A self-serving redefinition of religious freedom

[_The Dude]

I recently received the BYU Alumni magazine in my mailbox and read an address from Francis George, the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago. He points to the interreligious coalitions of Mormons, Catholics, and others who have fought pornography, abortion, and gay marriage. He then sets out a definition of religious freedom that he says ties Mormons and Catholics together:

According to the Catholic understanding of religious freedom, this right cannot be reduced to freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience. 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. It is the tradition established in part by Napoleon Bonaparte, who made civil peace after the terror of the French Revolution by limiting the Church to the sacristy and not permitting it to have a public role.

Is this a redefinition of religious freedom? It really bothers me. Religious freedom is now the right of religious "groups" to exercise influence -- meaning, to lobby and spend money to create laws and propositions to enforce their sectarian views of the way things ought to be. To enforce them on citizens outside their own religious group. So Muslims would have the right to seek to establish Sharia law in the United States? I guess that would be okay too?

When government fails to protect the consciences of its citizens, it falls to religious bodies to become the defenders of human freedom.

What in the world does it mean to protect the conscience of a citizen? Is a Mormon's "conscience" violated when a gay couple weds? What about the 50% of people whose conscience says gay marriage is alright? Guess what, my conscience is violated by all sorts of things religious people do in the private reality of their worship-world, but I'll get over it.

It strikes me that, however different our historic journeys and creeds might be, our communities share a common experience of being a religious minority that has been persecuted.

Atheists are persecuted too, in this country of religious freedom. And gays. Don't forget everybody who has been persecuted. That doesn't give you any moral authority to persecute others.

[_Analytics]

Is this a redefinition of religious freedom?

I don't know. It seems pretty incoherent, if you want to know the truth.

Conservative religious folks are suffering from brain damage with respect to their rights, it seems. Have you heard the reasons that the Mormon Church supported Prop 8? On one of their Prop 8 websites, they show excerpts of a video that was broadcasted to California Mormons explaining how they needed to get out there and do pro-Prop 8 missionary work. In the video, a GA explains why the church is in favor of prop 8. He said,

[Same-sex marriage rights] will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights. The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. People in private institutions with beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will increasingly be labeled as intolerant and subjected to legal penalties or social ostracism. And this will not be limited to California, as its powerful influence is felt across the country.

I understand the second half—as society becomes more enlightened, bigots will be more widely recognized for what they are. But what in the hell is the first part talking about? The Mormons will lose their “religious liberty” if Joe and Steve can marry each other? Really????? Mormons will lose the right of free association??? Why in the hell do they think that??? Mormons will lose the right of free speech? Why would they think that??? The “freedom” of families to raise their kids in a bigoted society will be lost. Okay, I understand what they are saying, but is that really a “freedom”?

[_Darth J]

Part of the talking point about "losing religious freedom" is the claim that the government will force the Church to perform same-sex sealings in the temple. Yet there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S. and foreign countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and there are temples in most of these locations. Can anyone provide an example of the LDS Church being forced to seal two gay people to each other in a temple in any of these places?

"Oh, but it might happen! Just you wait!"

[_Analytics]

Part of the talking point about "losing religious freedom" is the claim that the government will force the Church to perform same-sex sealings in the temple. Yet there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S. and foreign countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and there are temples in most of these locations. Can anyone provide an example of the LDS Church being forced to seal two gay people to each other in a temple in any of these places?

"Oh, but it might happen! Just you wait!"

If the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would lead to the Church being forced to perform same-sex sealings, then wouldn't the legal recognition of non-Mormon marriage lead to the Church being forced perform non-Mormon sealings?

[Guest]

Part of what is going on here is that Catholics are approaching this from a different theological standpoint and a different set of historical problems then are the Mormons. The Mormons like the language, but it means something else to them. Mormons are all too happy to have other religious groups notice them and like them that they don't even bother figuring out what the other group is talking about. Mormons are late comers to this debate and are content to shout "Us, too!" from the corner, without even bothering to figure out what they are agreeing with.

Catholics have been arguing this since the 16th and especially the 17th century, and it's essentially an argument with Protestant conceptions of religious freedom. For a Protestant, religious freedom can only be an individual matter, because religion is individual for a Protestant. The three main solas for Protestants, faith, grace, and scripture, are all individual matters. Thus when the modern secular/religious divide starting taking place in the enlightenment it suited the Protestants just fine. Religion would be a matter of private individual conscience, while secular reasoning would be what would be used in the public square. As long as matters of conscience were respected this was no imposition on Protestants. Religion as they defined it was completed unaffected by this divide.

