Deseret News | Reader comments: ACLU, Justice support lawsuit by LDS student

Reader comments
ACLU, Justice support lawsuit by LDS student

nola | 5:28 a.m. Aug. 25, 2007

and they should reinstate it to him, military service is not required it is also chosen. So that can not be the excuse they use.

Dianna | 10:01 a.m. Aug. 25, 2007

I think any time the young people of today are willing to give their time, energy, and resources for something worthwhile it should be encouraged not discouraged by the adults of our society. The young people who choose to give two years to service in any worthwhile project, especially a religious one, and then want to continue to improve their educational pursuits should have the complete backing and support of us all.

AKR | 10:30 a.m. Aug. 25, 2007

It becomes somewhat concerning when the ACLU finds their organization in defense of a returned missionary. Kind of a mild form of the saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 5:46 p.m. Aug. 25, 2007

you know akr, i find you somewhat concerning. I give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the ACLU for defending this young man. If you for a second akr think this is the ACLU establishing a religion for all to be forced to live you aare wrong, and if you think that, yes, that would be bigoted indeed. Shame on you AKR

Karen | 10:21 p.m. Aug. 25, 2007

Could it be that this incident will help Utah conservatives to realize that the ACLU is there to protect ALL civil liberties?

wait! | 3:35 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Wait! There is more to this. I remember reading the full article weeks, if not months ago.

I do believe that this fellow did not reapply in accordance to the mandates of the scholarship.

Isn't this the facts?

Not Karen | 3:45 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

No, ACLU will not protect ALL civil liberties. Only the few they decide are in their 'unions' interest to protect. When's the last time they stood up for the 2nd Ammendment? Or protected conservative speech at a government funded university? Or defended a property owner from an eminent domain suit? And it's more of a surprise that the ACLU would team up with any church, let alone the LDS church, than it that it would find support from the government. Oh, and why do I find it difficult to trust any organization that uses the word "union"?

Skeptic | 6:03 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Karen - what do you think the ACLU would do if this young man showed up at a public forum discussing an issue in the community and expressed an opinion that was consistent with the views of his church? My observations tell me that they (ACLU) would tell him that separation of church and state dictate that he is promoting religion and his views can't be acted upon. The only people of faith who have a voice are the ones that take positions in opposition to their religion.

ron | 6:30 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

I wouldn't jump into that boiling pot too eagerly, karen. you had better check their past record as wll as keep an eye out in the future.

Anonymous | 7:18 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

What about those people attending college out of high school that won't get a scholarship becasue this person's is being deferred? Maybe he should be allowed to re-aply after he returnes.

Ken Baguley | 7:54 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

It is refreshing to see the ACLU with a meaningful case, supporting true ammendment rights. Thanks to the ACLU. There is no doubt in my mind that this case is a winner...Carry On...

Richard McFadden | 8:05 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

WOW! I was going to chime in on this one but I don't need to. AKR's statement is so typical of the LDS cognitive dissonance. Anonymous and Karen are right on target.
OK, I can't resist. Bush is all about his political base, not civil liberties. The ACLU is about civil liberties. The Justice dept is there, not about civil liberties but about religious "rights". Sometimes, such as the case here, they overlap.

FuManchu2 | 8:26 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Karen,

Your question can not be properly answered as it includes a falsehood.

Most that argue against the ACLU, don't argue that the ACLU doesn't defend "rights", but rather, argue that the "rights" the ACLU defend were never granted by the social contract.

The People don't want to issue those "rights" and the ACLU fights to change that.

In this case, you'll see many people typically against the ACLU, for the ACLU on this occasion.

We should not interpret this article to grant the ACLU new found respect, nor that a person typically against the ACLU should now be for the ACLU, but rather that on this on occassion the ACLU did something that many will approve.

Very much like the saying - just because a broken watch tells the right time twice in a day, doesn't mean that it is now working.

Bart | 8:37 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

And notice that the Feds joined after the ACLU took a stand. You may not like some of the defenses of the ACLU, but they are consistent. Good for them. Some, I mean most, in this state would not recognize that. I salute them.

san diego | 8:46 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Sue, sue? whats wrong with this boy did he not read the Bible on his 2 year mission? Christians are not to sue in court , but be humble and forgive if someone offends thee. This free tution is a not a right. My son was faced with this the exact thing in 1987 (he had a full FREE scholarship at San Diego State he was a 4.0)He asked for a defferment they said No, he "choose" his mission and came home with honor. Then worked his way through school and law school. I think the boy is wrong to sue, why is he doing it?

Jason | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

If he has to reapply then those that leave for Military Service would have to do the same. The point is that rules for other leaves need to be applied religious leaves.

evensteven | 11:38 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Thanks to Nola and FuManchu2 for succinctly interpreting the article and its implications. The Constitution allows us to seek redress for grievances. This seems to be an appropriate case for that. I, for one, am actually surprised the ACLU took the case. Its nice to have them agree with me for once, but a leopard can not change its spots.

KC Chief | 12:22 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

San Diego, you're joking right? Christians don't sue? There are plenty of Christian attorneys out there. For example, you may have heard of Sir Thomas More. Being LDS, you're familiar with Dalin Oaks and James Faust (just to name a few). If you're an American history buff, you may have heard of Abraham Lincoln. Or perhaps John Adams. Oh, and then there's the Utah Bar to consider. Many (most?) are LDS. they're all wrong?

Anony-mouse | 12:26 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

San Diego, he is suing because he was wronged, and forced to choose between his religious observances and his scholarship, which is not right. He is simply standing up for what is right, honest and good. There is nothing in the Bible that says we should not stand up for ourselves and for what is right, honest and good. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke) If Christians are to just be humble and forgive any who offend us, then we will be defeated. Remember, "faith without works is dead."

San Diego | 1:38 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

You don't have to find it in the bible for it to be right! I don't think that they had scholarships back in Bible times? LOL!

Who decides? | 1:50 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Dianna said "I think any time the young people of today are willing to give their time, energy, and resources for something worthwhile it should be encouraged not discouraged by the adults of our society. The young people who choose to give two years to service in any worthwhile project, especially a religious one, and then want to continue to improve their educational pursuits should have the complete backing and support of us all."

Worthwhile is the issue - if a Muslim decides to spend two years preaching Islam to the young Christian soldiers in Iraq, is this still worthwhile? Or, does the religion matter? And, who gets to decide?

Perhaps a state sponsored school wants nothing to do with that debate.

English rose | 2:56 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

If it wasn't for the Elders of the LDS church, I would never have found the true Gospel.ive this young man he's schooling.

MoJules | 3:29 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

I will not deny it, I do not like the ACLU, the reason being, is I am a conservative and they tend to lean much further the other way. I on the other hand, do not really have a lot of sympathy for this young man, there are many before who have lost out on education to serve a mission. To me it makes me doubt his sacrifice in serving his mission, if he comes home and sues the school, then it says to me that he probably planned to do that or would not have served. He wants to have his cake and eat it to, and come out of this being the victim. On the other hand, San Diego, I respect what your son did, that was an act of commitment, courage and character. I believe that all of the 53,000 missionaries for the LDS church are making some kind of sacrifice or giving up something, lots of the guys lose the gal while on a mission, should they sue the girl for not being there when they get home?

san diego | 4:07 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

mu-jules, Thank you,for seeing my point. Yes to all of you who named Sir Thomas More, Dallin Oaks, etc.as Christains that was not my point. Please forgive me for not being clear. My son is an attorney also. Sacrifice or giving up something for the greater good is better than suing for it. Good can become the enemy of the BEST

Why not? | 4:08 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

It seems that while he was obviously willing to sacrifice his scholarship (he went didn't he?), making a point of this could go a long way to making it so the next person with a similar decision doesn't have to face the same decision. If more good people would take a stand when there is a poor policy in place, then we would have a lot fewer bad policies. The only thing that has to happen for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

Bart | 5:04 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Oh my stars! Reading most of these posts is just next to unbearable. Wish I hadn't even read the article. Be still my stomach.

Erod | 5:35 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

As a returned missionary and an attorney, I find san diego and Mojules's points severely lacking. You both are questioning this young man's integrity and reasons for serving a mission because he is trying to preserve his scholarship that he would his whole life to achieve. Maybe if your son would have taken a stronger stand at SDSU, more students choosing to do religious service may not have had to suffer the same fate. This young man maitains a 4.0 grade point average. He took time out of his life to serve other people for two years, he didn't go on a european backpacking expedition. But according to your reasoning, if he were a truly a good missionary he would not sue over a scholarship being unjustly revoked by the State of West Virginia. He would just suck it up, take out student loans, incur debt or work part-time and pay his own way through school adding years to his graduation.
That reasoning makes no sense, the LDS church is involved in litigation all of the time. And yes, sometimes the church is the plaintiff. Your son chose not to fight, and that may have been the best decision for him. However, this young man may feel guided to fight this injustice. Just because we are christian doesn't mean that we cannot try and make a difference through valid legal processes outlined by our government. I applaude this young man and wish him the best of luck. I think he is doing an honorable thing fighting for not just him, but the next potential missionary as well.
With the high cost of education, he should not be forced to incur debt or delay his progress because he is a 4.0 student who went on a mission.

Lynn Hughes | 6:56 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

Nice.

Also a Bible reader | 9:56 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

There are so many good points made in the comments about this story, some about one issue and some about another, that I almost hate to add anything. But when we read the words of the Savior in the New Testament, we find some interesting statements. There's Matthew 5:40 which says "And if any man shall sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Many Christians interpret that to mean that Christians should never sue at law.
We recently had a burglary at our home and while I was pondering how to handle it, I read Luke 6:30, wherein Jesus says "Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again." Does that mean that I shouldn't report the burglary to the police or hope for the return of my stolen property?
As we try to live the precepts of the Savior, these can be sincerely troubling concerns. I once asked a dear Mennonite friend what he would do, as a sincere Christian pacifist, if he saw someone being injured by another. He replied, "Oh, I hope I would be strong enough not to fight." Needless to say, that was a very different way of looking at it from one Christian's perspective to another's.
Let's not be so quick to criticize other's motives, pray for light and understanding in our own lives, and do the best we can not to harm others.
It's too, too easy to criticize, especially from afar.

Integrity | 10:12 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

One definition of the word Christian is: A decent respectable person. In order to respect others you first need to have respect for yourself. The best way to demonstrate this is to have courage to stand up for yourself when an injustice occurs. This is no easy task. It takes courage and lots of it!

How amazing would it be if everyone could judge a situation based only on the facts instead of our religious or political affiliations! What an awesome day that would/will be!

MoJules | 11:10 p.m. Aug. 26, 2007

My question? If this young man spends this next year in court battles and loses time and money towards his education, in other words, what if he loses? Will he resent that he served a mission? Now, if he was promised by the University that they would hold his scholarship, yes he has reason to take issue. But if they told him that they would not be able to promise that, or if he didn't go to them before hand, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Well one way he could make sure that he doesn't lose any money is if Erod will take his case pro bono. If there was an agreement, this young man does have justification, but if this was an issue that he took a chance on, like I said before, all young missionaries take chances. I do not wish anything bad for this kid, but I would not want to be sharing a dance with the ACLU, look at their record, I would say that 90% of it is not in favor of Christian religions or conservative values. As a member of the LDS church, I do not really have a lot of respect for the ACLU and the hassles that they brought on the church. I personally would not want to line their pockets with my money.

