Printer-friendly
Send to e-mail
PDF version
LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks' speech last week at BYU-Idaho, where he charged there are efforts to disqualify or discredit religious arguments from public debate, is perhaps the most notable political statement to come from the LDS Church since it publicly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment more than a generation ago.
It's a clear sign that the LDS Church, even while it faces a more secular world, intends to stick to its beliefs.
The backdrop for Oaks' speech is gay marriage. Since the LDS Church, and many of its members, contributed to efforts to end gay marriage in California, there has been a constant stream of intimidation tactics aimed at the LDS Church, ranging from harsh rhetoric and demonstrations to vandalism at churches.
Oaks reiterated the LDS Church's opposition to gay marriage, and also warned of a rising intolerance against Christianity that is designed to stifle debate against secular intitiatives. He also said that gay marriage opponents are falsely claiming their cause as one of civil rights.
Oaks also had harsh words for atheism. He said, "Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism's threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness."
Frankly, Oaks -- or better said, the LDS Church -- seems ready for combat as well, although Oaks later stressed that politeness, civil discourse and respect for opposing viewpoints should accompany debate over these cultural issues.
We think Oaks went too far in comparing criticism of the LDS Church's gay marriage stance to intimidation in the deep South during the 1960s civil rights era. No one has been murdered or lynched for opposing gay marriage. Oaks' analogy also reminds many of the uncomforable fact that until 1978, blacks were barred from the all-male priesthood and from marrying in the temple.
We have no problem with the LDS Church engaging in the spirited debate over gay marriage. Certainly there will be many secular versus traditional battles emering in the years ahead. Speaking out for a position or over a concern that one side will not be allowed to debate these issues is appropriate.
As mentioned, we also believe that Oaks wanted to send a clear message to church members that the LDS Church is not about to change or relax its longstanding stance against gay marriage despite the current controversy and backlash. The LDS Church has received criticisms from LDS-tied gay rights groups who are urging it relax its restrictions. Most recently, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., an active church member, criticized the church for getting involved in the California gay marriage vote.
Shouldn't the State Advocate for Individuals' Rights?
Oaks Defender stated:
"Moreover, I cannot believe you are serious when you suggest that the state, under the advocacy of atheists, has not nor does not try to curtail public square activities for religion. There are literally thousands of court cases at every level of the court system that have dealt with church/state relations. These cases involve governments at the municipal, state and federal levels. The cases range from employment, housing, education, defense, medical services, etc., etc. They also include everything from worship, religious symbols, religious holidays, religious garb, religous practices, public ceremonial practices, etc., etc."
When you indicate that you believe the state is advocating for atheists or atheism, you misrepresent the reality of the situation. From what you have written, all that is described is the state advocating for the rights of atheists. You have not shown that the state is advocating for atheism. After all, it is a right for atheists to have their day in court, even if their case is for atheism. So yes, in that way, the state supports or advocates for atheists. But it does the same for religions and the religious, as it should. Are you saying that if the Church files a lawsuit, and it is taken to court, that the state is advocating for the Church? The Church did this for polygamy in the 1800s. Surely you're not saying the state was advocating for the Church then? Our right to bring those cases to court was upheld, but the state was not advocating for the Church. Can you come up with examples that show a pattern of state's bias for atheism or atheists? You aren't saying that atheists should be denied certain rights based on their lack of belief in a god are you? I'm sure you're not, but from what you've presented here, one could easily conclude that you are. You're statements mislead in a subtle way, but mislead they do. It seems you've paid close attention to Elder Oaks' example.
Response to flatlander100
Flatlander, you have difficulty distinguishing between religions' media exposure, individual religious members of influence and the right of religions, as institutions, to be involved in public policy activity. It is hard to have a coherent debate when you can't distinguish between the two, and impossible for you to understand Elder Oaks' premise.
