Most coverage of Elder Oaks’ talk on Religious Freedom has centered on one sentence that analogized the intimidation of those trying to exercise their civil rights in the 1960’s with those of today.
Speaking of the backlash following the passage of Proposition 8, Elder Oaks said [emphasis added]:
These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.
That last sentence generated the following lede from the Associated Press which most other news outlets used in their coverage.
The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday.
Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, outrageous outrage ensued that Elder Oaks would dare invoke the civil rights struggle to make his argument.
“Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops’ lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths?” asked University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell. “By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the ’60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two” . . .
Jeanetta Williams, president of the NAACP’s Salt Lake branch, said there is “no comparison.”
“I don’t see where the LDS Church has been denied any of their rights,” she said. “What the gay and lesbian communities are fighting for, that is a civil-rights issue.”
These two quote illustrate the exact point of view I believe Elder Oaks is trying to overcome. People of faith are just as entitled to participate democratically as anyone else. Although “civil rights” is often considered synonymous with racial equality it’s much more than that, and includes one of the original rights preserved in the First Amendment: religious freedom.
As you can see in the above interview, Elder Oaks is careful not to equate the suffering experienced by black people in the South to modern-day Mormons. Instead, the intended “effect” behind the intimidation of both was similar in purpose. In both instances, opponents sought to discourage or punish those exercising their rights, regardless of race or religion. The intimidation of both were similar in purpose, not in the form.
I believe Elder Oaks used the analogy to call upon the sympathies of those who may not have may not have been so concerned about the aftereffects of Proposition 8 but recall the great injustices of the 1960’s. That shouldn’t be “controversial.”
Interestingly, Elder Oaks prefaced his remarks:
In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do not intend to speak. That complicates my task, so I ask your understanding as I speak to a very diverse audience.
Elder Oaks was right to be concerned that his words might not be taken as intended.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: Dallin H. Oaks, race, religious freedom
-
Actually, your analogy to the civil rights movement is flawed by two glaring inconsistencies. You’re quite blinded by your radical, theocratic faith, so let me see if I can help you out a bit, here.
Mormons like to wail righteously that they are being discriminated against by those who disagree with their political activism. Please get this straight. You are a member of a religious organization that has a political agenda and actively tries to influence public policy. So when you do that, you are no longer protected by the “bigotry” card. You aren’t a place of worship any more, you’re a political advocacy organization. Therefore when you take the criticism that you so rightly deserve, you can’t say that you are only trying to exercise your freedom of religion. Your freedom of religion and your freedom to practice political activism are not the same thing, regardless of some elder’s opinion or even if it came from “the Presidency” (OMG).
Secondly, your political activism frequently supports causes that deny the civil rights of other human beings. You do not have the “civil right” to do that. Nobody does. So do everyone a favor. If you want to build your state-within-a-state theocratic patriarchal religion, go ahead. Perhaps someday people like Janis Hutchison will be heard and the political agenda of the church will be exposed and dismembered. That’s what SHOULD happen. I think you millennialists know what I’m talking about. No church ought to be working to replace the political system of a nation that was founded on separation of church and state.
As an aside, you have a Cleon Skousen radical on TV and radio every day that frequently professes his Mormon conversion as the turning point in his life. Of course, I’m talking about Glenn Beck, who is giving the Church a black eye. I used to be ambivalent to the Mormon church and this guy has caused me to investigate it and what I’m seeing is NOT favorable.
Somebody help me out here. Why did the Church pass on making some kind of gesture distancing Mormons from Glenn Beck? Not everyone in your church is a right wingnut anti-government conspiracy theorist.
Or are you?
-Wexler
-
It still is a poor example. What kind of intimidation did blacks and their supporters have in the 1960s? People were actually killed, David! No Mormon has been killed for supporting Prop 8. When you compare the voter intimidation of the 1960s to last year’s Prop 8, there just is no comparison. I’m sorry, but in this matter, Elder Oaks is wrong.
Secondly, the whole support of Prop 8 is premised on the notion that somehow gay marriage in California was a threat to the Church’s “religious freedom” in the state. This notion is based on assumptions and not on factual basis. The Church was not going to be forced to marry gays. Furthermore, the state of California had and continues to have multiple protections against incursions on the practice of free religion. If the actual threat against the Church’s freedom is illusory, and then you compare that illusory threat to the real threat faced by blacks in their drive for civil rights, you do blacks a greater disservice for their efforts.
Maybe church leaders need to speak more and more about their rationale for their actions vis a vis gay marriage, because to this point, I just don’t see how it threatens our religious freedom. (a vague term to begin with—what exactly is religious freedom?)
-
Wexler,
First, I am happy to reassure you that I am not as obsessed with Beck as you are. In fact, he’s not cup of tea at all. I don’t see why the Church has to answer for him and why he’s even relevant. So please leave him out this discussion.
Second, I don’t believe anyone’s playing the “bigotry card” or at least as it it’s commonly used today. But it’s entirely reasonable to point out that people of faith are being harassed for merely exercising their rights. Because Prop 8 passed last year, there has a wide-scale effort to punish those who supported it to the point of discouraging further civic participation as the SSM debate goes on. That’s not right and needs to exposed.
Dan,
Of course, you’re right that there’s no comparison with the kind of intimidation between the 1960’s blacks and Mormons today. But Oaks wasn’t comparing the manners of intimidation. Please watch the above video if you haven’t.
I don’t see how his one sentence denigrates the civil-rights struggle of the 1960’s. Isn’t religious freedom a a civil right too worthy of protecting?
