Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

Elder Oaks speaks out again regarding perceived threat against religious freedom:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...s-freedom.html

He complains that it is becoming more difficult to condemn homosexuality:

Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so."

Even goes so far as to imply that it will soon be illegal to preach anything negative regarding gays or gay rights:

"All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the 'rights' of those offended by such speech," Elder Oaks said. "If that happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class."

Personally, I think that last bit of hyberbolic absurdity weakens his entire case.

Thoughts?

[pellegrino]

I don't know why we have to preach against homosexuality, that's my initial thought.

[Slim]

I think his efforts are futile. Those who oppose speaking out against homosexuality view it on par with speaking out against civil rights. They do not like people condemning the lifestyle any more than they would like it if church leaders were still preaching against interracial marriages or against the civil rights movement.

Only those who already, like him, believe that God disproves of the lifestyle will agree with his statements and that number is rapidly diminishing.

[smokymountainrain]

Elder Oaks speaks out again regarding perceived threat against religious freedom:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...s-freedom.html

He complains that it is becoming more difficult to condemn homosexuality:



Even goes so far as to imply that it will soon be illegal to preach anything negative regarding gays or gay rights:



Personally, I think that last bit of hyberbolic absurdity weakens his entire case.

Thoughts?

If Elder Oaks has the time/luxury to worry and opine publicly about what might happen regarding his ability to preach against a group of people who, in general, aren't doing any harm to anybody, I think he has too much time on his hands.

I'd like to see the Twelve leave gays alone and spend more time worrying about the serious pornography epidemic.

[Moliere]

It seems like he is more concerned with public perception of those who speak out against it more than religious freedom. We condemn all sorts of things that are popular today. It makes us seem weird.....er sorry, peculiar....and I doubt we'll ever not have the right to condemn homosexuality as sinful.

I for one have no issue calling it a sin, although I would also have no issue with the church changing it's stance and allowing it. I do have an issue with any group fighting to deny rights to a minority group of people.

[Solon]

Elder Oaks speaks out again regarding perceived threat against religious freedom:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...s-freedom.html

He complains that it is becoming more difficult to condemn homosexuality:



Even goes so far as to imply that it will soon be illegal to preach anything negative regarding gays or gay rights:



Personally, I think that last bit of hyberbolic absurdity weakens his entire case.

Thoughts?

I'm having a really hard time seeing religion as the victim in all this.

I'm with the Dude - Oaks' assertion that there could be "criminal prosecution" for religious speech that offends public officials or public opinion is pretty far-fetched.

tooblue should weigh in here (:yikes. I think Canada has pretty strict "hate-speech" laws. Maybe he's encountered this type of thing.

[Viking]

the obsession with gays and porn makes me think that the GAs have a disproportionate number of gays and porn addicts amongst their ranks

[LA Ute]

"All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the 'rights' of those offended by such speech," Elder Oaks said. "If that happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class."

I'll be lawyerly and point out that the bolded words matter in Elder Oaks' argument. If religious speech is constrained and forced to give way to the recognized rights of those offended, than there could be criminal prosecutions. I think this is far-fetched, but E. Oaks is a former law professor and appellate court justice, and his training (like that of all lawyers) is to think in worst-case scenarios. He's just making the slipperyy-slope argument.

The flaw I see is that we are not seeing criminal prosecutions of pastors, et al., who still preach against interracial marriage. (Are there any left?) My concern (shared, I know, but pretty much no one else here) is not that there will be prosecutions, but that the church will become as marginalized as those preachers are as opposition to same-sex marriage is equated with opposition to interracial marriage. I think that would be a disaster. (I may have just opened the door to another discussion.)

[SeattleUte]

I'll be lawyerly and point out that the bolded words matter in Elder Oaks' argument. If religious speech is constrained and forced to give way to the recognized rights of those offended, than there could be criminal prosecutions. I think this is far-fetched, but E. Oaks is a former law professor and appellate court justice, and his training (like that of all lawyers) is to think in worst-case scenarios. He's just making the slipperyy-slope argument.

The flaw I see is that we are not seeing criminal prosecutions of pastors, et al., who still preach against interracial marriage. (Are there any left?) My concern (shared, I know, but pretty much no one else here) is not that there will be prosecutions, but that the church will become as marginalized as those preachers are as opposition to same-sex marriage is equated with opposition to interracial marriage. I think that would be a disaster. (I may have just opened the door to another discussion.)

Elder Oaks is making what is called a straw man argument.

[SeattleUte]

If Elder Oaks has the time/luxury to worry and opine publicly about what might happen regarding his ability to preach against a group of people who, in general, aren't doing any harm to anybody, I think he has too much time on his hands.

I'd like to see the Twelve leave gays alone and spend more time worrying about the serious pornography epidemic.

lol

[RobinFinderson]

Elder Oaks may have a point in other countries, where the church's views might eventually be classified as 'hate speech,' but it is hard to imagine that here in the US they could ever criminalize religious speech, no matter how unpopular.

[Viking]

Any LDS leader lecturing on religious freedom is nothing but ironic.

[pellegrino]

I'll be lawyerly and point out that the bolded words matter in Elder Oaks' argument. If religious speech is constrained and forced to give way to the recognized rights of those offended, than there could be criminal prosecutions. I think this is far-fetched, but E. Oaks is a former law professor and appellate court justice, and his training (like that of all lawyers) is to think in worst-case scenarios. He's just making the slipperyy-slope argument.

The flaw I see is that we are not seeing criminal prosecutions of pastors, et al., who still preach against interracial marriage. (Are there any left?) My concern (shared, I know, but pretty much no one else here) is not that there will be prosecutions, but that the church will become as marginalized as those preachers are as opposition to same-sex marriage is equated with opposition to interracial marriage. I think that would be a disaster. (I may have just opened the door to another discussion.)

Just my opinion, but slippery slope arguments always seem to lack a good grounding in the reality of the issue. Pun intended.

[LA Ute]

Just my opinion, but slippery slope arguments always seem to lack a good grounding in the reality of the issue. Pun intended.

I said I thought it was far-fetched. What do you want from me?

[byu71]

The fact we were ran ot of state after state and eventualy had our leader murdered and then chased out of Missouri to the mountains, still weighs heavy in our hearts and minds. This was because of our beliefs.