DiscussMormonism.com

In a speech titled "Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society" (see full transcript), Elder Oaks, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, encouraged religious freedom's defenders and detractors to "understand the other side's point of view" and "avoid leading out with nonnegotiables or extreme positions."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... lture-wars

Oaks seems to lack self awareness.

“How would the great movements toward social justice in the United States, such as the abolition of slavery or the furthering of civil rights, have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious proponents had been banned from participating on the issue by the assertion that private religious or moral positions were not an acceptable basis for public discourse or lawmaking?”

Oaks seems to be painting a bleak picture of the freedom of religion.
What's he worried about?

Oaks has lost the war, now he is seeking terms. Too late.

I think he doesn't like being called out for his anti-lgbtq stance. Well deal with it oaks or change your position.

I have a question wrote:Oaks seems to be painting a bleak picture of the freedom of religion.
What's he worried about?

From reading the transcript, he appears to be misunderstanding the tenants of the separation of church and state. He seems to be going on about how it's suggesting that they can't express political opinions and must denounce religion in order to speak on the topic, as opposed to (from my understanding) that a law cannot be made on the basis of religious reasons.

His talk about a ceasefire and "seeing both sides" seems disingenuous too when he start off with

Moreover, those who condemn religion as the source of great atrocities through the ages must face the fact that the bloodiest conflicts in history, including the mass killings of the last century, were not done in the name of religion.[2] The genocide of the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and the ethnic cleansings in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Central Africa have been primarily motivated by secular ideologies and political, ethnic, or tribal differences, not by religious rivalries.[3]

Ignoring the fact the Holocaust did have at least some level of religious motivation, the rest of the talk goes on about all these egregious attacks on religion by secularism, and how it is encroaching on religious liberties (that he stated was also being encroached by non Judeo-Christian religions as well.)

His request to understand the other point of view overall seems rather one sided as a whole. To be fair, that may be a side-effect of advocating his own position alone, as disappointing as that may be.

Maybe his thinking is addled from being whapped upside the head by a White Salamander and never apologizing for any of the stupid things he says?

SuperDell wrote:Maybe his thinking is addled from being whapped upside the head by a White Salamander and never apologizing for any of the stupid things he says?

Can you blame him? He has been groomed since the early 80's to believe all his thoughts are inspired. He seems to actually believe this too. Hence, no apologies are necessary.

Exiled wrote:I think he doesn't like being called out for his anti-lgbtq stance. Well deal with it oaks or change your position.

Its called being Mormonicious

Oaks:

“we should join with others of like mind in striving to change the civil law to accommodate the divine.”

Of course in his mind he gets to decide what the "divine" is.

sunstoned wrote:Oaks:

“we should join with others of like mind in striving to change the civil law to accommodate the divine.”

Of course in his mind he gets to decide what the "divine" is.

And don't forget, one of his collegues *is scripture*....

Oakes knows the difference between using religion as a means to end discrimination and using religion as a justification for imposing discrimination. It is disappointing to see him equate the two.