Oaks on Religious Freedom

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is a difference between absolutes at the ends of a spectrum (which I think Elder Oaks means) and perceiving everything in between in terms of one absolute or the other.

From what I’ve seen of his other speeches, he’s probably going with the idea that the exercise of the freedom of religious expression requires special constitutional protection in their respective societies.

I think he’s also pointing out that more good was done, and won the day in the end, on these points by religious people than by those who resisted them. It is a fact that “People who make light of religious freedom forget the history…” Given point #1 above, I don’t think he had to say, “Some people who make light of religious freedom often forget, ignore, overlook, revise or deny the history…  of those I make these remarks.”

Can you elaborate on what you thought he meant by this absolutes at the end of the spectrum idea.  I'm not sure I understand what that even means.  

As for religious expression having special constitutional protection, I don't think it needs special protection, or that the text of the 1st amendment grants special protection for religious speech.  It really explicitly reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  

The freedom of speech part of that amendment seems to focus more on the press and political speech.  I don't see anything that gives special status to religious speech.  The larger supreme court cases about freedom of speech that I can think of, tend to focus more on political speech as having a prioritized status that should be protected, and not religious speech.  If people who are more familiar with the history have examples otherwise, please share, as it would be interesting to discuss further.  

As for more good being done, I think that is very debatable, there has been a lot of evil perpetuated under the auspices of organized religion over time.  Its definitely a more complicated discussion than the one sided portrayal that Oaks shows.  

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The truth is, rights to free speech and rights to free religious expression are negotiable. They are limited all the time in consideration of the public good. I'm sure Pres. Oaks knows that.

But he's not really arguing about religious freedom. He's arguing for religious privilege. He's arguing for a "special place" for religious voices and would like them to carry more weight. Ironically, I think that if government give religion a "special place" it is actually making a "law respecting an establishment of religion".

I credit Oaks with being honest about his intentions. He is being very open about wanting religious voices to be privileged over non-religious voices. I don't agree with that. I think arguments should win based on merit, not privilege (as far as it is reasonably possible). As has been stated, religion has done significant good. That's great. Religious preachers should be credited with the good they've done in pushing forward abolitionism and civil rights. However, religious preachers have also fought against these things. IIRC Pres. Benson essentially referred to civil rights activists as stooges for communism, which he referred to as Satan's plan. The church was NOT at the forefront of the civil rights movement. I believe an argument could be made that it fought against civil rights. We know that slaves were held in Utah so I don't know how progressive the church was in abolishing slavery, but it doesn't sound too impressive.

But more than arguing for a special place for religion, I really think he wants privilege of LDS religious positions. I suppose that's natural for a religious leader to want his views given greater weight, but not as he simultaneously uses his secular credentials as a judge to give him greater authority on the issue. I say this, because the truth is Religion and religious leaders don't agree. They didn't agree on slavery, they didn't agree on civil rights, they don't agree on LGBT issues, SSM etc. So in a sense I think he views religious voice as LDS voice, and all other voices (even other religions that don't agree) as secular voices.

It doesn't really seem fair to put words into his mouth.  I know I don't appreciate that when it's done to me.  

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I disagree that because of the existence of love, the likelihood of bad in the world increases.  The existence of love actually greatly increases the likelihood of good, to the point that it completely overshadows all of the bad done in it's name.

This is a good point.  I would agree that while some bad stuff has happened because of love, the net effect of love has been vastly accretive.

Switching back to the idea that moral superiority is a dangerous thing: I wonder if a sense of god-given moral authority has done more good or more harm?  Difficult/impossible to measure, but a worthy thought exercise.  

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since freedom of religion is in the constitution in the First Amendment, it could be argued that religion, like speech, and press, is 'special'.  I don't know if that's what he meant when he used that term though.  

I think you're right that he is attempting to make this argument.  However, I'm not convinced that any credible constitutional scholars are making this argument in the public sphere, and I'm not aware of any legal precedents that uphold this idea that religious expression or speech deserves any special status.  I also don't see how the text can be read that way. 

Ironically it sounds to me like Oaks is doing exactly what your typical originalist conservative legal scholars typically argue against doing, and that is reading rights into the text of the constitution that were not part of the original intent of the founders.  I find this reversal of strategy quite strange myself.  

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I was just reading this DNews article and wanted to get some discussion on some points by President Oaks.  

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900044866/whats-next-for-religious-freedom-in-2019-faith-leaders-and-policymakers-weigh-in.html

His premise here that people who believe in God first of all, believe in an absolute right and wrong, and that people who don't believe in God don't believe in absolute right and wrong, is inherently binary and flawed.  I can think of a number of exceptions in our religious history to start with.  I also don't like the simple binary as it really is like a straw-man approach to argumentation. 

The second point that religion should occupy a "special place" in society should be debated.  I'm wondering if he's asserting that religion deserves special treatment as a category and why he feels that religion should be elevated into some special status.  

This part about slavery being abolished by preachers, essentially implying that its because of Christian religions that we got rid of slavery as a society, this is extremely problematic revisionist history.   The actual history is so much more complex, and the fact that people in favor of keeping slavery used used arguments from the bible to justify their position shows just how much more complicated this issue is.  I really don't like the way he's promoting religion as being the source of the good, while ignoring the bad that also was caused by religion.  This is selective bias and I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing and I find it disingenuous.  

Other thoughts?  

It said the following under Elder Oaks in the link you provided:

"The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't really seem fair to put words into his mouth.  I know I don't appreciate that when it's done to me.  

Are we not discussing our opinions about what Oaks says and what he means?

He's spoken out on religious freedom a lot and my opinion is based on what I recall him saying on multiple occasions. From what I recall he talks about religious freedom on these issues as if all religions agree, which they don't. He's spoken about religious freedom regarding LGBT issues, SSM etc. He treats the LDS view as if it IS the religious view, when in truth there are myriad religious views on LGBT/SSM issues. It just so happens that the POV he is arguing against, and calling secular, is also held by some other religions. I'm not sure what you're upset about. Is there something specific you think is unfair?

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It feels like he's mixing up the concepts of "religious freedom" and "respect for religion". Or at least using those in a way that I'm not understanding the point behind it. I think both are important. But when we demand respect for religion as a constitutional right, then I think we're not on solid ground. 

I think the spirit of the constitution in aggregate is essentially anti special treatment, especially for large groups and established institutions.  The whole idea is that justice is blind and that people are created equal and that should include institutions as well according to the SCOTUS.  

I think the discussions about religions being persecuted and trying to take act like they are victims is a sad and unnecessary line of thinking and it definitely doesn't make me sympathetic to these kind of arguments.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

Good call out.  His prejudice is very clear on this issue.  

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  Robert, you are a fun guy to interact with.  Immediately straw-manning my argument.  HAHA.  I reject the constitution, good one.  

I don't know of anyone even arguing that the first amendment guarantees that the IRS can't tax religions.  Would you care to provide some evidence that this assertion is even being credibly argued anywhere in the public sphere? 

I guess you didn't bother to take Constitutional Law in college:  The normative case is McCulloch v. Maryland, which makes it unconstitutional to tax religions.  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that decision.

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

..........................Of course it would have been nice if Mormonism had been on the right side of history with respect to the civil rights movement.  Too bad they are also on the wrong side of history on women's rights movements, and the LGBT movement.  But no worry, we should ignore the trends and just trust that the brethren are guided by God, because they say they are, in spite of any evidence to the contrary...

How is pointing out the same selective history bias that you acknowledged earlier the same thing as attributing evil motives?  .....................

Since you don't understand even the most elementary aspects of the Constitution, it is much easier for you to attribute bad motives to others.  In that respect, you are no different than those who attributed bad motives to Dr King.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Robert, I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.  When someone uses an arbitrary term like "special place" and another defends such use by saying special place is fact, then the conversation is not conversation any more.  I'm sure Hope_for will respond with better patience but well...you know.  

As I suggested to your id-brother, a good course in Constitutional Law might help.  Oaks used to teach the subject as a law professor in Chicago.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you didn't bother to take Constitutional Law in college:  The normative case is McCulloch v. Maryland, which makes it unconstitutional to tax religions.  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that decision.

Since you don't understand even the most elementary aspects of the Constitution, it is much easier for you to attribute bad motives to others.  In that respect, you are no different than those who attributed bad motives to Dr King.

