The Church has now posted video of Elder Oak’s talk “Religious Freedom” at Newsroom.lds.org.
You are currently browsing articles tagged religious freedom.
Listen to Elder Oaks talk, “Religious Freedom.” BYU-Idaho has posted the audio of the talk as downloadable mp3 or podcast [iTunes link].
Please read or listen to it. There is so much more to the talk than what the selective outrage has focused on.
Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Hall of shame or badge of honor? I’ll take the latter, but it just goes to show what power the Associated Press has in setting the standard media message. It lifts one sentence from a talk, distorts the meaning behind it, grossly exaggerating it out of context and news outlets across the country relay it unquestioningly. Then Mr. Olbermann gets to call out Elder Oaks as one of the “worst people in the world” (I guess it lasts for only a day so don’t be too concerned).
Quick aside: are all those who are so concerned about Glenn Beck okay with Keith Olbermann and his brand of “civility”?
Unsurprisingly, the Church-owned Deseret News didn’t follow suit. But the local City Weekly takes umbrage that the DN refused to copy and paste the AP’s characterization of Elder Oaks’ talk and decided to write its own story instead. More outrage.
Curious to hear Elder Oaks explain himself? Ignore the video above and see below.
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.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at BYU-Idaho today on religious freedom but garnered coverage for his remarks on the lasting effects of Proposition 8.
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 leader in the LDS Church says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday.
More than just commenting on Prop 8, Elder Oaks’ talk “Religious Freedom” deals with some of the concerns he has with those trying to silence religious voices in political debate and the conflict of religious freedom with “newly alleged civil rights.”
Apparently anticipating the attention this would get Elder Oaks spoke with the AP reporter before the talk.
In an interview Monday before the speech, Elder Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of LDS Church members in the election’s aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.
“It may be offensive to some — maybe because it hadn’t occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era,” he said. . .
In an interview Monday, Elder Oaks said the Proposition 8 saga was one of several trends that motivated him to deliver the address, but it was “not the trigger.”
“There are civil rights involved in this — the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election,” Elder Oaks said. “But you don’t have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail.”
Elder Oaks said he is specifically concerned about a movement toward using hate crimes laws to prosecute or threaten preachers who preach that homosexual acts are sinful.
Elder Oaks’ address also rejects any religious test for public office. He said that if “a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation …”
In the interview Monday, Elder Oaks said he was referring in part to the 2008 presidential bid of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose LDS faith troubled some evangelicals.
The LDS Newsroom has a news release “Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened.”
Elder Oaks’ talk “Religious Freedom” transcript.
Supreme Court rules for Utah city in religious marker case
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a small religious group cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.
In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.
While there is much not to be happy with the efforts to bully the LDS Church and other unpopular religions, it’s a good thing that people can still do it.
Unfortunately, the U.N. is making (non-binding) efforts to limit criticism of religions:
In an 83 to 53 vote, with 42 abstentions, the U.N. General Assembly urged nations to provide “adequate protections” in their laws or constitutions against “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation, sponsored by Uganda on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, and cosponsored by Belarus and Venezuela. Opponents included the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan and India.
It turns out that policies like this actually foster violence and give religious fanatics license to kill their critics with a slap on the wrist for “‘failure to inform the police that blasphemy was under way.”
In response to the NY Times ad placed last week defending the LDS Church and others for the Prop 8 backlash, a NY group “Truth Wins Out” is placing an ad in tomorrow’s Salt Lake Tribune.
Rather than refuting the claims of the NY Times ad, the SL Trib ad, “Lies in the Name of the Lord,” seeks to make out some of the signers of the ad into “some of the most notorious Mormon bashers in America.” But the ad merely shows that they have theological differences with the Mormon Church. Not quite Mormon bashing. It turns out that the Mormon Church has theological differences with the Becket ad signers too.
While Chuck Colson, William Donohue and others may not believe what the Mormon Church teaches, they at least agree that Mormons and other religious people have the right to express themselves, politically and religiously, without threat of intimidation or fear of losing one’s job.
The Daily Kos does not appear to be a champion of free speech.
Last week Daily Kos removed a post criticizing the site for its anti-Mormon bigotry.
Now it is rallying its followers to target Mormons who have donated to the Proposition 8 campaign. Once identified, the plan is to dig into their backgrounds, with the hopes of harassing and discrediting their efforts.
