Fence Sitter wrote:At what point does the law take precedence over religious freedom and why?
When religious freedom becomes excessively harmful to others.
The LDS church's racist treatment of black men and women was essentially only harmful to Mormons, and those who didn't like it could simply leave the Mormon church. It was problematic but it was relatively contained.
The U. S. government tries to practice freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has failed on this in so many ways and in so many places, but it tries. Part of freedom of religion and freedom of speech is, as much as possible, giving people the freedom to be wrong. That is why the government tends to only intervene when that "freedom to be wrong" crosses into harming others, especially those outside the religious movement.
Thanks for the reply MsJack.
We are speaking in matters of degree. I believe both doctrines have a negative effect on society. It is more difficult to judge the current effects of the racial doctrines of the church then it is to see the historical consequences of polygamy. The LDS practice of denying the black the priesthood certainly had a negative effect beyond just those blacks who wanted to join the church, it served as an example of racism endorsed by God to the rest of the nation. Continuing to allow the LDS cannon to represent skin color as a curse from God also has negative effects beyond the members of the Church. Certainly some of the dialogue that surrounds Mitt Romney's run for president is evidence of that. I understand the need for the government to interfere with how polygamy was practiced in Utah in the 1800's or nowadays by the FLDS, but would such a need exist now if polygamy were legal and regulated just like any other marriage?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Fence Sitter wrote:We are speaking in matters of degree. I believe both doctrines have a negative effect on society. It is more difficult to judge the current effects of the racial doctrines of the church then it is to see the historical consequences of polygamy. The LDS practice of denying the black the priesthood certainly had a negative effect beyond just those blacks who wanted to join the church, it served as an example of racism endorsed by God to the rest of the nation. Continuing to allow the LDS cannon to represent skin color as a curse from God also has negative effects beyond the members of the Church.
Well, Fence Sitter, let me ask you this to help me understand your own position better: what do you propose?
Do you really want to see a government that makes it illegal for religions to refuse to ordain certain parties based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.?
Or do you simply feel that polygamy should have been a protected form of religious practice just as discriminatory ordination policies currently are?
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
The First Amendment protects a lot of different religious behaviors, including some that break the law. It actually surprises me that religiously-motivated polygamy isn't protected yet. I suspect it will win protection eventually.
Basically, to overturn a free-exercise claim, the state has to show that it has a "compelling interest" in forbidding a certain kind of behavior. It also has to show that the law is neutral-- i.e. that it's not targeted against a particular group. The standards applied by the courts haven't been entirely consistent, though. In the nineties, conservative judges overturned the "compelling interest" standard and greatly weakened the scope of free exercise. Then Clinton passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. which restored the "compelling interest" standard. The courts then ruled that the Act can only apply at the federal level, not to state governments. Some state governments have passed their own mini-versions of the Act, but not all of them. Suffice to say, the standard for interpreting Free Exercise today is somewhat uneven. Depends which state you live in, and whether the law you're breaking is state or federal.
I suspect the reason no one's bothered to overturn the anti-polygamy law is that the government doesn't enforce it, so it hasn't faced a major legal challenge.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MsJack wrote:Well, Fence Sitter, let me ask you this to help me understand your own position better: what do you propose?
Do you really want to see a government that makes it illegal for religions to refuse to ordain certain parties based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.?
No I do not.
MsJack wrote:Or do you simply feel that polygamy should have been a protected form of religious practice just as discriminatory ordination policies currently are?
I think polygamy and racial discrimination should be a protected practice now as long as there is no "compelling interest", as CK points out, to limit them. There was, in my opinion with the Brighamites and there is with the FLDS. I do not see any harm in how it is practiced outside of closed societies nowadays here in the United States nor do most people it seems. In our society today it is okay to have TV shows flaunting polygamy, which is illegal but not okay to have one flaunting racism which is legal.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Joseph Antley wrote:I wouldn't say "inconsequential," but certainly not nearly as sweepingly consequential as Dr. Hendricks makes it out to be.
Well, I'm not understanding something... You admit that The Book of Mormon, specifically 1 Nephi 12:23, says some things that are racist in nature in reference to the American Indian (idle, loathsome, filthy); yet somehow that is not as morally wrong as making racist statements about black people?
Can you clarify? Because it seems your only beef is that Dr. Hendricks got the object of The Book of Mormon's racism incorrect.
H.
A Bump for Antley.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir