Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

What's that old saying? something like:

Never trust anyone under 30 who is not a revolutionary or anyone over 40 who is not a conservative.

Another version is:

"If you are young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

Winston Churchill?

[UtahDan]

This is an excellent observation.

I am full of excellent observations. Also, shit.

[UtahDan]

Another version is:

"If you are young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

Winston Churchill?

You guys are older than I am, but I am finding that as I age I become more fiscally conservative (because I am now paying more taxes) and more socially liberal (life experiences). You all have convinced me, however, that having teenagers is going to cause my paradigm to shift yet further.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You guys are older than I am, but I am finding that as I age I become more fiscally conservative (because I am now paying more taxes) and more socially liberal (life experiences). You all have convinced me, however, that having teenagers is going to cause my paradigm to shift yet further.

That matches my experience.

[creekster]

You guys are older than I am, but I am finding that as I age I become more fiscally conservative (because I am now paying more taxes) and more socially liberal (life experiences). You all have convinced me, however, that having teenagers is going to cause my paradigm to shift yet further.

That's sort of true for me. I am not sure I am getting more socially liberal, but I am definitely more tolerant and forgiving of things I don't approve of. IOW in the past I thought I was right and I wanted everyone to agree with me. I still think I am right but I don't care very much if most people disagree. Live and let live.

[LA Ute]

You guys are older than I am, but I am finding that as I age I become more fiscally conservative (because I am now paying more taxes) and more socially liberal (life experiences). You all have convinced me, however, that having teenagers is going to cause my paradigm to shift yet further.

Same with me, although I have always been politically conservative, I was more of a Rockefeller Republican once. I think we naturally become more compassionate and less judgmental with time as we realize life isn't as cut and dried as we may have thought in our youth, good people make bad decisions, and so forth. Having children just adds a dimension to one's perspective, and it grows as your children grow, and you see the things that imperil them differently.

[Moliere]

You guys are older than I am, but I am finding that as I age I become more fiscally conservative (because I am now paying more taxes) and more socially liberal (life experiences). You all have convinced me, however, that having teenagers is going to cause my paradigm to shift yet further.

Good point, although I've always been fiscally conservative I find myself much more socially liberal than before. I call myself socially central, but in reality I'm all over the board depending on the issue. I'm pro civil unions, pro-life, pro-open border with temp worker program, etc. I also find myself becoming more deist as I age, but I still have a burning testimony of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith as a prophet.

I have my own moral compass and for me it points due north.

[UtahDan]

I have my own moral compass and for me it points due north.

Mine just points me toward the buffet line lately. Probably I need to get that fixed.

[RobinFinderson]

You might want to consider the source of the quote before coming to the conclusion that these people are just poking fun at religion.

Hey Tio, I looked up the source, and while interesting, I've got a couple of points:

1. I'm not sure that Bob Avakian wants to make illegal religious belief/worship/speech. Not all communists go about it the same way.

2. I'm not sure that people quoting Bob Avakian want to make illegal religious belief/worship/speech.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Joanna Brooks weighs in:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...by_gay_rights/

Interesting point here:

In his address, Oaks clarified that the major threat to religious freedom was actually “moral relativism.” But where some see the decadence of “moral relativism,” I see the advancement of religious pluralism and the erosion of a conservative religious prerogative to define public life. For 50 years Mormons have “passed” as regular Americans and harnessed the power of popular social and religious conservatism to advance political agendas (such as the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment and the passage of Proposition 8 and other anti-marriage-equality laws) in the service of the most conservative version of LDS theology. On political-religious matters, we have partnered almost exclusively with “natural allies” like conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and conservative Jews. (Indeed, in his address, Oaks mobilized several rhetorical tropes that appealed exclusively to conservatives, including the idea of a “conspiracy” to scrub out references to God in US history and the ugly canard that President Obama attempted to undermine freedom of religion by using the phrase “freedom of worship.”)


But if the battle to protect religious freedom is a real as Oaks argues, Latter-day Saints may need to rethink our decades-old strategy of relying on popular conservatism as a cover for our own unique theological interests. Now as it appears inevitable that the balance of public opinion is turning or will soon turn in favor of civil marriage equality for LGBT people, Mormons stand to lose the political prerogatives that we’ve enjoyed as a benefit of popular political conservatism. We are facing the stark prospect of once again returning to the marginal position we occupied in the late 19th century during the period of open Mormon polygamy: as a religious minority with views on marriage that reflect our own theology but diverge significantly from civic norms. Gone will be the pride we once took in our power to direct public opinion to meet our own private goals.

[SeattleUte]

Joanna Brooks weighs in:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...by_gay_rights/

Interesting point here:

She's a lot smarter than Oaks, which goes to show you what graduating at the top of U of Chicago law school means.

I do take issue with this:

Latter-day Saints may need to rethink our decades-old strategy of relying on popular conservatism as a cover for our own unique theological interests.

She's being too hopeful or generous. LDS "unique theological interests" are not different from "popular conservativism," and "popular conservavism" isn't any cover for LDS beliefs. They are organically the same. The LDS movement is part of the same process in America as the Evangelical movement.

[Flystripper]

Joanna Brooks weighs in:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...by_gay_rights/

Interesting point here:

good thoughts

This isn't precisely like polygamy in that heterosexual marriages will still be very popular no matter what happens with gay marriage. In the future Mormons won't have to hide who they are married to in order to be accepted by society. However, Mormons may need to hide their personal beliefs to be socially accepted and that deception is logistically much easier than hiding in the mountains with your 10 wives.

As gay marriage gains greater acceptance in society social conservative religious allies will likely gradually modify their beliefs. Will Mormon's follow suit? If they are the slowest to change (like they have been in the past with race and women's issues) they will find themselves associated with marginalized groups like KKK, skinheads, and crazy religious cultists. Let's hope that Mormons are not the slowest to change or they may look around and not like who they are "sleeping" next to in this whole debate.

In some respects I think it would be easier this time around if Mormons didn't have allies in this belief. If Mormons were the ONLY group that ended up against gay marriage it would be much more comfortable than eventually being associated with some of the worst groups in society. There are plenty of wonderfully redeeming things about LDS people and its religion. LDS people are some of the best of the best out there in many respects. It would be a shame to become known for this belief. How long has it taken to shed the polygamy and racist stigma? Mormon's are still fighting this perception. Hell Mormons are probably disproportionately racist and sexist even today. Oaks is trying to stop this marginalization, but there really isn't anything he can do short of changing the Mormon position.

This will be interesting to see how this plays out over my life.

[Jeff Lebowski]

She's a lot smarter than Oaks, which goes to show you what graduating at the top of U of Chicago law school means.

And to think you steered one of our best and brightest there.

[UtahDan]

And to think you steered one of our best and brightest there.

That isn't where Babs went.

[Uncle Ted]

Hey Tio, I looked up the source, and while interesting, I've got a couple of points:

1. I'm not sure that Bob Avakian wants to make illegal religious belief/worship/speech. Not all communists go about it the same way.

2. I'm not sure that people quoting Bob Avakian want to make illegal religious belief/worship/speech.

You might not be right. Not all communists and atheists (exiled or not) may want to do "away with all gods".