Oaks- Religious Liberty

[Sleeper Cell]

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

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?

It isn’t unreasonable to expect the “law” to follow the constitution, either.  The constitution -- including the part forbidding laws against the free exercise of religion  -- is the supreme law of the land.  Elder Oaks and the church are asking only for those exemptions in the statutory law that the constitution already guarantees.  

BTW, isn’t “allowing minority groups to maintain their cultural differences” the essence of a pluralistic society”  Do you really think that having the government tell a religious school which students it must accept (and which teachers it must accept) is consistent with a pluralistic society?  

Chopping off a hand”  Stoning?  Do you seriously believe that these sorts of things are even remotely comparable to being expelled from school?   Can you name one college or university in the country that doesn’t expel students?   

Ironically,  some have argued that the very fact that BYU accepts non-LDS students gives the government the power to regulate it as a “public accommodation” entity.  If the government adopts this view,, BYU may have little choice but to stop accepting Catholics and other non-LDS students.  

What about those private schools that refuse to accept men?  (IIRC, some of these are secular schools, so religious freedom is not an issue.)  Is that “discrimination” or simply a matter of individual freedom of choice?  Or, if you perfer, a matter of "pluralism.."
 

[Sleeper Cell]

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

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.

Society sees non-discrimination as a reasonable limit on religious freedom?  What is the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom for, if not to protect religious minorities from what society thinks?  

So accepting government money and getting tax breaks puts religious schools into the public square -- hence they have thereby given up some of their freedom?   Did the government tell the religious schools about this in advance?  At least BYU made full disclosure to its applicants at the time they applied.  And they freely agreed, knowing that they could have easily chosen to attend a different school of comparable academic quality.  Most everybody receives government money and/or tax breaks. Does that put them in the public square?   

BTW, if the government grants tax breaks to those religious schools which accept same sex marriage and denies it to those who don‘t, couldn’t it be argued that it is “discriminating?” 
 

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/21/2016 at 7:37 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. ...

Are you sure?  Although you are correct that the First Amendment protects religious exercise, at a minimum, the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges needlessly muddied the waters by magnanimously granting religions and their adherents the freedom to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to gay conduct and gay marriage, rather than saying that "Nothing in today's decision disturbs our precedents with respect to free exercise."  I hope you're right that this isn't a cause for concern, but I have my doubts, doubts which are shared by plenty of people who are [i}plenty[/I] smarter than I am.  

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/20/2016 at 10:52 PM, Shadrak said:

... It isn't unreasonable that a school's honor code follow the law. ...

So ... the law and those who wield it are, per se and ipse dixit, always and forever and without exception, reasonable, then, eh?  Hmmm.  Who knew?  I guess we can throw out George Santayana's old chestnut about those who are ignorant of history being destined to repeat it, then, eh, along with that old saw about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely, along with our knowledge of how various authoritarian, totalitarian regimes throughout history have persecuted religions and those who practice them?  (After all, it's not as those such rulers ever behaved as though whatever they did was legal, simply because their ipse dixit made it legal.)

Noooo ... that's never happened before, nor would it, ever.

Color me unconvinced.  

Edited September 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Shadrak]

11 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

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?“  
 

I'll stand by my characterization of Oaks' position as spot on. He wants to be able to exclude LGBT people in places he controls but where this type of discrimination (exclusion based only on being LGBT) is otherwise illegal. Again, the difficulty the church faces is not in what goes on in the chapel or the temple, it's what happens in the public square, which could include universities and charities.

Marriage equality has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents. Where have you heard that it should include incest or  anything else? Only opponents use the slippery slope fallacy. Same sex marriage didn't change incest law. If you're saying that incest laws could change sometime in the future, well anything is possible. 

As for it being morally equal, many people already think it is. If you don't, that's all well and good, but don't expect all to agree to your morality.

[Shadrak]

11 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

It isn’t unreasonable to expect the “law” to follow the constitution, either.  The constitution -- including the part forbidding laws against the free exercise of religion  -- is the supreme law of the land.  Elder Oaks and the church are asking only for those exemptions in the statutory law that the constitution already guarantees.  

BTW, isn’t “allowing minority groups to maintain their cultural differences” the essence of a pluralistic society”  Do you really think that having the government tell a religious school which students it must accept (and which teachers it must accept) is consistent with a pluralistic society?  

Chopping off a hand”  Stoning?  Do you seriously believe that these sorts of things are even remotely comparable to being expelled from school?   Can you name one college or university in the country that doesn’t expel students?   

Ironically,  some have argued that the very fact that BYU accepts non-LDS students gives the government the power to regulate it as a “public accommodation” entity.  If the government adopts this view,, BYU may have little choice but to stop accepting Catholics and other non-LDS students.  

What about those private schools that refuse to accept men?  (IIRC, some of these are secular schools, so religious freedom is not an issue.)  Is that “discrimination” or simply a matter of individual freedom of choice?  Or, if you perfer, a matter of "pluralism.."
 

Church schools can discriminate all they want if it stops taking federal money. In the meantime, the church will continue to make the case that religious freedom is more important than equal protection in the constitution. Maybe it is, I don't know, but non-discrimination is a very powerful principle and I see it trumping religious discrimination if not legally than at least social acceptability.

You make a very good point about same sex schools. They can discriminate in their admissions but not employment. Maybe all this will be fine in the end and the church won't be forced to change anything.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Church schools can discriminate all they want if it stops taking federal money. In the meantime, the church will continue to make the case that religious freedom is more important than equal protection in the constitution. Maybe it is, I don't know, but non-discrimination is a very powerful principle and I see it trumping religious discrimination if not legally than at least social acceptability.

You make a very good point about same sex schools. They can discriminate in their admissions but not employment. Maybe all this will be fine in the end and the church won't be forced to change anything.

The Church doesn't take Federal money.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church doesn't take Federal money.

Here is one place where I agree with the naysayers and malcontents.   BYU does take federal money.  It allows students in with federal grants.  It accepts grants for internal programs for professors and teachers, such as research grants. See, for instance, this Deseret News article.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375040/BYU-gaining-national-recognition-for-its-science-research.html?pg=all

The one, singular reason why tuition is often so unaffordable is that state and federal governments pump tuition money into the system with grants and cheap loans.  

Now, I confess to being an odd-duck libertarian.   I don't think that the federal government has any business telling religious schools how to teach or administer its housing or sports programs.  On other other hand, schools should stop asking for handouts.  

[Sleeper Cell]

15 hours ago, Shadrak said:

I'll stand by my characterization of Oaks' position as spot on. He wants to be able to exclude LGBT people in places he controls but where this type of discrimination (exclusion based only on being LGBT) is otherwise illegal. Again, the difficulty the church faces is not in what goes on in the chapel or the temple, it's what happens in the public square, which could include universities and charities.

Marriage equality has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents. Where have you heard that it should include incest or  anything else? Only opponents use the slippery slope fallacy. Same sex marriage didn't change incest law. If you're saying that incest laws could change sometime in the future, well anything is possible. 

As for it being morally equal, many people already think it is. If you don't, that's all well and good, but don't expect all to agree to your morality.

CFR, please,  that Elder Oaks “wants to be able to exclude LGBT people in places he controls.”  For that matter, do you have any evidence that the church excludes gay people from attending sacrament meeting (let alone from attending BYU) simply because they are gay? 

I don’t expect all to agree with my morality. I don’t even expect the government to force a religious school to change its honor code to accommodate my morality.  

What slippery slope?  I did not say that incestuous marriages would ever be legalized.  Nor did I say that any same sex marriage supporter was in favor of incestuous marriages.  Indeed, the very point I was making is based on my belief that supporters of same sex marriage are not in favor of incestuous marriages. 

I will try again, by starting with your own words:

Shadrak:  “Marriage equality has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents”

Sleeper:  I agree.  But if the phrase “marriage equality”  does not mean that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, it isn’t really marriage equality, is it?  Put another way:  if you say that I am against “marriage equality” because I don’t accept same sex marriage, why can’t I say that you are also against “marriage equality” because you (presumably) don’t accept incestuous marriage?  

Your admission that the phrase “’marriage equality’ has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents” tends to corroborate the belief that these proponents are masters of manipulating the meaning of words to unfairly put their opponents on the defensive.  

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Here is one place where I agree with the naysayers and malcontents.   BYU does take federal money.  It allows students in with federal grants.  It accepts grants for internal programs for professors and teachers, such as research grants. See, for instance, this Deseret News article.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375040/BYU-gaining-national-recognition-for-its-science-research.html?pg=all

The one, singular reason why tuition is often so unaffordable is that state and federal governments pump tuition money into the system with grants and cheap loans.  