As a matter of fact, the No on Prop 8 folks told me recently that the “Protect Marriage” campaign has raised $30 million dollars–over half of it from the Mormon Church. Now, I have nothing personally against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They most certainly have the constitutional right to worship in their own way. They have the right to minister in whatever way they see fit and to marry whomever they see fit in their churches based on any qualifications they choose. And they will be well within their rights.
But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.
So what am I asking you to do?
Some distributed research.
There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.
Here’s what I’m asking for:
This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.
If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:
Find us some ammo.
Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity . . .
Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do . . .
Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.
Unfortunately, the media has played along with this emphasis by making Mormon donations to support Proposition 8 a major issue (never mind the millions big celebrities and others have given to opppose it).
I thought it was odd that the Associated Press included a link in this story to a site called Mormons for Proposition 8, which at first blush would appear to be a pro-Mormon site in the church’s efforts to preserve traditional marriage. However, it’s a ruse to “out” all Mormon donors and its purported benign motives have been betrayed by the Daily Kos.
Forget debating on the merits. When your personal politics is on the line, “by any means necessary” is an acceptable tactic. Personally attacking people and making their lives miserable is acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of your idea of “fairness.”
P.S. Besides this coordinated harassment campaign, here’s an isolated but a very disturbing incident of violence against a Prop 8 supporter.
P.P.S. How are donors being identified as Mormon?
[via The Corner]
A UK teen is being prosecuted for calling Scientology a cult.
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
Officers confiscated a placard with the word “cult” on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
As annoying as it is to be called a “cult,” why is prosecution necessary? The LDS Church has likely been called a cult a time or two in the UK. Has that ever been prosecuted? Hopefully, no.
Last night, Mitt Romney followed up on last December’s “Faith in America” with a new speech called “Freedom & Religion: Perfect Together.” The speech was given at a dinner for the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.
He took the opportunity to answer some criticisms and adjust his comments in response. Some critics took issue that he had no word on religious liberty for those who choose to not believe. They may be happy to hear that he took their criticism to heart.
Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off — after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers — why should non-believers get special treatment?
But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.
He continued with defending his also heavily questioned line “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” To defend those sentiments he cited the Founding Fathers and the last two popes.
As a politician, I imagine Gov. Romney wants to be known for more than just being the “Mormon candidate.” But, it’s nice to see that he hasn’t dropped his defense of religious freedom now that his personal faith isn’t under the microscope anymore. Romney may not win over any of his critics but hopefully his thoughtful response will help them see him in a better light.
The LDS Church responds to Judge Walther’s suggestion that LDS officials supervise FLDS prayer sessions. Besides not understanding what exactly was being proposed or directly asked, it wouldn’t be appropriate.
[Scott Trotter, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] also acknowledged that such a request would not be fair, either to the polygamous FLDS, which “long ago chose a different path from ours. In fact, many in these isolated communities view us with some hostility as part of the outside world they have rejected.”
It sounds like the Texas judge supervising the FLDS matter could not be more clueless or insensitive. After ruling that nursing mothers could not stay with their children, Judge Barbara Walther graciously allowed that the mothers could meet and pray with their children twice a day on the condition that they were supervised by an “appropriate religious person.”
Who is an “appropriate religious person”? Not anyone from their own church but the judge recommended someone from the “mainstream LDS Church” or another church! Understandably local LDS leaders are “baffled.”
Not content to break families apart, Judge Walther now seeks to manage the religious life of the FLDS. What authority does she have to determine who is an “appropriate religious person”? How much clearer does the LDS Church have to be that it has nothing to do with the FLDS? Hopefully the ACLU or someone will kindly help the judge to find a clue.
Supreme Court agrees to take Utah religious speech case. Sounds like this is the flipside of most Ten Commandments cases: where once the government allows a religious monument on public land, is it required to allow any and all petitions for monuments from other churches?
The dispute stems from Pleasant Grove City’s refusal to allow the display of a “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” monument in the same park that is the home for a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles 47 years ago.
At issue is whether a donated monument displayed by a municipality remains the private speech of the original donor, or is government speech; and whether placing donated monuments in a government-owned park creates a public forum or whether the government retains authority to select which monuments to display. . .
Summum, a Latin term meaning the sum total of all creation, was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City. The Seven Aphorisms refer to a notion that when Moses received stone tablets on Mount Sinai inscribed with writings made by a divine being, he actually received two separate sets of tablets — the Seven Aphorisms and the Ten Commandments.
