Religious Freedom Fear Mongering in July Ensign

[Not Buying It]

So there is a rather over the top article on religious freedom in the July Ensign:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/07/reli ... k?lang=eng

I ask you, is there pending legislation anywhere in the U.S. on even a single one of the so-called "threats" in their list? For example: "You may be required to work on the Sabbath or religious holidays even when others are willing to take your shift and your employer accommodates other nonreligious interests." "You might be required to hide your religion or perform tasks at work that go against your beliefs. Does it seem fair, for example, that a doctor who opposes abortion on a religious or moral basis be required to perform one even though numerous other doctors nearby are willing? Should you be forced to wear an immodest uniform when it’s not necessary for your job function?" "Churches may be forced to employ people who disagree with or refuse to live core values of their faith, threatening their ability to carry out their religious missions."

There is absolutely no imminent danger of most of the things in the article happening anytime soon. I find it disgusting that the Church is trying to whip up a fear frenzy about religious freedom when there are no real, credible threats to it. The only thing threatening them is that they can't be jerks to gays and lesbians and not get called on it - that is really what all the "religious freedom" rhetoric is about. Absolutely deplorable.

[Culper Jr.]

There is absolutely no imminent danger of most of the things in the article happening anytime soon. I find it disgusting that the Church is trying to whip up a fear frenzy about religious freedom when there are no real, credible threats to it. The only thing threatening them is that they can't be jerks to gays and lesbians and not get called on it - that is really what all the "religious freedom" rhetoric is about. Absolutely deplorable.

^^^ Yup, this, exactly. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but we can't always choose the social consequences of our actions. The church wants to basically silence LGBT people's freedom of speech when they are critical of the church and call it freedom of religion. The church can't seem to realize that stuff like this cuts both ways.

[NOMinally Mormon]

So, having to work on Sunday is a threat to religious freedom? Does this author have limited work experience? Some workplaces are open on Sunday and working on Sunday is an expectation. It would be unfair to make coworkers pick up your Sunday shifts. I work in healthcare and nobody I've worked with would consider begging off all Sunday shifts. And I've known quite a few Mormons at work. They totally get it and don't expect any privileges on account of their religion. Maybe Utah Mormons are different, I dunno.

[NOMinally Mormon]

Another point: Forbidden from discussing their religion at work. Who even does this? It would be so unprofessional to discuss one's religion at work, not to mention opening oneself up to possible accusations of harassment. Even when I was a believing mormon, I left my religion outside the door of my workplace. Again makes me wonder if the authors of this article have work experience outside of COB.

[Culper Jr.]

Again makes me wonder if the authors of this article have work experience outside of COB.

I know, I was thinking the same thing.

None of these examples is a violation of religious freedom; you can always quit, walk away, get a different job. The government is not forcing you to do any of these things or to believe a certain way. We are free to choose an employment path that meshes with our values, not to force a business with different values to change to meet ours. So I guess the church is suggesting that it be a law that everyone has to cater to the LDS religion? I'm not sure "freedom" means what the church thinks it means.

"Churches may be forced to employ people who disagree with or refuse to live core values of their faith, threatening their ability to carry out their religious missions." - Really? So the church wants to force businesses to hire and cater to people who disagree with the core values of the business, but in the same breath want to be exempt from the same treatment? The hypocrisy is just staggering.

[DPRoberts]

Again makes me wonder if the authors of this article have work experience outside of COB.

I know, I was thinking the same thing.

None of these examples is a violation of religious freedom; you can always quit, walk away, get a different job. The government is not forcing you to do any of these things or to believe a certain way. We are free to choose an employment path that meshes with our values, not to force a business with different values to change to meet ours. So I guess the church is suggesting that it be a law that everyone has to cater to the LDS religion? I'm not sure "freedom" means what the church thinks it means.

"Churches may be forced to employ people who disagree with or refuse to live core values of their faith, threatening their ability to carry out their religious missions." - Really? So the church wants to force businesses to hire and cater to people who disagree with the core values of the business, but in the same breath want to be exempt from the same treatment? The hypocrisy is just staggering.

I couldn't resist the opportunity for a Princess Bride quote

[DPRoberts]

Religious schools that maintain honor codes may lose their accreditation and be denied research funds and even federal student loans and grants, diminishing the value of their degrees, undermining the quality of their education, and making it financially impossible for many students to attend.

This is Rich. As I recall the issue that was reported as having a possible impact on BYU's accreditation was that the honor code would kick people out of school for changing beliefs. And they are raising this as an issue of religious freedom? How do you spell hypocrite?

[oliblish]

When I was at BYU my new roommate mentioned he had to work on Sunday. I asked where he worked. It was the MTC cafeteria.

[moksha]

"Freedom to choose. That’s what the War in Heaven was all about. We couldn’t afford to lose agency then, and we can’t afford to lose it now. That is why we Mormons must vigorously oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or else the Russians will be choosing our next President."
-- Elder Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, April 1965, Alternate Reality

Some may say we Mormons use this religious freedom pretext to grind our ax against the right of same-sex marriage. Well, why shouldn't we? Those darned gentiles shot down our beloved right to polygamous marriage. We should make others suffer as well!!!

[oliver_denom]

A lot of the discussion I've seen on this topic is confused because they don't make a distinction between law and culture. There are actions which violate the law, and then there are actions that violate social norms. The church is exclusively focused on some of its own institutional practices which may violate the law, practices that individual members of the church have very little contact with. So, in order to rally support for their true aims, they raise the specter of changing social norms for political purposes. Someone may write an op-ed or protest in the street to maintain their right to not work on Sunday, but that's a right which was never in danger. What they're actually doing is providing popular support and money for lobbyist to influence the law in order to allow institutions like BYU to deny housing to LGBT students. Culture within a free society can't be legislated, but determining who can and who cannot receive public money absolutely can. If you want to explore just how open religious freedom is in the United States, then just ask the Klan or Scientology whether the government has forced them to change their beliefs. The government won't allow them to harm others, and the government won't fund their activities, but they're not stepping in to stop them from speaking or worshiping how they please.

