Oaks on Religious Freedom

[california boy]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think we do have a lifetime of public speeches on the topic of legislating rights of sinners to use though.  We have a lot of conference talks (which do talk about many different kinds of sins) but the talk that the quote was taken from is very unique in it's scope.  We don't have other talks to compare it to.

2

I want to talk about what you wrote in depth a bit.  Basically what you are agreeing to is that at no other time do you ever recall a church leader or Elder Oaks in particular ever saying that if a person is immoral, then employers should have the right to discriminate against them.  It is only homosexuals that he is advocating discriminating against.  Can you imagine how offensive that is for a church leader to even suggest that it would be a good thing to discriminate against me simply because I am gay?  

 

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

And besides that, in the quote above, Elder Oaks didn't advocate discriminating from employment homosexuals (or anyone else).  He said that it would be best not to give a serious sin (in his view) a voice in the media (through employment), which shapes society's views.

 

I get that you are trying to sugar coat what Elder Oaks is saying.  But what you suggest is NOT what he said.  He is indeed advocating for discrimination against gays.  These are his exact words with no filters put on by you or me.

Quote

It would also be desirable to permit employers to exclude homosexuals from influential positions in media, literature and entertainment, since those jobs influence the tone and ideals of a society.

There is nothing about immorality in that statement.  There is ONLY a blanket call to discriminate against homosexuals.  So just because I am gay, I shouldn't be allowed to have a voice in society.  Do you think I should not be highly offended by a church leader calling for employers right to fire me or not hire me simply because I am gay?

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

And don't you agree with the premise behind his words?  Don't you believe that it would be bad for the US if it was giving a vocal voice to anti-LGBTQ individuals in the media, and influencing how society felt about their lifestyle?  Wouldn't you agree that giving such a group a loud influential voice would not be best for our society? 

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  I don't agree with everyone's views, but our society is weakened when we try to silence those that we disagree with.  Do you know why I think gay marriage is legal today in this country?  Because for several years after Prop 8 passed and before gay marriage was legal, there were constant debates on news programs disculling this issue with both sides being represented.  The country heard BOTH points of view.  The result?  People that supported gay marriage moved from around 30% to a 60% majority.  That would not have happened if either side had been silenced.  Every teacher that is fired because they are gay' every valedictorian that is denied the opportunity to speak at their high school graduation because they are gay, every marriage license denied because they are gay moves society forward towards understand how wrong discrimination is.

I don't even mind groups such as Westboro Baptist Church from doing their hate-filled public displays.  It is just another religion claiming that God hates gays.  They just do it more aggressively than most churches.  

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

But if you want to take into consideration all of Pres. Oak's words on politics, law, and religion, and not just this one partial quote, then consider this talk, where he speaks about working to provide protection against discrimination for LGBTQ people as well as religious people, and how laws are not just about protecting the religious and can't just be ignored by the religious.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=37033080&nid=1284&title=elder-oaks-makes-distinction-between-religious-belief-and-civic-duty&s_cid=queue-16

Some relevant parts-

"Elder Oaks suggested three general principles for a "center path" he invited listeners to walk with him:

1. Parties with different views on the relationship between church and state should advocate and act with civility
2. On the big issues that divide adversaries on those issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory
3. It will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the extreme voices that are heard from contending positions

As an example of the second principle, Elder Oaks referred to the new Utah law that ensures fair access to housing and employment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people while safeguarding religious freedom.

"In a head-on conflict over individual free exercise (of religion) and enforced non-discrimination in housing and employment, the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner of 'fairness for all.' It gave neither position all that it sought, but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the law-making branch but not the judiciary."

He said the U.S. Supreme Court "bowed toward" the third principle in Obergefell, the decision that established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The majority decision, he said, rejected several extreme proposals for the basis of the decision and "acknowledged the reasonableness of the religious and philosophical premises of those who argue that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, and assured that the First Amendment will protect religious organizations and persons who continue to teach them."

Guidelines for believers

Elder Oaks then provided some suggestions for fellow believers and others for those with non-religious values.

Believers, he said, should seek to harmonize divine and civil laws. They should not assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on institutional or personal religious freedom."

Elder Oaks supported legislation to protect LGBTQ people's right to employment in Utah.  He does not believe that people should be denied employment because of their sexual orientation.  

