Mormon Leader: Religious Freedom At Risk

If I may use an analogy of my one to straighten Oaks' perspective: He's relating apples to oranges,#black people's civil rights to religious freedoms#. While they are both fruit#liberties#, I think the actual civil oppression of gay people outweighs the uncivil retaliation that many have carried out. From a group that was oppressed, i find it hard to believe their stance on such on issue. But hypocrisy runs through every religion. And to comment on "the" church's encouraging members politically: If the church wanted to, they could bypass government and instruct its members to live as "the" church wished, trumping government, and the majority would follow. Another analogy one could use is that to which I refer, and sheep. BAA

What a sad, backwards, sick human.

>The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday.

Oh the two examples are similar alright, except gay people haven't (YET) tried to take basic rights away from Moron Churchcult members, as they have to g/l/b/t people.

Other than that 180 degree twisting of logic, the stone age, bigoted cretin got it exactly right. Amen.

How dare the Mormon church compare themselves to African-American treatment in the civil rights when they were one of the worst organizations in their treatment of African-American.
They were so bigoted toward African-Americans.

Dose he want people to feel sorry for him and his church? It is a odd analogy to use. The churched pushed for this election to happen people had their civil rights given to them and then taken away again. In a perfect world we would all hold hands and not get upset Perople were mad and lashed out. Was it right no,, was the church in the right no.

dear mr. oaks, please take a current course on american civil rights. it might help clear some things up for you. (and maybe don't take the class at BYU.)

Oh mr. Oaks please stop trying to compare your struggle with the civil rights movement or any civil movement... Religion has been used to excuse many actions and "erasing" rights for women, minorities, gays, etc.

Rachelle wrote:

How dare the Mormon church compare themselves to African-American treatment in the civil rights when they were one of the worst organizations in their treatment of African-American.
They were so bigoted toward African-Americans.

I don't see that it is such a big deal. Once the money-changers see that the LDS pyramid scheme is at risk the grand pooh-bah will have a vision and Moroni will set everything straight.

Here's what the LDS faithful, especially those in Utah, fail to see. Their discrimination against homosexuals will have an increasing negative impact on their wallets. Why do you think Utah doesn't have a Fortune 500 company? Because businesses realize discrimination is bad for business. Huntsman Jr. realized how liquor laws hurt the state. He also endorsed civil reasons. He knew the key to a good economic climate was DIVERSITY.. something Utah sadly lacks. Funny how the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce teamed up with the Sutherland Institute. How does the chamber think that alliance will help attract businesses to our state's capital? WAKE UP UTAH. If you want to have a job, if you want your kids to have jobs, then you need to be truly Christian and embrace all of God's children. Your paycheck, your taxes, the economic livelihood of your family depends on it.

I think it is so un fair that people in california are being punished for a religious belief. im glad i live in utah where i can be free and belive what i want to.

It’s ironic that Elder Oaks would compare the repercussions of Proposition 8 to the intimidation of Southern Blacks throughout the civil rights movement. I certainly don’t condone the backlash behavior for which he is speaking; however, I believe the people who are feeling the oppression are the gays, not the people who supported Prop 8. Everyone is entitled to their own set of beliefs, and those that follow them as well. We should respect them. As they should respect the gay/lesbian civil rights movement and their plight to attain only what a democracy should uphold.
Oaks states,“There are civil rights involved in this -- the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election.” Gays and Lesbians walk through life undergoing much fear and intimidation. They are unable to say their final good-byes to their significant other because they are not deemed “family.” They can’t walk down the street merely holding hands, without fear of intimidation or “backlash.” They are unable to speak their mind because they too may lose their employment. They lack the very basic civil rights in which everyone deserves, not just people of religion.
People build barriers around themselves and call it religion. Typically, our faith is the very foundation of our beings. At times, these barriers block us from stepping outside the box, and seeing other human beings, who may be a little different in beliefs, but are still human beings.

Since when is it an impingment on religious freedoms to allow a group of people who love each other and are significant others to marry? I dont agree with their preference but it is their preference and none of my business. What I see is a group of religious members trying to use the cover of religious freedoms to oppress a group of hardworking american citizens because they do not agree with their life styles. Get over the stupidity and allow them the same rights as the rest of us and stop bellyaching about religious freedom. Religious freedom does not give you the right to take others freedom away. Thats tyranny nearly on par with Hitler and Mussolini's.

Religious freedom is not at risk. Just keep your belief system out of government policy and we'll be OK.

He has the roles reversed ... it's those seeking rights, as Aftrican American did, who received backlash from a worldwide church intent on forcing their will on others and interfering with others' free agency.

Shied from politics historically? Might want to do some research on their actions and advice to their members on things like the Equal Rights Amendment (which they opposed).

Tiffany F wrote:

Gays and Lesbians walk through life undergoing much fear and intimidation. They are unable to say their final good-byes to their significant other because they are not deemed “family.” They can’t walk down the street merely holding hands, without fear of intimidation or “backlash.” They are unable to speak their mind because they too may lose their employment. They lack the very basic civil rights in which everyone deserves, not just people of religion.

Exactly. Proposition 8 is the thing threatening religious freedom, because it tries to impose the beliefs of some on the lives of others in the law. Religious freedom is not just the right to believe as you choose, but also the right to not believe, and to not act on beliefs to which you do not subscribe. Civil rights considerations aside, the Mormon church is seeking to limit the religious freedom of other citizens. For them to claim to be the victims here is preposterous. To compare themselves to Southern blacks in the civil rights era (particularly given their history) is appallingly offensive.

Rochelle wrote:

He has the roles reversed ... it's those seeking rights, as Aftrican American did, who received backlash from a worldwide church intent on forcing their will on others and interfering with others' free agency.

I have no idea why you say that. The Church of Jesus Christ had nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws or other voter intimidation to which Elder Oaks refers.

Also, I am not sure you are clear about the scope of the comparison. Elder Oaks is referring to what is meekly called the "backlash," i.e. the concerted campaign of retalitation against known Prop-8 supporters as well as merely presumed ones. Oh, and what was the basis for presuming someone to have been a Prop-8 supporter? Why, their religious affiliation, of course.

The intent of publishing maps showing where such known and presumed supporters lived -- along with the schools their children attend -- as well as the threatening "protests" outside LDS places of worship, the delivering of hate mail and "white powder" packages to LDS (and other) churches, was simply to intimidate those who had participated in the democratic process in a way the "protesters" didn't like.

As such, it was entirely anti-democratic.

And yes, it remains meaningfully analogous to other acts of voter intimidation.

Regards,
Pahoran

I find it so amazing that institutions of religion are claiming they are being discriminated against and that they are in danger of losing their religious freedom. Who exactly was hurt when Prop 8 passed in California? Certainly not religions (except maybe the Unitarians and others who support gays and lesbians in their quest for equal civil rights.) I just can't help but wonder if Catholic clerics screamed that the Catholic church was losing its religious freedom when governments enacted laws forbidding burning heretics at the stake. When a group works toward limiting the legitimate freedoms of another group, the group so limited has a perfect right to stand up for themselves and work toward gaining those freedoms.

I think it is appropriate to note for those who disagree with Elder Oaks' statements that he was on the Supreme Court of the United States - his comments are not just derived from his decades of Religious leadership and experience, they are also derived from his decades of legal leadership and experience. Perhaps this understanding may help some realize that his comments were entirely appropriate and needed in our tumultuous world.

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>
They believe my skin color is a curse from god. Fcuk them.

Didn't Mormons once teach that if Black people prayed hard enough, G-d would turn them white, or some such nonsense?
I'm not making a joke here, I really think that was part of their dogma in the early 20th century. Can anyone substantiate that?