Dallin Oaks condemning the Renaissance, science, humanism and

[SeattleUte]

How dare he, right? He and the Mormon church must be the only ones who think everyone should join their church. Shocking, I know....tell the world!

I'll give Oaks credit for this. Like any good litigator he has well identified the issue. Since the Renaissance and proceeding through Spinoza, the Enlightenment, the founding of our Republic and others, modernism, and so on, these movements have directly clashed with religion's vested inerests. There's no getting around that. Hence the desperate, virulent reactions to this current in the Middle East and even some parts of the United States. Oaks' speech raises the question of the place of religion in our society. I'd die for anyone's right to preach and practice the religion of their choice. But more and more religion is seeming the odd man out. Like your dad chaparoning your date after you're in college. What practical use is there of religion if it can't even get morality right (at least according to our iconic secular institutions)?

[imanihonjin]

Pardon my ignorance, but walk me through this one. People aren't allowed to vote based on their religious beliefs? Or lobby? Or otherwise advocate?

Tell you what, you go back and re-read that section. It seems clear to me that he is concerned that some believe that the first amendment only acts to protect ones freedom of worship and I think he expresses some concern that this is too narrow and interpretation but it should be read to also include the freedom to act on what you believe. If you want to argue that he is wrong that folks are not being prohibited from acting on their beliefs, then feel free to do it with someone else because that is not what I am saying, nor do I believe that. My point is merely, that due to his view that others are being shouted down for advocating a position based on their moral code are being shouted down in society and that that is wrong is not radical enough to be cringe worthy as you described above.

[SeattleUte]

That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another.

Some actual irony here!

[imanihonjin]

Actually, it seems to me that he's just afraid of no longer being in the majority as the world turns more to providing equal rights to everyone. I'm sure the church did similar things back in the 60s and 70s as public sentiment moved away from segregation and towards eliminating race-based segregation.

I don't doubt that the church is worried about its future as a result of the way the gay rights movement has been advancing.

[imanihonjin]

I'll give Oaks credit for this. Like any good litigator he has well identified the issue. Since the Renaissance and proceeding through Spinoza, the Enlightenment, the founding of our Republic and others, modernism, and so on, these movements have directly clashed with religion's vested inerests. There's no getting around that. Hence the desperate, virulent reactions to this current in the Middle East and even some parts of the United States. Oaks' speech raises the question of the place of religion in our society. I'd die for anyone's right to preach and practice the religion of their choice. But more and more religion is seeming the odd man out. Like your dad chaparoning your date after you're in college. What practical use is there of religion if it can't even get morality right (at least according to our iconic secular institutions)?

Religion has been at odds with secular institutions since the dawn of man. Don't worry, it isn't going anywhere and you will have plenty of issues to whine about for as long as you walk the earth. You will die a happy man in that regard.

[Solon]

He is building a straw man. Is someone suggesting we worship the supreme court?

IMO, Oaks' claim that religious directives supersede scientific reasoning, humanistic rationalism, etc. is really a whiny complaint at the loss of absolute hierarchical authority.

In priesthood-religions, the priesthood claims a monopoly on access to God. Humanism has thrived where people have challenged this monopolistic authority, whether in Asia Minor in the 6th century BC, or with the Philosophes of the Enlightenment. Protestation against priesthood monopoly isn't anti-religious. This is essentially what Luther strove for, and was the crux of the Great Awakening. Even Joseph Smith circumvented the traditional channels to God.

The internet has destroyed the sheen of absolute authority. The ability of people to share information, and the notion that everyone has a chance to lodge an opinion, offer feedback, post inane comments, etc. has its drawbacks, sure, but also undermines the acceptance of absolute authority.

The loss of absolute authority is probably a bitter pill to swallow for Oaks and other old-school General Authorities, esp. after years of enjoying it in a culture insulated against dissent and which promotes only the yessiest of yes-men.

As Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason,

Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must submit. Religion through its holiness and legislation through its majesty commonly seek to exempt themselves from it. But in this way they excite a just suspicion against themselves, and cannot lay claim to that unfeigned respect that reason grants only to that which has been able to withstand its free and public examination.

I couldn't agree more that we should suspect those who claim exemption from criticism. The Enlightenment wasn't anti-religion. It was anti-exemption-from-criticism.

The zeitgeist of today isn't anti-religion; it's pro-transparency, open dialogue, and honest criticism.

[SeattleUte]

IMO, Oaks' claim that religious directives supersede scientific reasoning, humanistic rationalism, etc. is really a whiny complaint at the loss of absolute hierarchical authority.

In priesthood-religions, the priesthood claims a monopoly on access to God. Humanism has thrived where people have challenged this monopolistic authority, whether in Asia Minor in the 6th century BC, or with the Philosophes of the Enlightenment. Protestation against priesthood monopoly isn't anti-religious. This is essentially what Luther strove for, and was the crux of the Great Awakening. Even Joseph Smith circumvented the traditional channels to God.

The internet has destroyed the sheen of absolute authority. The ability of people to share information, and the notion that everyone has a chance to lodge an opinion, offer feedback, post inane comments, etc. has its drawbacks, sure, but also undermines the acceptance of absolute authority.

The loss of absolute authority is probably a bitter pill to swallow for Oaks and other old-school General Authorities, esp. after years of enjoying it in a culture insulated against dissent and which promotes only the yessiest of yes-men.

As Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason,

I couldn't agree more that we should suspect those who claim exemption from criticism. The Enlightenment wasn't anti-religion. It was anti-exemption-from-criticism.

The zeitgeist of today isn't anti-religion; it's pro-transparency, open dialogue, and honest criticism.