-
David,
In the video Elder Oaks even admits that the seriousness of the intimidation against Mormons in Prop 8 doesn’t reach the same level experienced by blacks in the 60s. Why make that comparison if this is the case. That was a vicious period in our history, David. You should only make that comparison if there truly is comparison.
“Isn’t religious freedom a a civil right too worthy of protecting?”
But religious freedom was not at stake in Prop 8. Prop 8 was not about religious freedom. It never was. Religions were not at risk of losing religious freedom (again, too loosely and vaguely defined) through gays being allowed to legally wed in the state of California. Religions would not be forced to perform marriages against their religions. This issue right here was terribly defined. What were the threats against “religious freedom?” What are religious freedoms? What freedoms of religion are allowed under the Constitution? Let’s say a religion thinks it is okay to make blacks slaves, if the country then makes slavery illegal, is that a threat against that religion’s right to practice its religion freely? Let’s say a religion thinks it is okay to have human sacrifices, if the country then makes human sacrifice illegal, is that a threat against that religion’s right to practice its religion freely?
-
David,
Let me ask you this way, what are the limits to “religious freedom” in this country? Or any country for that matter. What are religions not allowed to do or say or believe?
-
Elder Oaks seems to have forgotten that the Church was on the wrong side of the fence in the 1960’s civil rights movement. In fact, some in church leadership during the 1960s argued that the civil rights movement was a direct threat to religous freedom. Elder Oak’s analogy is ironic on so many levels.
-
Dan, gay-rights activists make those comparisons *all the time*. Where is your condemnation of those who say that their experience in not being able to get married (but still being able to cohabit, adopt, etc) is the equivalent of being killed, mutilated, attacked with fire hoses, etc.?
Why do you, as a Mormon, attack A PROPHET for daring to predict a future chain of events, and then demand we unquestioningly accept your own view of what will *not* happen?
-
Dan,
I don’t think the upper limits of religious freedom are at issue. Who’s advocating some theocracy?
But there should be a widely recognized baseline freedom that people can exercise their democratic rights, even if they’re religiously informed. Just as those whose political opinions are based in beliefs in radical feminism or global warming, religious-based political beliefs should just be as valid in our society and not be punished.
I think we are going to have to disagree on the “comparison.” There is no comparison between what was suffered as I (and Oaks) have said.
As to how religious freedom has been threatened, I hope to write a new post soon.
-
Jim,
No problem. Anyone who makes the comparison to the civil rights, in terms of intimidation or violence when it is just not there, is just plain wrong. There. Both sides now do not have an excuse.
Why do you, as a Mormon, attack A PROPHET for daring to predict a future chain of events, and then demand we unquestioningly accept your own view of what will *not* happen?
I don’t ‘attack’ a prophet. And he doesn’t predict a future chain of events. And I don’t demand you unquestioningly accept my own view of what will *not* happen. Your analysis of my comments seem way off to me.
Clearly within Mormonism we still need to clarify exactly how much we are allowed to think for ourselves without the threat of being called apostate.
-
David,
I don’t think the upper limits of religious freedom are at issue. Who’s advocating some theocracy?
When you (and apparently Elder Oaks) claim this is about “religious freedom” then it needs to be made clear exactly what religious freedoms are at stake here. From how I see this whole thing playing out, my freedom to practice my religion is not even close to being threatened. So… please, help clarify for me what freedoms are at threat here.
But there should be a widely recognized baseline freedom that people can exercise their democratic rights, even if they’re religiously informed. Just as those whose political opinions are based in beliefs in radical feminism or global warming, religious-based political beliefs should just be as valid in our society and not be punished.
I think everyone already agrees with this. What Mormons cannot come to expect is that on certain issues voters are going to vote dispassionately or emotionlessly. I mean, com’on, we’re not talking about a vote on whether or not to make a certain section of wilderness a national park! People’s lives are fundamentally altered by votes like this. Clearly there will be passions. It’s, ironically, not compassionate to ask, as Elder Oaks asks, that they be allowed to vote on this issue without feeling anger toward Mormons who vote against them. Imagine if Americans decided that temple marriages were against the principles of marriage and said, “look, we’re going to ask you to dispassionately vote on this issue, and please be nice to those who vote against you.”
-
David:
Thanks for this discussion. While I believe that Elder Oaks’ civil-rights analogy is without basis, I think his speech will make for more interesting discussions on marriage equality, Proposition 8, the Mormon Church and religious freedom (such as is occuring on this blog).
Frankly, I am surprised that a top leader with the Mormon Church would want to reignite this issue again and turn the spotlight on the Mormon Church’s support of Proposition 8 and its apparent efforts (through the support of other groups such as the National Organization for Marriage) to take away marriage equality in such states as Maine and Washington state.
-
Dan –
I appreciate your comment re analogies to the civil rights movement being wrong all around.
I did not call you an “apostate”; I was merely pointing out the difference in the charity you would have readers show Elder Oaks’ comments, and the charity you would have readers show to your own.
Elder Oaks was pretty obviously talking about what he felt would have happened had the Church not mobilized for Prop 8; and your allegation that “he doesn’t predict a future chain of events” seems pretty feeble in that light.
If you want to tell me that Elder Oaks is wrong, I’d like to see a more substantial basis than “well, my ideological compatriots haven’t tried to run that particular play (yet) (even though they’re talking about it INCESSANTLY in various online fora)”.
-
David,
Thank your for your answer and this article/thread.
However, I’m not sure you understood my comment. If the Mormon Church officially advocates and gives money to a political cause, they cease to be simply a church and have become political activists. This is not exercising their political rights because a church has no political rights, unless they are willing to forego their tax exemption and reclassify themselves as something else.
That’s what the courts have ruled, that’s what the First Amendment establishment clause means.
If you disagree with that, so be it, but I believe you’re wrong.
Regarding Beck, I’m happy that you’re not obsessed with him. However, he is an outspoken church member who makes an issue of his conversion to Mormonism. So whether you follow him or not, he’s following YOU. I’m just pointing it out to be helpful in case you think you’d like to assist in cleaning up another festering PR mess for the Church.
Best,
Wexler -
Isn’t the operative phrase here “voter-intimidation” of blacks during that period? I read the entire speech and it is clear to me that Elder Oaks was very careful with his use of words and measured in his rhetoric. The thrust of his message seems to be about voter intimidation on political issues. We cannot ignore that particular emphasis.
My recollection of history is a little fuzzy on this point, but wasn’t there a case of Black Panthers intimidating voters at polling places back in the 60’s. Perhaps someone here can illuminate us what Oaks was specifically referring to.
-
Jim,
Are you saying that Elder Oaks was saying that if members didn’t mobilize for Prop 8, they would have suffered as blacks suffered in the 60s? Is that your interpretation? The church’s mobilization for Prop 8 wasn’t some quick action based on the ruling of the Supreme Court. Internal church memos show that our church leaders had been planning for a referendum for 11 years prior to the Prop 8 vote last year.
I’d actually love to see a realistic look at what the future holds (who wouldn’t). Let’s talk “slippery slope.” Give gays rights to marriage now, what comes next? What is the next logical step? Is there anything? Seeing what rights are protected under the Constitution, and comparing with other nations that already provide legal marriage to gays, what are the consequences to religions? Because, from my vantage point, I just don’t see how our freedom of religion is threatened by gay marriage.
As for “ideological compatriots,” I don’t side with gay rights advocates. I’ve been consistently in the middle on this, not really caring one way or the other. But one thing I do care about is whether or not accurate arguments are made on both fronts. On Daily Kos, I brought up the fact that their arguments against the church don’t have that much basis in fact. Sad to say, the responses are akin to the responses I get from hardcore conservatives when I say essentially the same thing about the church’s positions. I’m either a bigot or an apostate.
-
Dan, I think Elder Oaks spoke for himself quite adequately. I don’t see how the fact that the Church has conducted a protracted campaign on this issue makes any difference at all.
If you want to talk “slippery slope”, let’s go with that for a minute. What was the next logical step after “Loving”, Dan? What happened to contemporary conservatives who argued back then that this precedent might eventually used to justify gay marriage?
Your claim that religious rights will perpetually remain in constitutional stasis even as gay rights–at the instigation of progressives–are clearly in a state of constitutional flux, rings hollow to me.
I don’t look to the constitution to tell me what’s going to happen. Not because I don’t want to, but because history shows me that I can’t. So, what options do I have left?
The Church leadership, and the off-the-cuff statements of the gay rights activists themselves. Neither are reassuring.
To be sure, we don’t know the contours of the slippery slope. But to say that it doesn’t exist is, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of your reader.
-
@WWWexler
If the Mormon Church officially advocates and gives money to a political cause, they cease to be simply a church and have become political activists. This is not exercising their political rights because a church has no political rights, unless they are willing to forego their tax exemption and reclassify themselves as something else.
Sorry Wexler. You are propagating a common oversimplifcation. The LDS church did not break any law. According to the IRS code Religious organizations and Non-Profits ARE allowed to advocate publicly and spend money to advocate for political issues. They are only barred from campaigning for candidates.
“A church can lobby for or against legislation, the passage of a referendum, or the confirmation of a political appointee, and can spend no more than an “insubstantial” amount of its budget for such lobbying. ” – Seasongood v. Comm’r, 227 F.2d 907, 912 (6th Cir. 1955).
The IRS does not have any clear guidelines on what constitutes a “substantial” amount of its budget, and will act only on a case by case basis.
Looking at the cost of Temple and Chapel Building, Missionary Effort, Humanitarian Aide, Curriculum Development, IT, etc and how much the Church makes through for profit ventures in addition to Tithing, and how much volunteer time it donates to other causes, it is debatable, to say the least, whether the church’s lobbying efforts in favor of Proposition 8 were “substantial” in a way that would make it lose its tax-exempt status.
-
Jim,
Are you talking about Loving v Virginia? The ruling against a ban on interracial marriages? You do realize that our current president is a product of an interracial marriage, and it seems to be just fine for this nation. You’re not making a good argument that the slippery slope is a “threat” to our religious freedom. In what way did Loving reduce our religious freedom? Can the church deny members of its faith who want an interracial marriage their temple sealing? Of course they can. Can the church deny members of its faith who want a civil interracial marriage their marriage? I don’t know about that. It seems that the church went along with interracial marriage, though I confess I really don’t know the history of the church in relation to interracial marriage, except that Harold B. Lee was apparently incensed that Negros were allowed at BYU to possibly get close to his fair daughters.
Religious rights are not static, mostly because we’re still working at properly defining them. Heck, there was a time when Mormons thought polygamy was a religious right. Nowadays our church leaders say it is a sin to have more than one wife. It seems our religious freedom was not really taken away when the law was changed to ban polygamy. We’re still free to praise God as we see fit.
So, since Loving, which was 40 years ago, what religious freedoms were lost as a result of Loving? Maybe this will be a good indication of the religious freedoms we might possibly lose over the next 40 years if we allow gay marriage.
