Pres. Oaks: "Religious Rights Cannot Be Absolute"

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Equal Protection.  Due Process.  Free Exercise.  

Constitutional analysis often involves analogy and comparison.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then why are you not comparing like to like? Maybe restrictions during the Spanish Flu? Or some of the earlier more localized lockdowns?

Instead you choose another political hobby horse. Makes me doubt this is about Equal Protection, Due Process, and Free Exercise and is instead an attempt to discuss another of your favorite topics that has been discussed to death.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

 

Equal Protection.  Due Process.  Free Exercise.  

Constitutional analysis often involves analogy and comparison.

 

Then why are you not comparing like to like?

Some comparisons are, for legal purposes, "like to like."  Others are not.

For example, comparisons between A) severe lockdown restrictions for the general public and most public gatherings/events, and B) the kid glove treatment of protesters are legally relevant, even though these are not "like" each other.  

The restrictions imposed in New York appeared to have  “single[d] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” as compared to other restrictions on other gatherings.

California was likewise found to have discriminated against religious groups vis-a-vis COVID restrictions.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe restrictions during the Spanish Flu?

The Spanish Flue pandemic of 1918?  More than a century ago?  When society was vastly different?  When the law was substantially different?  When medical and technological circumstances were very different.  Comparing that to 2020 is "like to like?"

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Instead you choose another political hobby horse.

SCOTUS typically doesn't rule on "political hobby horse" issues.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Makes me doubt this is about Equal Protection, Due Process, and Free Exercise and is instead an attempt to discuss another of your favorite topics that has been discussed to death.

Well, no.  Pres. Oaks was speaking of religious liberty.  I didn't raise the topic of Elder Bednar's remarks, 2BizE did.  And you responded to him before I did.  And it's a topic that is corollary and germane to the topic of the thread (religious liberty in the context of government regulation).  

So ... what's the problem?  Is this just another iteration of your stir-the-pot provocateur schtick?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

SCOTUS typically doesn't rule on "political hobby horse" issues.

LMAO

[smac97]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LMAO

Stir-the-pot provocateur schtick it is, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Stir-the-pot provocateur schtick it is, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you don’t want to be laughed at stop saying laughably naive things.

[Chum]

I suspect Pres Oaks may be thinking of something besides pandemics.  He may be considering how growing Evangelical power is - and will be - used against groups they don't like and how we've been high on that list for ~200 years.

He may also be recalling how minority faiths becomes polite faiths and is pondering the consequences of the opposite.

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Chum said:

I suspect Pres Oaks may be thinking of something besides pandemics.  He may be considering how growing Evangelical power is - and will be - used against groups they don't like and how we've been high on that list for ~200 years.

He may also be recalling how minority faiths becomes polite faiths and is pondering the consequences of the opposite.

The current alliance of convenience will last as long as we are needed or useful. If they win more permanent power and don’t need us….yeah, it is a question of which other religions they will go after first. Jews are obvious and there are already moves in that direction. Then it is Catholics or us. My guess is Catholics first.

Hopefully they don’t win permanent political power.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

it is a question of which other religions they will go after first. Jews are obvious and there are already moves in that direction. Then it is Catholics or us. My guess is Catholics first.

Going back to the 1950s Evangelical's seem to zero in on whoever is most visible. 1950s /1960s Catholics. 1970s / 1990s LDS/JW/SDA (with harshest vitriol reserved for us). Then 9/11 & Muslims (w/ many Members joining the animosity party - inc me tho I eventually wised up).

Going forward, I think Catholicism is still too accepted to be a primary target.

Hostility toward Jews is too bizarre for me to get any read on it. I can see Christian Nationals compulsively hounding them but the reasons won't make any sense to me.

JW and SDA seem to be off everyone's radar and we're beginning to forget Muslims exist again.

I think that leaves us. After enough LGBT lives are ruined and women are properly imbued with traditional feelings of subservience, that is.

