Elder Oaks Rights of Bigots more important than Civil Rights

[_The Mighty Builder]

In a speech before Chapman University law school ( http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14271236 )


"Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.""

The US Constitution was written to protect the Government FROM Religion not Religion from Government. READ YOUR HISTORY

[_harmony]

Free speech isn't for everyone. It's for those with power. Elder Oaks is simply pointing out this truth.

[_sock puppet]

In a speech before Chapman University law school ( http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14271236 )


"Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.""

The US Constitution was written to protect the Government FROM Religion not Religion from Government. READ YOUR HISTORY

If that were true, Mighty Builder, wouldn't the First Amendment begin by reading "Religion shall make no rule respecting Congress, or prohibiting the free exercise of legislative powers"?

As it is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... "

Seems to me that the Constitution does protect religions (and the exercise of religion) from laws made by Congress, not the other way around.

[_sock puppet]

Free speech isn't for everyone. It's for those with power. Elder Oaks is simply pointing out this truth.

Or, it's only for those who are certain they are right.

[_The Dude]

I think Oaks is saying he wants to be free to preach against homosexuality. Of course there are currently no infringements on this freedom of religion, or more precisely freedom of speech. There are no infringements on the near-horizon either, but he wants his audience to think there is a danger. I think Oaks is sensing that a lot of people don't like his preaching against homosexuality, but he is miscasting the bitter reaction to his preaching as a threat to his freedom.

The attitude of the country is changing and Oaks wants the right to be on the wrong side of history. Oaks and his ilk are going to keep opening their big bigot-mouths to say things that will look very bad in the future. He should have that right! Not only that, but his preaching should be recorded in places where the future Mormon church can't hide it or go back and edit it like they have tried to do with other dumbass things Mormon leaders have said (about blacks, women, kinderhook plates, lamanites undergoing skin-color changes, polygamy, etc. etc. etc.)

[_sock puppet]

I think Oaks is saying he wants to be free to preach against homosexuality. Of course there are currently no infringements on this freedom of religion, or more precisely freedom of speech. There are no infringements on the near-horizon either, but he wants his audience to think there is a danger. I think Oaks is sensing that a lot of people don't like his preaching against homosexuality, but he is miscasting the bitter reaction to his preaching as a threat to his freedom.

The attitude of the country is changing and Oaks wants the right to be on the wrong side of history. Oaks and his ilk are going to keep opening their big bigot-mouths to say things that will look very bad in the future. He should have that right! Not only that, but his preaching should be recorded in places where the future Mormon church can't hide it or go back and edit it like they have tried to do with other dumbass things Mormon leaders have said (about blacks, women, kinderhook plates, Lamanites undergoing skin-color changes, polygamy, etc. etc. etc.)

True, Dude. But since they cannot hide what is being said now by these old cats, stuck in their ways, all the more need for the mopologetic down the line a bit that these cats were just 'speaking as men'. I suspect we're only seeing this mopologetic getting warmed up to go the distance. Imagine in 2021 when Prophet Bednar has to begin mopping up after these current nonagenarians and octogenarians ahead of him in the FP/12. It's good he'll have Roper, Smith and Hodges to man the mop handles.

[_Simon Belmont]

In a speech before Chapman University law school ( http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14271236 )


"Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.""

The US Constitution was written to protect the Government FROM Religion not Religion from Government. READ YOUR HISTORY

If there were no bigot's rights, TMB, you would not be allowed to post on the Internet.

[Guest]

Oaks doesn't live in Canada. We have a bill of rights. There is nothing resembling a concerted legal effort to prevent people from preaching against homosexuality in the US, and any such law would be killed in the courts in a heartbeat. If he want's to say that blacks are inherently inferior due to divine punishment or that Jews are a bunch of Christ-killers, he can do that too without any fear of reprisal. You're not fending off persecution or doing anything sexily subversive by preaching against gay relationships. You're just a bigot who's perfectly free to be so.

Hate-crime legislation, on the other hand, does impinge on beliefs. It treads on the idea that you are free to think what you please by adding criminal penalty if you commit crimes for certain reasons. He'd have an argument there if he wasn't busy fighting off boogieman in the closet.

[_MrStakhanovite]

How do you edit a post so fast?

[_krose]

I thought he was supposed to be a brilliant legal mind. No one in the government is trampling on his freedom of religion, just as the First Amendment guarantees.

The moment the federal government starts to clamp down on how Oaks and his fellow church-folk actually practice their religion, such as fining them for praying the wrong way, or tossing them into jail for baptizing the wrong type of people, he can whine about his freedom of religion being restricted, and I will be right there with him. I will gladly join the protest if the congress ever passes a law that requires them to marry gays in their temples against their will (they never will).

The same amendment that allows religious leaders to rail on gays as satan-spawned sinners, protects the rights of those sinners to protest at temples and make speeches at awards ceremonies.

Also, how do "worldwide indications" have anything to do with a right granted specifically by the US constitution?