As to your point regarding tax-exempt status, campaigning for candidates is not allowed under IRS code 501 (c)(3), but it is true that regiligious organizations are allowed involvement in initiatives, referendums, and legislative lobbying activities under the "Substantial Part" test. As indicated yesterday, the courts have allowed around 5% of operating funds for political activity. Again, for the LDS Church that would be in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Under that same code, there are no limits on religious organizations getting involved in those same activities when their involvement can be described as educational efforts. In short, religious organizations have the right to spend significant amount of monies, time and effort to participate in activities like California Prop 8.
Moreover, I cannot believe you are serious when you suggest that the state, under the advocacy of atheists, has not nor does not try to curtail public square activities for religion. There are literally thousands of court cases at every level of the court system that have dealt with church/state relations. These cases involve governments at the municipal, state and federal levels. The cases range from employment, housing, education, defense, medical services, etc., etc. They also include everything from worship, religious symbols, religious holidays, religious garb, religous practices, public ceremonial practices, etc., etc.
If you actually need a specific example, lets go back to your suggestion that religions should lose their tax-exempt status if they participate in public policy activities, (as if tax-exemption is some special privilege that only can be granted to religion by the state) demonstrates that you are more than willing to threaten religions' right to participate in the public square. However, as far as I can tell, you would be willing to do that out of ignorance as to the long-held rights granted by the First Amendment. Your suggestion is an example of how the state through the courts placed restrictions on relgions' involvement in the public square by threatening to remove a so called "privilege" that never existed before the court said it was a privilege.
In other words, religious organizations have held, and do today, that government does not and never has had the right to tax them. Religionist believe that under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, goverment has no right to place restrictions on religion in anyway other than to protect health, safety and welfare of individuals and perhaps at times to accomodate confilcting rights (although most religionist, as Oaks explained, believe the First Amendment should supersede all other rights because it is the "First Freedom"). Obviously, the courts in many cases have ruled differently and you probably would agree with them. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that for hundreds of years religious organizations were freely involved in the public square in every way, including campaigning for individual candidates without obstruction or intereference by the government.
Case law is replete with such similar examples, demonstrating how the state through the courts has restricted religion from its long-held and practiced "free exercise" rights incorporated in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Today, the inimical action by the courts towards religion is so common that even people of goodwill can no longer identify which rights have been attacked and then removed from religion. This is the very point Elder Oaks is making.
Double Standards Abound....
Seems to me you are applying a double standard with regard to the law and its relation to religious institutions' right to make their case in the public square. You cite court cases [none given] to the effect that "regiligious organizations are allowed involvement in initiatives, referendums, and legislative lobbying activities under the "Substantial Part" test." And later, you note that courts have ruled against religious organizations on some matters, but that doesn't matter to you, since you assert churches' right to act in those ways regardless. Sweet deal: cite the law when it works to your advantage [or you think it does], and then announce the irrelevance of law when it does not. That's a good example of the kind of special pleading, and claim of special excemption and privildege for religious institutions that I think Mr. Oaks was making.
In addition to which, you have lumped together three kinds of activitieies --- "involvement" [whatever that might mean, exactly] in "initiatives, referendums and legislative lobbying activities." I'd be interested to know if you have case law supporting, specifically, religious insitutional involvement in the first two of those. [But then, you've already announced that if there is case law against your position, it should be ignored.]
As for their being many cases dealing with church/state relations, that is certainly true. But that does not mean, on its face, there is an atheist/state conspiracy to prevent religious people, or religious organizations, from expressing their opinions in the public sphere, unless you want to argue that nothing any church does as an institution can violate the law, merely because it is being done by a church [with the exception of matters, you contend, involving " health, safety and welfare of individuals and perhaps at times to accomodate confilcting rights". That many of the many cases you say are evidence of a statist/atheist conspiracy involve precisely those matters you conveniently ignore]. In this country, when there is a dispute about the meaning of a law, or about the exercise of a right, we settle those disputes by appeals to the courts. [In other places, they settle such disputes by appeal to AK-47s and suicide bombers. I like our way better.] You seem to be suggesting that the mere bringing of cases involving religious institutions [regardless of whether those institutions are plaintiffs or defendents] is proof of a state/atheist conspiracy to deny religious insitutions the same access to the marketplace of ideas that all Americans and all other institutions enjoy. Forgive me, OD, but that's nonsense.
You wrote this: "If you actually need a specific example, lets go back to your suggestion that religions should lose their tax-exempt status if they participate in public policy activities, (as if tax-exemption is some special privilege that only can be granted to religion by the state) demonstrates that you are more than willing to threaten religions' right to participate in the public square.... "
Not at all. I am more than willing to argue that no institution [religious or otherwise] should have its involvement in electoral politics subsidized by the taxpayers. You, however, claim that religious organizations [and only religious ogranizations] have some inherant constitutional right to be entirely tax exempt. You say "religionists" believe this to be so, which of course does not make it so. You [and Mr. Oaks] seem not to be arguing that religious organizations should be treated equally as all others are under the law, but that religious organizations should be accorded special priviliges not available to other organizations --- i.e. the right to have their spending on electoral politics subsidized by the taxpayers. That, OD, goes I think to the heart of our disagreement. I think as a matter of sound policy and law, religious organizations should have not one iota more liberty, not one iota more of priviledge with respect to advocacy "in the public sphere" than any other private institution. Not one iota less, either, but not one iota more.
You are arguing, OD, for faith-based institutions to have a uniquely privileged position in the United States. I think neither history nor current law does, or should, justify that position. Which goes back to one of my criticisms of Mr. Oaks speech: It's the loss of a privileged position for his [and any] church that has him concerned, not the loss of equality of rights.
Special Privilege
Flatlander you hit the nail on the head when you suggest that the "heart of our disagreement" is over whether religion should be afforded special priviliges. That is the very argument. The position that is being postulated by Elder Oaks, as I understand it, is that religion has been, is and should be afforded rights that are not necessarily extended to other non-religious affliated organizations under the First Amendment to the Consitution.
Rights, afforded only to religion, were specifically announciated in behalf of religion for the purpose determined by the founding fathers to help safeguard other freedoms from the tyranny of the state. In other words, if religion was completely free, it was, in their experience, more likely that other freedoms would be protected from state tyranny. They were concerned the state would both try to limit free exercise of religion and co-opt religion by establishing a state church. They viewed both state actions as a danger to the very freedoms that would prevent tyranny. So yes, they clearly intended to give relgion rights not afforded others to protect all against the tyranny of the state.
You obviously disagree with this position. As you stated, you clearly believe religion as a matter of law or policsy "should have not one iota more liberty, not one iota more of privilege with respect to advocacy in the public square than any other private institution." You declare further that, "neither history nor current law does, or should" justify a unique privilege to religion.
Let me suggest that you may feel the founding fathers were misguided when they articulated rights for religion, but the fact remains they did and those rights have been both enjoyed and attacked for centuries. Moreover, the courts have and do so today, under current case law, protect and uphold those rights, notwithstanding the continual efforts by people with sentiments similar to yours, who are challenging those First Amendment rights. Although, as Elder Oaks points out, increasingly the courts are finding against rights and activities that were historically honored under the courts interpertation of the First Amendment. That of course is his whole point. He believes the rights under the First Amendment were established to protect religion from the state limiting religious activities, including advocacy in the public square. He believes further that if those freedoms are restricted by the state, it will not only be bad for religion, but also bad for the nation and its people. Therefore, he suggested that we all should be vigilant in safeguarding those rights from those, including the state, who would try to redefine what the First Amendment has meant historically.
This leads me to my last point, you keep suggesting that if religion advocates public policy positions in the pubic square they are being subsidized by tax-payers. Have you ever considered why religion has never been taxed? Can you explain why it is a subsidy by tax-payers when religion advocates in the public square. Your oft reference to tax-exemption as a special privilege reveals what you have finally stated forthrightly, you believe it is a privilege because you don't believe religious freedom from the state was a foundational right of our Consitution upon which this country was formed. If you did, you would not view it as an exemption, privilege or subsidy. As you wrote earlier, this is where we differ.
I stand with Elder Oaks and those who want religion to be competely free (with the few execeptions I identified earlier), from interference from the state and those who would try to limit its activities and voice in the public square. Like the founding fathers, I believe that if religion is free, it is much more difficult for the state to exercise tyranny against its people. Clearly, that is why facists dictatorships never want religion to be free. In fact, they don't want religion to exist at all. That should be enough evidence for us all to stop and consider the importance of religion in our nation under the Constitution.
OD: Sorry, but I find in
OD:
Sorry, but I find in the Framers' work no special position, with respect to rights, accorded to religious institutions beyond placing the making of general legislation regarding the establishment of religions beyond the reach of the federal government. [At the time of its adoption, of course, the Bill of Rights did not extend to state-established churches, and some of those remained until the first decade of the 19th century, I think. Adherants of the non-established denominations could be, and in some cases, were taxed by states or towns within the states, and the funds so raised used to support the established state-supported denomination.]
With the Civil War amendments, the prohibitions against federal government actions contained in the Bill of Rights were extended to state actions as well.
I can find no special position under the "free speech" provisions of the First Amendment for religious institutions granting them free speech rights not available to any other individual or institution. Your claim that such special religious institutional rights of constitutionally protected speech, however much you and Mr. Oaks would like to claim such rights for the LDS [and other] churches, simply is not supported by the text of the Constitution nor the "intent of the framers" to the extent that it is plainly recoverable. The Framers of the Constitution were not at all mis-guided in forbidding the national government from passing legislation involving the establishment of religion. But doing that did not involve , even by implication, that religious institutions would receive additional exclusive rights under the Free Speech provisions of the First Amendment.
You ask this: "Can you explain why it is a subsidy by tax-payers when religion advocates in the public square?" Your terms are getting a little mushy there. Mr. Oaks can give as many speeches at BYU- Idaho or anywhere else he is invited to speak, as he likes. So can you. So can any of the Churche's General Authorities. So can any member. That too is "advocating in the public square." What the Church can not do, I think under current law, is take funds that have come into it as tax-deductable donations, and emply them in political campaigns involving voting [and that is what it is reported to have done in California]. The unfairness of doing that seems obvious to me. Those who donate to the church can deduct such donations from their taxes. Thus, by means of the lost tax revenues, the taxpayers end up subsidizing the Churches' election activities. Organizations not enjoying that exemption cannot offer those they seek to raise money from cannot offer to their donors a federal tax reduction for their donations. That is why such non-profit tax deductable donations groups are not permitted to spend money to endorse candidates or to take active part in campaigns. Seems pretty clear to me.
So we disagree on two points, then. I don't think religious institutions have any free speech rights that non-religious organizations do not have. [Nor do they have any fewer such rights.] And I don't think the history of the nation's founding in any way establishes your claim that the Framers intended religious institutions to have additional free speech rights available to no others. In fact, I find your claim of special rights for religions available to no other organizations deeply un-American. And deepy dangerous to the preservation of American liberty.
Individual members of relgious institutions, of course, acting as individuals, have the same free speech liberties that all Americans have --- LDS, Baptists, Catholics, Snake-chunkers, atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Hindoos, Rastafarians, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, you-name-it-etc. And they may all, as individuals, if they wish, take whatever part in elections they wish to.
But special free speeh liberties only available to religious institutions? Hell no!
Here, here OD. I'm so tired
Here, here OD. I'm so tired of the Gov't impinging on the Rastafarians' right to smoke Ganja during their worship. And how about the Govt's blatant harrassment of the FLDS. If they want to marry 15 year-old girls, let 'em! Government too often steps on the God give rights of religious organizations to practice as the wish. Why, just think ... if the Government and the G.D. Atheists hadn't hassled Jim Jones, the People's Temple wouldn't have felt compelled to move to Guyana in order to excercise their right to drink cyanide laced kool-aid.
****NOTE TO THE SARCASM ILLITERATE: the above comments were typed with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.
OD, you're interpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent is way off. By design, no religion or institute is afforded special rights by the Constitution. PEOPLE are given rights by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' intent. PEOPLE have the right to worship any way they want to. PEOPLE have the right to discourse in the public square. But no religion, institution, or organization is entitled to special privileges. You, OD, get to excercise your right to Free Speech as a citizen. You, OD, don't get special considerations because of the religion you practice. Otherwise, people who claim a religious affiliation would have a greater voice in public matters than those who don't. And the Founding Fathers did NOT intend for that to happen.
Sorry, but you're not that special. You, Janeane Garofalo, Glenn Beck, Andy Dick, flatlander, Rabbi Goldstein, the guy who cuts the court house lawn, and Dallin Oaks are equals as American citizens and are endowed with the same rights as U.S. citizens. Why would you think that you're entitled to more than anyone else?
There's no Good Defense for Elder Oaks
In oaks defender's arguments against flatlander100, I saw only one valid correction provided--that regarding 501 (c)(3). Oaks defender states:
"Flatlander100, at the beginning of his posting, clearly demonstrates he is one who would wrongly limit religions right to the public square, when he falsely suggests that the LDS church has no right to expend its funds to campaign in the public square. . . Flatlander100's very posting is an example of an effort to restrict religions' rights to access the public square in whatever legal form they choose."
If you are correct about the law, then all this means is that flatlander did not understand it as well as you. How do you make the jump from flatlander100's misunderstanding of the law to your conclusion that flatlander is trying "to restrict religions' rights to access the public square"?
As a member of the LDS Church I am disappointed in Elder Oaks' comments. Flatlander100 points out the subtly and obviously misleading aspects of Elder Oaks' speech. For Elder Oaks to compare the bad public relations the Church has experienced over Prop 8 to the persecution suffered by blacks during the civil rights movement demonstrates either a complete disconnect to the reality of the two situations or his willingness to be dishonest about history. There is no comparison. For the civil rights movement, people were killed, maimed, and tortured. Fortunately nothing of this nature has occurred as a result of Proposition 8. As a Church, we claim to value truth. As such I think many of Elder Oaks' statements in that speech were indefensible.
Freedom from religion
If Mr. Oaks had his way, I would be dragged into a church and forced by some mind-control to suddenly believe. That's what his abhorence of freedom from religion implies. It's bad enough that if I wanted to run for public office I would probaly have to lie and pretend to be religious. Once we agree to behave in a "Christian" manner and respect the rights of gays and lesbians it will be time to respect the rights of altheists as well.
Constant stream of intimidation? Now who's using harsh rhetoric?
You would be well advised to take Oaks' advice " that politeness, civil discourse and respect for opposing viewpoints should accompany debate over these cultural issues." In light of that, I take exception to your hyperbole, claim of victimhood, and own harsh rhetoric included in this opinion when you state :
· Since the LDS Church, and many of its members, contributed to efforts to end gay marriage in California, there has been a constant stream of intimidation tactics aimed at the LDS Church, ranging from harsh rhetoric and demonstrations to vandalism at churches.
You do you readers a disservice when you mischaracterize the peaceful demonstrations in favor of equality and in support of the church's own sacred doctrine of political neutrality* as "a constant stream of intimidation tactics ." Where's the intimidation in peaceful demonstrations and letters to the editor? You also mislead your readers when you repeat unascribed claims of vandalism. Such claims of "vandalism" are a red herring. I suspect the "vandalism" you refer to is self-inflicted as only the current political stance of LDS leadership would be advanced by such convenient, but minor "vandalism". Remember the political benefit of the 1933 Reichstag fire? In fact, such false claims are today being ginned up in front of the US Supreme Court by Protect Marriage Washington. Posturing by the Church as a victim is echoed with Oaks' own recent statements and LDS historiography of persecution. It is the refuge of scoundrels as we are all victims of something. Our ideas should stand without retreat to claims of "poor me". That is, if you really believe in them.
*Joseph Smith D&C 134:4,7,9 "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" whereby one religious society is fostered & another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, & the individual rights of its members as citizens, denied. August 17, 1835
Note to those infected with
Note to those infected with the religion mind-virus: we will tolerate your harmless superstitions and time-wasting hobbies, if you will tolerate ours.
501 (c)(3)
To amend my earlier posting the correct IRS code reference is 501 (c)(3). It allows under the "Substantial Part" test supported by the courts up to 5% of the operating funds for a 501 (c)(3) organizations to be involved in proscribed political activity. This means for the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the restricted amount would be in the tens of millions of dollars that could be used for political activity. In the case of the California Prop 8 activity the Church expended far less than a half-million dollars, according to news reports.
The Problem with Flatlande100's posting
Flatlander100 does not understand the laws for 501 3C non-profit organizations (tax-exempt), particularly as they apply to churches. 501 3C organizations have every legal right to be involved in political activity including expending funds in behalf of the activity, as long as they do not expend more than 25% of their operating funds for such activity. In the case of the LDS Church's involvement in the California Prop 8 campaign, the church expended very little in the effort. Individual members donated considerable funds to it, but that has no impact on the law limiting 501 3C organizations involvement.
Additionally, Flatlander100 totally misrepresents Elder Oaks' claims about atheism. Oaks is not suggesting that atheism has no right to reject religion. What he suggesting, however, is that religion has a right to the public square in whatever legal forum they choose to particpate and atheisms attempts to limit that right is neither legal or justified under the religion clause of the First Amendment. Oaks is suggesting that their attempts to limit religions' right to participate in the public square is in fact inimical to First Amendment rights given to religion as the "First Freedoms" articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Next, Flatlander100 again misrepresents Oaks postion regarding criticism of the church's position on Gay marriage. Oaks in his speech is talking about retaliation that includes violence and intimidation. How can anyone of goodwill be confused about his remarks and the distinction he made between acceptable debate and intimidation, including violence exacted against the Church and its members.
Flatlander100's last point is further off the mark. Elder Oaks clearly understands that there will be debate and inherit in debate is disagreement and perhaps even disrespect for arguments put forward. His key premise is not that the church's positions necessarily need to be respected, rather he is arguing its "right" to advance those positions in the public square needs to be respected as declared by the First Amendmenet of the Constitution.
Flatlander100's last suggestion that "it is ludicrous for anyone to seriously argue that religous voices do not receive a hearing in 'the public square,' indicates inexperience in church/state relationships. The state, at every level and among every institution, and others involved in public policy activity have and regularly do attempt to limit religions' access and right to the public square. It is a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation to suggest that because the media covers religious activity that there are no efforts under way to limit religions' access to the public square. Flatlander100, at the beginning of his posting, clearly demonstrates he is one who would wrongly limit religions right to the public square, when he falsely suggests that the LDS church has no right to expend its funds to campaign in the public square. To do so, Flatlander100 suggests, the church violated the law (crossed the line) and therefore should be punished by losing its tax-exempt status. Flatlander100's very posting is an example of an effort to restrict religions' rights to access the public square in whatever legal form they choose.
It is clear to the fair-minded, that Elder Oaks' speech is timely, relavent and necessary for all those who should be defenders of the First Amendment.
"Atheisms" Campaign to limit rights?
OD:
You wrote: "religion has a right to the public square in whatever legal forum they choose to particpate and atheisms attempts to limit that right is neither legal or justified under the religion clause of the First Amendment. Oaks is suggesting that their attempts to limit religions' right to participate in the public square is in fact inimical to First Amendment rights given to religion as the "First Freedoms" articulated in the Bill of Rights."
You came back to the same point later: "The state, at every level and among every institution, and others involved in public policy activity have and regularly do attempt to limit religions' access and right to the public square. "
I notice, OD, that you offer exactly no examples of "atheisms" [which you seem to think is a highly organized, powerful institution like, oh, say, the LDS Church or the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention for example] war on the right of the faithful [any brand] to speak freely in the public marketplace of ideas. Not one. And when a bit later you shift your argument at bit to claim that "the state, at every level and among every institution" has "regularly" attemted to limit religions' access and right to the public square," you again provide no evidence whatever to support your claim. None. I'm afraid your atheism's war on the right of the religious to speak is about as real as the mythical "war on Christmas" that Bill O'Reilly likes to hyperventilate about every December.
Let's see now: on my TV cable system, there are at least three religious networks broadcasting someone's version of Christianty all day long. The papers, as I said, regularly run relgion articles, religious columnists and cover, in Utah at least, in some detail, the activities of the LDS Church. We have had in living memory at least two Presidents [one Democratic and one Republican] who were "born again" Christians. There are at the moment more Christian fundamentalist Congressmen and Senators than you can shake a stick at. The Senate Majority Leader is a card-carrying Mormon. Six of the nine Supreme Court Justices are members of the Catholic Church. On my walk to work each day, I pass four, count' em four churches or chapels. My walk is one and a quarter miles long. There are Christian radio stations on the dial of my radio 24/7 --- a passle of them. The letter columns of the SE and its comments boards are filled, often, with postings by the faithful of a variety of sects and denominations. I believe the editorial staff of this very paper includes card-carrying LDS. Religious billboards abound across the land.
And you seriously want to argue that "the state at every level" has a campaign underway to deny the relgious a chance to make their case in the public marketplace of ideas? Pretty damned ineffective campaign, seems to me --- if it exists, which it does not. Sorry, OD, but the only rational response to your imagined state/atheist conspriacy to shut down religious speech is this: "Why, that's the silliest thing I ever heard."
The only example of anything you offer to support your entire gossimer edifice of some kind of atheist/state conspiracy to silence the religious is my statement about non-profits not being permitted to take active part in elections. You say I don't understand the law. [May be true. I will have to check futher into your amended citation.] But then --- dare I suggest because you have no other evidence back your claims --- you then switch your argument, claiming that [rather than my misunderstanding the law], I would deny the religious their rights under the law. Can't have it both ways, OD. Not reasonably, anyway.
But I don't want to waffle on the issue: my view is [and my understanding of the law is] that churchs may not use tax exempt funds donated to them to engage in election campaigns. I will have, as I said, to check further to see if I am incorrect about that. But if I am, I would still argue that no organization [religious or otherwise] should be premitted to use tax-excempted donations for election campaigning. For them to be allowed to do so means the taxpayers would be subsidizing election campaigns --- and that is just plain wrong. If it is not illegal, it ought to be. If non-profits [churches or other organizations] are willing to give up their tax-exempt status, they can campaign til the cows come home. But it's wrong of them to expect to have that campaigning subsidized by the taxpayers. Note: this would still leave each individual member of such organizations [religious or not] perfect freedom to engage however they wished, as individuals, in political campaigning.
The Pew Forum on Religion &
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has a recent "Guide to the Internal Revenue Code Restrictions on the Political Activity of Religious Organizations" (http://pewforum.org/newassets/misc/politics_and_the_pulpit_2008.pdf). It clarifies that all 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited outright from advocating for or against specific candidates. They are allowed to lobby on issues so long as lobbying activities constitute an "insubstantial" portion of their total activities; just what "insubstantial" means isn't made clear, "although a few older court cases suggest that insubstantial lobbying would be something between 5 and 15 percent of the organization’s total activities" (Pew Forum 2008, 5).
That out of the way, the idea that atheists are waging an unconstitutional war against religionists' freedom of speech is every bit as ridiculous as the idea that Fox News isn't the house outlet of the Republican party.
Thanks, Al
Thanks, Al. The Pew ogranization does some interesting programs on public issues [higher education is one], and some interesting studies, and is usually a reliable source for information on the topics it deals with. Appreciate the clarification and the reference.
Also raises some questions that aren't quite as clear cut, apparently, as OD implied. For example, organizations are permitted to devote an "insubstantial" portion of their tax-exempt revenues to lobbying. Does that include organizing voters to oppose or vote for a particular referendum? Is balloting "lobbying"? They cannot support specific candidates, which seems to suggest electioneering is beyond the pale, but is organizing voters to oppose a referendum forbidden electioneering, or must support for a particular candidate for office be involved? If not, does "lobbying" include a campaign to organize voters? I'm not sure. I don't think most people would include that under the heading "lobbying."
As is so often the case, the devil is in the details.
Thanks again,Al. I'll do a little hunting on the Pew site tomorrow.
Oaks' next missive will be titled...
"Letter From The Salt Lake City Jail."
The Problem[s] With Mr. Oaks Speech
There were several problems with Mr. Oaks whining speech at BYU. You've identified one of them: the absurdity of comparing the position of the LDS Church with that of blacks seeking basic civil liberties.... like, for example, the vote and not getting lynched... in the American south in the 1960s. But there were more.
As for the LDS church opposing gay marriage and urging its members to do the same: no problem, so long as adherants are admonished to act as individuals to support or oppose a particular referendum. The problem arises, however, when a chruch as a tax-exempt institution throws its own financial resources into an election campaign. At that point, seems to me, its tax-exemption ought to be suspended. [Tax-exempt organizations like churches are not permitted to engaged, as churches, in political campaigning.] Where the church crossed the line in California, I think, was in [reportedly] using its financial resources to campaign in the referendum fight. Urging its adherants to stand fast on their beliefs, no problem. The chuch itself funding a political campaign, a problem.
There was more in Mr. Oaks speech I found disturbing. This for example: ""Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion." Well of course, "freedom of religion" does, and must, include an individual's choice to reject all religion. Was Mr. Oaks truly arguing that freedom from religion is not protected by the First Amendment, that individual Americans do not have as much right to reject any particular faith, or all faiths, as they do to adhere to any particular faith? Or is Mr. Oaks arguing that a double standard ought to apply in the US? That it's unacceptable for athists to be hostile to religion, but it's perfectly acceptable for believers to be hostile to atheism? That's what he seemed to be arguing.
Mr. Oaks also criticised those in California, and elsewhere, for failing to accept the judgment of the voters on the referendum, for continuing to criticize the LDS church inparticular on the matter of gay marriages. Is he truly arguing that all debate, discussion and disagreement should end once a referendum has passed, or once the voters have spoken at the polls? If he does mean that, I presume we will hear Mr. Oaks shortly denouncing all LDS members who have been complaining about the results of the last Presidential election since the morning after the results were known. And if Californians in a subsequent election overturn the vote on the referendum on gay marraige in the last one, will Mr. Oaks insist all LDS members cease criticism of gay marraige because "the voters have spoken" and to continue criticism would be un-democratic? Somehow, I doubt it.
The larger problem of Mr. Oaks approach to religion in the public square is this: he isn't really arguing that relgion and religious beliefs ought to have a place in the public square as we debate various issues. [And I find it ludicrous that anyone in the US today could seriously argue that religious voices do not receive a hearing in "the public square." Religious institutions, TV stations, coverage of religion in the main stream media --- the SE and SLTrib cover [religiously we might say] general conference speechs and events, and relgious news as a matter of course, and the SE has a minister as a regular contributer to its op-ed columns and so on]. What Mr. Oaks and others want is not merely that religious voices be heard in the public square: he wants those voices and the opinions they express to be respected. And tha'ts quite a different thing.
In a free country, no idea, no point of view, no particular doctrine has a right to be respected. To have an opportunity for its adherants to express it, yes. To have others respect those ideas or positions, no. Ideas, arguments, points of view have to earn the respect of those who hear them. They have no right to be taken seriously or respected, not even when they are expressed by the passionately religious. Mr. Oaks demanded in his speech a right all LDS, and in fact all religious in the US already have: "Let us speak our piece." But he also seemed to be claiming, as a right, something no one, --- not him, not his church, not a spokesman for any other church, not his opponents, not atheists, not anyone in a free country --- has: the right to have their ideas taken seriously and treated with respect. We have, all of us, the right --- and yes, under the Constitution an enforceable right --- to say to any idea expressed by anyone [in office or out, relgious or non] "Why, that's the silliest thing I've ever heard," followed by a loud long laugh.