Why don't we talk a little about one of the interesting points of his speech instead of focusing on misstating his position for emotional arguments in favor of our pet passions.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The title of Oaks October 13 speech is Religious Freedom. Oaks begins by citing an example of religious freedom being won at great cost in Mongolia. He then cites some of the values of religious freedom. Oaks then reads the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and mentions the establishment clause just to point out it's existence but not to address it at length. He then talks about the area of the First Amendment that he wants to focus on "the United Stats shall have no law 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion." Oaks points out that what he calls "religious freedom" is the pre-eminent right in the Constitution and is a cornerstone of American democracy. Oaks then points out that religious freedom is balanced by the governments responsibility to protect the health and safety of all.
"The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom." Folks, that's the point of Oaks talk and the only interesting topic in it. How should we balance the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs, as a people, with our responsibility to protect the health and safety of all.
As Oaks says, "[t]he problems are not simple...." "Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion." Personally, I think the following paragraph may be the most interesting in his discourse:
"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 great 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 [Ureligious[/U] 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 religous 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."
Oaks uses this pivotal paragraph to springboard into addressing areas where religious voices deserve extra protection (i.e. religious speech in the public square) and points out that religious freedom is being diluted by other "civil rights." His example on other "civil rights" is the "newly alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage." I find that an interesting take on the gay rights argument.
Even an opponent of Oaks would be hard pressed to avoid acknowledging him a great legal mind. More importantly, the argument is relatively novel to me. I have not considered that the gay marriage debate might be receiving so much focus from the LDS Church because it is an effort to marginalize religious freedom in favor of a "civil right" recently alleged to exist and be protectible under a catch all provision of the Constitution.
Anyway, below is the link. Read for yourselves and lets hear some debate on the actual topic of his presentation rather than tilting at windmills. Or, if you'd rather, continue to ride Mr. Quixote -- eventually those giants will fall.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The title of Oaks October 13 speech is Religious Freedom. Oaks begins by citing an example of religious freedom being won at great cost in Mongolia. He then cites some of the values of religious freedom. Oaks then reads the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and mentions the establishment clause just to point out it's existence but not to address it at length. He then talks about the area of the First Amendment that he wants to focus on "the United Stats shall have no law 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion." Oaks points out that what he calls "religious freedom" is the pre-eminent right in the Constitution and is a cornerstone of American democracy. Oaks then points out that religious freedom is balanced by the governments responsibility to protect the health and safety of all.
"The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom." Folks, that's the point of Oaks talk and the only interesting topic in it. How should we balance the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs, as a people, with our responsibility to protect the health and safety of all.
As Oaks says, "[t]he problems are not simple...." "Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion." Personally, I think the following paragraph may be the most interesting in his discourse:
"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 great 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 [Ureligious[/U] 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 religous 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."
Oaks uses this pivotal paragraph to springboard into addressing areas where religious voices deserve extra protection (i.e. religious speech in the public square) and points out that religious freedom is being diluted by other "civil rights." His example on other "civil rights" is the "newly alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage." I find that an interesting take on the gay rights argument.
Even an opponent of Oaks would be hard pressed to avoid acknowledging him a great legal mind. More importantly, the argument is relatively novel to me. I have not considered that the gay marriage debate might be receiving so much focus from the LDS Church because it is an effort to marginalize religious freedom in favor of a "civil right" recently alleged to exist and be protectible under a catch all provision of the Constitution.
Anyway, below is the link. Read for yourselves and lets hear some debate on the actual topic of his presentation rather than tilting at windmills. Or, if you'd rather, continue to ride Mr. Quixote -- eventually those giants will fall.
Comment