An Introduction to Religious Freedom

[Moliere]

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/intr...igious-freedom

Nothing new in here, but thought I'd post it anyway. I tend to agree with most of it, but not for the same reasons. I also disagree that religious freedom is in jeopardy. In fact, I think we are much more free to practice our religion now than we were in the past. I think we should stop measuring our religious freedom by our ability to pass influence laws that limit other peoples freedom (Prop 8).

Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them.

[Sullyute]

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/intr...igious-freedom

Nothing new in here, but thought I'd post it anyway. I tend to agree with most of it, but not for the same reasons. I also disagree that religious freedom is in jeopardy. In fact, I think we are much more free to practice our religion now than we were in the past. I think we should stop measuring our religious freedom by our ability to pass influence laws that limit other peoples freedom (Prop 8).

These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents.

I am not a constitutional scholar but I think that you hit the nail on the head. We used to hold it as a badge of honor if we as members of the church had to endure hardships because of our religious beliefs, but now we are asking people to cry us a river because we are being "impose on" or receiving "reprimands" because of these same beliefs. Man we have gotten soft.

PS. I love the subtle hint that if you want equal rights for everyone that you are not a "person of conscience".

[Northwestcoug]

Ditto to what you both said. I read this article last week, and I thought the tone was more of complaining that the curtural mores are not what they used to be. But I think you're correct that it's wishing they had more 'pull' to keep our values enshrined in laws.

[UtahDan]

Very, very few people in the US are against people worshiping as they please. Probably fewer people are okay with people being harmed or their rights trampled merely because someone is asserting that it is his religious imperative to do so. That is why a statement like this, while nice enough, doesn't mean much without specifics. None of us want religious schools to be coerced or health care providers to be punished for acting on their religious convictions. Unless their religious convictions said that they don't serve Mulisms or racial minorities, for example.

Religious freedom is very important, but so are other rights and none of them are unqualified. I'm assuming that since this piece said it is an introduction that specifics will come later. I will be interested to see what they are.

[The Rambam]

Unless the Church significantly changes its policies, BYU and BYU students will one day be denied all governmental grants, including research monies awarded to faculty, and aid grants to students (such as subsidized student loans or pell grants). The next step will be refusal to admit students from BYU into other programs, refusal to hire BYU students, and refusal to publish BYU faculty work or allow BYU faculty to speak at professional conferences.

As society we have decided that charities do work worth encouraging. We want to encourage people to donate funds to them to support their works.

But we do draw lines. If I start a group dedicated to the reinstatement of slavery, I can't get 501(c)3 status. The government, as the voice of society, says "nope, you are an ass hole and we don't want to subsidize your operations". They can't shut me down (probably), but they won't give me favored status.

The Church says that women are equal, but they can't have authority over any cash funds, can't sit on the board of the Corporation of the President or Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, can't be leaders over missions or congregations, and can't preside in their own home. But they are equal.

The Church says that gays are fine, as long as they don't act gay. They are welcome to be Mormons, as long as they commit to a life of celibacy or marry a person of the opposite gender. If they do "act out" on their gayness, they will be disciplined (disfellowshiped or excommunicated), kicked out of BYU (even if they are married under the laws of Holland or Iowa), and (of course) they can't work with youth of the same gender in any capacity.

Eventually society, by its mouthpiece government, is going to look at the Church's position and think, we don't want to subsidize these people or encourage others to support them. We think women should be equal in action and not only in word, and we think that having a gay boyfriend shouldn't get someone kicked out of BYU. So we should withdraw tax exempt status from those kooky Mormons.

And that is what keeps the Apostles up at night. It is not conceivable that federal troops will march on the Salt Lake Temple and force Elder Oaks to marry to homosexual men; or prevent Molly and John from being sealed there for eternity. But it is very conceivable that donations to the Church will have to be made with after-tax dollars. And for big donors, that will really hurt (the vast majority of us won't care, it will be a very vary small impact on our finances, if at all). And the Church's own income from investments will be subject to tax.

So when you hear the Church complain about "religious freedom", what you should understand is "the way things are going, we might have to start paying taxes!!!".

[jay santos]

Unless the Church significantly changes its policies, BYU and BYU students will one day be denied all governmental grants, including research monies awarded to faculty, and aid grants to students (such as subsidized student loans or pell grants). The next step will be refusal to admit students from BYU into other programs, refusal to hire BYU students, and refusal to publish BYU faculty work or allow BYU faculty to speak at professional conferences.

As society we have decided that charities do work worth encouraging. We want to encourage people to donate funds to them to support their works.

But we do draw lines. If I start a group dedicated to the reinstatement of slavery, I can't get 501(c)3 status. The government, as the voice of society, says "nope, you are an ass hole and we don't want to subsidize your operations". They can't shut me down (probably), but they won't give me favored status.

The Church says that women are equal, but they can't have authority over any cash funds, can't sit on the board of the Corporation of the President or Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, can't be leaders over missions or congregations, and can't preside in their own home. But they are equal.

The Church says that gays are fine, as long as they don't act gay. They are welcome to be Mormons, as long as they commit to a life of celibacy or marry a person of the opposite gender. If they do "act out" on their gayness, they will be disciplined (disfellowshiped or excommunicated), kicked out of BYU (even if they are married under the laws of Holland or Iowa), and (of course) they can't work with youth of the same gender in any capacity.

Eventually society, by its mouthpiece government, is going to look at the Church's position and think, we don't want to subsidize these people or encourage others to support them. We think women should be equal in action and not only in word, and we think that having a gay boyfriend shouldn't get someone kicked out of BYU. So we should withdraw tax exempt status from those kooky Mormons.

And that is what keeps the Apostles up at night. It is not conceivable that federal troops will march on the Salt Lake Temple and force Elder Oaks to marry to homosexual men; or prevent Molly and John from being sealed there for eternity. But it is very conceivable that donations to the Church will have to be made with after-tax dollars. And for big donors, that will really hurt (the vast majority of us won't care, it will be a very vary small impact on our finances, if at all). And the Church's own income from investments will be subject to tax.

So when you hear the Church complain about "religious freedom", what you should understand is "the way things are going, we might have to start paying taxes!!!".

Is there a precedent for what you are suggesting is the future of BYU and the church? Or is this just a theory/hope? I guess I can see a series of events over a hundred years reaching the point where this is imaginable, but I don't see how you can possibly consider this to be a reality in today's world.

[woot]

Is there a precedent for what you are suggesting is the future of BYU and the church? Or is this just a theory/hope? I guess I can see a series of events over a hundred years reaching the point where this is imaginable, but I don't see how you can possibly consider this to be a reality in today's world.

It was already a reality for Scientology before their team of lawyers apparently harassed the IRS into submission. Personally, I think it is a joke that Scientology is tax-exempt. Then again, I think it's unconstitutional for any church that isn't primarily a charitable organization (actual charity, as in saving lives, not souls) to be tax-exempt.

[jay santos]

It was already a reality for Scientology before their team of lawyers apparently harassed the IRS into submission. Personally, I think it is a joke that Scientology is tax-exempt. Then again, I think it's unconstitutional for any church that isn't primarily a charitable organization (actual charity, as in saving lives, not souls) to be tax-exempt.

Give the cliff's notes version of the Scientology issue. I assume it was a financial issue not related to their wacky practices or doctrine? I don't see the government as being in the business of telling religions what their doctrine and practices should be.

[The Rambam]

Give the cliff's notes version of the Scientology issue. I assume it was a financial issue not related to their wacky practices or doctrine? I don't see the government as being in the business of telling religions what their doctrine and practices should be.

The government never tell anyone what their doctrine and practices should be. They do engage in an analysis of whether you are engaged in "exempt activity". You must be and can only be engaged in "exempt activity" if you want tax exempt status.

"Exempt activity" is defined here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...175418,00.html

The term "religious" is the subject of much case law, but basically it means whatever the changing mores of society says it means. Burning witches would have been ok in the 1700s but not today. Today is ok to discriminate against women and gays under the claim of "religion", but tomorrow it probably won't be ok.

[Moliere]

Unless the Church significantly changes its policies, BYU and BYU students will one day be denied all governmental grants, including research monies awarded to faculty, and aid grants to students (such as subsidized student loans or pell grants). The next step will be refusal to admit students from BYU into other programs, refusal to hire BYU students, and refusal to publish BYU faculty work or allow BYU faculty to speak at professional conferences.