Do you realize how arrogant you come across?  I was going to try and engage in a discussion, but I'm feeling a little put off by how you chose to respond.  So that I don't say anything too rude, I"ll just bow out of responding.  It must be awfully lonely on that high plateau of enlightenment looking down on all of us plebes.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

In case anyone is interesting in some of the other comments being made on this thread.  Here is a link to the McCulloch v. Maryland decision. The case itself didn't have anything directly to do with making it unconstitutional to tax religions, but in summary is about implied powers the federal government has to implement a functional national government, and also places limits on states abilities to impede what the federal government is doing.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

In doing some internet searching I tried to find arguments for taxing or not taxing religions in the U.S.  I found the following interesting articles, although I haven't read through them all yet, but at least these articles made provide some interesting ideas on the subject.  

https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/07/28/should-america-tax-churches/#8005e661b8df

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2011/01/27/god-knows

 

[Ouagadougou]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good call out.  His prejudice is very clear on this issue.  

I think it is 100% discrimination, especially since it is targeted against an entire group's sexual orientation.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[provoman]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you didn't bother to take Constitutional Law in college:  The normative case is McCulloch v. Maryland, which makes it unconstitutional to tax religions.  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that decision.

Since you don't understand even the most elementary aspects of the Constitution, ....

Hmmm McCulloch was  not relgion or taxation of churchs...infact I did not find the word religion or church in the ruling.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are we not discussing our opinions about what Oaks says and what he means?

He's spoken out on religious freedom a lot and my opinion is based on what I recall him saying on multiple occasions. From what I recall he talks about religious freedom on these issues as if all religions agree, which they don't. He's spoken about religious freedom regarding LGBT issues, SSM etc. He treats the LDS view as if it IS the religious view, when in truth there are myriad religious views on LGBT/SSM issues. It just so happens that the POV he is arguing against, and calling secular, is also held by some other religions. I'm not sure what you're upset about. Is there something specific you think is unfair?

We are. It just sounded like, instead of taking him at his word on what he was discussing, you were saying that he actually isn't discussing that but is really making a different point.  If I misunderstood you, I apologize.  

[let’s roll]

As a lawyer, I see the logic of Elder Oaks statements.  I’m wondering on what basis anyone would argue that the Free Exercise Clause by itself doesn’t put religion in special place in America society.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

As a lawyer, I see the logic of Elder Oaks statements.  I’m wondering on what basis anyone would argue that the Free Exercise Clause by itself doesn’t put religion in special place in America society.

The clause has two parts, the first part is what explicitly protects against special status.  Can you elaborate on how you read it otherwise?  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

It said the following under Elder Oaks in the link you provided:

"The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

 

If he's right, and leading a homosexual lifestyle is actually a serious sin, (and speaking from an eternal point of view) then he's got a point.  It would be desirable not to give any serious sin an influential voice in society.  

What he's saying isn't outrageous, the trouble comes with who he's saying it about.  The issue is that so many people disagree that SS relationships is a sin at all.  If he had said this exact same thing about white supremacists and racists, for example, everyone would applaud and very few would call it discrimination.  The moral voice in our society right now is very very comfortable with keeping people who hold views they don't like from having jobs.  They boycott places that employ them almost on a daily basis.

(and to clarify my own position, while I agree with the ideals behind his statement, I disagree that LGBTQ people should be kept from working in media, entertainment or literature.  What makes sense in theory often falls a part and isn't fair or right in practice).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate on what you thought he meant by this absolutes at the end of the spectrum idea.  I'm not sure I understand what that even means.  

As for religious expression having special constitutional protection, I don't think it needs special protection, or that the text of the 1st amendment grants special protection for religious speech.  It really explicitly reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  

The freedom of speech part of that amendment seems to focus more on the press and political speech.  I don't see anything that gives special status to religious speech.  The larger supreme court cases about freedom of speech that I can think of, tend to focus more on political speech as having a prioritized status that should be protected, and not religious speech.  If people who are more familiar with the history have examples otherwise, please share, as it would be interesting to discuss further.  

As for more good being done, I think that is very debatable, there has been a lot of evil perpetuated under the auspices of organized religion over time.  Its definitely a more complicated discussion than the one sided portrayal that Oaks shows.  

A spectrum is a scale with two extreme or opposite points and can be used to describe a characteristic in terms of its position on the scale, which is by and large between the two extremes. If you don’t believe in one end of a spiritual/moral spectrum (God/devil; Good/evil), you won’t believe in its opposed extremes (absolutes). The further apart the extremes or absolutes, the more freedom and allowance of movement there is between them. Without the ends, there is nothing in between to regard as worthy of preservation or destruction. With ends that are marginally apart, there is little allowance and freedom to move at all. Without such a spectrum, there is also little if any room for compromise, which the democratic republic system relies upon.