Confused | 1:32 a.m. Aug. 27, 2007

I hope I get smart one of these days. Then I'll understand what ya'll are talking about

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 9:00 a.m. Aug. 27, 2007

When a scholarship program is administered by a state government, and it specifically allows deferral for military service (which is a voluntary action) and for voluntary community service (presumably such as VISTA and the Peace Corps), to not allow the same benefit because the service is performed for a religious organization instead of a government agency is plainly discrimination on the basis of religion, and violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Since neither military service, nor Peace Corps service, is performed in West Virginia, and benefits neither the State generally nor the university specifically, it is a matter of indifference to the university where the voluntary service is performed. Religious affiliation of the service should make no difference. Indeed, a person could serve in the military as a chaplain's assistant!

Service by people of college age should be encouraged, recognizing that a window for performing such service closes as people marry and have responsibilities for supporting families. Performing service is itself educational, often including new skills such as foreign languages, and that allowing a student to defer college education while performing service contributes to the maturity and educational success of the student.

In fact, those were the reasons that the US Air Force Academy and the US Naval Academy have adopted a policy of allowing their cadets to defer education for two years in order to perform service in the Peace Corps or as missionaries.

I had a four year scholarship to the University of Utah that was held while I served an LDS mission (1969-71). This is not a new idea.

John | 10:47 a.m. Aug. 27, 2007

I am impressed the ACLU is supporting this. Having previously lived in Utah, it seemed there that the only group the ACLU kept an eye on was the LDS church. This may be the closest we ever get to a balance...

Blake | 4:12 p.m. Aug. 27, 2007

San Diego, Good for your son putting himself through law school. However, I agree with some of the other comments that a precedent was set for the military choice. If the precedent was not there, maybe not.

Brent | 5:21 p.m. Aug. 27, 2007

I believe that a deferment for missionary work is a very good thing and I would hope that every university would do it. However this young man's religious liberties were not violated. He chose to leave and losing his scholarship was part of the sacrifice. I just hate to see the UCLA force their way in. The university should not be forced to honor this deferment. The word FORCE is the key word here. The UCLA has other motives in mind. The UCLA is not wrong 90% of the time. They are wrong 100% of the time and can not be trusted.

GCW-Utah | 8:20 p.m. Aug. 27, 2007

Whoa....All young men in the church "are" required to serve a mission. Where does the "state" get it is a choice. We are told that every worthy young man is to serve a mission. Period. If he chooses not to serve, he is not disfellowshipped or excommunicated, but he has certainly ignored the word of the Lord through his living prophet on the earth. Young women, on the other hand, have no such commandment, but may choose to serve if they wish.

concerned | 11:15 p.m. Aug. 27, 2007

The Peace Corp and the US Army are well established organizations for carrying out humanitarian and patriotic service. Looking at this objectively, an LDS proselyting mission is limited to serving the interests of a particular religion. Needless to say, I'm very surprised the ACLU has taken up this case.
From the viewpoint of an ordinary, non-Mormon citizen, it seems unjust that a state school would be required to defer a scholarship while a student spends 2 years of "recruiting" converts (remember, non-Mormon perspective).
This case would make more sense if this student had reapplied for the scholarship, didn't receive it, and a less qualified individual received the scholarship. This would allow for the argument that the only reason he didn't have the scholarship renewed is because the school knew he was a Mormon.
Please let me know what I'm missing!

Mark | 1:32 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007

concerned,

And churches are not known for humanitarian service?

We just need to think like American citizens, who want equal protections for every person. Being Mormon has nothing to do with it. This would be an important case no matter the religion or belief.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not allowed to discriminate against an activity just because it is religious. If the scholarship program allows deferrals for other types of humanitarian service, it cannot discriminate against humanitarian service solely because it is religious. To do so violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments (See Raymond's letter above).

If government were allowed to discriminate against speech, activities, events and persons because they were religious, there would be no protections covering religion and we have lost our religious freedom.