 

I think this was a major step forward and I have stated that repeatedly.  This kind of tone is much more in keeping with what I believe to be how the Savior wants us to treat others and what this country stands for.  Discrimination is not an American value.  The church is welcome to form any exclusionary policies towards gays within their church  that they see fit to impose.  That is their right I believe under the constitution of this country.  But I hope that the church would be at least open to allowing equality for gays in the public and respect Accommodation laws and the Civil Rights laws that have served this country well for the past 50 years.

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The quotations from George Albert Smith are very apropos of this discussion, despite the melange of false statements which you unashamedly repeat here once more -- another example of your deep, unrepentant hatred.

It has not at all occurred to you to ask why it is that George Albert Smith's counselor, David O. McKay, did not believe those quoted statements by his boss.  As the next prophet, McKay rejected those views and searched in vain for an authentic revelation or other evidence of doctrine for the prohibition on ordination of negroes.  If your false stories were so true, how could that be?  Someone not motivated by hatred would ask that question first.  One would also have to honestly ask why Joseph Smith thought ordination of negroes was right and proper.  Why did Brother Brigham go against Joseph?  But your hatred makes you blind to these honest questions.

Even Bruce McConkie finally had to honestly face the stark reality of having been so wrong.   When are you going to admit how wrong you have been?  This life is a test, brother, and you are failing this exam question.

Three more times you accused me of hatred with no CFR, and provided no CFR for any false statements I have made.  I tried to have a civil discussion, but you just attack me personally in every post with false accusations, when you should be focusing on the content of the material I provided.  

 

 

[bluebell]

Quote

I get that you are trying to sugar coat what Elder Oaks is saying.  But what you suggest is NOT what he said.  He is indeed advocating for discrimination against gays.  These are his exact words with no filters put on by you or me.

I thought you were serious about having a discussion and spent a lot of time answering some of your questions, but having read this far I realize you aren't, so let's just agree to disagree.   I'll end by saying that in the quote in question there is no blanket call to discriminate against gays or lesbians and no advocating for employers to have the right to discriminate.  

I'll delete my other responses as the bolded portion of your post above leads me to believe that you're not being sincere, and there are better ways for both of us to spend our time.  I wish you the best.

 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I thought you were serious about having a discussion and spent a lot of time answering some of your questions, but having read this far I realize you aren't, so let's just agree to disagree.   I'll end by saying that in the quote in question there is no blanket call to discriminate against gays or lesbians and no advocating for employers to have the right to discriminate.  

I'll delete my other responses as the bolded portion of your post above leads me to believe that you're not being sincere, and there are better ways for both of us to spend our time.  I wish you the best.

 

As long as you continue to mischaratize what Elder Oaks actually said, then yes I am going to call you out.  It is interesting that you give me no credit for the acknowledgement of what Elder Oaks has said that is a step in the right direction.   Is that acting in bad faith also?

[Exiled]

On 12/4/2018 at 10:02 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?  

This strikes me as someone lamenting his lost authority with the people.  People are turning away from religion and Oaks seems to be using "religious freedom" as a vehicle to fight this trend.  No one is trying to stop Bro. Oaks from practicing his religion.  In reality, religious freedom is not under attack.  It's just that more and more people don't care what he or other religious leaders have to say.  Society is turning more and more secular and Oaks doesn't like this.  In reality, in terms of morals what does religion tell us that cannot be found elsewhere?  Without religion, morality survives.  Jails are full of christians and not many atheists.  How many wars have been fought in the name of religion over the centuries?  Also, don't forget the self-inflicted wounds that religion has caused to itself today.  Covering up sexual scandals doesn't help with authority. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Exiled

[CV75]

test

Edited December 13, 2018 by CV75
403 error mesage came up

[CV75]

On 12/6/2018 at 8:35 PM, rockpond said:

The words racism and discrimination are not made-up terms awaiting fine-tuning and national codification by the US government.  I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this political.

I am using racism and discrimination as they are defined in the English language.  You can refer to Merriam-Webster and drop the bizarre outrage and violence accusations.

Elder Oaks is speaking in relation to how societies govern themselves in a narrow context, and he is not speaking against what has been defined in our governance mechanisms as "discrimination." To frame his remarks as discrimination and racism in the name of Merriam-Webster is clearly rhetoric, to such an extent that it seems to be a product of outrage, and comes across as character and verbal violence.

[CV75]

On 12/8/2018 at 11:34 AM, Exiled said:

This strikes me as someone lamenting his lost authority with the people.  People are turning away from religion and Oaks seems to be using "religious freedom" as a vehicle to fight this trend.  No one is trying to stop Bro. Oaks from practicing his religion.  In reality, religious freedom is not under attack.  It's just that more and more people don't care what he or other religious leaders have to say.  Society is turning more and more secular and Oaks doesn't like this.  In reality, in terms of morals what does religion tell us that cannot be found elsewhere?  Without religion, morality survives.  Jails are full of christians and not many atheists.  How many wars have been fought in the name of religion over the centuries?  Also, don't forget the self-inflicted wounds that religion has caused to itself today.  Covering up sexual scandals doesn't help with authority.  

Religious freedom is not just for Elder Oaks, but for everyone, even for the secular. Even secular religion and secular morality requires protection.

Also, once the secular lose their appreciation for others, a piece of humanity is lost as well as losing the freedom for subjective expressions of understanding (almost the same thing).

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Religious freedom is not just for Elder Oaks, but for everyone, even for the secular. Even secular religion and secular morality requires protection.

Also, once the secular lose their appreciation for others, a piece of humanity is lost as well as losing the freedom for subjective expressions of understanding (almost the same thing).

Yes, but just because the population doesn't listen to a particular religious leader, or hold religion on a pedestal any more, doesn't mean religious freedom is under attack

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but just because the population doesn't listen to a particular religious leader, or hold religion on a pedestal any more, doesn't mean religious freedom is under attack

Their own freedom is under attack precisely for the same reason. This is why we protect the needs of minorities through constitutional structures, mechanisms and controls even before any actual law gets passed, and why such laws have to be constitutionally sound. Over 230 years we have some experience showing the necessity of listening to the minority and respecting their values, needs and priorities along with their rights and privileges. That is good government and good citizenship.

[Exiled]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Their own freedom is under attack precisely for the same reason. This is why we protect the needs of minorities through constitutional structures, mechanisms and controls even before any actual law gets passed, and why such laws have to be constitutionally sound. Over 230 years we have some experience showing the necessity of listening to the minority and respecting their values, needs and priorities along with their rights and privileges. That is good government and good citizenship.

The point is the freedom to speak, irregardless of whether or not the population follows the speaker, and that isn't under attack from a religious perspective. New religion can still form if someone feels the call. Current religion isn't being prohibited from being practiced. What is happening is that the world is moving in a secular direction and paying less attention to what so-called religious leaders have to say. These leaders aren't being prohibited at all and their freedom to say whatever comes to their head is still preserved. Religious freedom isn't being attacked in this sense.

Do you think Oaks wants to force the people to follow him? He keeps harping on the fact that people are caring less and less about what he and other religious leaders have to say. How can this be remedied without some sort of force or fashioning some law that puts religion ahead of other institutions? The first amendment prohibits state religion, so what can actually be done here? It just seems that Oaks is still upset with the same sex marriage loss in the supreme court and is using the misnomer of freedom of religion as a way to express his displeasure.

[rockpond]

On 12/14/2018 at 7:31 AM, CV75 said:

Also, once the secular lose their appreciation for others, a piece of humanity is lost as well as losing the freedom for subjective expressions of understanding (almost the same thing).

We, as a church, haven't really modeled this.  Did our efforts to take away the constitutional rights of gay couples show an appreciation and understanding?

I think that understanding others is important.  However, in many regards, appreciation has to be earned.  Religion is going to be judged by the secular world based on its merits... so, yeah, they'll look at Mormon Helping Hands and #LighttheWorld but they'll also look at Hilldale/Colorado City and how long it took us to end racist teachings

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Their own freedom is under attack precisely for the same reason. This is why we protect the needs of minorities through constitutional structures, mechanisms and controls even before any actual law gets passed, and why such laws have to be constitutionally sound. Over 230 years we have some experience showing the necessity of listening to the minority and respecting their values, needs and priorities along with their rights and privileges. That is good government and good citizenship.