Elder Oaks does subscribe to such movement in his talk on “Good, Better, Best.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng

Here’s a good article about political compromise (I’m surprised it didn’t get any play on this board when it came out): https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/07/religious-freedom-in-a-secular-age?lang=eng

I think the special protections that already exist in the U.S. Constitution (the establishment and free exercise clauses) are all he is talking about. That of course could get into legislation and regulation/rule-making, and fortunately the same Constitution allows all sorts or discussion about that through the democratic republic system, which gets to the protection of free speech you mentioned.

Without a spectrum there would be no debate (which is sometimes the object of playing down absolutes), so the subject of protecting or undermining religion is definitely a more complicated discussion than the one-sided portrayal you show.

[let’s roll]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The clause has two parts, the first part is what explicitly protects against special status.  Can you elaborate on how you read it otherwise?  

The Free Exercise Clause doesn’t have two parts, it stands alone.  There is an Establishment Clause which also treats the subject of religion.

Both protect religion, the Establishment Clause by protecting religion from government-sponsored discrimination via the establishment of a single state endorsed religion.

 The Free Exercise Clause has the practical effect of having courts have to use a higher level of scrutiny (“strict scrutiny”) in evaluating the legal sufficieny of government’s attempts to regulate speech or actions undertaken in the context of religious belief.

[Amulek]

When Elder Oaks speaks of "giving a special place to religion or religious preachers or activities," I don't believe that, by using the word "special," he means "elevated" or "more important." I think he means it more like "secured." 

The Free Exercise Clause, like other constitutional provisions, does secure a right to do certain categories of things - even things that, in other contexts, might not be permitted by the Constitution...say, for example, discriminating on the basis of sex when hiring clergy.

That seems to be fairly obvious, and not particularly controversial...except, of course, for who feel that religion is of no benefit to society and, thus, believe that religion (or religious preachers or activities) should not be afforded such protections / privileges / whatever-term-you-want-to-use in society. 

 

[Ouagadougou]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If he's right, and leading a homosexual lifestyle is actually a serious sin, (and speaking from an eternal point of view) then he's got a point.  It would be desirable not to give any serious sin an influential voice in society.  

What he's saying isn't outrageous, the trouble comes with who he's saying it about.  The issue is that so many people disagree that SS relationships is a sin at all.  If he had said this exact same thing about white supremacists and racists, for example, everyone would applaud and very few would call it discrimination.  The moral voice in our society right now is very very comfortable with keeping people who hold views they don't like from having jobs.  They boycott places that employ them almost on a daily basis.

(and to clarify my own position, while I agree with the ideals behind his statement, I disagree that LGBTQ people should be kept from working in media, entertainment or literature.  What makes sense in theory often falls a part and isn't fair or right in practice).

I have to disagree -- I think what he said is discriminatory.  I think Influential positions in any sphere of work should be based on the integrity, qualifications, experience and overall work ethic of that individual; whom he/she is attracted to and chooses to love should not be a factor, IMO.

By definition, such views violate the Civil Rights Act Title VII.

"Sexual orientation discrimination is a type of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled en banc."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/publications/litigation-news/top-stories/2018/sexual-orientation-discrimination-claim-actionable-under-title-vii/

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The second point that religion should occupy a "special place" in society should be debated.  I'm wondering if he's asserting that religion deserves special treatment as a category and why he feels that religion should be elevated into some special status. 

Religion is given special treatment at least in the Bill of Rights. It is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment.  Religion is beyond the control of government and government is not to regulate or establish religion.   Most of the other special status categories that we have really have no expressed protection in the Bill of Rights. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

It said the following under Elder Oaks in the link you provided:

"The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

 

What a simple yet elegant post which brings balance to the view oaks is giving in the article.  Right in line with the op.  Much appreciated.  Sorry I restricted from giving rep points, so I get to use one of my limited posts to congratulate a fine post.  

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I have to disagree -- I think what he said is discriminatory.  I think Influential positions in any sphere of work should be based on the integrity, qualifications, experience and overall work ethic of that individual; whom he/she is attracted to and chooses to love should not be a factor, IMO.

By definition, such views violate the Civil Rights Act Title VII.

"Sexual orientation discrimination is a type of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled en banc."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/publications/litigation-news/top-stories/2018/sexual-orientation-discrimination-claim-actionable-under-title-vii/

It is without a doubt the epitome of discrimination.  I’m surprised someone has tried to argue otherwise—to draw the comparison to destructive forces like white supremacy and racism is really quite distasteful, to put it lightly.