Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[SeattleUte]

Here you go. It is not a difficult read, especially for a lawyer. It strikes me as a serious piece of work.

I assume you disagree with this statement:

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. 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.

I think the retaliatory actions taken against Mormons and other Prop 8 supporters are un-American, or incompatible with American values. Had those actions been undertaken by a government entity or under color of government authority, they would have been unconstitutional. That alone should give one pause. And, I daresay, had those actions been taken against a group you find sympathetic, rather than the church towards which you feel such antipathy, you would be outraged.

Violence is absolutely wrong. I would like to know of specific examples and if these were stray incidents or some kind of systematic effort. I don't believe violence is a widespread problem in this Prop. 8 context, anything more than errant incidents of minor property damage, but I have an open mind. Prove me wrong.

I have yet to be convinced that there is anything wrong with boycotts. Was it wrong of Stanford to boycott BYU in the 1970's because of the priesthood ban? There's nothing wrong with boycotts per se (absent some anitrust implicatoin, as here). Why should gays feel morally obligated to spend money at an estanbishment owned by someone who has helped deny them their civil rights? Boycotts are a form of speech. They are not anti-democratic.

Mormons declare war on gays ("our Gettysburg"), use every available political trick in the book to defeat prop. 8, and then whine about boycotts. Give me a friggin break. But that's not all. They compre themselves to blacks lynched, castrated, burned out of their homes, etc. because of the color of their skin.

It doesn't give me pause that boycotts and criticism of LDS homophobia would be uncosntitutional if government did it. Government couldn't allow LDS siminary to occur on taxpayer funded property. Completely different rules apply to government when it comes to religion.

Sorry. I discern no moral high ground for you here. But I'm waiting to be convinced.

[PaloAltoCougar]

where are the other oldies but goodies to chime in with their stories? there is great value in passing along the oral traditions of the fathers. (not THOSE sickos, get your mind out of the gutter)

I was summer clerking for a large firm in LA. That morning, a mail clerk who had joined the Church earlier that year came to me and said he'd heard the Church had extended the priesthood to blacks. I thought the news was great, but was a little skeptical, so I called the city desk of the LA Times and asked if such a story had come over the wire. The guy said (and this is pretty close to a direct quote): "No, I haven't seen anything like that. And besides, that'll never happen." Especially funny, given that the Church was a part owner of the paper at that time.

I then called a pal in SLC who confirmed the priesthood announcement. I remember being very surprised and happy about the announcement, and my recollection was that all of the members I talked to about it were very happy with it--I remember absolutely no negative reaction at all. Plus, I remember thinking this might help with football and basketball recruiting.

[RobinFinderson]

IMHO, comparing the plight of LDS post-Prop-8 to the experience of black people during the Civil Rights Movement has got to be one of the most tone deaf utterances to ever come out of the mouth of a GA. In terms of regret potential, I think this could be on par with the Stapley letter.

Along with SU, I think everyone here condemns the use of violence as protest against the LDS church. But equating boycotting with voter intimidation practiced against black people during the Civil Rights Movement seems like an argument that will:

1. Only appeal to the church's most ardent defenders.
2. Can potentially alienate more members who feel uncomfortable with the church's political activity.
3. Look desperate/pathetic/foolish in the eyes of most non-Mormons.

Even if a non-Mormon would otherwise be inclined to support the church's anti-gay-marriage position, the comparison to suffering black people is going to turn off many.

[RobinFinderson]

I was summer clerking for a large firm in LA. That morning, a mail clerk who had joined the Church earlier that year came to me and said he'd heard the Church had extended the priesthood to blacks. I thought the news was great, but was a little skeptical, so I called the city desk of the LA Times and asked if such a story had come over the wire. The guy said (and this is pretty close to a direct quote): "No, I haven't seen anything like that. And besides, that'll never happen." Especially funny, given that the Church was a part owner of the paper at that time.

I then called a pal in SLC who confirmed the priesthood announcement. I remember being very surprised and happy about the announcement, and my recollection was that all of the members I talked to about it were very happy with it--I remember absolutely no negative reaction at all. Plus, I remember thinking this might help with football and basketball recruiting.

Question: Do you think that the positive reaction felt by so many reflected the members' desire for black men to have the priesthood? Or do you think the positive reaction reflected the hope that the church would no longer get persecuted by people/institutions that were formerly calling it out for its racist policy?

[LA Ute]

I I discern no moral high ground for you here. But I'm waiting to be convinced.

Don't worry about me trying to convince you. I am no fool.

The debate is ongoing and it is important. The issue E. Oaks raises is about retaliation against individuals for the exercise of cherished rights of political expression. I think organized harassment of individuals for donating even small sums to a lawful initiative campaign is repugnant to American values, and I think the majority of Americans agree with me. We'll see if I'm right. I don't expect you to agree and would be shocked if you did in this case.


But regardless of how the debate comes out, it's important and needs to happen. E. Oaks' talk is part of that. May the best arguments win.

