, but students are not forced to attend BYU.  It is not like those who do chose to attend didn’t have other alternatives.  There are thousands of secular schools which accept gay marriage. For that matter, they could have chosen one of the many religious schools whose faith-based rules were  more to their liking.   

Aren’t whatever “tangible, detrimental effects” a few BYU students might suffer in regard to the honor code, really their own fault -- a consequence of  making a personal choice  to voluntarily give their word and then making another personal choice to break their promise?   

Free to choose. Isn’t that the essence of liberty?  And, isn’t that, more or less, the essence of “pluralism?”  

BTW, since when did a private religious school become part of the public square

You used the term marriage equality in your previous post so I used it to remain consistent. I thought you knew it meant same-sex marriage (gay marriage as you use in this post) as that it what it has been referred to in the media for at least 10 years. My bad that I interpreted your post that "marriage equality" (again, I assumed you meant same-sex marriage) infringed on anybody's liberty. It's just that you said proponents of marriage equality claimed discrimination then spent the next paragraph deriding how a "protected class" claims discrimination and then destroys religious liberty. 

It isn't unreasonable that a school's honor code follow the law. What Oaks and the church want are exemptions to the law, based on religious grounds, in order to practice discrimination that would be illegal anywhere else. How is that "fairness for all?" It's only fair to the person wanting to discriminate, and what I mean by discriminate is to exclude person based on an intrinsic part of that person, be it race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc that we accept in a pluralistic society. Is there a limit to what laws can be exempted? If the honor code called for chopping off a plagiarist's hand or stoning a fornicator, or said no Native Americans or Catholics can apply, would that be acceptable? Signing a school honor code doesn't supercede civil law. If the law says don't discriminate based on x, y, or z, then why should a school, religious or otherwise, not follow the law?

A religious school is part of the public square when it accepts government money, gets government tax breaks, needs to meet accreditation standards, needs to interact with other schools on a fair basis. There's lots of leeway given to religious schools in all these aspects, but there are also reasonable limits, and as Elder Oaks fears, society sees non-discrimination as a reasonable limit.

[Shadrak]

12 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

So a church which requires its own members to actually follow its moral teachings is engaged in “religious discrimination?”  At this point, the word “discrimination” has lost all meaning, except as a prejudicial epithet.   

Moral teachings evolve. Polygamy was immoral, then moral, now immoral again. Blacks leading congregations was immoral, now it isn't. Interracial marriage was immoral, now it isn't. Pop music was immoral, now it isn't. As society progresses and we learn new things and morals change. There is no shame nor is it a sign of weakness to learn, change, and evolve. 

[Shadrak]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We allow non-LDS to enroll in the BYU system on a space available basis. They pay an addition tuition that tithing normally covers. It is still a good education for the money. To willfully violate the rules is in effect stealing money from the other students who do follow the rules.

Where do you find admissions info on the "space available basis?" As BYU has a 1-2% non-LDS population, it certainly doesn't leave many spaces available. Would you say this small number is directly due to BYU admission's policy limiting non-LDS regardless the number of qualified non-LDS applicants, or is is it likely that only 1-2% of all applicants are non-LDS?

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Where do you find admissions info on the "space available basis?" As BYU has a 1-2% non-LDS population, it certainly doesn't leave many spaces available. Would you say this small number is directly due to BYU admission's policy limiting non-LDS regardless the number of qualified non-LDS applicants, or is is it likely that only 1-2% of all applicants are non-LDS?

That is what it means to be on a space available basis.

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We allow non-LDS to enroll in the BYU system on a space available basis. They pay an addition tuition that tithing normally covers. It is still a good education for the money. To willfully violate the rules is in effect stealing money from the other students who do follow the rules.

Hey, Sometimesaint,

I'm a BYU alumni myself, so I am fairly familiar with the school's policies.  Thankfully, I didn't go through my own Faith transition away from Mormonism and to Unitarian Universalism until about a decade after I graduated, so these issues didn't scholastically affect my educational path.

Back in the 1990's, there was a small percentage of non-LDS students enrolled, and I'm aware that continues to this day... I'm also aware that non-LDS students pay a higher tuition rate, since Latter-day Saint students' tithing is considered by the university as an appropriate subsidization of their tuition cost.  Based on the first-person accounts of students who've left Mormonism behind that I've heard, such former-LDS students have been willing to pay the increased tuition cost for non-LDS students, but have historically been denied even that as an option.  Doing so would not have been "effectively stealing money from the other students who do follow the rules."

