Oaks on religious freedom

[RobinFinderson]

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.

I doubt you can support this idea with evidence. You certainly won't find any mainstream evidence for this notion, and you most definitely won't be able to find enough wackos to show that this is either a significant or growing trend. There have been some attempts to control 'hate speech' on public university campuses, and those attempts have been routinely shut down by the courts. That is about as mainstream as you will get for any movement to police hate speech, and even that has been limited to university campuses. The ACLU certainly opposes it, and MANY of the pro-gay-rights people are dyed in the wool ACLU types (I'd venture more than half, but that is admittedly a guess).

Care to defend your assertion? It sure rings false from my little tent on the left.

[LA Ute]

I doubt you can support this idea with evidence. You certainly won't find any mainstream evidence for this notion, and you most definitely won't be able to find enough wackos to show that this is either a significant or growing trend. There have been some attempts to control 'hate speech' on public university campuses, and those attempts have been routinely shut down by the courts. That is about as mainstream as you will get for any movement to police hate speech, and even that has been limited to university campuses. The ACLU certainly opposes it, and MANY of the pro-gay-rights people are dyed in the wool ACLU types (I'd venture more than half, but that is admittedly a guess).

Care to defend your assertion? It sure rings false from my little tent on the left.

On the left? What? Where did the libertarian Robin go?

[BlueHair]

It's pretty funny for Oaks to be worried that preaching hate will be outlawed by hate speech legislation. Either way, I think he should be able to preach what he wants. I also support the right of decent people to refuse to do business with members of his church because of such beliefs. It's been proven time and again that churches can change doctrine based on the fear of losing money and property.

[tooblue]

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.

"Hatred" is a hyperbolic word used by extremists in an attempt to demean their opposition and attempt to paint them as less than human. Your appeal to labeling church teachings as hate is reprehensible and renders your criticisms worthless.

[LA Ute]

"Hatred" is a hyperbolic word used by extremists in an attempt to demean their opposition and attempt to paint them as less than human. Your appeal to labeling church teachings as hate is reprehensible and renders your criticisms worthless.

Well, it's much easier to attack the person than the argument.

[CardiacCoug]

Why are the GAs obsessed with keeping gay people down?

Stuff like this is terrible PR for the Church. Even if the Church leaders don't want to change any of the Church's official anti-gay policies and anti-gay beliefs, they should just shut up about them. Why would we highlight these beliefs?

Don't they have a public relations person telling them that this stuff (and Packer's talk) hitting the papers sets the Church back in the eyes of 90% of intelligent people in the western world?

Is this what Christ would be teaching if He were here on earth? He would be lecturing on the importance of His Church fighting for it's legal right to continue to condemn homosexuals.

[tooblue]

It's pretty funny for Oaks to be worried that preaching hate will be outlawed by hate speech legislation. Either way, I think he should be able to preach what he wants. I also support the right of decent people to refuse to do business with members of his church because of such beliefs. It's been proven time and again that churches can change doctrine based on the fear of losing money and property.

And it's been proven time and again that such methodology is a tactic of oppressive ideologies, intolerant of religious diversity and willing to take any action necessary to eradicate true freedom of thought from it's society. This very methodology is currently being employed in Egypt, Pakistan and Iran.

[tooblue]

Why are the GAs obsessed with keeping gay people down?

Stuff like this is terrible PR for the Church. Even if the Church leaders don't want to change any of the Church's official anti-gay policies and anti-gay beliefs, they should just shut up about them. Why would we highlight these beliefs?

Don't they have a public relations person telling them that this stuff (and Packer's talk) hitting the papers sets the Church back in the eyes of 90% of intelligent people in the western world?

Is this what Christ would be teaching if He were here on earth? He would be lecturing on the importance of His Church fighting for it's legal right to continue to condemn homosexuals.

Straw man.

[LA Ute]

Here's the text of the speech. It's long and heavily footnoted. Clearly he intended to make a major statement. I'm about to get on a plane and will read it then.

[CardiacCoug]

Straw man.

Which part misrepresents the argument? That Oaks speaks for Christ or that he wants to maintain the Church's right to criticize homosexuality?

Those points seem pretty basic.

[LA Ute]

Which part misrepresents the argument? That Oaks speaks for Christ or that he wants to maintain the Church's right to criticize homosexuality?

Those points seem pretty basic.

Well, you said "condemn homosexuals," not criticize homosexuality. Just keepin' ya honest, my friend.

[CardiacCoug]

Well, you said "condemn homosexuals," not criticize homosexuality. Just keepin' ya honest, my friend.

Typical lawyer.

[tooblue]

Which part misrepresents the argument? That Oaks speaks for Christ or that he wants to maintain the Church's right to criticize homosexuality?

Those points seem pretty basic.

1. The fact that you pretend to speak for Christ in opposition to someone who you admit speaks for Christ is a misrepresentation of Christ's position on the subject.

2. You state unequivocally that the churches aim is to "keep[ing] gay people down" when in fact that is not the truth.

3. You state unequivocally that the church is anti-gay when in fact it is not the truth.

4. See L.A.'s post.

[LA Ute]

Typical lawyer.

I yam what I yam.

[Solon]

Here's the text of the speech. It's long and heavily footnoted. Clearly he intended to make a major statement. I'm about to get on a plane and will read it then.

It's an interesting speech.

In my opinion, The Enlightenment is the time period to which we can most readily compare these types of skeptical developments. I think it might be useful to distinguish between institutions of religion and religious belief, much as the Philosophes did. There might be such a thing as "natural religion" (Hume) that finds itself opposed to institutionalized religion and all its baggage (persecution, fanaticism, sectarian squabbles). Instead, Oaks seems (to me) to lump all "religion" together in an artificially constructed source of moral authority.

Religion as the exclusive source of "right" and "wrong" is a tough proposition to defend. I'd like to think that reason could get us close to some kind of ethical code. But then again Kant was a believer.