Religion matters increasingly more in politics because it matters less to increasingly more people.
Today, because there is a big and powerful bloc of voters who resent the role of religion in politics, and because there is another bloc equally convinced of the good effects of faith on public affairs, our political process now raises issues of faith, just as it raises divisive issues of immigration, economic, and foreign policy. Any contested issue of public importance provides an opportunity for political actors to try to motivate, reassure, deceive, energize, and otherwise mobilize voters. The more visible and intense the political rhetoric, the more sure you can be that the issue cuts very close to the majority.
George Weigel was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on dealing with radical Islam and gave a great explanation of what true tolerance is:
The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending. That’s the only kind of dialogue that’s going to support those Islamic reformers, and they do exist, who wish to create an Islamic case for civility, tolerance and the free society as we understand it.
The Bloggernacle’s own Nate Oman cross-posts between Times and Seasons and the San Francisco Chronicle (!) with “Mormonism’s Al Smith moment?” The stakes of Romey’s campaign are much higher than just winning the nomination:
By raising the possibility that Mormonism de facto disqualifies one for the presidency, the furor over Romney’s religion has thrown the full citizenship of all Latter-day Saints into question. Ultimately, history suggests that the question can only be laid to rest by a Mormon being elected president. This fact does not provide a reason for electing Romney, but it does mean that, whether they like it or not, the stakes in this election are very high for Latter-day Saints. It is also a cautionary tale for members of any other marginal American tribe seeking the privilege of being judged as an individual.
LDS Newsroom: “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men — Not Just Those Who Share My Beliefs”
Ill-informed comments can be easily forgiven, and chances to engage in discussion to develop mutual, accurate understanding and respect are often seized upon — as they should be. But when a person starts excluding someone of a different faith as a legitimate participant in society because there are theological differences — then a line has been crossed.
The Washington Post’s On Faith Blog features responses to Romney’s “Faith in America.” I wonder if/what Michael Otterson will post. Or if he’ll sit this one out as to avoid any appearance of an offical Church response other than the restatement of neutrality? (Never mind, just after I clicked “post” they have a special post by Otterson discussing “Are Mormons Christians?“)
After nearly thirty years of overt pandering to and exploitation of religious fear and sentiment, the Republicans have unleashed the dogs of sectarianism on one of their own and probably their strongest candidate. As a Democrat, I confess that such self-destructive behavior is gratifying. As a Latter-day Saint, it’s not that much fun to watch. I have fantasies of sending the dogs back on self-proclaimed “Christian leader” Huckabee. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjtGgfhKIvo. But, two wrongs do not make right.
I liked Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. . . People continue to ask if a revelation to the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be binding on him in the political realm. His answer was uncompromising: no. Wouldn’t this get him in trouble with his own church? The answer again is no. For over a century, the official church has explicitly stated that Latter-day Saint politicians are not bound by the church’s political stands.
This much-heralded speech was being likened to John Kennedy’s 1960 speech. Ironically, Romney handled the situation in a more consistent way than Kennedy did, the latter saying he would not allow his religious convictions to influence his policies. But for any person of faith, his religious convictions cannot be ignored. Romney walked the fine line better than Kennedy did.
The speech Mitt Romney just delivered is in my view an instant classic in American civil religion . . .
Going farther than most other conservative Republicans, Romney thoroughly entangled religion and freedom, which, he argued, “endure together, or perish alone.” But he sounded more like a 1960s liberal than a 21st Century conservative when it came to his vision of the religious character of America. Instead of simply saying that he respects other religions, Romney said he envied and even loved features of all the faiths he has encountered, Judaism and Islam included. Refusing to serve as a spokesperson for his own faith, Romney said that if he becomes President he will “need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
Blog co-founder, Sally Quinn thought that the line ‘Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom” should have come from Osama Bin Laden.
LDS and Mormon Blogs
- Mt. Pleasant Pioneer Relic Home
- Archaiologia
- Nauvoo History and Other Things
- Warfare and the Book of Mormon
- Mormon Church History
- Amateur Mormon Historian
- Nothing Wavering
- 1 LDS Mom
- Finck Philosophies
- Store House of Faith
- Healthy Families, Warm Hearts
- Variety is the Spice of Life
- Prepare For Peace
- Butterscotch Pieces of Me
- Carli and the Clan
- LauraScoop
- The Mormon Worker
- From Where I Sit
- Being is Somethingness
- United Families International Blog
Affiliates