With the above being said, I'm actually unfamiliar with the concept that non-LDS students are enrolled "on a space available basis."  That doesn't seem accurate to me, given that BYU is VERY competitive to get into, and I am personally familiar with many family members and friends who are actively LDS, have good grades, and yet still are unable to attend...  Where did you get the information that BYU allows "non-LDS to enroll in the BYU system on a space available basis"?

Thanks,

D

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Sometimesaint,

I'm a BYU alumni myself, so I am fairly familiar with the school's policies.  Thankfully, I didn't go through my own Faith transition away from Mormonism and to Unitarian Universalism until about a decade after I graduated, so these issues didn't scholastically affect my educational path.

Back in the 1990's, there was a small percentage of non-LDS students enrolled, and I'm aware that continues to this day... I'm also aware that non-LDS students pay a higher tuition rate, since Latter-day Saint students' tithing is considered by the university as an appropriate subsidization of their tuition cost.  Based on the first-person accounts of students who've left Mormonism behind that I've heard, such former-LDS students have been willing to pay the increased tuition cost for non-LDS students, but have historically been denied even that as an option.  Doing so would not have been "effectively stealing money from the other students who do follow the rules."

With the above being said, I'm actually unfamiliar with the concept that non-LDS students are enrolled "on a space available basis."  That doesn't seem accurate to me, given that BYU is VERY competitive to get into, and I am personally familiar with many family members and friends who are actively LDS, have good grades, and yet still are unable to attend...  Where did you get the information that BYU allows "non-LDS to enroll in the BYU system on a space available basis"?

Thanks,

D

 

I went in the mid 1970's. after US Military service. So yes I'm that old. They seem to want some diversity of students. For that reason BYU has allowed a limited number of non-LDS student to attend. Personally I think it is a good idea to admit some non-LDS students. That being said; It is a Church school so it has an obligation to support members of the Church first and foremost. Roughly equivalent to Out-of-State tuition for State schools.

I don't have a problem with people changing their minds, even on subjects of religion. That is between the person and their God. However I also believe that when taking advantage of an opportunity one must also live by their agreements, at least until they're no longer financially benefiting from that opportunity. Offering to pay the tuition difference really doesn't satisfy that. Tuition is highly subsidized, and more so at Church schools. The expectation is that after those years at school the student will continue to pay tithing,

BYU is organized to provide a quality education for the future local members, and leaders of the Church. To willfully violate the rules is to deprive the Church schools of its role.

Edited September 21, 2016 by thesometimesaint
spelling

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

BYU is organized to provide a quality education for the future local members, and leaders of the Church. To willfully violate the rules is to deprive the Church schools of its role.

Is it really....? I never heard that was the reason that it was organized.  At least, I don't recall it ever being advertised or enumerated as such...  Does the university explicitly state that anywhere....?  Either in it's mission statement, enrollment materials, website, etc.?

[thesometimesaint]

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Is it really....? I never heard that was the reason that it was organized.  At least, I don't recall it ever being advertised or enumerated as such...  Does the university explicitly state that anywhere....?  Either in it's mission statement, enrollment materials, website, etc.?

Yes. SEE http://aims.byu.edu/mission_statement

[Daniel2]

44 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes. SEE http://aims.byu.edu/mission_statement

Hm.  You wrote that BYU was "organized to provide a quality education for the future local members, and leaders of the Church."

Here's the text at the link you provided:

The mission of Brigham Young University--founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.

All instruction, programs, and services at BYU, including a wide variety of extracurricular experiences, should make their own contribution toward the balanced development of the total person. Such a broadly prepared individual will not only be capable of meeting personal challenge and change but will also bring strength to others in the tasks of home and family life, social relationships, civic duty, and service to mankind.

To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail:

All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor.

Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education. The arts, letters, and sciences provide the core of such an education, which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity.

In addition to a strong general education, students should also receive instruction in the special fields of their choice. The university cannot provide programs in all possible areas of professional or vocational work, but in those it does provide the preparation must be excellent. Students who graduate from BYU should be capable of competing with the best in their fields.

Scholarly research and creative endeavor among both faculty and students, including those in selected graduate programs of real consequence, are essential and will be encouraged.

In meeting these objectives BYU's faculty, staff, students, and administrators should also be anxious to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide. In an era of limited enrollments, BYU can continue to expand its influence both by encouraging programs that are central to the Church's purposes and by making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so.

We believe the earnest pursuit of this institutional mission can have a strong effect on the course of higher education and will greatly enlarge Brigham Young University's influence in a world we wish to improve.

--Approved by the BYU Board of Trustees
November 4, 1981

It appears that you feel the above verbiage proves the accuracy of your first statement.

From my perspective, they don't. I don't see that it says that BYU "was organized to provide a quality education for the future local members, and leaders of the Church," at least, when interpreting that statement in it's most exclusive extreme (being "for future local members, and leaders of the Church").  But I suppose that's OK... Reasonable minds can interpret things differently.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

The "quote" feature really seems to be messed up.  Frustrating!!!

Anytime I try to post my own comments after a [ /quote ] feature, it automatically moves them up into the quoted material.

I've tried editing and reposting several times, to no avail.  Oh well.

The last two paragraphs of the quoted portion are my words, not meant to be included in the quotation of the Mission Statement.

[Bob Crockett]

 

On 9/20/2016 at 3:13 PM, Daniel2 said:

Am I on either Candid Camera or The Twilight Zone...?!?

Sleeper, I never said that students of other Faiths are or have been forced to attend BYU.  Many members of other Faiths choose to enter BYU and agree to abide by it's standards.  However, historically, there have been problems when LDS students who leave Mormonism and/or convert to other Faiths are denied their transcripts/credits when attempting to transfer to other schools.  Such behavior certainly seems to fall beyond the realm of "freedom of religion." 

[snip]

 

Perhaps, in order for me to better understand your point of view, can you answer me these three questions:

1.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against either same-sex couples by refusing to admit them as active students or faculty? 

2.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against against former Latter-day Saints to convert to other Faiths or leave the LDS church in cases where they refuse to continue their admission and participation as active students or faculty; or in cases where the administration has denied transcripts/credits to such?

3.  If the above questions do accurately reflect your position, can you at least see that many of us who are not LDS could reasonably consider it to be a form of discrimination, based on the commonly-held legal definition of the term "discrimination," as it has been widely applied to protecting people based on their religious affiliation, gender, and/or sexual orientation?

 

 

5

You have it backwards.   "Freedom of religion" is generally considered to be a constitutional affirmation of the doctrine that the government should not interfere with religious practices, now matter how absurd.  There have been inroads to "how absurd," when the practices cross the line to abuse.

"Freedom of religion" does not generally apply when you're talking about private relationships.  Am I running against the concept of "freedom of religion" when I tell my kids that I want them to marry within the Church?  Indeed, it would be contrary to the free exercise of religion to suggest that religion should modify its doctrines to accommodate gays.

Moreover, religion is practically speaking a template for "discrimination."  One cannot be a communicant (meaning, partake of the Lord's supper) without adhering to basic moral doctrines or procedures which, inherently, means that everybody else is excluded.  Thus, if a religion says that a divorce disentitles a member from re-marriage in the church, it means that the church discriminates against divorced people. If a religion says that if one of its members, who is a politician, votes for abortion, that member risks excommunication, it means that the church discriminates against people who promote abortion.  

The LDS Church is far from being the only church which "discriminates" against gays.  Does that make it right?  Is it "right" to discriminate against divorced people, or against promoters of abortion? Who defines what is "right" and what is not "right?"  Shouldn't religious freedom include the right to say what is "right" and what is not?  

Edited September 21, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

You have it backwards.   "Freedom of religion" is generally considered to be a constitutional affirmation of the doctrine that the government should not interfere with religious practices, now matter how absurd.  There have been inroads to "how absurd," when the practices cross the line to abuse.

"Freedom of religion" does not generally apply when you're talking about private relationships.  Am I running against the concept of "freedom of religion" when I tell my kids that I want them to marry within the Church?  Indeed, it would be contrary to the free exercise of religion to suggest that religion should modify its doctrines to accommodate gays.

Moreover, religion is practically speaking a template for "discrimination."  One cannot be a communicant (meaning, partake of the Lord's supper) without adhering to basic moral doctrines or procedures which, inherently, means that everybody else is excluded.  Thus, if a religion says that a divorce disentitles a member from re-marriage in the church, it means that the church discriminates against divorced people. If a religion says that if one of its members, who is a politician, votes for abortion, that member risks excommunication, it means that the church discriminates against people who promote abortion.  