You're weird

[jay santos]

You're weird

I think Rambam suffers from a similar delusion as CB'ers suffer from. CB'ers spend all day talking to each other about how awesome BYU is going to be, and then before you know it 12-0 season, multiple Heismans for Heaps, and best WR corp in the nation becomes a logical perspective. I think Rambam and his buddies whip themselves into a frenzy about how the church is going to fall like a house of cards and it guides their logic.

[wuapinmon]

Stuff like this lawsuit is troubling in a religious freedom sense:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...418/story.html

I see this as troublesome in these ways:

1. Why should a religious business owner who views homosexual acts as sinful be required to allow them (the acts--though not specifically in this case) to potentially occur under their own roof? Yes, it is an enterprise, open to the public, but, we're talking about a bed and breakfast, basically also someone's home. Where do business owner religious rights end?

2. Why should two citizens be deprived of their rights to conduct commerce, in an establishment that is open to the public, due to their sexual orientation? Where do the rights of the citizen supersede the religious rights of the business owner?

3. If we allow the business owners to deny GLBT's the right to use their facilities, then does that not essentially ignore the reasoning behind overturning Jim Crow laws dealing with the rights of business owners to serve the clientele that they chose? I'm reminded of Lestor Maddox's "Pickrick Restaurant" fight (which he lost) during desegregation. While race and sexual orientation are currently seen in a different light, I can almost hear Maddox claiming that he had the right to serve whomever he chose. The difference between Maddox and these B&B owners is that he later went on to become Governor of Georgia and did A LOT to promote black Georgians in government, business, and law enforcement. However, he also claimed that he had no regrets about his fight against desegregation, claiming that the individual's right to associate with whomsoever they chose was sacrosanct.

[YOUTUBE]7m3JCPrQ3zs[/YOUTUBE]

[Jeff Lebowski]

Unless the Church significantly changes its policies, BYU and BYU students will one day be denied all governmental grants, including research monies awarded to faculty, and aid grants to students (such as subsidized student loans or pell grants). The next step will be refusal to admit students from BYU into other programs, refusal to hire BYU students, and refusal to publish BYU faculty work or allow BYU faculty to speak at professional conferences.

As society we have decided that charities do work worth encouraging. We want to encourage people to donate funds to them to support their works.

But we do draw lines. If I start a group dedicated to the reinstatement of slavery, I can't get 501(c)3 status. The government, as the voice of society, says "nope, you are an ass hole and we don't want to subsidize your operations". They can't shut me down (probably), but they won't give me favored status.

The Church says that women are equal, but they can't have authority over any cash funds, can't sit on the board of the Corporation of the President or Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, can't be leaders over missions or congregations, and can't preside in their own home. But they are equal.

The Church says that gays are fine, as long as they don't act gay. They are welcome to be Mormons, as long as they commit to a life of celibacy or marry a person of the opposite gender. If they do "act out" on their gayness, they will be disciplined (disfellowshiped or excommunicated), kicked out of BYU (even if they are married under the laws of Holland or Iowa), and (of course) they can't work with youth of the same gender in any capacity.

Eventually society, by its mouthpiece government, is going to look at the Church's position and think, we don't want to subsidize these people or encourage others to support them. We think women should be equal in action and not only in word, and we think that having a gay boyfriend shouldn't get someone kicked out of BYU. So we should withdraw tax exempt status from those kooky Mormons.

And that is what keeps the Apostles up at night. It is not conceivable that federal troops will march on the Salt Lake Temple and force Elder Oaks to marry to homosexual men; or prevent Molly and John from being sealed there for eternity. But it is very conceivable that donations to the Church will have to be made with after-tax dollars. And for big donors, that will really hurt (the vast majority of us won't care, it will be a very vary small impact on our finances, if at all). And the Church's own income from investments will be subject to tax.

So when you hear the Church complain about "religious freedom", what you should understand is "the way things are going, we might have to start paying taxes!!!".

Look out people. SU has somehow hijacked Rambam's account!

[cougjunkie]

Look out people. SU has somehow hijacked Rambam's account!

Seriously that was an unbelievable post. You would think guys like Rambam (at least based on his own beliefs) with crazy imaginations like that would relate very well to Joseph Smith.

[UtahDan]

Here is the next step:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78099075/Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-Letter-Jan-12-2012-4"]Marriage and Religious Freedom Letter Jan 12 2012 4