Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

If, in a talk given in sacrament meeting on Sunday, I condemned homosexuality, any person in the room, offended by my words could file a complaint and I could be censured and potentially fined thousands of dollars by the human rights tribunal.

So have the members been instructed to not mention the topic? Have the lesson manuals been modified? Has there been any official reaction by the church to this legislation?

[Uncle Ted]

So have the members been instructed to not mention the topic? Have the lesson manuals been modified? Has there been any official reaction by the church to this legislation?

Also, have parts of the bible in Canada been removed?

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

[tooblue]

Outside of the US, and especially in Canada, I will gladly acquiesce to your expert point of view, but here in the US, Hate SPEECH and Hate CRIME are still apples and oranges, and there is no trend suggesting that the distinction will ever change. Hate speech, in the US, will always be protected.

I'm not arguing that things have changed in the US, I am arguing that Oaks warnings on the subject are timely and born of sound logic—just what I, personally, would expect from a man I consider to be a prophet.

Below is a good article supporting your thoughts stated above. Of course it's important to remember that many individuals believe—certainly many members of the supreme court—that the constitution is a "living document". How difficult would it be for them to change apples to oranges or vice versa. Has something similar ever happened in the US? Yes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html

“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

[tooblue]

So have the members been instructed to not mention the topic? Have the lesson manuals been modified? Has there been any official reaction by the church to this legislation?

The fact that your criticism is silly still stands.

[tooblue]

Also, have parts of the bible in Canada been removed?

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...highlight=huck

[creekster]

I think hate crime legislation is the vanguard of what Oaks is talking about. I hate hate crime laws. I think we should punish behavior, not thoughts.

Oaks is looking far down the road. I think he is trying to do two things: 1. signaling that the church has no plans to change its position on homosexual activity as a sin, he is attempting to establish proactively a boundary at which the public tide of opinion against the church's view must stop; 2. Attempting to influence current opinion and bolster the members of the church who adhere to this principle on a daily basis by reminding them it is a freedom.

Whatever you might think of this particular subject, the thought that the united states is immune to such abuse is perhaps the most laughable notion espoused here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think hate crime legislation is the vanguard of what Oaks is talking about. I hate hate crime laws. I think we should punish behavior, not thoughts.

I don't like hate crime laws either.

Oaks is looking far down the road. I think he is trying to do two things: 1. signaling that the church has no plans to change its position on homosexual activity as a sin, he is attempting to establish proactively a boundary at which the public tide of opinion against the church's view must stop; 2. Attempting to influence current opinion and bolster the members of the church who adhere to this principle on a daily basis by reminding them it is a freedom.

Whatever you might think of this particular subject, the thought that the united states is immune to such abuse is perhaps the most laughable notion espoused here.

I was hoping with all of the legal minds here this would turn into an interesting discussion. Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples from US history to show why this is so laughable.

[Uncle Ted]

I think hate crime legislation is the vanguard of what Oaks is talking about. I hate hate crime laws. I think we should punish behavior, not thoughts.

Oaks is looking far down the road. I think he is trying to do two things: 1. signaling that the church has no plans to change its position on homosexual activity as a sin, he is attempting to establish proactively a boundary at which the public tide of opinion against the church's view must stop; 2. Attempting to influence current opinion and bolster the members of the church who adhere to this principle on a daily basis by reminding them it is a freedom.

Whatever you might think of this particular subject, the thought that the united states is immune to such abuse is perhaps the most laughable notion espoused here.

It's not like the church had to change its position on alternative marriage before...

[YOUTUBE]h8N5Dn40LDA[/YOUTUBE]

If the church is about freedom then wouldn't they be pushing for the government to get out of trying to regulate/tax marriage and leave than up to religious organizations?

[LA Ute]

I don't like hate crime laws either.



I was hoping with all of the legal minds here this would turn into an interesting discussion. Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples from US history to show why this is so laughable.

Duderino, do you think the recognition of same-sex marriage throughout the USA would be a 100% positive development, i.e., with no negative effects (totally apart from the impact of such a development on the church)?