This is unfortunately only true for government and good citizens...but with religions..it is "cut me a break".. In other words...it is because of government/culture of citizens that religions bother to even think of change.  The LDS religion is always the last...but it does change.  I just don't see that change has anything to do with God.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Jeanne

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

The point is the freedom to speak, irregardless of whether or not the population follows the speaker, and that isn't under attack from a religious perspective. New religion can still form if someone feels the call. Current religion isn't being prohibited from being practiced. What is happening is that the world is moving in a secular direction and paying less attention to what so-called religious leaders have to say. These leaders aren't being prohibited at all and their freedom to say whatever comes to their head is still preserved. Religious freedom isn't being attacked in this sense.

Do you think Oaks wants to force the people to follow him? He keeps harping on the fact that people are caring less and less about what he and other religious leaders have to say. How can this be remedied without some sort of force or fashioning some law that puts religion ahead of other institutions? The first amendment prohibits state religion, so what can actually be done here? It just seems that Oaks is still upset with the same sex marriage loss in the supreme court and is using the misnomer of freedom of religion as a way to express his displeasure.

I'm trying to see where you are commenting on the substance of what I wrote and not finding any.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We, as a church, haven't really modeled this.  Did our efforts to take away the constitutional rights of gay couples show an appreciation and understanding?

I think that understanding others is important.  However, in many regards, appreciation has to be earned.  Religion is going to be judged by the secular world based on its merits... so, yeah, they'll look at Mormon Helping Hands and #LighttheWorld but they'll also look at Hilldale/Colorado City and how long it took us to end racist teachings

I think we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise. Do you lack that awareness and have no examples, or simply have decided to promote one view? I wouldn't characterize our efforts as you have, nor conflate constitutional rights with the evolution of protected class.

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This is unfortunately only true for government and good citizens...but with religions..it is "cut me a break".. In other words...it is because of government/culture of citizens that religions bother to even think of change.  The LDS religion is always the last...but it does change.  I just don't see that change has anything to do with God.

Religions often operate differently than governments, but when they have the freedom to participate in government processes as the USA Constitution allows churches, our Church has set a good example.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm trying to see where you are commenting on the substance of what I wrote and not finding any.

I think we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise. Do you lack that awareness and have no examples, or simply have decided to promote one view? I wouldn't characterize our efforts as you have, nor conflate constitutional rights with the evolution of protected class.

Religions often operate differently than governments, but when they have the freedom to participate in government processes as the USA Constitution allows churches, our Church has set a good example.

 

What I have put in bold is actually the core of the problem.  The California Supreme Court had ruled that under the Cconstitution of California, gay couples had the constitutional right to marry.  Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others didn't like the fact that gay couples had the right to marry, they actually supported a proposition (8) to amend that state constitution to take away that civil right.  I know that the Church does not like to view that action as taking away a constitutional right, but that in fact is exactly what Prop 8 did.  

I think when you and others do not respect the civil rights of other minorities by calling their civil rights as just an evolution of a protected class, it causes animosity when you want to then turn around and discuss your civil rights.  Why should others respect your civil rights when the Church does not respect their civil rights and tries to trivialize them as you have here.

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I have put in bold is actually the core of the problem.  The California Supreme Court had ruled that under the Cconstitution of California, gay couples had the constitutional right to marry.  Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others didn't like the fact that gay couples had the right to marry, they actually supported a proposition (8) to amend that state constitution to take away that civil right.  I know that the Church does not like to view that action as taking away a constitutional right, but that in fact is exactly what Prop 8 did.  

I think when you and others do not respect the civil rights of other minorities by calling their civil rights as just an evolution of a protected class, it causes animosity when you want to then turn around and discuss your civil rights.  Why should others respect your civil rights when the Church does not respect their civil rights and tries to trivialize them as you have here.

Some would like to see sexual orientation continue to expand as protected class in heretofore denied contexts, and that is a political process. Some would like to see sexual orientation not be, or to never have been, a societal issue at all, and that would be a social process. Both are lengthy processes and it doesn't help to conflate them since society drives the civic politics and the interpretation of the constitution which supports them. I don' think it's wise to abandon efforts and progress in addressing protected class status to stimulate society to catch up en masse to any special ideology.

It is no surprise that society has defined protected classes and extended civil rights through a constitutionally-supported political system. Religious freedom is not a civil right but a civil liberty (I'm seeing more conflation here, maybe we need a thread for a remedial civics class). So yes, everyone's civil liberties should be respected while civil rights and in some cases protected classes need, and yet need, to be defined.

My religious freedom and other civil liberties should be respected; my civil rights also; my protected class also. The Church, and I, do that for others. I also participate in defining civil rights and protected class status in our politic process.

