Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk


Apostle Oaks and Religious Freedom

posted by Mark Silk

Dallin Oaks, one of the LDS Church’s dozen Apostles, spoke last week on
“Preserving Religious Freedom” at the Chapman University School of Law,
and an interesting speech
it was. Not least interesting was the way Oaks surrounded what he had
to say with statements from non-Mormon religious authorities like
Cardinal Francis George and Rabbi Harold Kushner. Mormons happily
collaborate with those of other faiths on good works, but they won’t
pray with them. Oaks’ readiness to use the word “ecumenical” creeps
towards making spiritual common cause in a way that, to this eye, looks
like something of a departure for LDS general authorities.

As for
the substance of his remarks, Oaks fell rather interestingly between
his religious bureaucrat’s stool, his sometime law professor’s chair,
and his former seat on the Utah Supreme Court bench. Which is to say,
into a somewhat awkward posture.

He begins with the debatable
proposition that religious liberty is in trouble in America. The
evidence he adduces mostly has to do with ways that religious
institutions and individuals may be pressured to accommodate to social
norms they oppose. If society recognizes same-sex relationships as
legitimate, up to and including marriage, then it indubitably creates
challenges for those who find such relationships morally unacceptable.
But this is hardly a new thing in the history of American religious
pluralism. An ordinance forbidding discrimination against same-sex
couples in housing is hardly more burdensome than the Supreme Court’s
1890 Reynolds decision barring Mormon polygamy. Oaks does not so much as
mention Reynolds, which shot down a central LDS religious practice.

He does recognize that the Court substantially weakened religious liberty in the 1990s, thanks to the Smith decision
declaring that any neutral law of general applicability can trump a
free exercise claim. But he doesn’t fix the blame for the decision where
it belongs: on Antonin Scalia, who authored the opinion and led the
judicial charge. That would call into question Oaks’ claim that it’s not
recent jurisprudence but “moral relativism” (MR) that is responsible
for undermining religious freedom today. No one would accuse Justice
Scalia of MR.

In attacking MR, Oaks doesn’t claim that we all
need to adhere to the same moral norms, but rather that it’s important
for religious freedom that we believe that such norms are timeless and
God-given. Why so? Moral absolutists throughout history have been happy
to restrict the religious freedom of those who disagree with them. I’d
rather have religious freedom depend on those committed to the sanctity
of the individual conscience–like those moral relativists over at the
ACLU.

In the meantime, I’d be interested in knowing how Apostle Oaks feels about that new piece of legislation
introduced by state representative LaVar Christensen that would protect
Utahns from prosecution for their religious beliefs–up to a possibly
including the practice of polygamy.  



Advertisement
Comments read comments(3)
post a comment
kenneth

posted February 11, 2011 at 6:10 pm


The ones who say religious liberty is threatened always define religious liberty to mean the freedom to deny others their liberty and to force government to act almost as a theocracy for their own sectarian interest. It’s a delicious irony that this instict to enforce “real” religiosity over others has come back to bit the traditionalists in the posterior, in the form of the Smith decision.



report abuse
 

MH

posted February 12, 2011 at 7:45 am


The moral relativism boogeyman is brought up by Pope Benedict also and it’s tired. Religious conservatives ignore the fact that there’s general agreement on morals (e.g. theft, murder, cruelty are wrong), and that’s how socities function.
It’s around the edges where there’s disagreement. A great example would be the question “are frozen embryos people?”. Even they disagree on that question, ask Orrin Hatch.
For example if an Aztec God worshiping cult sprung up and wanted to cut people’s hearts out. Everyone would agree on curtailing their religious liberty.



report abuse
 

Lori

posted February 14, 2011 at 11:35 am


Elder Oaks brings up an important point in that the longstanding views of faith and morality preached from the pulpit have offended many non-practitioners. They seek redress in the courts for their perceived insults. That the offended’s rights to NOT be offended are trumping religious expression and the protections of the religions’ free exercize are being infringed. I agree!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!  

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a look. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCW

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and young daughters left behind in Boone County, Indiana,

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has happily been using the term since late 2008, when it

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as celibacy, do not explain the sexual abuse "crisis." Celib

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.