Oaks on religious freedom

[LA Ute]

Stating my view very simply, but I hope not simplistically, I am worried about the future. I hope my kids and grandkids don't have to live in a world where they are vilified and marginalized in the same way unrepentant institutional racists are now. The only way to avoid that is to win - or perhaps battle to a draw - in the court of public opinion on the issue of whether insisting on maintaining the traditional definition marriage is the same as racism. Maybe we'll lose that argument, and if we have to face such vilification or marginalization, so be it, as Triplet suggests.

That said, I think we need to speak up now for our beliefs and our right to express them. I don't think missionary work will go well if we end up on the same category as crackpot racists. But that may be what the future looks like. I think that's the basic problem E. Oaks is addressing.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[LA Ute]

I was addressing your point. You said smart people disagree strongly. You are smart. My guess is that once the Churchs stance changes on this issue, so will yours. What's the problem?

As I've said before, you are more lovable and credible when you don't do this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, and the core of this debate is whether the two movements - for civil rights for African-Americans and other racial minorities, on the one hand, and for same-sex marriage, on the other, equate. Your premise is that they do. Not everyone accepts that premise. It is an issue on which smart, reasonable people of good will disagree strongly.

I am not sure that is the core of the debate. I threw that out there because if you follow the thread, BlueHair posted this:

I also support the right of decent people to refuse to do business with members of his church because of such beliefs.

and tooblue responded specifically to this sentence as follows:

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.

While I am not suggesting that I want people to boycott church-related businesses, I do believe it can be a perfectly legitimate means of expressing disagreement, as was illustrated during the civil rights movement. I don't think the objective here is to eradicate freedom of thought.

And since you brought it up, I certainly would view the overall gay rights movement as having lots of parallels with the civil rights movement. No analogy is perfect, but it seems to be playing out with about the same script.

[LA Ute]

I am not sure that is the core of the debate. I threw that out there because if you follow the thread, BlueHair posted this:



and tooblue responded specifically to this sentence as follows:



While I am not suggesting that I want people to boycott church-related businesses, I do believe it can be a perfectly legitimate means of expressing disagreement, as was illustrated during the civil rights movement. I don't think the objective here is to eradicate freedom of thought.

And since you brought it up, I certainly would view the overall gay rights movement as having lots of parallels with the civil rights movement. No analogy is perfect, but it seems to be playing out with about the same script.

Well, if nothing else we've made one thing clear: I'm right and you're wrong.

[UtahDan]

Stating my view very simply, but I hope not simplistically, I am worried about the future. I hope my kids and grandkids don't have to live in a world where they are vilified and marginalized in the same way unrepentant institutional racists are now. The only way to avoid that is to win - or perhaps battle to a draw - in the court of public opinion on the issue of whether insisting on maintaining the traditional definition marriage is the same as racism. Maybe we'll lose that argument, and if we have to face such vilification or marginalization, so be it, as Triplet suggests.

That said, I think we need to speak up now for our beliefs and our right to express them. I don't think missionary work will go well if we end up on the same category as crackpot racists. But that may be what the future looks like. I think that's the basic problem E. Oaks is addressing.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

If the church is ultimately in the same category as crackpot racists in the public mind it won't be because it got its platform or pulpit taken away or because it got marginalized by the government. I just don't see the government doing that. Maybe in Canada, but not here. The church, IMO, is getting marginalized (and will become ever more marginalized on this issue and in general as time passes) because people understand its position perfectly and find it repugnant. The problem here is the substance, not as Oaks is suggesting that somehow the microphone gets taken away or made harder to use. Of course, the church is right to argue the merits of its position and stick to its guns if it feels that is best and unquestionably it should have the unfettered ability to do so.

But let me ask you since tb ignored it, do you agree with me that whether gays should have civil rights is a completely separate question and issue from whether churches should have the right to condemn them?

