In her post today, Joanna offers an insightful analysis of Elder Oaks’ recent address, in context of the larger campaign he and other church leaders have been waging to call orthodox LDS members to ‘battle’.
For links to the addresses by Elder Oaks, and other talks on the subject by Elder Lance B Wickman and Elder Russell M Nelson, check out the LDS Church’s Newsroom page dedicated to ‘Religious Freedom’.
In a further attempt to raise the profile of what the LDS Newsroom called a ‘landmark address’ this week, an interview with Elder Oaks shot after his speech was posted to YouTube. Here it is:
Thanks to Joanna for writing this piece that puts Elder Oaks’ rhetoric and arguments into their wider cultural context. Over the coming days we hope to run further articles addressing the supposed war on ‘Religious Freedom’, and, of course, we’d love to hear responses and thoughts on these addresses from our readers. How do you view the Church’s ‘campaign’?
I like the point she makes about moral pluralism. What Oaks really means is that religious organizations such as his should retain special privileges such as tax exemption and political influence regardless of how their value to society is disintegrating. Sour grapes.
It was interesting to me that Elder Oaks mentions the concept of pluralism in his most recent address, but simultaneously discredits it:
‘Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution-its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world.’
However, in his 2009 address at BYU-I, it seems that he has a better vision of how discussion should work on these topics:
‘…religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.’
I was encouraged by that section. But ‘compromise’ seems to cut against so much of the rhetoric and argument of the rest of these addresses. The dominant theme seems to be a perception of entitlement: and threat to that entitlement.
I’m not sure I’m buying his argument that the ‘dignity of man’ as an individual is a religious principle. Anyone else have thoughts on that?
In the 2009 address he does indeed call ‘human worth’ and ‘dignity’ ‘Christian principles’, although I’m not sure by that he means (in any other way than implication – which still is probably too much) that they are exclusively Christian principles. Last week he expanded a very similar sentence to call these two ‘religious principles’, but then says, perhaps encouragingly:
“only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that Constitution today.”
Does the word ‘dignity’ have an important place in the text of the Constitution?
I think there’s this notion that faith in God is what underpins human dignity, and to use it with referrence to the Constitution is just an indirect way of saying that God is the foundation of Constitution.
I can see how this notion came to be. Religious faith certainly has held a front-row seat in the development of human aspirations for good. What’s not true, I think, is that this past role reccessarily means that religion deserves that front-row seat in perpetuity.
Religious freedom is under attack, “when someone contends that a religious leader cannot speak on a public issue”
I’m fine with anyone speaking on any public issue. But, just because someone is a religious leader does not necessarily mean that his/her opinion should be more important than other opinions or that it should shut down other opinions.
“Freedom of religion is that you are free to act upon your beliefs, not just attend worship services”
Fine, but your freedom to act should not impair other people’s freedom to act.
I’m getting too worked up over this, I need to go.
Totally agree, Michael. I was wondering what exacly Oaks means when he says someone is contending against religious speech on public issues. It’s a little counter-intuitive at first. I mean, nobody’s stopping him from speaking his mind. He must mean that he’s worried he’ll be somehow punished, or punitively treated for expressing his opinion. But then it all makes sense … he’s talking about how churches’ tax exempt status has been tied to restrictions around political activisim, right? And that’s the case currently being made against the LDS church; that with Prop 8 and others they’ve violated the tax code.
I think one of the things Elder Oaks is worried about is the ‘weakening’ of the influence of his voice (the religious voice) in the public sphere. Sure, noone’s stopping him speaking at BYU-I or other invited gigs: but he’s bemoaning the fact the when there’s a political issue and the church tries to speak, the public don’t accept that any more. It’s ridiculous to try to garner sympathy by suggesting that the religious voice has been squeezed out of politics over the last 30 years: over that same period, the Evangelical right has elbowed its way into politics in a big way in the US. Of course, this new introduction of overtly religious rhetoric in politics has come up against resistance. That’s no reason to complain: most political lobbies are met with some opposition. The fact that its unthinkable that a US President could be elected unless he was a Christian shows that the Christian voice is hardly ‘on the ropes’. Likewise, Prop 8 passed: I don’t see that you can muscle your way into powerful political positions, and then complain when everyone’s not just wanting to jump when you say so. The fact that the LDS Church has become so powerful (financially, politically, socially), and still complains that it is an oppressed minority shows that it is intent on something other than compromise and pluralism. In one sense, I admire that ambition. On the other hand, it’s profoundly disturbing.
Yes–he fears the power of his own voice diminishing. And so it seems like he’s trying to marginalize others’ voices. Tit for tat?
I’m all for free speech. Say whatever you want. Use god/scripture/whatever moral authority you want to bolster your own beliefs/opinions. But not if you’re making public policy. It doesn’t make what strange/unique thing I believe in. I can’t impose it on others.
Although I do agree in principle with what your saying, I think you seem to be suggesting that Oaks or the LDS Church is somehow the one’s responsible for making public policy, instead of just supporting a particular side of a State ballot proposition that allowed for the citizens of that state to vote on.
Rough thoughts formulating. The church has worked very hard for many decades to move into the mainstream of society, especially American society. It has been largely successful in this.
But the church is doomed, ultimately, to fail in this endeavor. Not because it’s the weird, polygamy, gold plates, funny underwear church….but because it is ANY church at all. While religion obviously still has tremendous clout, it’s going to weaken. More and more people are deciding that mythology from thousands of years ago is not and should not be the final authority on rights, freedoms and the determination of what constitutes moral behaviour.
JJackson: a question that I think is relevant leading on from that is whether a more authoritarian institution will fare better within the remaining religious section of society, than a less authoritarian church? I think the LDS Church is at risk because contemporary western society has lost faith in institutional authority – more than the supernatural, even. So its ironic and misguided for the Church to tighten the reigns and try to big up its own moral authority as an institution.
Evangelical Christians sometimes style themselves another way, which I think, will be a more successful approach. Such churches (especially congregations that aim to bring in young members) appeal to the agency, choice and experience of the individual, and the rising need for personal spirituality within society more widely.
It’s not clear to me which is the better choice, though: it could be that those who lose faith in institutions will ultimately be unsuited to all varieties of institutional spirituality, so the LDS Church would remain to cater for those who somehow continue unaffected by the cultural tide.