LDS Church Apostle Dallin Oaks’ speech last week at BYU/Idaho was the strongest statement the church has made on a political issue since its stand against the Equal Rights Amendment. It seems to me that the LDS Church sees a long culture war developing over issues such as gay marriage and wants to make sure the world — as well as church members — are aware that its position on values issues will not change.
We editorialized about the speech on Tuesday: Here
In the editorial we noted that Oaks urged members of the church to be respectful when defending church teachings or debating topics such as gay marriage. But he also said this in regards to atheism: “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.”
Clearly Oaks sees so-called militant atheism as a catalyst for secular efforts to delegitimize religious arguments from public policy debates.
He worries that religious freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is under attack. I think that is the crux of Oaks’ concern, more than just a rehashing of the church’s position against gay marriage and subsequent harrassment. Oaks, and by extension the LDS Church, are worried that faith, as an argument, will be deconstructed out of the Constitution in years ahead. That will lead, as mentioned, to religious arguments being derided or disqualified from public debate.
Here is an excerpt from Oaks’ speech: “Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.”
If one believes Oaks’ arguments, the implications would be chilling. If religious views are discredited, it would be easier to strip away a church’s tax-exempt status for say, denying gay marriage in its temples. That is an extreme example, but it’s not impossible to imagine if the push for gay marriage is ultimately defined as a “civil rights” issue. That, I believe, is one reason Oaks took pains to say gay marriage was not a civil rights issue.
Here’s another excerpt from Oaks’ speech regarding the gay marriage Prop. 8 in California: “… the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what eqal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”
There is no greater wounding political charge than to be called a bigot. If it becomes mainstream thought that opposition to gay marriage has become “bigotry,” the popular debate over the issue is more or less over and those who oppose it will be mocked or otherwise maligned. Clearly, the LDS Church sees the culture war intensifying, and it is making sure it’s on the record defending, and reaffirming, its long-held beliefs.
There is a second message in Oaks’ speech, and it’s both an affirmation and a warning to church members that the LDS church is not changing its position on gay marriage and other values issues, no matter what pressure it receives from outside (the world) or within its own ranks. More than a few high-profile LDS Church members have criticized the LDS church leadership over its stance on gay marriage and participation in the Prop. 8 battle. If that criticism gets more intense in years ahead, it’s easy to surmise what may occur: church disciplinary actions and an increase in political activism, sometimes favorable to the church, but mostly negative, secular-based attacks.
This column was published in Currents, the Standard-Examiner’s digital-only section on politics and culture. It was accompanied by an original cartoon from the Standard’s Cal Grondahl. For more information on Currents, call (801) 625-4400.
Dave Price
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 4:54 am:
Some fact,…some opinion, but well balanced and written. Thank You! Refreshing to see in this ever increasing war of emotional rhetoric!
Richard Albrecht
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 6:42 am:
I have e-mailed you before, you continuely address these holy men as Oaks instead of Apostle Oaks, or Monson, instead of President Monson.
You are disrespectful, to Father’s chosen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FlexSF
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 8:10 am:
Proposition 8 is like the Titanic immediately after it hit an iceberg, and we’ve got Mormon inc., tethered too it.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial: 1-11-2010 @ 8:30 AM. R.I.P. Mormon Inc.! You disgusting religious bigots. Reap the seeds that you sew!
Bary Wilson
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 10:15 am:
If the LDS Church is preparing for war, then it is a war that the Church has no hope of winning. If it does not change its position on gay rights, as it has in the past with regard to Blacks in the priesthood, polygamy, and many other misguided doctrines and teachings, it unlikely to emerge from the looming battle in anything like its present form.
The LDS Church needs to recognize that it is a religious cult that is attempting to hit far above its weight. It has now drawn the attention of the American people in a very negative way, and has yet to experience the full consequences of its recent ill-advised political actions.
Doug Pike
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 10:56 am:
I appreciate and agree with the post. The terminology of “culture war” is appropriate, as the Saints have always regarded themselves as soldiers in the Lord’s army, and are ever ready for the fight, if that’s what it becomes. It is true that that battles for principles are lost in our society, yet in every instance the Saints have rebounded stronger in numbers and resistence.
Like Elder Oaks, I hope for civility and mutual respect as we lobby and use the democratic process for mutually exclusive goals. Unfortunately the physically and emotionally militant approach of the new GLBT movement has shown that bullying and terrorism may be their approach in the future.