-
@J. Max Wilson, who said
“Looking at the cost of Temple and Chapel Building, Missionary Effort, Humanitarian Aide, Curriculum Development, IT, etc and how much the Church makes through for profit ventures in addition to Tithing, and how much volunteer time it donates to other causes, it is debatable, to say the least, whether the church’s lobbying efforts in favor of Proposition 8 were “substantial” in a way that would make it lose its tax-exempt status.”
You seem to be up on this topic, bully for you.
To me, $180 thousand seems more than “insubstantial”. “Insubstantial” would be $180. Further, the action against Prop 8 included more activity than “lobbying”. According to an article in the Sacramento Bee, the Church spent $96k in compensated staff time. What did this entail? Who were they lobbying? And what about the $20 million that individual Mormons contributed to passing Prop 8?
It’s clear to me that Mormons and the Mormon Church were involved in a political campaign to pass Prop 8 that is more than “insubstantial”. Don’t you agree?
-Wexler
-
And what about the $20 million that individual Mormons contributed to passing Prop 8?
This line in the context of your comment, Wexler, demonstrates precisely the very point of Elder Oaks’ talk.
Why should any individual’s religious affiliation matter when it comes to a political donation? You seem to be saying that Individual Mormon Jones either had no right to make a political donation *because* he was a Mormon, or that Individual Mormon Jones has forfeited his right to vote *because* he is a Mormon who donated to a Prop 8 fund, or something along those lines.
I’ll go one step further than J. Max: You are not only guilty of oversimplification, you are guilty of calling for the suspension of a Mormon’s political rights.
-
@WWWexler
Like I said, the IRS does not have clear guidelines as to what constitutes “substantial” and they approach it on a case-by-case basis. Though I am certainly not an expert, from what I gather from the statement I quoted and from other cases I’ve looked at, “substantial” is a measure relative to the budget of the church itself (including time resources as well as money).
While $180K is certainly a substantial amount of money for an individual like you or me, we both know that for large organizations, $180K is the price for two full-time employees for a year. Just the IT department of the church consumes much, much more of their annual budget than that, and the church employs many many more people than that, as well as spending money on all the other projects the church has that I already mentioned.
It is likely that $180K toward Prop 8 is comparable to the amount the Church paid 2 computer programmers to produce the maps feature of the lds.org website. When you compare that feature to the vast virtual and physical resources maintained and expanded by the church in just one year, $180K can hardly be considered “substantial.”
Add another $96K and it is still a relatively tiny amount.
Like Ardis says, the $20 Million donated by individual Mormons is an aspect of their individual, civil right to support whatever ballot measures they believe are correct. Their contributions were not obligatory and were not part of the Church’s budget at all. They do not figure into the calculation of the church organization’s contribution any more than the individual contributions from members of the teacher’s association toward defeating prop 8 count as a contribution by the association itself.
“Substantial” is a measure of organizational contribution in comparison to its other expenditures, and not a measure of the effect of those contributions had on the success of their aim. If the involvement of individual Mormons in aggregate resulted in a “substantial” influence on the success of Prop 8, that is nothing to do with the Tax Exempt status of the church organization itself.
-
“”Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops’ lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths?”"
This is ridiculous. Elder oaks said that what was happening was VOTER INTIMIDATION. So, if church buildings are vandalized, gays are shouting down newly-weds in temple square, and people are otherwise harassed and intimidated for supporting prop-8, well that’s acceptable. It’s only when gays start burning crosses and blowing up girls in sunday school that Elder Oaks can call out voter intimidation for what it is? Come on…
His argument is perfectly valid. Voter intimidation is what it is. The gay community wants the church to back off and stay out of the ballot box.
“I don’t see where the LDS Church has been denied any of their rights,” she said. “What the gay and lesbian communities are fighting for, that is a civil-rights issue.”
I think Dan and some other don’t see the point either.
The point is that freedom to EXERCISE religion includes voting, debating and speaking out on matters of opinion related to issues such as marriage and gay relationships. To ask members of a church to go and help people, but stay out of the public square with your ideas is a denial of rights to that group (think first amendment) by suppression.
I understand the civil rights as an extension of the 14th amendment argument. Nevertheless, Elder oaks is saying that the sovereignty of our laws comes ultimately from the people, not from the government instituted from it. A referendum is an ultimate example of democracy.
-
Joseph,
You talk about voter intimidation? What about all the signs of gays being condemned by God. That they will go to hell for who they are. Both sides have been quite guilty of attempts at intimidating the other.
What point don’t I see, though, Joseph? Have I said anywhere that the church ought not to organize its members to political action? My sole critiques here are on the comparison between the persecution of Mormons in Prop 8 and the civil rights movement, and the question of what is truly a “threat” to religious liberty. Please, show me where I’ve said, or even sided with those who think, that the church ought not to participate politically.
-
It is interesting that Elder Oaks elected to invoke the civil rights struggle of African Americans in the South as he tried to draw parallels with Mormons and Proposition 8.
Elder Oaks is apparently not a student of history. One of the successful tools used in the civil rights struggle was boycotts of those individuals and organizations that supported discrimination — including the Birmingham Bus Boycott of 1955 and 1956 that made Rosa Parks a household name.
Yet, in the video clip of Elder Oaks included above, Elder Oaks condemned the boycotts of contributors to Proposition 8 — even though that tool was effectively used to help gain civil rights for the African Americans in the South.
-
I had to get to real life for a bit but thanks for all the comments. Particularly, I appreciate J. Max, Ardis, and Joseph for making some good points better than I could.
