chloe
10-15-2009, 07:43 PM
REXBURG, Idaho -- Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spoke Tuesday of religious discrimination members of his faith experienced following the passage of California's Proposition 8. He compared it to voter discrimination African Americans suffered in the 1960s.
Respect for religion in American life is deteriorating was what Elder Oaks told BYU-Idaho students. He said people of faith must insist on their constitutional rights to practice their religion and vote their consciences.
Related: Reid allegedly criticized LDS church for Prop. 8 involvement
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.) is allegedly criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for backing a California ballot measure banning same sex marriage."While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues," Elder Oaks said.
One of those issues was California's Proposition 8 to end same-sex marriage. Latter-day Saints in that state joined a coalition of faiths to help it pass.
"When churches and their members, or any other groups, speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have the right to expect freedom from retaliation," Elder Oaks said. [CLICK HERE to read the full text of Elder Oaks' speech]
Three days after last November's election, thousands gathered for a rally and march in downtown Salt Lake City, protesting the vote on Prop 8. Earlier Tuesday, in an interview with Church Public Affairs, Elder Oaks said he was not talking about simple opposition.
"What I mean by intimidation is when people exercise their religious beliefs and they are then fired from jobs, churches are subject to vandalism, people are coerced," Elder Oaks said.
He likened that intimidation to what African Americans experienced during the civil rights movement.
"I would say that the intimidation I refer to in connection to Proposition 8 was not as serious as what happened in the South, but I think the analogy is a good one," Elder Oaks said.
He also said religious values and our country's political framework are interlinked, and that losing the influence of Christianity jeopardizes our basic freedoms.
"I maintain that this is a political fact, well-qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act will always be protected by what is properly called ‘Our First Freedom,' the free exercise of religion," Oaks said.
Gay rights activists are challenging Proposition 8, which overturned same sex marriage in California.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=576&sid=8297467
Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers. The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.
As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.
Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]
Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:
“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .
“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]
For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:
“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]
Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom
Respect for religion in American life is deteriorating was what Elder Oaks told BYU-Idaho students. He said people of faith must insist on their constitutional rights to practice their religion and vote their consciences.
Related: Reid allegedly criticized LDS church for Prop. 8 involvement
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.) is allegedly criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for backing a California ballot measure banning same sex marriage."While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues," Elder Oaks said.
One of those issues was California's Proposition 8 to end same-sex marriage. Latter-day Saints in that state joined a coalition of faiths to help it pass.
"When churches and their members, or any other groups, speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have the right to expect freedom from retaliation," Elder Oaks said. [CLICK HERE to read the full text of Elder Oaks' speech]
Three days after last November's election, thousands gathered for a rally and march in downtown Salt Lake City, protesting the vote on Prop 8. Earlier Tuesday, in an interview with Church Public Affairs, Elder Oaks said he was not talking about simple opposition.
"What I mean by intimidation is when people exercise their religious beliefs and they are then fired from jobs, churches are subject to vandalism, people are coerced," Elder Oaks said.
He likened that intimidation to what African Americans experienced during the civil rights movement.
"I would say that the intimidation I refer to in connection to Proposition 8 was not as serious as what happened in the South, but I think the analogy is a good one," Elder Oaks said.
He also said religious values and our country's political framework are interlinked, and that losing the influence of Christianity jeopardizes our basic freedoms.
"I maintain that this is a political fact, well-qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act will always be protected by what is properly called ‘Our First Freedom,' the free exercise of religion," Oaks said.
Gay rights activists are challenging Proposition 8, which overturned same sex marriage in California.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=576&sid=8297467
Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers. The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.
As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.
Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]
Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:
“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .
“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]
For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:
“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]
Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom