- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Church Press Conference on Religious Freedom / Non discrimination Elder Dallin H. Oaks-
We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
One of the first things that came to mind was that this includes how you chose live your Mormon faith.
Thoughts?
I am still processing. I am not clear what the purpose was. I don’t know who was harming the church. The national media made it sound like and LGBT thing, but this has very little to do with that. As a church we haven’t been harmed in I don’t know how long. Maybe I’ve missed some news, but I am lost as to what they (the Church) was referring to. The church has the biggest stick I know and uses it generously, I would think anyone wanting to mess with it would think twice.
As to your idea of practicing it how we like, I doubt it.
An interesting article that provides context to one of the examples provided by E. Oaks: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/27/religious-freedom-in-houston/ Personally, this more closely matches my take:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/15950/todays-press-conference-double-edged-discrimination/ Yes Scoutmaster, I have often looked at the 11th article of faith in the light of how I personally choose to live my religion. In that light I interpret this statement from the church as saying I can do so as long as I don’t damage the testimonies of others. I wonder how this policy would apply to more extreme circumstances. What if one denomination interpreted the bible as saying people of African ancestry are meant to be servants in this life, and a faithful member of this church would be found “unclean” if discovered dining or associating with blacks in some unapproved way. What if their religion said interracial marriage was a crime, punishable by death? How would a social balance be obtained between this group freely exercising their right to worship according to their conscience, and the ideals of broader society?
mom3 wrote:I am still processing. I am not clear what the purpose was. I don’t know who was harming the church.
They made an announcement because the Utah legislative session started yesterday and to my knowledge, there are competing bills regarding this topic. No doubt Utah politicians were lobbying to get the church’s stance/approval. The big elephant in the room is always whether the church will support or come out against a bill because that will insure or kill it. This conference really didn’t do much in changing views but did set the agenda for what it will/won’t support in potential laws to be vote on this spring. However, it’s murky. The Legislature will probably pass an anti-discriminatory bill in regards to housing and employment with religious exemptions.
Personally, I don’t like it when the church directly involves itself in politics. Not saying they don’t have the right to (although I do think in certain situations a line can be crossed, and from personal experiences, it bleeds into corruption) but I don’t like it. Unfortunately, people are often asking the church what they should and shouldn’t support and in my opinion, the church has gotten used to giving out answers in Utah. I think the church finds it hard to resist this when it’s become protocol for so long. I just wish they wouldn’t be so involved in politics.
On the other hand, this is good for giving a more moderate perspective to the issue. Even though the church didn’t strike down all discriminatory actions, they at least drew a line with their support of non-discrimination of housing and employment. That’s a good start. Of course, there was a load of defensive language in there. It makes me sad that the church leadership is so disconnected from the trials LGBTQ members face. I’m hopeful they’re not all like that but when they started going on about the threats of “retaliation” by Gay Rights advocates and the hypocrisy of some Gay Rights advocates, I couldn’t help but think these concerns pale in comparison to the trials LGBTQ Mormons face. We have LGBTQ brothers and sisters killing themselves every week. Hearing all the jargon about the “being labeled a bigot” just didn’t feel right.
But they did say, “LGBT.” Isn’t that something new?
What I dislike is the extension of religious exemptions to individuals who practice that religion rather than restricting it to the religions themselves. That’s unfair and impossible for the law to allow. A church shouldn’t have to perform a gay marriage if it goes against doctrine, but a municipal clerk doesn’t have that same right. A clerk is not a church. hawkgrrrl wrote:What I dislike is the extension of religious exemptions to individuals who practice that religion rather than restricting it to the religions themselves. That’s unfair and impossible for the law to allow. A church shouldn’t have to perform a gay marriage if it goes against doctrine, but a municipal clerk doesn’t have that same right. A clerk is not a church.
I do think you have a point, here. It’s very murky and difficult to enforce. If a worker at a supermarket store refused to check out meat to customers because she was a vegetarian for religious reasons, she probably wouldn’t keep that job. If a man refused to serve a woman because she’s wearing “immodest apparel” which offends his religious beliefs that also wouldn’t fly.
I guess it was good that we have some acknowledgement that LGBT people should have homes and jobs, but the rest of it appeared to be a sadder interpretation of leadership than I would like. I get that a religion doesn’t want to be forced to perform acts that it doesn’t believe in, but I think we are taking a huge leap into something that hasn’t happened. Yet on the same side we can spend years acting and speaking in ways that reject a group of people and its okay. I am just really stymied on it. Don’t even get me started on the old golden rule part of it.
Hawkgrrl thanks for the links and your piece was thought provoking as usual.
Like University, I don’t like when the church gets involved with politics, either (think Prop 
. I agree with University that this appears to be a Utah-centric issue because Utah is looking at equal protection laws for nondiscrimination against those in the LGBT community similar to protections already in place based on age, gender, race, etc. Such laws are already in place in many states (like mine, which has had such laws for over 10 years). FWIW, I also dislike when the church makes a bis issue of Utah-centric things when there’s a whole world outside Utah that might be saying”What are they talking about?” (Things that make you go hmmm.)At any rate, I don’t think the church said anything new here, I think they just clarified the idea that we do believe in equal human rights for all (although we haven’t always practiced such). I believe Elder Oaks made this point in GC, and reiterated it today. In essence, I think they are saying “don’t be mean to gays just because they’re gay” but beyond believing they should have equal access to housing and jobs, don’t expect us to change our religious beliefs and start marrying them. Gay marriage has been legal in my liberal Northeastern state for several years now with no ill affects on the church. Churches that allow their pastors to marry gays do so, and churches that don’t (like ours) don’t. It really is that simple. However, some town clerks have resigned over the issue of issuing licenses, and some businesses have been forced to cater to gay weddings even if their personal beliefs are opposed to them. It must be noted that these businesses are not religious organizations – and the laws do have to be worded appropriately.
And, LDSSM, to answer your sub-question, yes, I do consider AoF 11 all the time and have made a point of saying in talks and lessons that it does say
all men, not all non-Mormon men. Quote:FWIW, I also dislike when the church makes a bis issue of Utah-centric things when there’s a whole world outside Utah that might be saying”What are they talking about?” (Things that make you go hmmm.)
That’s part of the annoyance today – this is a UTAH thing. Nothing more, but it makes every feed in the world. It’s embarrassing.
Today is Auschwitz liberation day. A day when religious freedom met it’s match. The small fact that a small state in one nation has some legislation on the table for a vote is not a loss of religious freedom. Nothing has happened to us. Nothing burned in effigy or windows smashed. It just seems like a hang nail problem verses real discrimination.
The statements were an attempt to find a reasonable balance between naturally competing ideals. I liked about half of it, and I disliked about half of it. To me, that’s not bad. Also, it’s easy to lose sight of the simple fact that
the LDS Church now is one of the two largest denomination in the US to openly support non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. (The other is the United Methodist Church.) I know a lot of LGBT advocates who are extremely happy with the statement, even though they would like more; I know a lot who aren’t happy, specifically because they want more. Reactions have been almost exactly what I expected from individuals – since I knew beforehand what they wanted and the lenses through which they would interpret. To me, something is much better than nothing, and this absolutely is something – and it’s an important something.
Having said that, I also agree with Hawk that individuals are different than religions, especially those who run public businesses. If sexual orientation should be a legally protected class, and I believe it should be, then it ought to apply to all individuals – since my baseline always is equality under the law.
Ray got here before I did :wave: .I do see one large hopeful positive out of this – Maybe/ I am praying mightily/that today’s announcement will help families in Utah and Idaho to stop throwing their LGBT kids and family out. This is a huge crime against humanity in my mind and it breaks my heart that it happens in our religious community by active members of our faith.
mom3 wrote:Ray got here before I did
:wave: .I do see one large hopeful positive out of this – Maybe/ I am praying mightily/that today’s announcement will help families in Utah and Idaho to stop throwing their LGBT kids and family out. This is a huge crime against humanity in my mind and it breaks my heart that it happens in our religious community by active members of our faith.
I am very sad to report (living in Utah until 7 months ago, that this is TRULY a big problem. I can’t believe how many people do this. I have been so surprised at people’s torn response to their OWN children and the way they feel the church is looking on this. On the flip side,
:clap: :clap: to those who stand with their family!hawkgrrrl wrote:What I dislike is the extension of religious exemptions to individuals who practice that religion rather than restricting it to the religions themselves. That’s unfair and impossible for the law to allow. A church shouldn’t have to perform a gay marriage if it goes against doctrine, but a municipal clerk doesn’t have that same right. A clerk is not a church.
Yes.
On the surface the announcement sounds good but when one starts looking closer it is lacking and still allows for discrimination.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.