Now, I confess to being an odd-duck libertarian.   I don't think that the federal government has any business telling religious schools how to teach or administer its housing or sports programs.  On other other hand, schools should stop asking for handouts.  

The grant is to the student which the student can use at the school of their choice. Research grants are to the researcher. My sister is a research chemist at an ivy league school. The grants go to her not the school.

[Bob Crockett]

35 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The grant is to the student which the student can use at the school of their choice. Research grants are to the researcher. My sister is a research chemist at an ivy league school. The grants go to her not the school.

 

 

 

 

 

They go to the school, usually.  https://www.nsf.gov/funding/aboutfunding.jsp   BYU is ranked 214th in federal grants from the NSF alone.   https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd  

And here.  http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/9894

Have you ever read a statement from BYU claiming that it does not receive federal money?

 

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Sleeper Cell]

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Shadrak said:

 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 0:36 AM, Shadrak said:

Church schools can discriminate all they want if it stops taking federal money. In the meantime, the church will continue to make the case that religious freedom is more important than equal protection in the constitution. Maybe it is, I don't know, but non-discrimination is a very powerful principle and I see it trumping religious discrimination if not legally than at least social acceptability

Insofar as the rights and obligations of churches are concerned, religious freedom is more important than equal protection in the constitution because the constitution imposes no obligation on churches, whatsoever -- let alone an “equal protection” obligation.  It only imposes an equal protection obligation on the government.  On the other hand, the constitution does forbid the government to prohibit the free exercise of religion.  

Accusing a church of engaging in “religious discrimination” because it (heaven forbid) shows favoritism to its own religious beliefs and to its own members, is a prejudicial use of the term.  A better case could be made that the government would be engaged in  “religious discrimination” should it decide to grant federal money only to those religious schools whose faith-based honor codes it approves.  (I am not necessarily making that assertion.) 

I agree that “non-discrimination” is very powerful principle.  Unfortunately, it is often applied in an unprincipled manner.  If “non-discrimination” trumps religious freedom in term of social acceptability, so be it.  A church does not have a right to be socially accepted.  

[Sleeper Cell]

23 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Here is one place where I agree with the naysayers and malcontents.   BYU does take federal money.  It allows students in with federal grants.  It accepts grants for internal programs for professors and teachers, such as research grants. See, for instance, this Deseret News article.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375040/BYU-gaining-national-recognition-for-its-science-research.html?pg=all

The one, singular reason why tuition is often so unaffordable is that state and federal governments pump tuition money into the system with grants and cheap loans.  

Now, I confess to being an odd-duck libertarian.   I don't think that the federal government has any business telling religious schools how to teach or administer its housing or sports programs.  On other other hand, schools should stop asking for handouts.  

You raise a good point.  It is certainly more difficult to complain about government intrusion at the same time you are asking for government handouts.  I have argued that those who are not willing to abide by BYU’s honor code are free to go elsewhere.  I suppose the government could argue that if you are not willing to abide by their restrictions, you are likewise free to go elsewhere (for your money).  The two cases are not really equivalent, because, for starters. the government does have constitutional obligations to not favor one religion over another, etc. But IMO, taking government money does weaken BYU’s case. 

IIRC, BYU has argued that it does not accept direct federal grants, per se,  because It accepts only those grants that it views as payment for services rendered or to be rendered.  I believe this is the reason (or rationalization) that is used to justify accepting research grants. (Based on the quality of some of the federally funded research I have seen elsewhere, this justification can wear pretty thin.).  If memory serves, BYU has also argued that grants and loans given to students are not grants to BYU, because the students are free to use them wherever they want. I suppose that one could argue that the government could impose a condition requiring this money be spent only at schools whose honor codes are acceptable to the government.  But then it could be argued that this would not merely be a matter of government “discrimination” against a school, but government “discrimination” against individuals.

But comparing possible government restrictions on individual student aid is not really parallel to the BYU honor code.  A prospective student who turns down BYU because he objects to a provision in its honor code, is free to go elsewhere because he has thousands of viable options.  But, as a practical matter,  most students are not free to “go elsewhere” if they turn down government grants and loans.  They have no viable options. 

My father came from a dirt poor family but was able to work his way through college. (For example, during his freshman year, he worked a split shift in one of the area’s hard rock mines).  I don’t believe this would be possible today.  And, as you pointed out, the government is largely responsible for this.  (“the one, singular reason why tuition is often so unaffordable is that state and federal governments pump tuition money into the system with grants and cheap loans.”).  

Not all government-to-student money is equal.  Those  receiving VA benefits could make a very good case that they earned their benefits for services rendered.  Thus, they have a right to use their VA benefits to attend the religious school of their choice, even if the government doesn’t like its faith based honor code.

[sunstoned]

 

 

[Shadrak]

On 9/25/2016 at 3:42 PM, Sleeper Cell said:

CFR, please,  that Elder Oaks “wants to be able to exclude LGBT people in places he controls.”  For that matter, do you have any evidence that the church excludes gay people from attending sacrament meeting (let alone from attending BYU) simply because they are gay? 

I don’t expect all to agree with my morality. I don’t even expect the government to force a religious school to change its honor code to accommodate my morality.  

What slippery slope?  I did not say that incestuous marriages would ever be legalized.  Nor did I say that any same sex marriage supporter was in favor of incestuous marriages.  Indeed, the very point I was making is based on my belief that supporters of same sex marriage are not in favor of incestuous marriages. 

I will try again, by starting with your own words:

Shadrak:  “Marriage equality has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents”

Sleeper:  I agree.  But if the phrase “marriage equality”  does not mean that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, it isn’t really marriage equality, is it?  Put another way:  if you say that I am against “marriage equality” because I don’t accept same sex marriage, why can’t I say that you are also against “marriage equality” because you (presumably) don’t accept incestuous marriage?  

Your admission that the phrase “’marriage equality’ has been used to mean only same sex marriage by its proponents” tends to corroborate the belief that these proponents are masters of manipulating the meaning of words to unfairly put their opponents on the defensive.  

It's impressive that you give him and the church credit that they don't have bouncers at the door not allowing them in. Even that level of discrimination is a bit gauche for the church, but they certainly can't stay long. The church is officially not accepting of non-celibate gay people (are apostates generally welcome at church?), and not at BYU. Imagine what BYU would be like if no dating or expression of heterosexual feelings were allowed. It wouldn't be the largest private university. Oaks and the church will do all they can to ensure that in the places the church controls (employment and housing) will not have to follow the rules everyone else does. The infamous "Utah Compromise" bill is supposed to prevent discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Except in religious organizations. We are supposed to believe that the church doesn't employ anyone.

Quote

"Employer" does not include: a religious organization, a religious corporation sole, a religious association, a religious society, a religious educational institution, or a religious leader, when that individual is acting in the capacity of a religious leader; (B) any corporation or association constituting an affiliate, a wholly owned subsidiary, or an agency of any religious organization, religious corporation sole, religious association, or religious society; http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/sb0296.html

The church also attempts to control what goes on the walls of its members homes by counsel and guidelines, the church's teachings should affect every facet of our lives. This was Elder Oaks' counsel to members with gay children and how to treat them.

Quote

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision [having a gay child and their partner home for the holidays] that needs to be made individually by the person responsible [parent], calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Your attempt to define "marriage equality" as accepting of every possible marriage scenario is ridiculous, please stop trying to redefine it to beyond what it's common usage is. No one has ever said it should, except opponents who want to use an absurdist definition. Master's of manipulation? Sure, every group tries to put the best spin on their position, you expect something different? I don't think it's very productive to parse every spin attempt- like "fairness for all," or a "ceasefire in the culture wars," or coopting the phrase religious liberty to mean not accepting gay marriage. We could go on all day with these spins.

I only wonder, why the animosity and continues hostility towards LGBT people? They are our family members, neighbors and coworkers. Their marriages are legal and accepted by law and increasingly by society. Why spend all this time and effort trying to suppress their lawful rights by promoting discrimination and carving out exceptions for as long as possible? The whole effort seems extremely counterproductive. 

Oaks made two comments in this talk that I don't really understand. The Plan of Salvation is contingent on the US constitution (and free religious practice) and that there is no gay marriage. In the 1850s-1890's the church said that it's also dependent on polygamy. Yet today, a polygamist will be excommunicated. So clearly practices can change without a so-called existential threat to the church, despite their dire warnings to the contrary which do nothing but stir ill will in the name of religion. It's as if they have learned nothing from their history.