Quentin Crook talks religious freedoms....

[_I have a question]

Elder Quentin L. Cook issued an unwavering charge to lawyers, law students, educators and business professionals who gathered Friday in the Salt Lake Tabernacle: Don’t drop the ball on religious freedom.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... edoms.html

“But the recognition that individual rights are part of the design of a loving Creator is part of both Latter-day Saint and Catholic theology and other faiths,” he said. “It is not government which has the disposition and power to grant these protections and rights; they are derived from our Creator.”

Except, it is. It is Government who grants protections and rights regardless of what God/Allah/Thetans/Muhammad/The Sun/Reverend Moon etc. has to say on the matter.

“First, individual believers should be able to worship and express faith openly without fear of retaliation or ostracism; live openly according to religious beliefs; be free from discrimination in a particular occupation or profession because of religious beliefs; and to be free from religious discrimination in employment, housing, or traditional places of public accommodation such as: hotels, restaurants and public transportation.”

I like the way Crook tries to carve out the way the Church operates from how he expects other institutions to operate. Do as we say, not as we do. Quentin, have you noticed that society is making quicker and more robust progress in tackling discrimination, whereas religious institutions, like yours, are desperately holding on to their legal right to be discriminatory in how they operate their membership schemes?

“This includes the freedom of a church to form a legal entity, to own and use property, including schools, hospitals, educational institutions, etc., establish its doctrine, govern its ecclesiastical affairs (including employment), set requirements for church membership, conduct worship, administer its sacraments and ordinances according to its doctrine and to speak out on public issues.”

This is such a dangerous statement that it beggars belief that he made it. Basically he’s advocating that religions, all religions, should be able to set up and operate faith schools. He’s advocating that society, instead of being separated into countries, become organised by types faith. He’s a fringe cult lunatic. He’s advocating for Shariah Law, but probably doesn’t realise it.

[_Maksutov]

Special pleading and endless privilege. Theodemocracy.

[_huckelberry]

I have a question, it sounds like your argument is with Thomas Jefferson ,that rabid advocate of Shariah law.

Or perhaps you suspect Mr Cook of some unspoken meaning. I do not know Mr Cook from the guy down the street so this second possibility is unknown to me.

[_Tuna_Surprise]

I'm sure Elder Cook is going to be the first to volunteer to being taken to a Jehovah's Witness-run emergency room.

Nobody really cares if they have as much freedom as they want in running an actual church - but when you're running non-church related businesses (universities/hospitals/real estate) you need to be subject to the same laws. Nothing is stopping the church from not taking federal grants, funding, etc. for BYU. They can offer all the degrees they want in Moon Quakerism. But if my tax dollars are supporting their universities and hospitals, they better meet minimum standards of human decency.

[_moksha]

Elder Cook's appearance was in conjunction with the new campaign to buy Tithing-Bonds to help win the War against Religious Freedom" by curtailing the so-called "equal protection under the law" for those renegade Homosexuals.

His mentioning of the Magna Carta goes without saying, but might as well say it anyway: He was reaffirming the Divine Rights of God's earthly representatives.

[_huckelberry]

Moksha may be making a sly reference to a real problem in the article. I was genuinely puzzled by the three quotes opening this thread. The first is a direct reflection of the declaration of independence, the second the constitution and the third current civil rights law. These express ideas of religious freedom which I think are very valuable. Support of these would hardly be a negative in my mind.

It would be an expectation of mine that Mormons have sensitivity to the issue of religious freedom due to past history of having experienced religious persecution which was real unlike the phony whining of some recent American evangelicals. I would welcome Mormon thoughts to counteract some repressive religious impulses people may have.

I was puzzled so read whole linked article to see if there were more troubling aspirations in it. There are a couple of lines which are intentionally ambiguous, (dog whistles for something unspoken?)

//from the article,
"“There is a growing number of people who do not feel accountable to God for their conduct and attempt to diminish the rights of those who do feel accountable,” he said. “Many want to eliminate or even destroy religious freedom.”

