Religious Freedom

My dear young friends, I am pleased to speak to this BYU-Idaho audience. I am conscious that I am also speaking to many in other places. In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do not intend to speak.

And now, in conclusion, I offer five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.

Fifth...Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

I have several objections to this:

CONCERN #1:

From the news release: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...

Response 1: Mr. Oaks at first misconstrues candidacy eligibility (all the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds) vs. Mr. Oaks suggesting that we impose upon the voting process itself; however, he then realizes how ludicrous that sounds and concedes reality: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."

POINT 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Mr. Oaks confuses "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

CONCERN #2:

From the news release: ...of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office...If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation...

Response 2: "Weigh all their ways," Mr. Oaks seems to say, but don't advocate that candidates steer clear of anything religiously objectionable, which I might add, could potentially include Satanism, religious terrorism, or candidates who embrace obtaining a graduate degree in divinity -- as in becoming a god himself!!! I'm sorry, but just because I might claim to worship tulips in my backyard while running for office -- and it doesn't sit well with my voting neighbor who sees such worship -- doesn't "weaken" "the precious free exercise of religion...at its foundation" when that neighbor elects to vote against me primarily on that basis. In fact, it strengthens it. Why? Because "the free exercise of religion" isn't a one-way street applicable only to candidates! (It also applies to voters!). And there's ALWAYS more voters than candidates!

Besides, what exactly is wrong with the voter standard that I'm not going to vote for somebody -- ANYBODY -- Democrat, Republican, independent, Green, populist, etc. who thinks they are a god in embryo or part of the future gods of Kolob coalition? Believe me, if Hillary stood up in 2010, announced she was running for president based on her experience as a "god," I don't think we'd see standing ovations from the Democrats based upon some wrestled-out-of-context "freedom of religious expression" notion.

POINT 4 - NOTE THE LDS APOSTLE'S ATTEMPT TO TEFLON-PROOF UNTENABLE OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS : All citizens who are not felons have the right to aspire to any office regardless of any faith, religious adherence or other-worldly commitment. But why does this "apostle" come and wag a finger at voters, saying, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we'll accuse you of weakening the very foundation of the constitution??? In other words, 'Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!' By this standard, we couldn't even take into consideration a candidate's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-'martyrdom' death as a glimpse of their broader religious perspectives.

CONCERN #3:

From the News Release: If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists.

Response 3: Say what? You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)

POINT #5 - APOSTLE OAKS TURNS ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM!

Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).

Simply put, the true-believing Mormon candidate approaches us historic Christians is saying:
"You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]

Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)...
...Then...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion. If he cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?

Specific citation to above: Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19: I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt... " LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.

CONCERN #4:

From the news release: The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

Response 4: Numerous reasons exist as to why the religious beliefs of a candidate ARE relevant. Before outlining them, let's see if Mr. Oaks applies this same standard to his own people:

Q #1 for Mr. Oaks:
Mitt Romney delivered a "Faith in America" speech in Dec 07 that discussed his Mormon faith & some of its perculiarities in early December. Q: If this was so important to not address his religion as a political campaign issue, as Mr. Oaks claims, why couldn't Romney leave "religion out of" his political talks?

Q #2 for Mr. Oaks:
If "the religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign," then somebody forgot to tell Utah and Western State Mormon voters! Why then did Utah residents give 91% of their Republican $ to Romney in 2007? Why did Utah, AZ, Nevada, and Wyoming Mormon voters pile on FOR Romney in the primaries by margins of 93-7% and 95-5%? Why hasn't Mr. Oaks addressed his Mormon faithful, telling these voters to stop making a candidate's religion an issue in a political campaign by voting according to such identity politics?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling these Utah residents "bigoted" or "intolerant" of non-Mormon candidates. It's a free Republic so Utah/Mormon citizens should support who they want to support. My question is not so much geared at Utah residents as it is statements like these from leaders who fail to consider the inconsistent application of their claims. I mean, Mr. Oaks implies those who think and act counter to his claims are "anti-religous freedom" simply because some voters take other-worldly commitments into voter consideration. Well, if that's the case, then how do Utah voters, and Western-state Mormon voters escape Mr. Oaks' implied labels?

Additional Points of Considerations:

POINT 6 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS: We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.

POINT 7 : Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).

POINT 8 - Mr. Oaks & the Lds Church WINDS UP CASTIGATING THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN THE PROCESS: The fact is, 92% of Evangelicals, 78% of Republicans, 62% of Americans, and 55% of Democrats do take into consideration the faith & beliefs of a candidate according to a late 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll. [We all know now apparently what this Lds "apostle" thinks of 92% of Evangelicals; 78% of Republicans and 62% of Americans!!!)

As already mentioned, if folks were supposed to ignore religion, why did Utah go 9-to-1 Mitt? (Why did Mr. Oaks missed apparent "politicalization" of the Constitution?)

The above-mentioned 2006 Rasmussen poll can be found Election2008:43%WouldNeverVoteforMormonCandidate.

Excerpt from that thread: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.

Additional Questions for this Lds 'apostle':
Is Oaks blasting away at 62% of Americans who say that a candidate’s faith is very or somewhat important as a consideration?
Is Oaks blasting away at the 92% of Evangelical Christians who say they consider a candidate’s faith and beliefs an important consideration?
Is Oaks blasting away at the 78% of Republicans who say that a candidate’s faith & beliefs are an important consideration?
Is Oaks blasting away at the 55% of Democrats who say that a candidate’s faith & beliefs are an important consideration?

From Oakes: Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices.

...WOW! Oakes admits that if a mormon prevails this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices.

You can't make it much plainer that that....and all the time Oakes AND any mormon man who may seek political power has made this sacred vow in the mormon temple:

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion "

Thanks for making my point, Mr. Oakes!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.