A self-serving redefinition of religious freedom

[_Aristotle Smith]

Great post, Aristotle. I feel enlightened.

So the real Mormon position for religious freedom is devoid of a coherent principle? They just go with whatever works, chasing whatever spotlight makes them look good?

Just shocking, isn't it?

P.S. I made a factual error in my original post. It doesn't affect the point I was trying to make, but I like to own up to my mistakes.

[_The Nehor]

This isn't a redefinition. It's the way it's always been. The growing secularism in society has just made it more noxious to many.

Churches were one of (if not the most important of) the main forces behind abolitionism, the Civil Rights movement, Child Labor reform, and many other changes.

Now suddenly there is the general worry and cry that 'you can't legislate morality'. This is the silliest things I've ever heard. On what basis do you suggest that we legislate? What is fair? What is just? What is kind? All moral decisions.

What the secularists want is for religious people not to participate in the public forum of ideas and legislation with their ideas because they don't like them. Their objections are what exactly? That religious people block-vote? So what? So do liberals and conservatives.

As for the supposed difference between Protestant and Catholic freedom of religion I don't see the problem. The Church has a long history of speaking out on what they consider to be moral issues (Catholic model) and not mandating anything amongst everything else and leaving the distinctions up to the individuals (Protestant model) in such things as economics, political parties, and welfare programs (despite what bcspace and Droopy say). It's not some kind of weird contradiction despite the odd need so many here seem to have to want to snidely play it up as one.

[_Gadianton]

Religious freedom means that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square. Any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom to a private reality of worship and individual conscience, as long as you don’t make anybody else unhappy, is not in our American tradition.

If the Mormons who supposedly believe this understand and accept the implication that EVs etc. are free -- nay, are bound by duty -- to publicly denounce Mormonism as their conscience dictates even if it makes Mormons (and in particular, apologists) unhappy, then I at least credit them for being consistent.

However, if they have some ad hoc adjustment to their principle of freedom that disallows challenges to Mormonism within the public square, challenges that make Mormons unhappy, then their status as Mopologists is revealed for all to repudiate.

[_DarkHelmet]

Religious freedom means that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square. Any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom to a private reality of worship and individual conscience, as long as you don’t make anybody else unhappy, is not in our American tradition.

If the Mormons who supposedly believe this understand and accept the implication that EVs etc. are free -- nay, are bound by duty -- to publicly denounce Mormonism as their conscience dictates even if it makes Mormons (and in particular, apologists) unhappy, then I at least credit them for being consistent.

However, if they have some ad hoc adjustment to their principle of freedom that disallows challenges to Mormonism within the public square, challenges that make Mormons unhappy, then their status as Mopologists is revealed for all to repudiate.

I agree. I have no problems with Mormons, or any other group, trying to exercise their influence in the public square, but don't expect special treatment just because you are a religious organization, and don't expect the public to simply sit by and accept your influence. Just because a religion has the ability to whip their followers up into a frenzy doesn't make their message any more important.

[_The Dude]

Nehor,

This isn't a redefinition. It's the way it's always been.

That is the claim. Lets see if it holds up.

Churches were one of (if not the most important of) the main forces behind abolitionism, the Civil Rights movement, Child Labor reform, and many other changes.

I thought of this myself after I read the Archbishop's address, because religious people have indeed been important forces behind many social reforms. Another way to look at it is this: historically speaking (maybe not so much today and in the future), so many people in America were religious that any social movement needed religious "backing" before it could be successful. Social reforms that didn't get sufficient religious backing were delayed or failed. None of this means churches are morally superior.

Now suddenly there is the general worry and cry that 'you can't legislate morality'. This is the silliest things I've ever heard. On what basis do you suggest that we legislate? What is fair? What is just? What is kind? All moral decisions.

I'm not saying "you can't legislate morality" because, in any useful political/social sense of the word, I think giving gays the right to marry is the "moral" thing to do. I agree that there are all kinds of moral decisions but in the public forum they have to be justified by a rationale that everybody can relate to, and that means doing it without playing a "religious superior" wildcard and calling it "religious freedom".

What the secularists want is for religious people not to participate in the public forum of ideas and legislation with their ideas because they don't like them.

Maybe I do and maybe I don't like their ideas. I take their ideas as they come. Religious folks can submit their ideas and fight for what they think is moral -- just like I can from an irreligious standpoint -- but this isn't what "Freedom of Religion" means. Freedom of religion is absolutely not something that gives a religious person a protection or freedom in political participation that an irreligious person doesn't have. Do you see what I'm saying? I think this Archbishop thinks he has a right and privilege of conscience that I don't have, because he has Religion and I don't. That is total B.S.

Their objections are what exactly? That religious people block-vote? So what? So do liberals and conservatives.

No, religious people can block-vote if they like. So can retired persons and dentists and circus performers. So what does freedom of religion have to do with this????

My objection is this:
Archbishop says Religious freedom does not only mean "freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience" but I think that's exactly what it means. That's all it has ever meant.

Archbishop says Religious freedom also means "that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square" but I say that is incoherent in any sense that could be called religious freedom, because retired persons, dentists and circus performers can do precisely the same thing. So why bring it up?

Archbishop's redefinition only serves to puff up his sense of self-righteousness over the dentists and circus performers and homosexuals who have different ideas about morality.

And to top it all off he says Catholics have been persecuted. Nice try, pop.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Now suddenly there is the general worry and cry that 'you can't legislate morality'. This is the silliest things I've ever heard. On what basis do you suggest that we legislate? What is fair? What is just? What is kind? All moral decisions.

A large part of legislation has little to do with morality really. It mostly revolves around administrative laws and codes, and much of the American Legislation process is really non-moral. There are a few moral principles that guide legislation in the big picture in America, but its effect isn’t that great. If you’ve spent any time as a page or intern involved in the process, it becomes painfully clear.

The reasoning behind that phrase, “You can’t legislate morality” holds true for most moral decisions outside of widely accepted common natural law.

[_MrStakhanovite]

What the Archbishop wants is freedom from ridicule.

[_The Dude]

What the Archbishop wants is freedom from ridicule.

If you read his short address it is clear he wants a lot more than that:

"...religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square."

"...a public role for religious bodies in promoting civic virtues. "

"...religious bodies to become the defenders of human freedom."

He says it is the right of churches even if it brings ridicule, making churches "the target of retribution by intolerant elements".

As I said to The Nehor, a church has the same right as any irreligious body, and it must accept the same risks. There is no special "religious freedom" clause that covers this.

[_The Nehor]

Archbishop says Religious freedom does not only mean "freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience" but I think that's exactly what it means. That's all it has ever meant.

I disagree.

Archbishop says Religious freedom also means "that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square" but I say that is incoherent in any sense that could be called religious freedom, because retired persons, dentists and circus performers can do precisely the same thing. So why bring it up?

Because there has been a concerted effort to silence this type of political activity.

Archbishop's redefinition only serves to puff up his sense of self-righteousness over the dentists and circus performers and homosexuals who have different ideas about morality.

No, it's basic protection.

And to top it all off he says Catholics have been persecuted. Nice try, pop.

They have been. Not all the time and not everywhere but they have been.