[Teancum]

On 7/21/2022 at 12:25 PM, smac97 said:

Religious rights ‘cannot be absolute,’ LDS apostle Dallin Oaks says, in call for a global movement

I really like this.  I am grateful that Pres. Oaks is bringing his legal training to bear on the interplay between government and religious liberty, and that he is publicly acknowledging that governments can legitimately circumscribe religious rights in some circumstances.

This is a really solid point.

He goes on to acknowledge that religious rights are facing real challenges right now:

Good stuff.

A complete transcript of Pres. Oaks' talk is available on the Church's website: Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide

A few more good points made by Pres. Oaks:

1. He lays out "three key events in the modern development of religious liberty":

2. He also offers "four brief suggestions" as to "ways religious institutions and believers can strengthen religious liberty worldwide":

Well said and well done, Pres. Oaks!  

Thanks,

-Smac

I pretty much agree with what he had to say.

[Ragerunner]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:49 PM, Chum said:

I suspect Pres Oaks may be thinking of something besides pandemics.  He may be considering how growing Evangelical power is - and will be - used against groups they don't like and how we've been high on that list for ~200 years.

He may also be recalling how minority faiths becomes polite faiths and is pondering the consequences of the opposite.

Thanks for this post. I have said this several times on other posts. 
The sooner members of the church understand this the better. 

[Chum]

42 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Thanks for this post. I have said this several times on other posts. 
The sooner members of the church understand this the better. 

I appreciate that. My intent isn't to create distrust of Evangelicals but to get members to stop embracing modern populist, nationalist and other animosity-driven movements, that have originated and/or are being nurtured within Evangelicalism.

Few members seem to understand how much vitriol there is for us within the Evangelical community. Nor do they understand how powerful and well organized anti-LDS entities are. Numerous protestant institutions actively teach that we are satanic, as part of their theology degrees. Courses are dedicated to that end.

Most rural parts of the US are Evangelical strongholds. I live in one and I've been lured into backrooms for aggressive deprogramming, been treated with overt disdain by pastors (for just silently being there), had friends end our friendship at their pastor's urging (zero proselytizing by us + 100% support of their faith), had family relationships degraded due to years of anti-LDS instruction. Those are examples off the top of my head.

What I'd want members to know is that changing the target doesn't change the mindset. Directed at us or directed against some unliked group, the mindset is equally poisonous.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

My intent isn't to create distrust of Evangelicals but to get members to stop embracing modern populist, nationalist and other animosity-driven movements, that have originated and/or are being nurtured within Evangelicalism.

Navidad isn’t here, so for him…

It is probably more accurate to call them Fundamentalists.  According to Navidad, there is a very significant split in both culture and doctrine between the original Evangelicals and the more recently developed Fundamentalists.

For me:  I agree with Navidad the Evangelical community includes many not so nationalist or “animosity-driven” groups, but there is also the issue these nationalist, etc groups identify as Evangelical and split off from the main Evangelical group, so it makes the most sense to me to identify them as Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Navidad isn’t here, so for him…

It is probably more accurate to call them Fundamentalists.  According to Navidad, there is a very significant split in both culture and doctrine between the original Evangelicals and the more recently developed Fundamentalists.

I agree he's pretty authoritative but I don't fully agree with him on this. At least every protestant denomination I know is super comfortable with anti-LDS rhetoric and with facilitating it's spread. Except maybe Anglicans because I don't know any and Methodists have always been decent. But Lutherans, Pentecostal, Reformed and Baptists are yep yep yep and yep.

Regarding Lutherans, some of the harshest vibes I've even felt came from Lutherans but I really have no idea what's behind it. Maybe those particular adherents had bad experiences.

It's possible that fundamentalists occupy space within all those faiths and that's what Navidad sees. Even if that is so, animosity still grows under their roofs and there's never been any push against it. 

All this assumes I'm still up to date and that there haven't been radical reforms in the last decade. I'm mostly going by the previous 1-2 centuries.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Chum said:

I appreciate that. My intent isn't to create distrust of Evangelicals but to get members to stop embracing modern populist, nationalist and other animosity-driven movements, that have originated and/or are being nurtured within Evangelicalism.