My understanding is that churches risk losing tax exemption if they become partisan (at least in theory) but churches are generally entitled to civic participation like anyone else. Yes, the First Amendment prohibits an establishment of an official religion but also protects churches and its followers to practice their beliefs as they wish.
Much of the furor over Prop 8 and since has been made of the Church’s participation as if it shouldn’t have been involved at all. As long as they don’t endorse specific candidates, there’s no problem with churches getting politically involved.
From what I can tell, much of the global warming movement is as faith-based as any religion but why do environmental activists get a pass and religious ones don’t? Pres. Obama enlists churches to support his health care proposals. Should those churches be denounced as well?
Opponents have been trying to shame the Church and its members for even getting involved. If you disagree with them fine, but they still have a right to join the debate.
-
What you have done is deftly switched between the legality of the Mormon Church’s participation in Prop 8 and the plain fact that the Mormon church members worked together as a political force to cough up $20 million to pass Prop 8.
Whether or not the Church’s “official” contribution is “insubstantial” is a matter to be decided in a court if anywhere. Whether or not the Mormon Church is a political activist organization, however, is obvious.
It is. As a church, the individuals colluded together to pass Prop 8, which deprives California LGBTs the same human rights that Mormons enjoy, which is the right to choose your spouse.
So. I have no further comments on this thread, I believe I have made my point regarding Mormon political activism, and please refrain from playing the “religious bigotry” card when somebody calls you out for your own gender bigotry.
-Wexler
-
“Why should any individual’s religious affiliation matter when it comes to a political donation?”
If the only reason thousands of people are suddenly giving hundreds or thousands of dollars to a political campaign is because they all share the same religious affiliation and they are following the edicts of their religious leaders by giving their money and time, religious affiliation matters.
Religious affiliation is only relevant when a member’s ecclesiastical leaders spend significant amounts of time encouraging members to donate time and money to a political cause, including suggesting specific donation amounts and using the argument that donating to a political cause is the equivalent of keeping a commandment issued by a prophet. It is particularly and especially important when the religious institution itself does all within its power to distance itself as an organization from the political battle, including telling its members that, when they go out canvassing neighborhoods they should specifically avoid mentioning their religious affiliations and they should specifically avoid wearing clothes that could suggest they are missionaries.
It is further specifically important when you look at voter registration statistics in specific wards and less than half of the eligible members are registered to vote, yet, because of the messages taught and heard only from church pulpits, they become political activists in a cause for the very first time and register to vote in accordance with the beliefs espoused by their religious leaders.
It is important that the electorate knows the difference between true grassroots campaigns and orchestrated “grassroots” campaigns. It is important w/r/t the LDS church because it has a history of similar campaign tactics.
If a church – any church – acts as a fundraising arm for a political campaign, the voters have a right to know about it. And when the voters find out that a church has become a political fundraiser, they have the same free speech and assembly rights the church members do. Violence is never condonable, and there are laws to address these issues.
-
And for the record, I have no problem with churches being involved in politicking, so long as they are up front about it and so long as the electorate is aware that politicking is going on. And so long as the churches doing the politicking don’t go around crying “foul” after speech on the public square gets a little rough.
-
“You talk about voter intimidation? What about all the signs of gays being condemned by God. That they will go to hell for who they are. Both sides have been quite guilty of attempts at intimidating the other.”
So teaching that gay sex is wrong prevents gays from voting? Huh??
-
Wexler,
Your argument that the LDS church involvement was illegal has no basis in law or legal theory. It is a fear tactic. Political activism on the part of churches goes as far back as the Revolution, the abolitionist movement, the temperance movement, the anti-war movement during WWI, and the civil rights movement.
It is very difficult as a liberal Mormon to have anti-Mormons like you turning these debates into attacks on the Church. (Feel free to spare us the “wo is me, I will just leave if my perspective is not welcome here” routine).
-
This feeling of solidarity with J. Max is a really strange feeling.
-
If the only reason thousands of people are suddenly giving hundreds or thousands of dollars to a political campaign is because they all share the same religious affiliation and they are following the edicts of their religious leaders by giving their money and time, religious affiliation matters.
So is it always collusion if an organization urges its members to support/oppose an issue? And only “true grassroots” movements untainted by any organizational prompting are acceptable in politics?
Do you wax this indignant when the organization is a union urging its members to support/oppose a cause? or when an organization with a common gender, racial, professional, academic, or other trait urges its members to support/oppose a cause?
Or do you reserve your novel electoral theories for religious folks? Remind me — what is the justification for that again?
-
Oh, come on Chris. I think you have me confused with KMichaels.
BTW, the reason I came back to comment here was to mention that Keith Olbermann had Brother Oaks as one of his “Worst Persons In The World” tonight for comparing the movement to deprive LGBTs of their civil rights to the actual civil rights movement.
Why should Mormons from all over the nation (or maybe even world?) have the right to tell people in California how to live their lives? I don’t get it. What gives Mormons that right? Divine power?
The contention that Mormons did not act as a monolithic organization to pass Prop 8 is ludicrous. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. The facts are clear on this. But please note what I am saying and what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that everyone in the Mormon Church participated in this political action. However, when your organization and a large number of your membership takes part in undermining a human right, then you’re going to take flak for it. I’m sorry if liberal Mormons get tarred with the same brush. Truth be told, it’s the same kind of brush that the Mormons who sent the $20 million used to tar the LGBT community.
I need to reiterate that a group that actively works to deny a human right to another group should not be confusing itself with a religious organization. Everybody has the same rights to work within the political process, but when you do that, you are political activists. By definition. And therefore the organization itself is fair game for scrutiny and criticism based on WHAT IT DOES without the charge of “religious bigotry”.
As a couple of posters here know, I have a particular interest in one of the church’s members who has a very high public profile. I know very well that he doesn’t represent the LDS on an official basis, but he continually makes an issue of his conversion to the faith. Speeches, media appearances, books, CDs, whatever. And MONEY. Lots of money, estimated total salary of $18 million a year.
So, as I have posted elsewhere, you may not follow Glenn Beck, but he follows you. He is the public face of the LDS. Glenn Beck and Prop 8. Oh, and a semi-cryptic impression of religious mysticism that includes a quasi-governmental organization that us “Gentiles” don’t understand or trust. And, I guess, a history of having some beliefs that were strongly identified with the faith that you all repudiate now (such as polygamy). Sorry, I’m just explaining here, not dumping. Glenn Beck and Prop 8 are a PR problem, IMO.
I’m not trying to offend anyone. However, I believe that everything I have posted is factual or fact-based opinion.
-Wexler
-
For someone who is a lawyer, Elder Oaks is big on wild accusations and short on evidence. Can anyone name a single illegal act (other than taping signs to the fence of the LA Temple–misdemeanor vandalism) done by any homosexual person anywhere against Mormon persons or property? Any names? Cases, proven or pending? Mormons assume that because their view is rooted in their religion, that they are immune from criticism. While invoking ‘persecution’ makes for dramatic sermons, reality requires evidence and proof, as Elder Oaks has apparently forgotten. Further invoking the plight of African Americans and making comparisons to opposition to Mormons for their support of Prop 8 is ridiculous on its face and infuriating given the Mormons 150 year history of racism against Africans and their total opposition to the cause of civil rights for blacks during the 60’s. Do Mormons seriously think they can now posit themselves as champions of black civil rights? Please. I can think of nothing more disingenuous or hypocritical. Mormons always have to have enemies–now blacks not so much–but it is the ‘homosexuals, feminists and intellectuals’ that are going to ruin everything. Would love to know of a single proven factual case of any ‘violent’ or ‘illegal’ activity against Mormons. I will go to bed knowing that in the morning I will only be greeted not with facts but with accusations of ‘apostate’ ‘immoral lifestyle’ ‘enemy of God’ etc etc etc.
-
All I’m seeing here (and elsewhere) is a bunch of people missing the forest for the trees. *sigh*
-
Dana Please enlighten.
-
Well, ExMoHoMoDon:
Just as you predicted, not one single proven factual case of any ‘violent’ or ‘illegal’ activity against Mormons relating to the Proposition 8 matter…The silence is telling..
-
You get no response, ExMoHo, because you’re demanding proof of something Elder Oaks did not say.
He did not claim that specific actions targeting Mormons were as vicious, as widespread, or as deadly as the murderous actions targeting blacks. He did mention some lesser actions, then — and this is the point, regardless of the circus sideshow you-all are raising to distract from that point — said that both sets of actions shared a common purpose: to intimidate citizens from exercising their rights as citizens.
The entire speech that provides context for the sole line you object to is not based entirely on the recent past, but points to the future. Elder Oaks is clearly less concerned about the relatively minor, relatively local acts against religious citizens that have occured in the last year than he is about the future. He sees the recent past as prelude to a future of increasing efforts to marginalize the political participation of people of faith.
Can you offer any reliable guarantee that the intimidation is over and that it will not grow and get worse? No?
-
Ardis,
Can you offer any reliable guarantee that the intimidation is over and that it will not grow and get worse? No?
Of course no one should think that a vote on such an emotional, raw, and passionate issue as this will come without people’s anger boiling over to act beyond civilized means. Religionists feel there is a slippery slope (begun with Loving v Virginia, going through all those anti-discrimination laws, and finally gay marriage and beyond) that will somehow limit their freedom to worship their God as they see fit. Tying gay marriage as a mortal threat to their existence ensures that emotions will get the best of them. Likewise with gay rights supporters, they see the inverse slippery slope. Losing gay marriage will empower religionists to press against those other gay rights like anti-discrimination laws. And gays will truly become a second class citizenship. Heck, maybe someday they will not get to vote, as voting may be tied to the worthiness of individuals based by a particular religion. Slippery slopes all around, Ardis. Both sides tie this conflict as a threat to their mortal existence. It’s a shame really because life does go on.
Back in the 1800s the church was nearly extinguished from existence in America due to polygamy. A simple change of heart and our religion was allowed to continue existing as a legal entity within this country. Were our freedoms to worship reduced by anti-polygamy laws? Was polygamy outside the bounds that this country set up as a standard of human rights? Elder Oaks mentioned that there are obviously certain acts religions cannot do (say human sacrifice, or even animal sacrifice) within the confines of “religious freedom.”
I really wish to hear from our prophets and Apostles exactly how gay marriage is a threat to us freely worshiping God.
-
Ardis:
You stated: “Can you offer any reliable guarantee that the intimidation is over and that it will not grow and get worse?”
Your question incorrectly assumes as correct the fact that intimidation occurred. What actually occurred was the exercise of freedom of speech by those protesting against the enactment of Propositon 8. The First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, but also freedom of speech.
Your freedom of religions under the First Amendment does not trump the freedom of speech of those individuals who wish to lawfully protest supporters of Proposition 8 and other discriminatory measures that has been supported by certain religious groups, including the LDS Church. The mere fact that you are a person of faith and/or belong to a church does not somehow squelch the freedom of speech rights of others.
-
stephen:
You are quite right to assert that Church critics have a right to voice their views and we can’t stop that. And of course, vice versa.