If that development occurs, and the church adheres to its position against same-sex marriage, what consequences do you foresee for the church?

Not trolling, just really curious.

[woot]

While I support the attempt to uphold the importance of religious freedom, and agree that such freedoms are not necessarily immune from the same forces that are currently eroding various other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, it is unfortunate that Oaks has used this noble endeavor as a way of disguising and attempting to justify his bigotry. I'm reminded of those who hide behind freedom of speech when their words are condemned, deliberately misinterpreting denouncement as censorship.

Just because rational folk despise Oaks' words and beliefs doesn't mean the same folk want to eliminate his ability to say and believe stupid things. He is simply moving the goalposts as a way to avoid directly addressing the arguments against his reprehensible position.

So yes, while Oaks' position will soon be an embarrassing relic of history, let's ensure that we maintain the rights of churches and individuals to continue to preach hatred. The ability to do so is an important part of the American identity.

[shoganai]

First of all, Oaks' professional experience should deserve some deference on these things. It's not like this is being said by a guy who has no practical knowledge of law.

Second of all, history is rife with stories of things that at one time were "far fetched," but still came about because no one bothered to worry about it until it was too late.

I think the most important point to take away from Elder Oaks' statement is that existing factions would criminalize anti-gay speech in a heart beat, and those factions seem to be gaining more power, not less.

You may think it could never happen, and you may well be right. But if monitoring and addressing potentially devastating trends doesn't fall under the job description of a senior organizational leader, then what does?

[woot]

First of all, Oaks' professional experience should deserve some deference on these things. It's not like this is being said by a guy who has no practical knowledge of law.

Second of all, history is rife with stories of things that at one time were "far fetched," but still came about because no one bothered to worry about it until it was too late.

I think the most important point to take away from Elder Oaks' statement is that existing factions would criminalize anti-gay speech in a heart beat, and those factions seem to be gaining more power, not less.

You may think it could never happen, and you may well be right. But if monitoring and addressing potentially devastating trends doesn't fall under the job description of a senior organizational leader, then what does?

Oaks doesn't work as a spokesperson for this cause because his motivations are so obviously selfish. He wants to make sure he and his church can continue to preach hatred. Even if he is on the right side of the freedom argument, which he is, his motivations render his words worthless. He isn't arguing from a standpoint of protecting the rights of everyone and protecting the values on which America is built, even if he pretends that he is.

[creekster]

Oaks doesn't work as a spokesperson for this cause because his motivations are so obviously selfish. He wants to make sure he and his church can continue to preach hatred. Even if he is on the right side of the freedom argument, which he is, his motivations render his words worthless. He isn't arguing from a standpoint of protecting the rights of everyone and protecting the values on which America is built, even if he pretends that he is.

ANd by this post we see how it starts.

[UtahDan]

First of all, Oaks' professional experience should deserve some deference on these things. It's not like this is being said by a guy who has no practical knowledge of law.

And that is what leaves me scratching my head.

[LA Ute]

And that is what leaves me scratching my head.

As I said, I think Elder Oaks' concern about criminal prosecutions is far-fetched. That is my opinion as a political observer, however. He was speaking at a law school, in the manner legal scholars speak about precedents and the way a precedent can be a step down a path to results both unintended and unimaginable - to most people, anyway. Viewed that way his speech is not a head-scratcher at all, IMO.

Imagine yourself before an appellate court panel. A justice asks you about whether a ruling in your favor might create a precedent that would support a particular twist in the law sometme in the future. You are an experienced lawyer and so you would not respond, "Well, your honor, that's never happened before" (Lebowski's apparent point) or "I just don't see that ever happening, your honor, in light of how much we value a contrary interpretation in this country." (Robin's apparent position.) If you did respond that way I think you'd get a raised eyebrow from the justice (if he or she is in a good mood) and probably some tittering from lawyers in the courtroom behind you who are waiting their case's turn. You wouldn't earn any plaudits for your advocacy, that's for sure.

Elder Oaks' argument is that "if that happens," or if the precedent he warns against is established, we will be that much closer to the longer-term result he also warns against. Debatable, but not a head-scratcher, IMO.