The LDS Church is far from being the only church which "discriminates" against gays.  Does that make it right?  Is it "right" to discriminate against divorced people, or against promoters of abortion? Who defines what is "right" and what is not "right?"  Shouldn't religious freedom include the right to say what is "right" and what is not?  

I think this is why the so called attacks on "freedom of religion" seem overblown.  The constitution under the 1st amendment still protects religious pratices and still will.  I don't think any one will be allowed to get married in the private mormon religious temples unless they adhere to the private religious conduct required by the mormon church.  People may exercise their right to free speech to denounce religious practices but the free exercise clause still has validity even though same sex marriage is allowed by the state and the courts will uphold this right I believe, if it is ever challenged.

[James Tunney]

On 9/20/2016 at 8:58 AM, thesometimesaint said:

It has been a bit of wavy line between private religious schools can mandate for their students and the rights of US citizens to criticize(decline to fund) those actions. IE; A school can dictate no interracial dating, and the courts have ruled that they are free to teach such. What those schools can not do is claim a tax exemption because of it.

This may be the wave of the future - tax exemption and the privilege religion used to have will go away even though the free exercise will still remain in tact.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, James Tunney said:

This may be the wave of the future - tax exemption and the privilege religion used to have will go away even though the free exercise will still remain in tact.

It goes back a long ways.

SEE http://hollowverse.com/benjamin-franklin/

[Shadrak]

On September 21, 2016 at 6:37 PM, James Tunney said:

I think this is why the so called attacks on "freedom of religion" seem overblown.  The constitution under the 1st amendment still protects religious pratices and still will.  I don't think any one will be allowed to get married in the private mormon religious temples unless they adhere to the private religious conduct required by the mormon church.  People may exercise their right to free speech to denounce religious practices but the free exercise clause still has validity even though same sex marriage is allowed by the state and the courts will uphold this right I believe, if it is ever challenged.

Good point, the attacks are overblown. It's not religious practices and discrimination within the chapel or temple walls that the church is concerned about. It's outside that, where the public square and public money meets religious practice: advocating for laws based on religious practice/discrimination without consequence; preserving religious practice/discrimination in universities that take a lot of public money; allowing for religious discrimination/practice in professional work. Right now the discrimination is against LGBT, but tomorrow it can be something else. Fighting to keep discriminating against a class that society and the courts have decided to protect in the public square seems like a losing cause for the church. But, they must see a net gain in continuing the fight.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Daniel2 said:

Sleeper, I never said that students of other Faiths are or have been forced to attend BYU.  Many members of other Faiths choose to enter BYU and agree to abide by it's standards.  However, historically, there have been problems when LDS students who leave Mormonism and/or convert to other Faiths are denied their transcripts/credits when attempting to transfer to other schools.  Such behavior certainly seems to fall beyond the realm of "freedom of religion."  From what I understand it was only recently, when faced with losing some of it's Law School's accreditation, that the University school soften (although not eliminate) such verbiage from it's Honor Code.

In answer the question posed in your second paragraph, please note that my previous comment makes it explicitly clear that I believe that :

Quote

 

private schools are CERTAINLY free to set their own rules for admission and ongoing attendance (including the private right to discriminate based on the founding institutions' own religious beliefs)

However, I'm not sure that "converting to another Faith" is against any agreement made between students and the BYU admissions office.  Can you point out that such is the case...?

If it turns out that it is not in the agreement, I would agree with you.  Indeed, if it were not in the agreement, I imagine that BYU would be in violation of their agreement when they dismiss such a student, and would have, by now, been successfully sued.  Based on what I recall from previous threads on the topic, a student is required to receive and maintain an ecclesiastical endorsement, which, for LDS students,  reportedly includes (among other things)  a requirement that they must continue to be a member of the LDS church in good standing.  

[Sleeper Cell]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Daniel2 said:

You suggest that my use of the word "discriminate" is prejudicial.  Yet I have ready many, many comments on this board by self-professing devout Latter-day Saints advocating in favor of "discrimination" against something that is believed to be immoral (and using those very terms, by those who support it), which they say is not only perfectly appropriate, it's even desirable.  Your attempt to blame me for my equal employment of the accurate word (and my use of it in it's typical legal context, by the way) is puzzling.  If you suggest my use of it is analogous to "those evangelical Christians" who use the word 'cult' "to demean the LDS Church," I presume you're just as indignant at all the legal findings that classify such behaviors against same-sex couples as "discriminatory," as well as equally upset by your fellow devout Latter-day Saints that candidly admit that some things are worthy of "discriminating."

