Comments about ‘Elder Dallin Oaks calls for unity in protecting religious freedom’

I absolutely agree with Elder Oaks.

I'm glad that there are still leaders in this world that can stand up for liberty & freedom. I will join others in defending free speech and freedom of religion. No political force or attacks from opponents will sway me on this.

Whole heartedly agree. I wish he were President of the United States.

I general, I agree with Elder Oak's statements and feel he is very articulate in expressing the needs for the freedom of religious expression in society.

While uniting with other religious groups to stand for religious principles seems like a good idea, I worry that the Mormons might be forced into choosing between two extremes.

Many religious groups, I fear, have only added fuel to the fire which is burning away at their house of credibility which gives them room to express religious opinion openly. This comes from taking a superior moralist view, the kind which Elder Oaks also cautioned against in his discourse.

I urge everyone to click on the link to the speech which is in the box next to DNews article and read the entire speech. It is fabulous.

Be careful of that line you are drawing in the sand.

"All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the 'rights' of those offended by such speech . . . If that happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class."

That's a terrifying prospect. Let's all be vigilant in defending our liberty and freedom of faith from those who would silence us in the name of tolerance.

Mr Oaks: how about protecting our freedom FROM religion, too?

Not only would that protect the various faiths from an institutionalized religion, but would protect the nonbelievers from prejudice.

There IS no "war on religion", nor is there any organized effort against the LDS.

What we need, is to instill the value of personal beliefs and freedom.

I certainly concur with Elder Oaks that religious freedom and the freedom to express religious views should be preserved and protected. However we must also recognize that freedom of speech allows that all ideas, including religious ones, are open to criticism and yes even ridicule. That religion has lost popular ground is a concern for religious leaders-and they have the right to continue to express their concern and sadly to even threaten their followers including young children with eternal damnation if they leave the religious faith- but it certainly doesn't imply that religion has lost any freedoms. Rather it implies the freedom our constitution has given us is increasingly being used by it's citizens to seek secular answers to the problems of our society.

The Constitution, as a product of the enlightenment, is opposite most religious traditions, in that it seeks to constantly take in and evaluate facts as they come in.

Whereas Mormon religious traditions are based on a prior dictated truth (e.g., Bible, Proclamations of a the Prophet, BoM etc, are all taken as absolutely and perfectly true).

His analysis never recovers from this inherent contradiction (dogmatism vs. enlightenment). It seems to belittle his religious tradition (a position of truth) when he appeals to the Constitution (a product of the enlightenment).

The deification of the Constitution is a curious trend, and it is curious that this talk continues along that path.

I agree myself, and that includes freedom from religion. There is no reason to take religion into the public domain; that's what your house and churches are for. Freedom should be both ways, both for the practice of it and the freedom from it. Your beliefs and relationship with your god should be a personal one and not forced upon others!

@xscribe "There is no reason to take religion into the public domain"

First, religion has always been an influence in the public square in this country. Your statement suggests religious people should have to be silent about matters of public importance, or that they should not allow their religious beliefs to influence their public views. That assertion is wrong, harmful, and a deviation from the history and founding principles of this country.

I won't tell you to keep your beliefs out of the public square, and don't you dare tell me to keep mine out.

I would like to have freedom as well. There are several bills this legislative session, including HB 109 which gives the right to discriminate based on religion, which could possibly threaten people who belong to a different churches and non religious people. I respect your freedom to worship as you choose, but ask that you also respect my right to not belong to your church while still being a functioning member of society.

@Most Truthful and Patriotic

Sorry to inform you that the Constitution gives us the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

If we had freedom FROM religion I could then order all citizens of this great country to stop using profanity while near me or my family. It is against my beliefs and I should therefore have freedom FROM it.

Yes, what I just posted sounds ridiculous, just as ridiculous as your statement.

While I don't really agree with the notion that religious rights are being threatened, the concept that religious rights should be protected is of course something I agree with.

"Sorry to inform you that the Constitution gives us the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

If we had freedom FROM religion I could then order all citizens of this great country to stop using profanity while near me or my family. It is against my beliefs and I should therefore have freedom FROM it."

That's not how people define freedom from religion. In fact what you just typed up is exactly what freedom from religion is to prevent, the freedom from having religious rules imposed on them.

I wish Oaks was as passionate about protecting the freedom of all people as he is about protecting those freedoms in which he has a personal interest.

I am in agreement with him that we must protect religious freedom. Unfortunately, I don't think he is in agreement with me that we must protect the rights of all people including gays, blacks, and other minority groups.

#1.) For all these people lately complaining about government intruding in our lives, you can't get more intrusive than getting involved in people's personal relationships. Government has no business in the marriage arena. They should only do civil unions for everyone, then let religions take it from there to do what they want.
#2.) All this talk about what God has ordained. Hasn't He ordained free agency? He was willing to lose 1/3 of the souls of his children before this life to ensure we all had the freedom to make our own choices. So it must be pretty important. Far be it from me to try and take away the choices of CONSENTING ADULTS--'cause I've always been taught that trying to take away people's choices is someone else's plan. (Hint: not God's)

"For all these people lately complaining about government intruding in our lives, you can't get more intrusive than getting involved in people's personal relationships"

This makes no sense. Gay rights advocates are demanding that governments officially recognize their personal relationships. They are not asking the government to "stay out" of their personal relationships. Big difference.

If LGBT children born to Mormon households are at increased risk of harm (e.g., emotional abuse, abandonment, suicide, etc ...), should we, as a society, still allow 100% free expression of that religion?

When Oaks asks for special treatment of religious rights vis-a-vis LGBT rights, what is he asking for, actually? Would he say families shouldn't be prosecuted for child abuse, if that abuse was based on religious doctrine (e.g., gay shaming)?

Religions should be free.
But they shouldn't be free to cause harm.

Who is this Mr. Oaks and why should I listen to him?