[RobinFinderson]

Stating my view very simply, but I hope not simplistically, I am worried about the future. I hope my kids and grandkids don't have to live in a world where they are vilified and marginalized in the same way unrepentant institutional racists open homosexuals are now. The only way to avoid that is to win - or perhaps battle to a draw - in the court of public opinion on the issue of whether insisting on maintaining the traditional definition marriage is the same as racism. Maybe we'll lose that argument, and if we have to face such vilification or marginalization, so be it, as Triplet suggests.

That said, I think we need to speak up now for our beliefs and our right to express them. I don't think missionary work will go well if we end up on the same category as crackpot racists. But that may be what the future looks like. I think that's the basic problem E. Oaks is addressing.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Fixed that for you.

At the heart of this is that Oaks wants it to be culturally acceptable for churches to vilify homosexuality while he wants it to be culturally anathema for homosexuals to vilify churches. It is a classic case of wanting to 'dish it out, but not take it.'

In this case it has been a LONG TIME since the church has been in a marginalized position. With two of the leading candidates for president coming up through the church's ranks, and a TINY church basically owning an entire state, the church just isn't in the underdog position here. It is like some bully that has gotten very accustomed to picking on gay kids, and now the gay kids have gotten together and jumped the bully in the park after school, and the bully is crying his eyes out and calling the situation unfair. PuhhlEEEZE.

[woot]

Stating my view very simply, but I hope not simplistically, I am worried about the future. I hope my kids and grandkids don't have to live in a world where they are vilified and marginalized in the same way unrepentant institutional racists are now. The only way to avoid that is to win - or perhaps battle to a draw - in the court of public opinion on the issue of whether insisting on maintaining the traditional definition marriage is the same as racism. Maybe we'll lose that argument, and if we have to face such vilification or marginalization, so be it, as Triplet suggests.

Are you so confident in your brainwashing abilities that you are assuming that all your kids and grandkids will be as anti-homosexual as you? What if one of them reads a book or, god forbid, gets to know a homosexual person?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Are you so confident in your brainwashing abilities that you are assuming that all your kids and grandkids will be as anti-homosexual as you? What if one of them reads a book or, god forbid, gets to know a homosexual person?

This is a little over the top.

[FMCoug]

This is a little over the top.

Come on man. Don't you know that everyone who ever reads a book or meets someone comes to the same (obviously right) conclusion?

[LA Ute]

This is a little over the top.

Anyone who actually knows me would find it funny.

[LA Ute]

Fixed that for you.

At the heart of this is that Oaks wants it to be culturally acceptable for churches to vilify homosexuality while he wants it to be culturally anathema for homosexuals to vilify churches. It is a classic case of wanting to 'dish it out, but not take it.'

In this case it has been a LONG TIME since the church has been in a marginalized position. With two of the leading candidates for president coming up through the church's ranks, and a TINY church basically owning an entire state, the church just isn't in the underdog position here. It is like some bully that has gotten very accustomed to picking on gay kids, and now the gay kids have gotten together and jumped the bully in the park after school, and the bully is crying his eyes out and calling the situation unfair. PuhhlEEEZE.

Robin, I think the language you are using here is typical of the overheated rhetoric that doesn't help the discussion. I am not talking here about content only, but mainly about substance. When people throw out "hatred" and "vilify" in describing their opponents' motivations and actions that doesn't help, IMO. This is not a lecture from me, just an observation of how the debate as been corrupted (perhaps on both sides) by over-the-top language.

If the church is ultimately in the same category as crackpot racists in the public mind it won't be because it got its platform or pulpit taken away or because it got marginalized by the government. I just don't see the government doing that. Maybe in Canada, but not here. The church, IMO, is getting marginalized (and will become ever more marginalized on this issue and in general as time passes) because people understand its position perfectly and find it repugnant. The problem here is the substance, not as Oaks is suggesting that somehow the microphone gets taken away or made harder to use. Of course, the church is right to argue the merits of its position and stick to its guns if it feels that is best and unquestionably it should have the unfettered ability to do so.