Awesome. You're the best.

[Northwestcoug]

Actually, it seems to me that he's just afraid of no longer being in the majority as the world turns more to providing equal rights to everyone. I'm sure the church did similar things back in the 60s and 70s as public sentiment moved away from segregation and towards eliminating race-based segregation.

That is exactly right. The church's teachings used to be in sync with the majority opinion of the country. Within a generation, it won't be that way anymore. They are doing everything in their power to codify doctrine in law.

[Flystripper]

Tell you what, you go back and re-read that section. It seems clear to me that he is concerned that some believe that the first amendment only acts to protect ones freedom of worship and I think he expresses some concern that this is too narrow and interpretation but it should be read to also include the freedom to act on what you believe. If you want to argue that he is wrong that folks are not being prohibited from acting on their beliefs, then feel free to do it with someone else because that is not what I am saying, nor do I believe that. My point is merely, that due to his view that others are being shouted down for advocating a position based on their moral code are being shouted down in society and that that is wrong is not radical enough to be cringe worthy as you described above.

What he calls being "shouted down" is actually progression to being ignored and dismissed. Sure there is a ton of shouting back and forth early in any moral debate, but once the debate on moral issues is over, (racial, gender, sexual preference discrimination) I don't see much shouting down. I see the loser's moral position ignored and dismissed. Oaks is more worried about being ignore and dismissed on these issues, but there isn't much he can do about it except pretend that it is a bad thing.

[Flystripper]

IMO, Oaks' claim that religious directives supersede scientific reasoning, humanistic rationalism, etc. is really a whiny complaint at the loss of absolute hierarchical authority.

In priesthood-religions, the priesthood claims a monopoly on access to God. Humanism has thrived where people have challenged this monopolistic authority, whether in Asia Minor in the 6th century BC, or with the Philosophes of the Enlightenment. Protestation against priesthood monopoly isn't anti-religious. This is essentially what Luther strove for, and was the crux of the Great Awakening. Even Joseph Smith circumvented the traditional channels to God.

The internet has destroyed the sheen of absolute authority. The ability of people to share information, and the notion that everyone has a chance to lodge an opinion, offer feedback, post inane comments, etc. has its drawbacks, sure, but also undermines the acceptance of absolute authority.

The loss of absolute authority is probably a bitter pill to swallow for Oaks and other old-school General Authorities, esp. after years of enjoying it in a culture insulated against dissent and which promotes only the yessiest of yes-men.

As Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason,

I couldn't agree more that we should suspect those who claim exemption from criticism. The Enlightenment wasn't anti-religion. It was anti-exemption-from-criticism.

The zeitgeist of today isn't anti-religion; it's pro-transparency, open dialogue, and honest criticism.

wow

[imanihonjin]

What he calls being "shouted down" is actually progression to being ignored and dismissed. Sure there is a ton of shouting back and forth early in any moral debate, but once the debate on moral issues is over, (racial, gender, sexual preference discrimination) I don't see much shouting down. I see the loser's moral position ignored and dismissed. Oaks is more worried about being ignore and dismissed on these issues, but there isn't much he can do about it except pretend that it is a bad thing.

I think I agree with what you said, but again that wasn't really my point. Others seem so aghast at his concern even to the point of calling it cringe worthy. I don't see it. What he said really isn't new and isn't a big deal. Some folks here seem to get worked up over anything and everything the LDS church does.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Awesome. You're the best.

He really is. I have a man-crush on Solon.

[wuapinmon]

My children attend a public school here. Roman Catholicism is the official state religion. Mix that with Christian Socialism and you get a peculiar blend of patriotism mingled with Catholicism that seems so, well, wrong to most Americans. There is a stone grotto to the Virgin Mary in the entryway of the school, with lit votives. Once a week, they persignate themselves and say the rosary, the Ave Maria, and the Padre Nuestro together as a class for an hour. My daughter is begging me to give her a note excusing her from religion; I won't do it (mostly so she'll learn some vocabulary). I want her, when she's older, to remember what it was like to have religion forced upon her by the government (and her father) and to relish the freedoms we have at home.

[Pheidippides]

Some actual irony here!

I'm uncomfortable claiming irony until DDD has given a ruling. DH is an acceptable substitute in DDD's absence.

[TripletDaddy]

IMO, Oaks' claim that religious directives supersede scientific reasoning, humanistic rationalism, etc. is really a whiny complaint at the loss of absolute hierarchical authority.

In priesthood-religions, the priesthood claims a monopoly on access to God. Humanism has thrived where people have challenged this monopolistic authority, whether in Asia Minor in the 6th century BC, or with the Philosophes of the Enlightenment. Protestation against priesthood monopoly isn't anti-religious. This is essentially what Luther strove for, and was the crux of the Great Awakening. Even Joseph Smith circumvented the traditional channels to God.

The internet has destroyed the sheen of absolute authority. The ability of people to share information, and the notion that everyone has a chance to lodge an opinion, offer feedback, post inane comments, etc. has its drawbacks, sure, but also undermines the acceptance of absolute authority.

The loss of absolute authority is probably a bitter pill to swallow for Oaks and other old-school General Authorities, esp. after years of enjoying it in a culture insulated against dissent and which promotes only the yessiest of yes-men.

As Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason,

I couldn't agree more that we should suspect those who claim exemption from criticism. The Enlightenment wasn't anti-religion. It was anti-exemption-from-criticism.

The zeitgeist of today isn't anti-religion; it's pro-transparency, open dialogue, and honest criticism.

Long Solon Post = school is in session!