Flatlander100
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 11:06 am:
Sorry, but it seems to me Mr. Oaks was claiming for the LDS Church [and by extension, for all religious institutions in the US] special free speech rights not available to non-religious institutions. And I’m not the only person who saw that in Oaks’ speech. A poster over on the SE comments board defended Oaks this way: “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 affiliated organizations under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
I find that claim, that religious institutions have special free speech rights others do not, both profoundly un-American and deeply dangerous to the preservation of American liberty. Seems clear to me from this in Mr. Oaks speech — ““Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion.” — that he does not think “freedom of religion” as a basic principle of American liberty includes “freedom from religion” as well. Doesn’t that imply that “these special liberties are for believers, and not for non-believers”? If Mr. Oaks did not intend that, then that portion of his speech was extremely carelessly drafted.
As for your comments, I note this one: “There is no greater wounding political charge than to be called a bigot. If it becomes mainstream thought that opposition to gay marriage has become “bigotry,” the popular debate over the issue is more or less over and those who oppose it will be mocked or otherwise maligned.” But what you’re speaking of there is not the Church’s ability to make its ideas known in the public sphere. What you’re concerned about is that it will lose the debate, lose the argument “n the public sphere.” That may well keep Mr. Oaks up at night worrying, but I’d remind you that in the great brawl of ideas that is the American public marketplace of ideas, no idea, no position, no argument, no belief is automatically entitled to respect, or entitled to triumph in the end. If most Americans come to believe opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, then Mr. Oaks and his church will have lost the argument, that’s all. But they will not have been prevented from making their case in the public sphere, which is all the Constitution does — or should — guarantee them. And in Utah at least, the LDS Church does not seem to have any trouble at all getting its message on public affairs directly related to its doctrines out.
No rational person would disagree with Mr. Oaks denunciation of those who resorted to violence as a means of intimidation in California, or anywhere else. I certainly wouldn’t. But it seems to me still that what he was insisting on was that religious arguments about public policy matters be accorded, because they are religious arguments, a degree of respect in the marketplace of ideas that is not to be similarly accorded to non-religious ideas.
My view is one marketplace of ideas, one standard for all, special privileges for the ideas of none.
Your example of a horrific result seems to me wholly unrealistic. [Loss of tax exemption if the LDS church does not agree to marry gays]. Let me point out that every state in the Union permits divorce, and most religious denominations accept divorce for their members. And yet the Catholic Church, which does not permit its members to divorce, has not lost its tax exempt status because it refuses to adhere to the standards now dominant in every state in the nation. Nor will it.
Whether churches should be tax exempt [separate from any discussion about their particular doctrines] is another topic. For another day, perhaps.
Casey Shultz
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 12:57 pm:
Administrator Note: Flatlander100 was trying to make reference to this URL but was unable to post:
http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2009/10/19/our-view-oaks-makes-statement#comment-2489
FlexSF
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 3:47 pm:
It is fascinating how the Mormons refuse to put themselves into the shoes of those they’ve offended. The fact that we needed to ask permission from absolute strangers, via their votes, to get married shows an imbalance of equality. Thay don’t get it and that is why we will win in the federal court system.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger; 1-11-2010@ 8:30AM. 79 days until vindication!