But let me ask you since tb ignored it, do you agree with me that whether gays should have civil rights is a completely separate question and issue from whether churches should have the right to condemn themhomosexual behavior?

OK, I think you ask good questions and make a defensible point or two. Kinda sorta. Regarding the bolded question, as I've corrected revised it, in my opinion those are indeed separate questions, and should be.

But, but.... Gay civil rights activists do not want them to be separate. In modern America the Left has a penchant for imposing its will on others regarding speech and behavior when the Left thinks the speech or behavior in question is unacceptable. The Left has pushed its agenda through the use of public opprobrium, statutes and lawsuits. That worries me.

Mormon history is interesting in this regard. Polygamists were jailed for practicing their religion. In response to the Constitutional challenge to those prosecutions, Reynolds v. United States established the "belief/action" distinction in First Amendment analysis: Beliefs can't be subjected to governmental restraint, but actions can (a very rough statement of the Reynolds rule). Given the leftward drift of Constitutional law and the civil liberties positions generally urged by leftist legal scholars (to which 4 out of the 9 current members of the Supreme Court are quite sympathetic), I think there is good reason to be worried about what inroads might be made into the First Amendment rights of churches based on the Reynolds distinction. The argument that "that'll never happen here" is just not persuasive, IMO.

You're welcome to disagree with me,of course; just because you're wrong doesn't mean you are not a good person.

[Uncle Ted]

Mormon history is interesting in this regard. Polygamists were jailed for practicing their religion. In response to the Constitutional challenge to those prosecutions, Reynolds v. United States established the "belief/action" distinction in First Amendment analysis: Beliefs can't be subjected to governmental restraint, but actions can (a very rough statement of the Reynolds rule). Given the leftward drift of Constitutional law and the civil liberties positions generally urged by leftist legal scholars (to which 4 out of the 9 current members of the Supreme Court are quite sympathetic), I think there is good reason to be worried about what inroads might be made into the First Amendment rights of churches based on the Reynolds distinction. The argument that "that'll never happen here" is just not persuasive, IMO.

Since you brought it up... it is going to be interesting to see how the Canadian court rules on the recent challenge on its anti-polygamy law. It seems to me a lot of the same arguments can be applied to both same-sex and polygamous marriages (maybe we should just generalize and call them "alternative marriages"):

The justice is expected to issue a ruling later this year on whether an anti-polygamy law dating to 1892 violates Canada’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

[...]

One professor said that plural marriage violates international human rights laws and another linked it to increases in social ills, such as crime and discrimination against women, according to the Globe and Mail of Toronto and The Province of Vancouver. But lawyers arguing against the law pointed to a Cornell legal study concluding that, even though polygamy laws are seldom enforced, they keep people in those communities from reporting abuse to authorities, the Vancouver Sun reported.

[...]

“What’s happening is children are being born into this, but we don’t have the same rights, we don’t have any protections,” the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation quoted Jessop as saying. “It’s not being prosecuted, but it’s not being regulated, either. My theory is decriminalizing the crime would be giving people some rights, so we have claim to property, we have claim to help.”

[...]

A pair of Supreme Court rulings that found religious freedom does not empower breaking the law have cooled interest in the polygamy question going before the justices, he said. Unless, that is, the Supreme Court takes up the issue of same-sex marriage.

“That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy,” McCormack said. “The U.S. courts are not going to be interested in polygamy until they have first dealt with same-sex marriage.”

[UtahDan]

But, but.... Gay civil rights activists do not want them to be separate. In modern America the Left has a penchant for imposing its will on others regarding speech and behavior when the Left thinks the speech or behavior in question is unacceptable. The Left has pushed its agenda through the use of public opprobrium, statutes and lawsuits. That worries me.

I think human beings have the penchant for imposing their will on others when they have power. We see this in government and every other human institution (including, maybe especially, churches) and when there is consensus or the agenda being pushed is our own we see it as either benign or necessary if we see it at all.

I am not a huge fan of the creation of civil right through litigation, there is an amendment process for that. But equally ugly and problematic, in my view, are processes which more or less allow direct democracy (looking at you CA ballot initiatives) which strip away all the layers that "refine and enlarge the public view." One gives legislative power to too few and the other is the weapon of majority tyranny, to say nothing of losing the benefits of formulating legislation in conversation with those who oppose you (I say that with a very straight face). No pun intended. Okay maybe a little.

On the other hand I have no problem with groups shaming other groups and their members or governments publicly. Those are the tactics of Gandhi, MLK and sufferagists. Of course, this must be done peacefully always and respectfully where possible to be affective.

I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know what the future holds. No one does. But I say "never" because the individualism and the visceral resistance to being told what you can say, the distaste for theocratic monarchy's and creeds that allowed Liberalism to take root here are so firmly entrenched here that I think there would be revolution before people would allow the government to trammel religious expression. If the KKK can march down Main Street under police protection, I think the church has little to fear from the government. The question of whether the government continues to give a church support of various kinds is a different question, however, and one where I can see ground being lost. But I don't think that is what we are talking about. If it is, the debate needs reframing.

[LA Ute]

I am not a huge fan of the creation of civil right through litigation, there is an amendment process for that. But equally ugly and problematic, in my view, are processes which more or less allow direct democracy (looking at you CA ballot initiatives) which strip away all the layers that "refine and enlarge the public view." One gives legislative power to too few and the other is the weapon of majority tyranny, to say nothing of losing the benefits of formulating legislation in conversation with those who oppose you (I say that with a very straight face). No pun intended. Okay maybe a little.

I really dislike the initiative process on principle, but I do see the need for it, especially with a dysfunctional legislature like the one we have now (it's the opposite mirror image of Utah's, in many ways). In Prop 8's case, we had a statute passed overwhelmingly by the voters overturned by a 4-3 State Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage under the State Constitution. The use of a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution was the only means left to the citizens to reverse the Court's decision. It's the same process that would be followed nationally in order to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision. To deride that effort as some kind of abuse of the process makes no sense to me. (I don't think you are doing that, BTW.)

On the other hand I have no problem with groups shaming other groups and their members or governments publicly. Those are the tactics of Gandhi, MLK and sufferagists. Of course, this must be done peacefully always and respectfully where possible to be affective.

Do you think it would have been all right for Yes On 8 supporters to shame individuals who had donated to the "No" side and try to get them fired from their jobs or otherwise harm them economically because of their actions in the electoral arena?

I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know what the future holds. No one does. But I say "never" because the individualism and the visceral resistance to being told what you can say, the distaste for theocratic monarchy's and creeds that allowed Liberalism to take root here are so firmly entrenched here that I think there would be revolution before people would allow the government to trammel religious expression. If the KKK can march down Main Street under police protection, I think the church has little to fear from the government. The question of whether the government continues to give a church support of various kinds is a different question, however, and one where I can see ground being lost. But I don't think that is what we are talking about. If it is, the debate needs reframing.

I don't have a crystal ball either. I hope you're right and I am wrong. But I think the opposite is true.

[UtahDan]

Do you think it would have been all right for Yes On 8 supporters to shame individuals who had donated to the "No" side and try to get them fired from their jobs or otherwise harm them economically because of their actions in the electoral arena?

I don't think anyone should be fired for their religious or political beliefs. On the other hand, I don't think people have to ignore either of those things in who they chose to do business with. I am ambivalent here because I know many good people who this happened to and I certainly would not have wanted that to be so. I will answer this way however, if there were a movement afoot in our country that grew powerful enough to, through their representatives, get a constitutional amendment voted on by the states that would affectively repeal Loving v. Virginia I would very intensely desire to see them shamed, would not do business with them and would encourage others not to do so. So if I'm honest, the tactic does not bother me if I think the issue is important enough (very subjective, I know).