I don’t think the point is the legality of the intimidation. Unlike in the South, I don’t believe most of the intimidation has strictly been illegal except for a few isolated incidents.
But the overall result and intent clearly seems to have been to punish those who voted a certain way and making life so miserable again that as the debate continues, they won’t do so again. Perhaps not illegal, but in effect very damaging to people’s rights.
Perusing Google News searches of Mormon every day you can see that activists are not dropping the issue and continue to view the Church as a major opponent and target.
SSM activists may not be doing anything strictly illegal but their clear intent is to make sure everyone learn one lesson from Prop 8: anyone who wants to repeat the Prop 8 battle defending traditional marriage is going to suffer.
Dan –
The slippery slope is clearly going in the other direction. Ten years ago activists were insisting they only wanted civil unions and SSM was unthinkable.
-
David,
That’s if you accept that gay rights is a slippery slope toward restricting religion in this country. I reject that notion.
-
David:
I think one important distinction that needs to make is the difference between voting and campaign contributions.
On the issue of voting, there are simply no cases involving the marriage equality matters (including Proposition
in which a person of faith was intimidated into not voting for or against a measure because of the fact that he was a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew or a Mormon (or any other religious group). Indeed, because of the secret ballot system in American, no one knows how you actually vote unless you self-disclose.Contrary to the statements by Elder Oaks, this was very difficult during the civil rights movement in the South where African-Americans (based solely on the color or their skin) were intimidated from voting through threats and acts of great bodily harm. Such intimidation against actually voting has not happened today regarding the marriage equality matters.
Where the disclosure of affiliations because apparent is if a person, group or church financially contributes to an election campaign. Under California law and the laws of most other states, these campaign contributions must be disclosed so that the members of the public because aware of who supports or opposes a particular measure or candidate. If you chose to financially participate in the election process (as I did with Proposition 8), then you have now entered the public square and–under our First Amendment–people have the right to comment on your involvement in the public square.
Is such public comment “intimidation”? No, it is free speech, one of our important freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
On your next point, you asked why many supporters of marriage equality view the Mormon Church as a major opponent. It is because the Mormon Church has chosen to stay in the public square on the issue of opposing equality.
After its efforts against equality in Hawaii in the 1990s and California in 2008 with Proposition 8, the Mormon Church has supported and continues to support anti-equality measures in Washington and Maine that are on the ballot in November 2009. Based upon public statements to date, the Mormon Church will likely rejoin the anti-marriage equality battle in California when that matter returns to the ballot in 2010 or 2012.
As long as the Mormon Church remains the public square and is an active opponent of equality, then the Mormon Church will be rightfully seen as the formidable opponent to marriage equality that is is.
What some (including yourself) as labeled as “intimidation” related to First Amendment-protected protests and boycotts relating to campaign c
I. however, have to ask the questons:
1. Is it intimidation to publicize someone’s contributons to Proposition 8 (or any other measures)–especially given that campaign contributions in California are public records?
2. Is it intimidation to publicize the Mormon Church’s ongoing involvement in anti-marriage measures throughout the United States, including current measures in Washington and Maine?
in passing Proposition 8
-
My last post inadvertently included language that I meant to edit out. Here is the correct post:
“David:
I think one important distinction that needs to make is the difference between voting and campaign contributions.
On the issue of voting, there are simply no cases involving the marriage equality matters (including Proposition in which a person of faith was intimidated into not voting for or against a measure because of the fact that he was a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew or a Mormon (or any other religious group). Indeed, because of the secret ballot system in American, no one knows how you actually vote unless you self-disclose.
Contrary to the statements by Elder Oaks, this was very difficult during the civil rights movement in the South where African-Americans (based solely on the color or their skin) were intimidated from voting through threats and acts of great bodily harm. Such intimidation against actually voting has not happened today regarding the marriage equality matters.
Where the disclosure of affiliations because apparent is if a person, group or church financially contributes to an election campaign. Under California law and the laws of most other states, these campaign contributions must be disclosed so that the members of the public because aware of who supports or opposes a particular measure or candidate. If you chose to financially participate in the election process (as I did with Proposition 8), then you have now entered the public square and–under our First Amendment–people have the right to comment on your involvement in the public square.
Is such public comment “intimidation”? No, it is free speech, one of our important freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
On your next point, you asked why many supporters of marriage equality view the Mormon Church as a major opponent. It is because the Mormon Church has chosen to stay in the public square on the issue of opposing equality.
After its efforts against equality in Hawaii in the 1990s and California in 2008 with Proposition 8, the Mormon Church has supported and continues to support anti-equality measures in Washington and Maine that are on the ballot in November 2009. Based upon public statements to date, the Mormon Church will likely rejoin the anti-marriage equality battle in California when that matter returns to the ballot in 2010 or 2012.
As long as the Mormon Church remains the public square and is an active opponent of equality, then the Mormon Church will be rightfully seen as the formidable opponent to marriage equality that is is.”
-
stephen, your definition of “free speech” sweeps in actions that are not as cut and dried as you want to pretend. In a nation where reasonable people can still debate whether actions like abortion, flag-burning, posting the names and addresses of persons who stance on abortion or political issues disagree with one’s own with the apparent intent to direct violence against the opposition — *and where the Supreme Court takes those debates seriously enough to agree to hear cases* — the line between what you say is simple, legal free speech and what I say is aggressive, unconstitutional intimidation is not yet fixed.
Dan, your simplistic take on polygamy and its cessation is not one I can endorse, and I therefore cannot accept it as carrying weight in this discussion. Explaining why would be off-topic here, so all I can do is say I dismiss it.