Naumadd
on Oct 23rd, 2009
@ 7:17 pm:
I can only rightly speak for myself as a so-called “atheist” (a theist label, not my own) but I’ve said in many forums on these topics that, as an “atheist”, I’m not against theism nearly as much as I am against theistic domination of all other points of view in American culture. True, I think theist beliefs are predicated on significant and unsubstantiated claims of fact which I feel are delusions and ultimately a matter for the medical sciences to help resolve in such individuals. If their personal dysfunctions were reserved to their private lives, they would inflict very little immediate pressure on my own life. Where we conflict is the fact that persons such as myself are marginalized in American culture because those with theistic beliefs have and intend to dominate and push out completely those who do not share their delusions and the traditions resulting from them. The slogan “In God We Trust” is a glaring example of theistic attempts to dominate that which is not theirs alone. The “pledge of allegiance” with its theistic “one nation under god” is another. After all, “theist” or “christian”, “muslim”, “jew”, etc. are subsets of the larger sets “American”, “public” or “citizen”. U.S. coinage is public property, i.e., the property of a government that is representative of ALL Americans, not simply representative of the special interest group labeled “theist” or “christian” or the like. A “majority” is not equal to “all” and the government is of, by, and for us all. A theistic slogan does not belong on coinage belonging to all Americans because not all Americans are theists and this has always been true. It’s ironic but nonetheless disturbing that a special interest group with an undeniable majority in American culture would scream about its threatened survival. After all, if its survival were in question, it wouldn’t be a majority. Suffice to say, it is in fact the minority view that needs protection because, with coinage and the pledge as only two examples of many, it is the minority view that is in jeopardy. As an atheist, I tell you – believe what you will – but you may not step on my right and liberty to live as I choose – or those of others I care for – and you may not take control of and dominate a government which belongs to me also. If you could simply learn to live peaceably with me with respect for my different views (note: respect does not imply agreement), you and I would have little to battle over. “Freedom from religion” doesn’t mean I wish to eliminate religion from culture, it means freedom from domination and oppression of the non-religious by the religious. Just as governments have been eliminated or replaced because they would not respect the right and liberties of the individual to exercise self-determination, so too religions have been and can be eliminated for the same reasons. Persons like myself would prefer it not go that far but are willing to do so if continually backed into a corner by zealots. Have some civilized respect or be treated as a rabid animal.
Troy
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 1:13 am:
The way I see it, the view that gay marriage does not threaten churches rests upon a peculiar view of immediacy. If it can be shown that in the foreseeable future there is no compelling threat to churches, then any anxiety regarding gay marriage seems unfounded. If society goes along with evolution towards ever more liberal sexual mores, and if this evolution is slow enough, then at any given time the perception that society is headed toward moral morass seems far distant, and even overblown. If evolution from the present, to gay marriage being accepted as a civil right by a political plurality, to the churches accepting and performing gay marriages, is smooth and continuous there is little to worry about. The basically good religious people will eventually come around and realize there is nothing threatening about gay marriage.
The problem with this scenario is many religious organizations are fighting to preserve traditional marriage and they’re good at it. The religious right are very interested in preserving their way of life, passing it on to their children and grandchildren. This threatens the smooth transition scenario. The stubbornness of America’s churches will therefore provoke a degree of “self”-marginalization that otherwise wouldn’t have happened; by their stubbornness conservative churches harm only themselves.
Mormons Are Christian
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 2:30 am:
The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a government which does not believe in the rights for anybody except the State! – Harry S Truman
Statesmen…may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Christianity and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. – John Adams
The spirit of man is more important than mere physical strength, and the spiritual fiber of a nation than its wealth. – Dwight D. Eisenhower
And can liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? – Thomas Jefferson
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. – John Quincy Adams
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Christianity and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of Christian principles. – George Washington, Farewell Address, September 1796
Patrick Oden
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 6:59 am:
I don’t think ‘religious freedom of speech’ (a.k.a. freedom of religion + freedom of speech) is under attack. I think the legitimacy of many religious ideas themselves are under attack.
I don’t think the goal of the atheists is to try to suppress religious speech, or the right for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe. I think the goal of the atheists is much like the goal of promoters of religious ideas: Put all of the ideas out there in the marketplace (of ideas) and see which ones are left standing.
While I’m sure there are plenty of religious ideas that will survive the atheistic onslaught, I won’t be surprised if we see a dwindling of a lot of religious organizations over the coming years.
Steve Stones
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 7:55 am:
The role and function of a martyr is to make an outrageous claim of some sort, then act prosecuted, tormented and disrespected by those who refuse to adhere to the claim or belief. The Mormon church does this very well. The early church leaders, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, were masters at this. The church is still playing the martyr trump card even today. The gay-marriage issue is no exception for them. They will continue to make us believe it is those who oppose them that are wrong and started this so-called “culture war” when it is they who started the war in the first place.
aveteran
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 8:37 am:
“Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness.”
Freethinking people who refuse to let their rights be violated have always been considered a threat by organized religion.