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm trying to see where you are commenting on the substance of what I wrote and not finding any.

Maybe look a little harder? I don't think your comment has anything to do with religious freedom. Minority rights are not even implicated when the population refuses to pay attention to what octogenarians are saying about same sex marriage. Just because the population disagrees with the views of some religious minority doesn't mean religious freedom is under attack. The minority can still say whatever and the majority can view it as bigoted. That doesn't mean that religious freedom is under attack.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Some would like to see sexual orientation continue to expand as protected class in heretofore denied contexts, and that is a political process. Some would like to see sexual orientation not be, or to never have been, a societal issue at all, and that would be a social process. Both are lengthy processes and it doesn't help to conflate them since society drives the civic politics and the interpretation of the constitution which supports them. I don' think it's wise to abandon efforts and progress in addressing protected class status to stimulate society to catch up en masse to any special ideology.

It is no surprise that society has defined protected classes and extended civil rights through a constitutionally-supported political system. Religious freedom is not a civil right but a civil liberty (I'm seeing more conflation here, maybe we need a thread for a remedial civics class). So yes, everyone's civil liberties should be respected while civil rights and in some cases protected classes need, and yet need, to be defined.

2

What does this have to do with gay marriage????? The constitutional right for gays to marry was argued in the California Supreme court and ruled upon prior to Prop 8.  The ruling was not based on protected class.

That right was also argued in federal and district courts across this country including the US Supreme court.  Those courts ruled that gay marriage was a civil right guaranteed under the equal protection clause of the Constitution of this country.  Not a single one of those courts ruled for the Constitutional right of gays to marry based on protected class.  

You really have no idea why your belief on this issue is totally wrong do you.  FYI, being gay is currently not a protected class under federal law.   That issue has never been brought before the Supreme Court nor has it been ruled on.

Quote

My religious freedom and other civil liberties should be respected; my civil rights also; my protected class also. The Church, and I, do that for others. I also participate in defining civil rights and protected class status in our politic process.

1

1

I get that others should respect your civil liberties and I agree.  I also get that the church and you should respect others civil rights under state law as well as federal law.  When the Church trashes others civil rights by working to take away those rights, it seems that many feel they can trash the Church's civil liberties.  Both are guaranteed by that same Constitution on a state level and a federal level. Both should be respected.  How can you not see that?

Edited December 16, 2018 by california boy

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maybe look a little harder? I don't think your comment has anything to do with religious freedom. Minority rights are not even implicated when the population refuses to pay attention to what octogenarians are saying about same sex marriage. Just because the population disagrees with the views of some religious minority doesn't mean religious freedom is under attack. The minority can still say whatever and the majority can view it as bigoted. That doesn't mean that religious freedom is under attack.

When you want to take any kind of action through a political mechanism it must be done with all the constitutional protections in mind. More than only speech counts, as Elder Oaks is referencing.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What does this have to do with gay marriage????? The constitutional right for gays to marry was argued in the California Supreme court and ruled upon prior to Prop 8.  The ruling was not based on protected class.

That right was also argued in federal and district courts across this country including the US Supreme court.  Those courts ruled that gay marriage was a civil right guaranteed under the equal protection clause of the Constitution of this country.  Not a single one of those courts ruled for the Constitutional right of gays to marry based on protected class.  

You really have no idea why your belief on this issue is totally wrong do you.  FYI, being gay is currently not a protected class under federal law.   That issue has never been brought before the Supreme Court nor has it been ruled on.

I get that others should respect your civil liberties and I agree.  I also get that the church and you should respect others civil rights under state law as well as federal law.  When the Church trashes others civil rights by working to take away those rights, it seems that many feel they can trash the Church's civil liberties.  Both are guaranteed by that same Constitution on a state level and a federal level. Both should be respected.  How can you not see that?

You may perceive achieving this balance between rights, liberties and constitutional protection in terms of trashing and taking them away from others (which is why I took your comments to mean that obtaining only protected class is an insult to you). Others (like the Church and me) see it in terms of preserving these for all. Big difference, and it influences how we discuss these matters.

[rockpond]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise. Do you lack that awareness and have no examples, or simply have decided to promote one view? I wouldn't characterize our efforts as you have, nor conflate constitutional rights with the evolution of protected class.

No, I don’t lack awareness.  I gave an example of an issue in which we did not show “understanding or appreciation” (your words that I was responding to).  And, we fought to take away constitutional rights of a minority (the rights of gay couples to marry). 

Now, if you want to counter that with a different example - please do. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You may perceive achieving this balance between rights, liberties and constitutional protection in terms of trashing and taking them away from others (which is why I took your comments to mean that obtaining only protected class is an insult to you). Others (like the Church and me) see it in terms of preserving these for all. Big difference, and it influences how we discuss these matters.

 

What balance between rights liberties and constitutional protections did the church justify their efforts to take away the civil rights of gays.  Does the Church think it should have the power to impose its beliefs to override the Constitution?

Look, the church may exclude blacks,  It may exclude gays.  It may exclude transgenders.  It may exclude a lot of different groups in this country from its membership.  It may teach any doctrine it wants about these groups it wants.  BUT ALL U..S . CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  The Church chose to try and take away those Governmental rights.  All the sudden, we are not talking about any rights religion has. We are talking about the Church trying to get the government to ignore the civil rights of others in order to embrace their own personal doctrine.  How can you not see that was morally wrong. .Respecting other citizens guaranteed rights under the Constitution is just as important as expecting others to respect the rights of religion given them in the Constitution.  

There is a reason so many protesters gathered in front of the temple the day after Prop 8 pssed and shouted. Shame on you¡ Shame on you¡ Shame on you!

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by california boy

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does the Church think it should have the power to impose its beliefs to override the Constitution?

Oaks would say yes and thinks "religious freedom" is under attack because the Supreme Court said no to this.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Oaks would say yes and thinks "religious freedom" is under attack because the Supreme Court said no to this.

In the past Elder Oaks has explicitly stated that people do not have the right to legislate, and he spoke out against the county clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples even though it was legal in her state because it went against her personal beliefs. 

So no, I don't think that Oaks believes that people (or judges) should have the power to override the constitution.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In the past Elder Oaks has explicitly stated that people do not have the right to legislate, and he spoke out against the county clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples even though it was legal in her state because it went against her personal beliefs. 

So no, I don't think that Oaks believes that people (or judges) should have the power to override the constitution.

Well, mere disagreement with religious leaders doesn't equate to an attack on their religious freedom.  No one is saying that the LDS Church or any church for that matter cannot continue to practice their religions.  So, what is this about?  The first amendment prohibits state religion and laws against the free exercise of religion.  Oaks views his diminished authority in the public square as an attack on free exercise.  This is not the case, clearly.  It is just an invented bogie man  So, what is the solution?  He wants the religious to ban together against people disagreeing with them.  I think he also wants to be able to use the so called "attack" as a weapon, changing how the constitution is interpreted. 

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Exiled said:

Well, mere disagreement with religious leaders doesn't equate to an attack on their religious freedom. 

I agree.  It seems likely that Pres. Oaks does too.

Quote

No one is saying that the LDS Church or any church for that matter cannot continue to practice their religions.  So, what is this about? 

Well, I don't think that's exactly true.  There have been people who have wanted to stop some churches (including ours) from practicing some aspects of our religion (such as having religious or behavioral requirements for some jobs, for example).  So far the courts have upheld a church's right to discriminate on specific issues and specific circumstances.  I think that Pres. Oak's point of view is that if we do not continue to work to protect that right, it could easily be legislated away.

Quote

The first amendment prohibits state religion and laws against the free exercise of religion. 

Yes, that is how it is currently interpreted by most judges and the supreme court.   However, interpretations of the constitution change over time, and even differ from one judge to another (which is why the supreme court is rarely if ever unanimous on their interpretation of the constitution.)  It's naive to believe that interpretations of the constitution on this issue cannot change as well.  I think that Pres. Oaks is just trying to be proactive on that front.

Quote

Oaks views his diminished authority in the public square as an attack on free exercise.

Can I get a reference where Pres. Oaks actually says this?  

Quote

This is not the case, clearly.  It is just an invented bogie man

Reasonable people disagree about these type of things all the time.  If you disagree, fine.   

Quote

So, what is the solution?  He wants the religious to ban together against people disagreeing with them.

Can I get a reference for where he says this?  

Quote

I think he also wants to be able to use the so called "attack" as a weapon, changing how the constitution is interpreted. 

Like I said before, the way the constitution is interpreted changes all the time.