I cannot tell if this is simply Mormons patting themselves on the back or is it pointing to a specific unspoken target. I do not know this many who want to eliminate or destroy religious freedom. There are perhaps a few. (some of whom may be religious)

[_moksha]

I cannot tell if this is simply Mormons patting themselves on the back or is it pointing to a specific unspoken target. I do not know this many who want to eliminate or destroy religious freedom. There are perhaps a few. (some of whom may be religious)

Religious freedom is the code phrase used for the right to discriminate against same-sex marriages. Think of it being akin to the slogan of "State's Rights" as the code phrase used by those seeking to reinstate racial segregation.

While this issue was settled by a Supreme Court decision, some Church leaders are unable to let it go. It has become part of their institutional identity

[_huckelberry]

Moksha, Your response is level headed and clear. It also has a good chance of being correct but it is not stirring up any discussion.

So in the interest of muddying the water I want to ask a few questions of people in general.

How many people think the government should be limiting religious groups abilities to set there own policy about homosexuality for their members? How many people think the government should require religious organizations to perform same sex marriages because such are legal forms of marriage?

Should the government limit peoples right to call homosexual activity unacceptable sin by accounting expressing such beliefs as hate speech?

Should the United States or any government consider repressing speech it determines to be hate speech?

There have been politicians who have uttered the words "hate speech is not free speech."

[_I have a question]

How many people think the government should be limiting religious groups abilities to set there own policy about homosexuality for their members? How many people think the government should require religious organizations to perform same sex marriages because such are legal forms of marriage?

Should the government limit peoples right to call homosexual activity unacceptable sin by accounting expressing such beliefs as hate speech?

Should the United States or any government consider repressing speech it determines to be hate speech?

There have been politicians who have uttered the words "hate speech is not free speech."

This is simple. Religions are free to discriminate howseover they choose within their own buildings and properties. The moment religious people choose to operate within the public sector, say by opening a cake shop, they have committed to serving the public. Their religious beliefs are secondary. Don’t want to serve a gay couple with a wedding cake? No problem, don’t open a cake shop in general society.

Problems only arise when religious people seek to impose their beliefs upon other people who are not of their faith. The LDS Church should run the LDS Church, not try and meddle in the operation of a society that is outside of Mormonism.

The solution for the Church is likewise simple. Set up an enclosed compound for Mormon to Mormon trade. Put a fence around City Creek and operate it as a private trading compound that operates religious discrimination. Job done.

Elder Crook wants to protect the LDS Church members right to not being discriminated against, whilst simultaneously protect a Mormons right to religiously discriminate against others not of the shame faith.

As mak said, it’s special pleading of the most obnoxious, society-unfriendly kind.

[_huckelberry]

This is simple. Religions are free to discriminate howseover they choose within their own buildings and properties. The moment religious people choose to operate within the public sector, say by opening a cake shop, they have committed to serving the public. Their religious beliefs are secondary. Don’t want to serve a gay couple with a wedding cake? No problem, don’t open a cake shop in general society.

Problems only arise when religious people seek to impose their beliefs upon other people who are not of their faith. The LDS Church should run the LDS Church, not try and meddle in the operation of a society that is outside of Mormonism.

The solution for the Church is likewise simple. Set up an enclosed compound for Mormon to Mormon trade. Put a fence around City Creek and operate it as a private trading compound that operates religious discrimination. Job done.

Elder Crook wants to protect the LDS Church members right to not being discriminated against, whilst simultaneously protect a Mormons right to religiously discriminate against others not of the shame faith.

As mak said, it’s special pleading of the most obnoxious, society-unfriendly kind.

I have a Question,

Your proposal seems to fit squarely with current law in the US to my understanding. I have no objection to these.

I am a bit surprise that LDS would be in a worry about economic relations with homosexual couples. My understanding is that in the 19th century they were happy to supply alcohol in Salt Lake. Why not mr and mr cakes? I thought standing on that sort of pious flag waving was the hobby of some fundamentalist Protestant groups. I am not closely following LDS cake making and related attitudes so have no clear idea if there is any reason anybody would want to close that SLC mall to gentiles.