MormonsareChristian: Your John Quincy Adams citation is a proven fraud, one of several that liars for Jesus constantly parrot. Try a source other than David Barton.
flatlander100
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 9:12 am:
Steve S:
I’d have some sympathy for Mr. Oaks’ martyr pose if there were some mass movement underway to force the LDS Church to perform and sanctify in its temples same-sex marriages. But there is no such movement [outside perhaps of gay Mormons seeking to reform their church from within]. Nor is such a thing imaginable in the US so long as our present Constitution and Bill of Rights stand. The problem Mr. Oaks has in claiming martyr status for his church on this issue is that he and it are iattempting to force those not of his faith to order and conduct their lives according to his religious beliefs.
I’m hard put to see why gays should not have the same access to civil marriages that heterosexuals have. Denying them that access because Mr. Oaks and his church [and members of other churches] believe such unions to be unholy and sinful seems to me to violate precisely the principle of religious liberty Mr. Oaks claims he is defending. The LDS Church, I believe, recognizes divorce and does not expel its adherents for obtaining divorces. The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. I suspect Mr. Oaks would be outraged [and rightly so] if Catholic doctrine on divorce became law, and Mormons, who do not follow Catholic doctrine on this matter, were forced by government to conform to it.
Mr. Oaks and his co-religionists have every right, under the Constitution, to operate their church as they see fit, and to require adherants to the LDS faith to conform to its teachings. They have no right to force others, not of their faith, to conform to their religious beliefs. And that, in California, is what Mr. Oaks and his church were attempting.
Mormons Are Christian
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 11:11 am:
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
Carl Kove
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 3:52 pm:
Are marriages conducted by civil authorities(civil authorities) any less legal or valid than those conducted by religious leaders? Religious leaders or authorities conducting marriage ceremonies have to be granted authority to do so by non religious authorities. Unless and until religious ceremonies are the only recognized and legal marriages why can’t gay people be married by non religious authorities? It is not a quota system where only a specific number of marriage licenses are available.
Al
on Oct 24th, 2009
@ 4:14 pm:
Interesting sentiment, Mormons are Christian. It struck me as positively scholastic, even, so much so that I googled a random sentence from your post and found it to be a word for word match for a comment posted in dozens or hundreds of conversations about this very issue. [It's always funny to me how social conservatives suddenly fall in love with sociology when a sociologist says something they've already decided is true. Otherwise, it's all commies and queers.] Naturally, not one of them engages any of the many decades of scholarship produced by Sorokin on this or other matters, but instead zeroes in on what is fundamentally a product of Sorokin’s intellectual upbringing in the early part of the 20th century, long before gay marriage, as we now think of it, was conceptualized. To say that Sorokin was aghast at homosexuality is a great misrepresentation of his argument that the family is important to society but that paid no attention (indeed had no concept of) “gay marriage.” I won’t hold your ignorance Sorokin’s actual research against you, knowing that you’re copy-pasting from the astroturf that came before you.
Contemporary scholarship, on the other hand, shows absolutely no dire consequences to civilization from gay marriage, nor do contemporary sociologists (those are the ones you guys hate) put much truck in the anti-gay-marriage interpretation of Sorokin’s work.
I’m not familiar with the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin (nor are you, of course), but a quick search suggests that the only people citing him these days are your colleagues in the gays-are-bad-mmkay camp. Not particularly persuasive.
aveteran
on Oct 25th, 2009
@ 9:57 am:
MormonsAreChristian: Considering that over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and evangelicals divorce at a HIGHER rate than atheists, I’d say that same-sex marriage is absolutely no threat to the institution of marriage. Even more, I’d say it would likely save it.
davedan
on Oct 31st, 2009
@ 9:26 pm:
Marriage is for the purposes of raising children. Children have the right to be raised in a home with both a mother and a father. While we shouldn’t criminalize plan B, C, D; our laws should protect and uphold the ideal for our children.
Gay couples can get civil unions. They should be entitled to and already are entitled to inheritance benefits, tax benefits, medical decision making, etc, etc. Why are they gunning for the marriage label which means a union man and woman? If they don’t like the name “civil union” then let them come up with whatever other name for it they want.
What do Gay couples want that they don’t already have?
Di Lewis
on Nov 2nd, 2009
@ 5:13 pm:
davedan:
How about equal rights without having to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on power of attorney papers, which are then not even universally recognized. You know, so they can be with dying loved ones, or inherit property without paying huge taxes, or have rights to children.
You may believe they have all the same benefits, but it is simply not true. While the state may recognize some rights similar to marriage, the federal government does not, and other states do not.
http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/09/hospital-forces-lesbian-to-die-alone/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp