Oaks on Religious Freedom

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Do you have any thoughts on the "special category" argument he's making for religions to get extra special treatment? 

No religion is treated specially over another but religion itself is given special treatment in that it is a protected class.  Hate crimes laws that exist use religion as one of the protected classes thus it does get some special treatment. 

[Ouagadougou]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Similar to how the church was wrong in its treatment toward blacks (prior to 1978), I think the church is currently wrong in terms of how it is treating those in the LGBTQ community.     

Why are you restricted from rep points and have limited posts?

[Ouagadougou]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

I agree.  I know so many nice, kind, wonderful people in the LGBTQ community, so to draw such a comparison is, in fact, distasteful, IMO. Unless you agree with open discrimination,  I don't think there is any excuse or justification for defending Oak's rhetoric to exclude homosexuals from certain influential positions.  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Similar to how the church was wrong in its treatment toward blacks (prior to 1978), I think the church is currently wrong in terms of how it is treating those in the LGBTQ community.     

Why are you restricted from rep points and have limited posts?

No idea.  I don’t think I’ve broken any rules.  Some time ago, a year or so they started randomly banning me from threads without notice or explanation and then put me on limited use without notice or explanation.  I’ve asked but they, whoever they are,  ignored my questions.  And I guess we’re not supposed to talk about moderators decisions.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

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

Correct.  However, again, one might want to do what I did -- take ConLaw in college.  There you learn the full implications of precedent-setting stare decisis.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that established that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8 ) gives the Federal government certain implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution itself.  Religion or church tax need not be mentioned to be affected.  Since “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” the First Amendment protection of religion implies that it cannot be taxed.  They are therefore preemptively exempt from taxation.  I rec'd a 100% on my legal brief of that case in 1963, and Oaks is stating a fact when he claims that religion gets special treatment.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

But it is perfectly O.K. for you to make snide and false claims about Oaks, based on complete ignorance of the law.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But it is perfectly O.K. for you to make snide and false claims about Oaks, based on complete ignorance of the law.

Ever the double standard from this crew. 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you that it sounds disingenuous to me.  Unfortunately, I think that he actually can see where others are coming from, and his positions on this and other controversial issues are very intentional.  I think he's being smart, strategic and trying to win a debate.  

I think strategic is spot on.  Oaks knows what he is doing and this is part of a long term strategy.  He talks religious freedom, and keeps doubling down on  LGBTQ issues.  But his religious freedom seems to mean freedom to curtail the rights of others that don't believe the same way he does.  I was active LDS for close to 50 years.  In that time, no one ever tried to take away any of me rights to worship according to my conscience.  And guess what, no one is trying to take away anyone's religious freedoms today.  What is happening is that people no longer get a free pass to discriminate and suppress the rights of others using the guise of religious freedom. When you try to pass laws against same sex marriage because it is against your religion,  that is not religious freedom.  That is discrimination, and that is wrong.   

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

Thank you for posting this information.  This makes much more sense now. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think strategic is spot on.  Oaks knows what he is doing and this is part of a long term strategy.  He talks religious freedom, and keeps doubling down on  LGBTQ issues.  But his religious freedom seems to mean freedom to curtail the rights of others that don't believe the same way he does.  I was active LDS for close to 50 years.  In that time, no one ever tried to take away any of me rights to worship according to my conscience.  And guess what, no one is trying to take away anyone's religious freedoms today.  What is happening is that people no longer get a free pass to discriminate and suppress the rights of others using the guise of religious freedom. When you try to pass laws against same sex marriage because it is against your religion,  that is not religious freedom.  That is discrimination, and that is wrong.   

Regardless of the individual preferences of people, the courts will have to wend their way through countless cases before the true outline of rights in these other areas becomes clear.  Intolerance and impatience on both sides seems to be a result of ignorance as well as bigotry.  The current angry descent into mutual catcalling and tribalism will accomplish nothing but chaos.  Sorting all this out will take time and patience.  Meantime, your simplistic notions of evil conspiracy are groundless.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Similar to how the church was wrong in its treatment toward blacks (prior to 1978), I think the church is currently wrong in terms of how it is treating those in the LGBTQ community. .......................

Prior to 1978 the LDS Church ordained men of African origin, then ceased doing so under Brigham Young (after the death of Joseph Smith).  Reasonable people realize that this was wrong.  However, the LDS Church never had segregated congregations and did not accept in lynch law (unlike the Southern Baptists, for example).  The LDS Church, as with any religion, is not required to accept any particular notion of those outside the religion as to whom to accept as members and why.  Those are private matters which should have no effect on being gracious and civil to all others.  The notion that LDS authorities are mistreating members of the LGBTQ community is false.  The issue is always one of acceptable behaviors within the LDS Church, and every religion can have boundaries which fit its traditions and doctrines.  A religion does not have to be all things to all people.  That is an absurd demand.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

I can't make sense of your position here. You don't think "special" means that it is elevated or more important yet you think it means MORE secured. Doesn't "MORE" elevate it over whatever isn't "MORE"? He is absolutely arguing for an elevation of religious speech and preachers.

FYI- someone can believe that religion has benefit yet also believe that religious speech shouldn't be privileged over other speech. Religion should be protected, but that doesn't mean it should be provided state sanctioned privilege over others.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prior to 1978 the LDS Church ordained men of African origin, then ceased doing so under Brigham Young (after the death of Joseph Smith).  Reasonable people realize that this was wrong.  However, the LDS Church never had segregated congregations and did not accept in lynch law (unlike the Southern Baptists, for example).  The LDS Church, as with any religion, is not required to accept any particular notion of those outside the religion as to whom to accept as members and why.  Those are private matters which should have no effect on being gracious and civil to all others.  The notion that LDS authorities are mistreating members of the LGBTQ community is false.  The issue is always one of acceptable behaviors within the LDS Church, and every religion can have boundaries which fit its traditions and doctrines.  A religion does not have to be all things to all people.  That is an absurd demand.

This is laughable.

Yes, of course church leaders have the ability to decide what is acceptable behavior within the LDS church. I haven't seen anyone argue against that. But you seem to be saying that since they have the right to discriminate against others within the church that that means they are not mistreating the LGBTQ community. It's not an either/or proposition. They can have the right to discriminate within the church, then discriminate and harm others. That's what is happening. It's not about what they CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do and how their choices impact on others.

https://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE

[Gray]

Edit: Already addressed

Edited December 5, 2018 by Gray

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't make sense of your position here. You don't think "special" means that it is elevated or more important yet you think it means MORE secured. Doesn't "MORE" elevate it over whatever isn't "MORE"? He is absolutely arguing for an elevation of religious speech and preachers.

I didn't say "more secured." That's your reading, not my writing. 

I said that when Elder Oaks is using the word "special," in this context, I don't think he means "elevated" or "more important." I honestly don't believe his comment implies that religious views should be privileged above all other views. 

Instead, by "special," I think he means something more like [the word] "secured." Not "more secured." 

So, for example, if we were to rephrase his quote, substituting the word "special" for "secured," it would read as follows:

Quote

In the 1950s and 1960s, religious freedom debates were about issues like whether or not the federal government should give aid to Catholic parochial schools. But over the years, new divisions emerged.

We see people who believe in God in contests with people who don't, or people who value religion and recognize that religion holds society together in contests with people who reject this.

Fewer and fewer people believe in God. And if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, and you don't see any benefit to society by giving a secured place to religion or religious preachers or activities.

 

I think that sounds about right. There are definitely those in society who would like to see religion and religious views excised from the public square. Fortunately, the Constitution secures our right to participate. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Amulek

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say "more secured." That's your reading, not my writing. 

I said that when Elder Oaks is using the word "special," in this context, I don't think he means "elevated" or "more important." I honestly don't believe his comment implies that religious views should be privileged above all other views. 

Instead, by "special," I think he means something more like [the word] "secured." Not "more secured." 

So, for example, if we were to rephrase his quote, substituting the word "special" for "secured," it would read as follows:

 

I think that sounds about right. There are definitely those in society who would like to see religion and religious views excised from the public square. Fortunately, the Constitution secures our right to do so. 

You're right. That was my mistake in reading. You said, "more 'like' secured", NOT "more secured". My apologies. Thanks for helping me understand.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think strategic is spot on.  Oaks knows what he is doing and this is part of a long term strategy.  He talks religious freedom, and keeps doubling down on  LGBTQ issues.  But his religious freedom seems to mean freedom to curtail the rights of others that don't believe the same way he does.  I was active LDS for close to 50 years.  In that time, no one ever tried to take away any of me rights to worship according to my conscience.  And guess what, no one is trying to take away anyone's religious freedoms today.  What is happening is that people no longer get a free pass to discriminate and suppress the rights of others using the guise of religious freedom. When you try to pass laws against same sex marriage because it is against your religion,  that is not religious freedom.  That is discrimination, and that is wrong.   

I completely agree.  The power to discriminate on religious grounds is eroding and this "religious freedom" effort seems to primarily be a push towards retaking some of this eroding power.  I believe, too little, too late, but in our polarized country and the fact that we're living through a seeming unbelievable set of circumstances right now with the current President we have, I'm hesitant to proclaim that our culture couldn't devolve backwards on any of these issues.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by hope_for_things

[CV75]

15 hours 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/

I think the point in his statement is the matter of being “influential” in promoting moral behavior that undermines a Judeo-Christian society. Back in 1984, the values and mores of society and the Church were in closer alignment than today. Where over the course of 35 years society has changed the moral standard such that formerly immoral behavior is now appropriate, encouraged and celebrated, we need to look at what Elder Oaks has to say today on the subject.

Society today will oppose the involvement of business and civic leaders whose influential positions give them an advantage in promoting behavior that is considered immoral. Wherever the Church and society are in alignment you will hear Church leaders make supportive statements. There is another thread about “outrage” where people have devolved to the point of politicizing their raw emotions (including spirituality) and informing their emotional and spiritual sense with politics. I see this is a sickness, and that thread in fact refers to it as an 'addiction."

[Ouagadougou]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prior to 1978 the LDS Church ordained men of African origin, then ceased doing so under Brigham Young (after the death of Joseph Smith).  Reasonable people realize that this was wrong.  However, the LDS Church never had segregated congregations and did not accept in lynch law (unlike the Southern Baptists, for example).  The LDS Church, as with any religion, is not required to accept any particular notion of those outside the religion as to whom to accept as members and why.  Those are private matters which should have no effect on being gracious and civil to all others.  The notion that LDS authorities are mistreating members of the LGBTQ community is false.  The issue is always one of acceptable behaviors within the LDS Church, and every religion can have boundaries which fit its traditions and doctrines.  A religion does not have to be all things to all people.  That is an absurd demand.

You can try and downplay how the church treated blacks all you want, but look at the facts:

- The church taught that a black skin was a curse
- Black members could not attend the temple
- The church taught that mixed-race marriages were wrong

If the church wrote an essay about this particular issue (and had to disavow what I think was doctrine but they call "theories"):

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24"

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

So you are saying that Christ (center of the LDS religion) doesn't have to be all things to all people? 

Unfortunately, the LDS Church, IMO, is mistreating innocent children (who have gay parents) by denying them baptism.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the point in his statement is the matter of being “influential” in promoting moral behavior that undermines a Judeo-Christian society. Back in 1984, the values and mores of society and the Church were in closer alignment than today. Where over the course of 35 years society has changed the moral standard such that formerly immoral behavior is now appropriate, encouraged and celebrated, we need to look at what Elder Oaks has to say today on the subject.

 

Society today will oppose the involvement of business and civic leaders whose influential positions give them an advantage in promoting behavior that is considered immoral. Wherever the Church and society are in alignment you will hear Church leaders make supportive statements. There is another thread about “outrage” where people have devolved to the point of politicizing their raw emotions (including spirituality) and informing their emotional and spiritual sense with politics. I see this is a sickness, and that thread in fact refers to it as an 'addiction."

 

I think it was wrong in 1984 just as it is still wrong today.  Unless you accept open discrimination, I don't see any way to justify or reconcile Elder Oaks' statement.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think it was wrong in 1984 just as it is still wrong today.  Unless you accept open discrimination, I don't see any way to justify or reconcile Elder Oaks' statement.

Where were you in 1984? What was your position on the topic at that time?

[Ouagadougou]

I was in the US and my position at that time is irrelevant because I wasn't of the age to "sin" in 1984; I was actually being told and taught by my parents that we should love one another and not discriminate at that time (not the same guidance Elder Oaks was giving back then concerning those in the LGBTQ community). 

If it was 35 years ago or just yesterday/today, I think any type of discrimination against any person because of his/her sexual orientation is inherently wrong and not acceptable.  I think my age and position of when his remarks were given doesn't change the fact that it is inherently wrong to promote or advocate for any such discrimination.    

 

 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I was in the US and my position at that time is irrelevant because I wasn't of the age to "sin" in 1984; I was actually being told and taught by my parents that we should love one another and not discriminate at that time (not the same guidance Elder Oaks was giving back then concerning those in the LGBTQ community). 

If it was 35 years ago or just yesterday/today, I think any type of discrimination against any person because of his/her sexual orientation is inherently wrong and not acceptable.  I think my age and position of when his remarks were given doesn't change the fact that it is inherently wrong to promote or advocate for any such discrimination.    

Then Elder Oaks taught the same thing as your parents. Your parents evidently didn’t broach the subject of advocating that people of minority sexual identity, orientation and behavior as a protected class, but rather of treating people who differ from the norm in any characteristic with humanity. Whenever it was that you starting developing and then changing your attitude politically, the Church’s spiritual message has not changed, and has actually compromised her message politically.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then Elder Oaks taught the same thing as your parents. Your parents evidently didn’t broach the subject of advocating that people of minority sexual identity, orientation and behavior as a protected class, but rather of treating people who differ from the norm in any characteristic with humanity. Whenever it was that you starting developing and then changing your attitude politically, the Church’s spiritual message has not changed, and has actually compromised her message politically.

You seem to be trying to make an argument of presentism but that doesn't really work. While it's true that people are in many ways a product of their time and culture, it doesn't necessarily change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what they believed and did. The social and political climate in 1984 was very different than it is today. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean that overt discrimination in 1984 was ok simply because it was 1984. I doubt you would argue that slavery is OK simply because people in 1850 believed it was.

The other difference is that Oaks seems to still believe what he said in 1984 despite the changes to time and culture. I doubt he would say it the same way today (I mean I sure hope he wouldn't) but I don't see any evidence that his position has changed.

 

[rockpond]

On 12/4/2018 at 11:02 AM, 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?  

He's either being ignorant of history, disingenuous, or so biased that he can't see things as they really are (to borrow a phrase).  And I don't believe he is ignorant so that leaves the latter two.

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

That's funny coming from a leader of the church that used its First Amendment rights to attempt to discriminate against black people and gay couples.  While I do believe that the First Amendment will help us solve racism and discrimination, the Church is hardly standing on moral high ground with respect to this issue.