-
Ardis,
I’m actually more informed of the whole polygamy process. I didn’t really want to get into it. So I ask again, and you can choose to answer or not. Were our freedoms to worship reduced by anti-polygamy laws?
-
Ardis:
Actually, unless you are yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, have a reckless disregard for the truth (libel/slander) or incite people to violence, freedom of speech — thankfully — is still a very broad constitutional right in the United States.
Are you really equating those who have protested against the Mormon Church’s involvement in Proposition 8 and other anti-equality measures with those individuals have “apparent intent to direct violence against the opposition”? That is simply incorrect.
I invite you to name one single proven factual case of a gay or lesbial involved in any ‘violent’ or ‘illegal’ activity against Mormons relating to Proposition 8 (other than taping signs to the fence of the LA Temple–misdemeanor vandalism). If you are going to make these strong claims against your opponents, then you need to actually back them up.
-
Hi David,
Thank you for this post, and for doing your best to maintain a civil tone in the comments. I’m interested to hear what you think about the following three things:
1. The comparison of what LDS members have gone through since prop. 8 to the Summer of ‘64 in Mississippi seems like a real stretch to me. It fails the proportionality test. If my co-workers make jokes at my expense because I don’t go to the bar with them after work, I guess it could be called religious persecution, but I’m still not entitled to compare myself to Anne Frank and invoke the Holocaust. Do you agree? In addition, there was intimidation on both sides, so for us to focus on the 3 or 4 cases where somebody lost their job, or where somebody got shoved makes us sound like third graders in the principal’s office who are squabbling about who pulled whose hair first.
2. The legacy of the civil rights movement is not ours to claim if we feel like it. Forget the priesthood ban. Just think of apostles in conference denouncing Matin Luther King, Jr. It should not surprise us if at least some Afrinca-American people are offended when we now claim that heritage. Let’s hope that forgeveness will come, but it is not our prerogative to demand that it happen when it is convenient for us.
3. Let’s not forget something important: We won. It seems unseemly for the winner in any contest to then turn around and complain about the outcome. It’s just bad form, like the Yankees winning the world series and then complaining about the umpire.
I’d be interested to hear what you think of any these points. Thanks.
-
Mark,
Thanks for the compliment and challenging questions. I believe I have already touched on some of your questions here and in other recent posts, so forgive me if I get repetitive.
Again, here is what Elder Oaks said:
In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.
If someone were to make such a grievous comparison or claim to ownership as some have suggested, I would think he would have dwelled on the subject a little longer than one sentence.
I don’t read E. Oaks as claiming LDS members “have gone through” anything similar to what happened in the 1960s South. I completely agree that there is no comparison to the suffering experienced.
Likewise, it seems like a stretch to me that he is claiming the civil rights movement as our own. Isn’t it possible to make a historical reference without injecting such political meaning or ownership? Given the Church’s history, maybe it’s a good thing that he recognizes it for the good that transpired. Or should the Church just be completely barred from mentioning the Civil Rights Movement altogether?
As to your final point, I would agree if the debate was over. But Prop 8’s passage was just the beginning. The greatest protests and intimidation tactics began after the election and continue to this day to some degree. Prop 8 is going to trial this January and there are new ballot initiatives to turn it over slated for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Meanwhile gay activists, will not stop targeting the Church as if its democratic participation is somehow illegal or illegitimate. Check out MormonGate.com or scan Google News searches for “Mormon” for a few days and you can see that a lot of the gay press are desperately trying to find any hint of Church involvement in other state’s SSM battles. I haven’t seen any evidence of it but even if true, so what?
So Prop 8 passed but I don’t think it’s fair to say anybody “won.” The debate continues and in my view SSM activists have made the calculation to punish supporters of traditional marriage to discourage their future involvement.
I believe that is E. Oaks’ concern too.
(I do believe that the Church and its members have to be careful to not get a persecution complex or join the grievance industry as so many do. As has been mentioned, things aren’t that bad, but Elder Oaks laid out good reasons to be concerned and aware. That’s one reason why this probably wasn’t a Conference address and just a devotional at a school.)
-
Dan posted above:
“Tying gay marriage as a mortal threat to their existence ensures that emotions will get the best of them. Likewise with gay rights supporters, they see the inverse slippery slope. Losing gay marriage will empower religionists to press against those other gay rights like anti-discrimination laws. And gays will truly become a second class citizenship. Heck, maybe someday they will not get to vote, as voting may be tied to the worthiness of individuals based by a particular religion. Slippery slopes all around, Ardis. Both sides tie this conflict as a threat to their mortal existence. It’s a shame really because life does go on.”
Dan, tying gay marriage to their existence is not a slippery slope any more than tying marriage to your existence is for persons of the Mormon faith. Mormons believe that they should be able to choose their mate and marry them. Why should this right be afforded to one group and denied to another? There’s no slippery slope here for the LGBT community at all. There’s nothing that MAY lead to second class citizenship, it’s already been done by passing Prop 8.
In order to empathize with this imagine for a moment what it must have been like for the Mormons when the US Government told Mormons that they are not to be allowed to practice polygamy. I think that would be of similar equivalence, as it’s an equal imposition of “majority rule” that tells a minority how they can practice one of their most important religious and civil arrangements. It must have been horrible.
Well, this is what the Mormons just visited upon another group. I hope those who participated in it are satisfied, but please don’t cry “civil rights” or “religious discrimination” when you suffer blowback from it.
-Wexler
59 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2009/10/14/why-elder-oaks-civil-rights-analogy-works/trackback/