To be clear, the LDS church and Dallin Oaks in particular is lying to the world by redefining religious liberty. In all cases, the freedom of religion is always subordinated to other more basic fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't claim the protection of religious freedom if your actions go beyond the personal and begin to infringe upon the rights of others or to cause harm. For example, it is not lawful to abuse children because your religion dictates that they should be beaten to learn obedience. It is not lawful to detain people against their will because your religion states that they need to be ritually purified. Among other things, religious freedom does not give you the right to bomb abortion clinics, physically attack people who where immodest clothing, or otherwise harass people who don't want to associate with your church. The Bishop may claim that he has no choice but to knock on your door every Saturday morning at 9 am because of his beliefs, but that doesn't obligate you to participate. Religious liberties are not limitless.

But the complaint goes beyond just wanting to elevate religious liberty to that of foundational right which trumps all others, as in "Why did you punch Jenny in the nose? Because she wouldn't accept my invitation to read the Book of Mormon. Well...I guess that's your right then", the church also wants to be culturally accepted. Unlike a congressman who can be strong armed or bribed with donations, the culture has no central authority. Its dispersed and diverse, and even in Utah where the church dominates, its having a hard time keeping control of cultural changes. If a business, for example, decides it won't hire you because you won't work on Sunday then its free to do so. No one's rights have been trampled. If you absolutely won't work on Sunday, then its up to you to find a job where that isn't required. You haven't become a victim of some oppressive system. If you want to spew venom against gay people and refuse to do business with them, then that's also your right, but don't expect the right to have everyone else be okay with that. There are likely to be cultural repercussions for those actions that simply can't be legislated. To quote many a general authority, you can choose an action but not the outcome.

There is some legitimate debate as to what extent discrimination ordinances should be applied. There are areas of life which are fundamental, such as having a place to live, eat, receive healthcare, and find a job where the state has a powerful stake in making sure its citizens aren't denied the right to life and liberty because some zealots want to run them out of town because of religious belief. But does a bakery fall under that umbrella of necessity? Probably not. Does a religious university who is anti-gay at its core fall under that umbrella? Again, probably not. As long as choice exists to go elsewhere, people are still allowed to be judgmental and bigoted hypocrites. You can't pass a law against being a dick. But that's the real problem the church faces. It may carve out legal protections where it can be a dick to humanity without government sanction, but there's nothing it can do against society at large or even against its own people, when they reject the church in droves.

Congratulations Dallin Oaks, chances are you will win the right to be a dick to people in the United States. But non-congratulations on winning the right to be a dick without a social backlash, because that won't happen. You can make your choices, but you can't choose the consequences, not even with all your deceptive op-eds in your church run publications, like the Deseret News.

[Not Buying It]

Well said oliver_denom .

[blazerb]

When I was at BYU my new roommate mentioned he had to work on Sunday. I asked where he worked. It was the MTC cafeteria.

I used to give a roommate a ride to the MTC on Sundays for his job in the cafeteria. I did not mind. It gave me an excuse to skip priesthood meeting.

My "favorite" point was this one: You could lose your job or leadership positions for expressing religious beliefs—even outside of work. Given the Ruthie Robertson situation, I don't think the church has much to complain about.

[moksha]

Wonder if the Church's policy efforts might be better focused on ways to force the Big 12 Conference to take BYU into their ranks. Senator Orin Hatch (M-Utah) would be more than happy to introduce whatever legislation is required to make this happen. The Church could issue a mandate that its members attend all BYU conference games to show those doubting gentiles of the Midwest that BYU will help keep the stands full of paying fans. A benefit to this shift in policy would be that the LGBT community would not have to feel further discrimination by Mormons.

[dareka]

So, having to work on Sunday is a threat to religious freedom? Does this author have limited work experience? Some workplaces are open on Sunday and working on Sunday is an expectation. It would be unfair to make coworkers pick up your Sunday shifts. I work in healthcare and nobody I've worked with would consider begging off all Sunday shifts. And I've known quite a few Mormons at work. They totally get it and don't expect any privileges on account of their religion. Maybe Utah Mormons are different, I dunno.

And let's not forget all the people employed by the church who have to work on Sunday. Such hypocrisy.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

So, having to work on Sunday is a threat to religious freedom? Does this author have limited work experience? Some workplaces are open on Sunday and working on Sunday is an expectation. It would be unfair to make coworkers pick up your Sunday shifts. I work in healthcare and nobody I've worked with would consider begging off all Sunday shifts. And I've known quite a few Mormons at work. They totally get it and don't expect any privileges on account of their religion. Maybe Utah Mormons are different, I dunno.

And let's not forget all the people employed by the church who have to work on Sunday. Such hypocrisy.

I think about that every time I watch KSL 5 news on Sunday evening.

[Dravin]

Your children in public schools may be required to learn about sexual and gender theories that contradict basic Church teachings. Many public schools already teach sex education in a way that’s fundamentally contrary to Church teachings, and some have required reading lists with explicit content.

Please show me curricula that are in agreement with the religious beliefs of everyone on the planet. Okay, we'll narrow it down some, with every person in the United States. Okay, we'll narrow it down again, with every parent of children and child in the public school system in the United States. Oh wait, I forgot we need to include the teachers since we wouldn't want them to have to teach something contrary to their religious beliefs.Should be interesting to see what on earth could possibly qualify.