[Goatnapper'96]

Question: Do you think that the positive reaction felt by so many reflected the members' desire for black men to have the priesthood? Or do you think the positive reaction reflected the hope that the church would no longer get persecuted by people/institutions that were formerly calling it out for its racist policy?

I think this is best answered by IPU's post. My guess is to those mormons who knew black people personally and could identify with the pain that occurred as a result of the ban it was genuinely joyful that their friends could enjoy the full participation in the Church that they desired. For those who did not know any black LDS my guess is many fell into the latter as their personal experiences were probably more along those lines.

[LA Ute]

Question: Do you think that the positive reaction felt by so many reflected the members' desire for black men to have the priesthood? Or do you think the positive reaction reflected the hope that the church would no longer get persecuted by people/institutions that were formerly calling it out for its racist policy?

I think it was a mixture. A lot of what I heard was excitement about being able to grow the Church in places like Brazil and Africa. Also in the back (or even front) of many minds was the feeling of having an albatross removed from our necks.

[RobinFinderson]

Don't worry about me trying to convince you. I am no fool.

The debate is ongoing and it is important. The issue E. Oaks raises is about retaliation against individuals for the exercise of cherished rights of political expression. I think organized harassment of individuals for donating even small sums to a lawful initiative campaign is repugnant to American values, and I think the majority of Americans agree with me. We'll see if I'm right. I don't expect you to agree and would be shocked if you did in this case.


But regardless of how the debate comes out, it's important and needs to happen. E. Oaks' talk is part of that. May the best arguments win.

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses openly displaying the confederate flag?

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses where the owners had contributed money to support anti-miscegenation laws?

[byu71]

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses openly displaying the confederate flag?

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses where the owners had contributed money to support anti-miscegenation laws?

How would you feel if in retaliation the church organizes a boycott in Utah of any known gay businessmen.

[cowboy]

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses openly displaying the confederate flag?

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses where the owners had contributed money to support anti-miscegenation laws?

Would it be repugnant to American values for group of white supremacists to organize a boycott of businesses that supported desegregation?

I know gay marriage seems to be a cut and dried issue for you, but your perspective is not the only perspective, and many good people supported the other side of the debate. This wasn't the black and white, right and wrong issue that you and many others here believe it was.

[TripletDaddy]

The debate is ongoing and it is important. The issue E. Oaks raises is about retaliation against individuals for the exercise of cherished rights of political expression. I think organized harassment of individuals for donating even small sums to a lawful initiative campaign is repugnant to American values, and I think the majority of Americans agree with me. We'll see if I'm right. I don't expect you to agree and would be shocked if you did in this case.

Are you referring to economic boycotts or the verbal harassment/yelling/intimidation stuff?

I can see how the latter is counter productive and wrong, but having trouble seeing how the former would be considered repugnant to American values.

I seem to recall a concerted effort to boycott Abercrombie and Fitch in u-Co because locals didn't like the ads (the legal ads, btw). Wasn't something similar happening at Gold's Gym? Economic boycotts are an American way of life and Mos have lived and died by them since the beginning.

Standing on a sidewalk yelling at folks as they walk to Church is ridiculous and stupid. Spray-painting a Mormon Church is equally ridiculous.

[byu71]

Are you referring to economic boycotts or the verbal harassment/yelling/intimidation stuff?

I can see how the latter is counter productive and wrong, but having trouble seeing how the former would be considered repugnant to American values.

I seem to recall a concerted effort to boycott Abercrombie and Fitch in u-Co because locals didn't like the ads (the legal ads, btw). Wasn't something similar happening at Gold's Gym? Economic boycotts are an American way of life and Mos have lived and died by them since the beginning.

Standing on a sidewalk yelling at folks as they walk to Church is ridiculous and stupid. Spray-painting a Mormon Church is equally ridiculous.

I thought the boycott of Golds Gym was assinine, so I feel like I am consistent. I don't know what Elder Oaks stand on it was.

[SloanHater]

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses openly displaying the confederate flag?

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses where the owners had contributed money to support anti-miscegenation laws?

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality or appropriateness of boycotting businesses. The question is whether or not it is appropriate to target individuals?

[YOUTUBE]mLFTb-ZKqn4[/YOUTUBE]

[RobinFinderson]

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality or appropriateness of boycotting businesses. The question is whether or not it is appropriate to target individuals?

[YOUTUBE]mLFTb-ZKqn4[/YOUTUBE]

Personally, I think if a person is going to contribute $450,000 to an issue to shape public policy, I have no problem with the public knowing that person's name. For better or for worse, the public interest is best served when people are held individually accountable for their speech.

[JohnnyLingo]

Personally, I think if a person is going to contribute $450,000 to an issue to shape public policy, I have no problem with the public knowing that person's name. For better or for worse, the public interest is best served when people are held individually accountable for their speech.

Non-answer.