The fact that the word “discrimination” can and has been used in a non-prejudicial sense does not negate the fact that its primary meaning has become something along the lines of “treating people differently due to prejudice.”  Not, “having good taste” or “the ability to discern and choose good quality.”  When you refer to someone’s “discrimination” against same-sex couples, surely you are not complementing them on their “good taste!“  The fact that it may be used in legal circles in a non prejudicial sense does not change the fact that for most people, the word refers to a act of prejudice, not an exercise of “good taste” and certainly not an act of conscience.  

The fact that some devout LDS have also fallen into the trap of using the word “discriminate” as a synonym for “making a choice” does not change this fact.  It is more a tribute to the impact of constant repetition.  
 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Daniel2 said:

Perhaps, in order for me to better understand your point of view, can you answer me these three questions:

1.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against either same-sex couples by refusing to admit them as active students or faculty? 

2.  Is it really your position that BYU does NOT "discriminate" against against former Latter-day Saints to convert to other Faiths or leave the LDS church in cases where they refuse to continue their admission and participation as active students or faculty; or in cases where the administration has denied transcripts/credits to such?

3.  If the above questions do accurately reflect your position, can you at least see that many of us who are not LDS could reasonably consider it to be a form of discrimination, based on the commonly-held legal definition of the term "discrimination," as it has been widely applied to protecting people based on their religious affiliation, gender, and/or sexual orientation?

1.  This is not discrimination. Discrimination is a choice that is based on prejudice against who people are.  Not on their conduct.  A lot of people choose to not go to BYU for all sorts of reasons.  Are they discriminating?    

2.  This is not discrimination. It is based on their conduct and the choices they have made.  On the other hand, if the administration has, indeed, denied transcripts and credits to a student -- solely because he left the LDS church -- that is a different story. It BYU did this, they were wrong, and he should sue.  If they merely refused to allow him to finish the semester, BYU is  probably still technically within its rights.  However, I believe that this particular situation should be handled on a case by case basis with BYU trying to work out some sort of reasonable accommodation to enable the student to finish out the semester and facilitate his transfer to another school.  When I was at the University of California, students could be denied transcripts for non payment of money owed the university (including library fines) or for things like fraud or cheating.  If, for example, an LDS student did something like forging his bishop’s signature on an ecclesiastical endorsement, the school may have a reasonable argument to deny transcripts and credits.  

3.  Yes, people can reasonably disagree with me.  It happens all the time.  In the present case, if I accepted your definition with no regard to its implications, I would probably agree with you.  But using any word which is “widely applied to protecting people based on their religious affiliation, gender, and/or sexual orientation” (and which, by the way, is widely used to impugn people’s motives) in a discussion about whether BYU did something wrong automatically pre-judges the very matter under discussion.  Who can possibly be against “protecting people?”  Especially against “discrimination?”  

On the few occasions I have attended an interfaith symposium, I was impressed by how the speakers went to great lengths to avoid  prejudicial terminology and other words and expressions that might be found offensive by members of other religious traditions -- while still effectively making a strong case for their own beliefs.  
 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Shadrak said:

You used the term marriage equality in your previous post so I used it to remain consistent. I thought you knew it meant same-sex marriage (gay marriage as you use in this post) as that it what it has been referred to in the media for at least 10 years. My bad that I interpreted your post that "marriage equality" (again, I assumed you meant same-sex marriage) infringed on anybody's liberty. It's just that you said proponents of marriage equality claimed discrimination then spent the next paragraph deriding how a "protected class" claims discrimination and then destroys religious liberty

I used “marriage equality” in an ironic sense in response to your unfair characterization of Elder Oaks’s position as a “fight to promote discrimination.”  That is why I put it in quotes.  The term “marriage equality” (which, if memory serves, once referred only to making same sex marriage legal) could likewise be “expanded” to refer to whether or not one believes that same sex marriage is just as morally “equal” as traditional marriage.  (I have seen some indications that this is already occurring). There are some (including IIRC, some posters on this board)  who believe that same sex marriage should be legal, even though they believe it is immoral.  Do these people believe in “marriage equality?”

For that matter, I have yet to hear an advocate of  “marriage equality” argue that any two adults should be allowed to marry. If, for example I were in favor of same sex marriage, but opposed to allowing a father and his daughter (or a mother and her son) to obtain a marriage license, would I really be in favor of “marriage equality?“