However, Catholics have always argued against this vehemently. For them religion is more corporate and public. It's not just faith, grace, and scripture. Thus for a Catholic to practice their faith, there has to be some public aspect to that faith, and not just public in the sense of going to church in a public place, though it does include that. So the secular/religious divide in modern times has never sat well with Catholics, especially Catholic theologians and popes. Catholic involvement in politics and public matters has always been more prominent. For Catholics, religion should influence politics as part of being a public affair, it's not just a matter of individual conscience like it is for Protestants.

And here's the funny part. Mormons for the most part have never agreed with the Catholic view of religious participation in the public square. In the 19th century Mormons were separatist, thus they sided with neither Protestant nor Catholic arguments {edited, previous clause was: thus they sided with the Protestants}. In the 20th century Mormons were uber-intgrationist and were more than happy to adopt the Protestant model of secular/religious division in the public square.

However, in the 21st century the church has seemed totally incoherent on this matter. On one hand they want to cozy up to Evangelical Christians and be part of their club, thus supporting the the Protestant view of things. On the other hand the church was gung-ho in supporting proposition 8. Yet, this support was surreptitious, the church itself stayed relatively quiet during the whole affair, preferring to make the members do the dirty work. It seems the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. Big surprise.

However, my main point is that the LDS has never really supported the Catholic view. For them to start trumpeting Catholic arguments for religious freedom just seems like a case of religious "Me-too-ism."

[_Darth J]

Part of the talking point about "losing religious freedom" is the claim that the government will force the Church to perform same-sex sealings in the temple. Yet there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S. and foreign countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and there are temples in most of these locations. Can anyone provide an example of the LDS Church being forced to seal two gay people to each other in a temple in any of these places?

"Oh, but it might happen! Just you wait!"

If the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would lead to the Church being forced to perform same-sex sealings, then wouldn't the legal recognition of non-Mormon marriage lead to the Church being forced perform non-Mormon sealings?

Well, that's another of those questions that perforce remains rhetorical, since the people who parrot these talking points never answer.

[_The Dude]

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?

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't think many Mormons know, or even care, about the Protestant/Catholic differences in religious freedom. Most Mormons are American. Mormonism is an American religion, and therefore they apply the First amendment to their claims for religious freedom. Aristotle's post enlightened me on the historic Catholic view of religious freedom, but I agree that Mormons view it differently. Most Mormons I know proclaim the church's first amendment rights as simply an American right. The problem I see with the LDS church getting involved in social and political issues is they are hypersensitive to criticism. If they are going to take part in the marketplace of ideas, they must accept the fact that they will become a target for criticism from their opponents, and that criticism can get pretty nasty. They can't claim religious persecution and anti-mormonism every time someone or some group hurts their feelings.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Part of the talking point about "losing religious freedom" is the claim that the government will force the Church to perform same-sex sealings in the temple. Yet there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S. and foreign countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and there are temples in most of these locations. Can anyone provide an example of the LDS Church being forced to seal two gay people to each other in a temple in any of these places?

"Oh, but it might happen! Just you wait!"

How about any evidence that the Mormon Church was compelled to marry interracial couples in the eleven years between Loving v. Virginia and the rescindment of the priesthood ban?

[_malkie]

Is this a redefinition of religious freedom?

I don't know. It seems pretty incoherent, if you want to know the truth.

Conservative religious folks are suffering from brain damage with respect to their rights, it seems. Have you heard the reasons that the Mormon Church supported Prop 8? On one of their Prop 8 websites, they show excerpts of a video that was broadcasted to California Mormons explaining how they needed to get out there and do pro-Prop 8 missionary work. In the video, a GA explains why the church is in favor of prop 8. He said,

[Same-sex marriage rights] will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights. The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. People in private institutions with beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will increasingly be labeled as intolerant and subjected to legal penalties or social ostracism. And this will not be limited to California, as its powerful influence is felt across the country.

I understand the second half—as society becomes more enlightened, bigots will be more widely recognized for what they are. But what in the hell is the first part talking about? The Mormons will lose their “religious liberty” if Joe and Steve can marry each other? Really????? Mormons will lose the right of free association??? Why in the hell do they think that??? Mormons will lose the right of free speech? Why would they think that??? The “freedom” of families to raise their kids in a bigoted society will be lost. Okay, I understand what they are saying, but is that really a “freedom”?

They probably think that because here in Canada, as in other countries where same-sex marriage is recognised, the government has forced the LDS church to close down - they are not allowed to have meetings any more, or even to talk to each other on the phone.

Didn't you get the memo? [/mode=ironic]