What many don't realize is that this little battle is at the forefront of a long list of court battles to protect religious liberty. Let's stop worrying about the young man's motivations or expressing surprise that the ACLU has picked up the case. It is an important case!

Darryl | 3:38 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007

San Diego, we also believe in honoring and obeying the laws of the land. The law does allow this young man to sue for denial of his rights. Even if he knew in the beginning that they would deny him his scholarship after his mission he has the right to sue, because, it is I feel, and unconstitutional law to deny someone their rights because of their religious beliefs. Because the law is a bad law it does not devoid him of his right to redress. If there were more who stood up to some of these stupid laws then others wouldn't have to face this issue. It doesn't matter that he is out "recruiting" for his Church" he is doing a service which is expected of every faithful LDS young man. The interpretation of the state that he is not required shows how naive they are when it comes to the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Perhaps San Diego would not sue the police department if a police officer were recklessly driving while on duty and killed a member of his family, simply turning his cheek. Christ himself talked about misinterpreting the scriptures, and you stretch the meaning of the scripture when you say the scripturs say we should not sue. I, too, am surpised when the ALCU takes this case. By the way Brent, the University of California, at Los Angeles, (UCLA) is not part of this case. That must have been a typo, of course in trying to get your point across, but a humorous typo.

John | 7:44 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007

Wonder what the attitude of the school would have been if this young man was a star quarterback or an outstanding point guard.

MEB | 2:14 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007

Confused - Thanks for the laugh. I'll be smiling about your comments the rest of the day.

Actually the ACLU and Mormons working together on something like this may be a good thing. Who knows, maybe some understanding from both sides will result in better relationships going forward. Maybe we Mormons will stop trying to legislate our morals, and maybe the ACLU (or UCLA as Brent says) will quit suing us for trying to do so.

BA | 4:13 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007

I have enjoyed reading the comments. I received a scholarship to college and at the end of one year I went on an LDS Mission. My scholarship was not renewed when I came back and so I worked part time to pay for college. While I do not often agree with the ACLU I respect their right to exist and to work to protect the rights of individuals. In this case I hope they win and help to set a precedence for others who chose to serve their faith. I hope that we can remember to be tolerant of others righteous beliefs. The teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ were considered quite liberal in the eyes of the established Jewish Sanhedrin. Their fear and intolerance to his teachings led to his death. I recognize that some organizations teach only hate and death. However, I hope that we have the courage to look for goodness, virture and kindness where ever it may be found. I praise the ACLU in their support of this young man.

Anonymous | 5:46 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007

hey, the ACLU has always been a friend of the christian right? Right? NOT!

J Golden Rockwell | 6:48 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007

All right, who are you and what have you done with the REAL ACLU???

The real ACLU are the ones who condoned the internment of 110,000 men, women and children (most of whom were American citizens), for the heinous crime of having Japanese ancestry. Not only did they agree with it, they condemned their own San Francisco branch for working on behalf of the unjustly imprisoned.

Oh, I get it now. They are on the RM's side because they need some good press! They want to be able to trot out this one case over the next several decades, to go with the handful of others where they were on the side of justice, such as Brown v. Board of Education.

Thoughtful | 12:17 p.m. Nov. 26, 2007

The ACLU DID oppose the Japanese internment.

American-born Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi was a senior at the University of Washington in 1942 when he learned that the U.S. government was requiring that all Japanese Americans report to internment camps for the duration of the war. Mr. Hirabayashi intended to join his family at a Northern California camp, but when the day came he decided instead to make a political statement by defying the order.

Instead of boarding a bus headed to the internment camp, Hirabayashi turned himself in to the FBI, where he explained his act of civil disobedience. The FBI arrested Hirabayashi for defying the curfew put in place for Japanese Americans and for failing to report to a control station for internment.

With the help of the ACLU, Mr. Hirabayashi challenged the internment order in the courts. His case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government's internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional.

Forty years later, however, a federal appeals court reversed Hirabayashi's conviction.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.