Few members seem to understand how much vitriol there is for us within the Evangelical community. Nor do they understand how powerful and well organized anti-LDS entities are. Numerous protestant institutions actively teach that we are satanic, as part of their theology degrees. Courses are dedicated to that end.

Most rural parts of the US are Evangelical strongholds. I live in one and I've been lured into backrooms for aggressive deprogramming, been treated with overt disdain by pastors (for just silently being there), had friends end our friendship at their pastor's urging (zero proselytizing by us + 100% support of their faith), had family relationships degraded due to years of anti-LDS instruction. Those are examples off the top of my head.

What I'd want members to know is that changing the target doesn't change the mindset. Directed at us or directed against some unliked group, the mindset is equally poisonous.

There are now political leaders that aren’t even hiding their Christian nationalism anymore. These people have lost it.

 

[Chum]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are now political leaders that aren’t even hiding their Christian nationalism anymore. These people have lost it.

I am sad when members I know glom onto nationalist leaders and their campaigns to generate disdain for people they don't like. Presidents Nelson, Ballard and Anderson have directly spoken against nationalism.

I might have dismissed it a home-brewed poison if nationalist politicians didn't express gratitude for all the support they find in Utah. I once imagined Saints as a unified exception to hostility - so their widespread support is distressing to me. We've been taught better. We're supposed to be a bulwark against institutionalized animosity but many of us are living and celebrating it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I am sad when members I know glom onto nationalist leaders and their campaigns to generate disdain for people they don't like. Presidents Nelson, Ballard and Anderson have directly spoken against nationalism.

Could you provide some references?  I'd like to read their remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some references?  I'd like to read their remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

My active LDS cousin is constantly posting stuff on Facebook about how this is a Christian nation and how nonwhite immigrants are destroying our culture and heritage. She likes to quote Eric Moutsos a lot. I'm not going to give references because it's very ugly stuff. I'm assuming you can Google Mr. Moutsos and his ilk. Feel free to disregard my post as not meeting an informal CFR, but I refuse to repeat racist crap.

[Tacenda]

 

Changed my mind.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My active LDS cousin is constantly posting stuff on Facebook about how this is a Christian nation and how nonwhite immigrants are destroying our culture and heritage. She likes to quote Eric Moutsos a lot. I'm not going to give references because it's very ugly stuff. I'm assuming you can Google Mr. Moutsos and his ilk. Feel free to disregard my post as not meeting an informal CFR, but I refuse to repeat racist crap.

Moutsos is the former SL police officer, correct?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know all about him. Darn, too bad he didn't fade away.

Had to get a new line of work if the guy I am thinking of.

Lol, the Trib was making it clear the poll was likely pushed by Moutsos himself posting about it and it wasn’t them naming him Utahn of the Year.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/12/25/salt-lake-tribune-readers/

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Moutsos is the former SL police officer, correct?

Right. Nasty piece of work.

[jkwilliams]

Don't forget that white supremacist "Meaningful Woman/ Nordic Sunrise" blogger from Provo. Turns my stomach.

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some references?  I'd like to read their remarks.

Pres Ballard addressed nationalism in a 2017 talk. I recall Pres Anderson echoing the sentiments during the same conference.

I'll have to dig up Pres Nelson's remarks. I believe I first heard them referenced in a Church email.

I have to do a service call but I'll look when I get a moment.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Pres Ballard addressed nationalism in a 2017 talk. I recall Pres Anderson echoing the sentiments during the same conference.

I'll have to dig up Pres Nelson's remarks. I believe I first heard them referenced in a Church email.

I have to do a service call but I'll look when I get a moment.

Feeling a little sheepish. I thought smac was asking for examples of Mormon White Christian fanatics. 

[Chum]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some references?  I'd like to read their remarks.

To clarify the conversation, does your interest in nationalism extend to defending or elevating it?