As a BYU graduate, I get the alumni magazines. The Fall 2023 BYU magazine had an introduction to David H. Moore, the new dean of the Law School. There was a brief Q&A about religious liberty. The interviewer asked “What threats to religious liberty do we face today?” Moore answered, “In the United States, perhaps the most troubling threat is a growing sense that religion is not a public good – that it does not contribute to society but instead provides a cover for bigotry and discrimination. The more this belief takes hold, the more precarious religious freedom protections will become.”
Fascinating. I agree with him. Society’s view of religion is changing. Between the scandals that churches get caught in, and the way Christians are leading the charge to discriminate in the name of defending religious liberty, I think he’s right. People are coming to see Christianity as something that increases the amount of contention in the country, and even threatens to weaken our democracy. There is a growing sense that religion is no longer a public good.
The hot button topic nowadays are gender, sexual orientation, and reproduction. Trans rights, gay rights, and abortion. These are bodily autonomy issues. Who has the right to control what we do with our bodies? God? The government? The person in the body?
Let’s not forget that the culture war against bodily autonomy is based on religious beliefs. Politicized Christians have learned to speak about their religious beliefs in secular terms, but they’re still religious beliefs.
The reason a trans rights activist can’t convince a conservative that high school boys aren’t transitioning to girls in order to win at sports is because the conservative’s opinion is based on the religious belief that God created male and female. If God decreed your gender in the womb, it’s a sin to disobey God’s will for your gender. Thus, it doesn’t matter that conservatives cannot point to a single time when a boy said he was a girl so he could win in high school sports. That’s just the secular hypothetical that Christians invented out of nothing to try and say that discriminating against transgender individuals has good secular reasons. In reality, transphobia is based on Christian beliefs about gender.
The reason pro-life individuals are not swayed by stories about women who are suffering with non-viable pregnancies or other desperate circumstances is because their pro-life beliefs come from the religious teaching that God designed women to bear children. A woman who has sex should suffer the consequence (pregnancy). Abortion defies God’s will. Thus, rationality cannot convince a devout pro-life Christian that abortion is healthcare.
God invented marriage and defined its purpose when he created Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. The reason homophobes believe gay sex is an abomination is because God clearly designed sex for procreation. To use sex without a procreative purpose offends God. Same-sex marriage defies God. Religious believers are having a harder and harder time arguing against gay marriage; even Utah’s Congressional delegation voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022. Rather than continue to attack marriage equality, the homophobic rhetoric has returned to accusing LGBTQIA people of pedophilia. Those are lies, of course, based on the Christian notion that someone who doesn’t want to use sex for its God-intended purpose (procreation) would have no sexual boundaries at all.
Arguments for bodily autonomy do not sway politicized Christians because in Christian belief, God created our bodies and can command our obedience in matters related to our bodies. Laws that infringe on bodily autonomy are based on religious beliefs, and attempt to force others to live by Christian beliefs (dressed up in secular rationale), or at least to make it really hard and unpleasant to violate Christian belief.
In fact, the more you try to convince a Christian that their religious beliefs about bodily autonomy should not be enforced by law, the more you feed into their martyr complex that they’re being persecuted for being a Christian.
Moore is correct that people are coming to view religion as a source of bigotry and discrimination. That’s because religion IS a source of bigotry and discrimination; religious beliefs are the driving force behind laws limiting bodily autonomy in matters of sex, gender and reproduction.
Moore’s next sentence needs some discussion as well. “The more this belief takes hold, the more precarious religious freedom protections will become.” He’s saying that the more people believe that religion is a source of bigotry and discrimination, the more that negative opinion will threaten religious freedom protections.
I thought of two “religious freedom protection” categories he might be referring to. One is laws that directly restrict religious practices. That’s highly unlikely. Politicized Christians are passing laws to infringe on bodily autonomy, but I don’t see liberals even trying to pass laws to infringe on going to church and believing what you want to believe. For example, there is no leftwing equivalent to “Moms for Liberty” that is trying to remove books that include Christians from the schools. No leftwing state legislature is requiring a woman to get an abortion. No LGBTQ organization is trying to prevent teenagers from hearing about straight sex. Christianity is not illegal and never will be.
The category of “religious freedom protection” that I believe Moore is referring to is the demand that religious believers be exempted from generally accepted rules against discrimination and bigotry. For example, does a Christian who bakes wedding cakes have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Does a Christian realtor have to sell a home to a queer family? Does a Christian pharmacist have to sell birth control and the morning after pill? Does a business owned by Christians have to provide coverage for birth control in their health insurance?
My opinion is that Christians should not be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. Now, don’t make it ridiculous – the Church hires people with temple recommends to teach seminary and that’s not going to change. But a realtor shouldn’t discriminate against gay couples. Gay people should be able to buy a wedding cake wherever they want. A pharmacist should fill a prescription for birth control. Doctors should treat transgender people. A government clerk has to issue a marriage license for a gay couple.
Christians aren’t asking for religious freedom protections so they can live by their own religious beliefs. They’re asking for the government to protect them confronting the fact that not everyone lives by Christian religious beliefs. They’re asking for the government to enforce Christian beliefs about gender, sex and reproduction by passing laws. They’re asking for the right to make life harder for people who don’t fit into their religious beliefs. It should go without saying that not everyone fits into your religious beliefs, and that’s true for any religion. Christians are asking for the right to pretend their religious beliefs about bodily autonomy are universal.
Equality and autonomy are thus cast in opposition to religion. The fight for the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs will continue to make religion less and less popular. In Utah, where I live, religion is winning the battle (passing laws based on Christian beliefs about the body) but losing the war (more and more Utahns are not identifying as members of any church at all).
—
Questions:
- Remember during the Ordain Women movement, the Church kept insisting that God loves us equally and that should be enough. God doesn’t approve of everyone equally; he doesn’t give women and men equal authority; decisions are not made with any type of equal input. But we’re loved equally! Did anyone think that settled the issue?
- Which makes society more stable? Religious obedience or laws respecting the equality and dignity of people regardless of their religious views?
- Do you think this answer has changed over time?
- Which makes society kinder to the people living in it? Religion or equality?
- Do you think this answer has changed over time?
Wheat & Tares 
There can’t be an adult discussion of religious freedom without also discussing freedom from religion. They go hand in hand and are two sides of the same coin.
Some of my evangelical friends and colleagues have brought up stories in the Bible that focus on entire communities being punished for the unrighteousness of some.
They go on to claim the importance of living in a Christian Community as a way to remain safe from the Wrath of God. They do not believe their individual actions are enough.
They believe that they have a duty to enforce their version of biblical morality upon their community in order to keep themselves and their families safe.
Until those discussions, I did not understand why so many devoutly religious people, who wanted freedom to live their own religious lives, would not allow the same for other individuals who believed differently.
Since those initial discussions, I have come across that same issue in discussions with a handful of Mormons and a few Orthodox Jews and Muslims. Each was sure that the only way to keep themselves and their loved ones safe was to enforce laws that would force their entire community to live a certain outwardly religious way.
If religious individuals cannot see their personal actions as being enough for their personal safety and salvation, we will continue to have societal conflict. The reality is that as our communities have become more diverse, there is no way to enforce any particular religious set of rules. When attempted, there is pushback.
In years past, LGBTQ folks would relocate to the large metropolitan areas as they searched for community and acceptance. I am now seeing another sort of migration. The most religiously conservative are moving. Utah, Idaho, Kentucky, Texas Tennessee and Western Virginia are all getting people moving in as they search for likeminded people. My expectation is to see the most religious in our country to continue their relocations to more rural and conservative areas. I expect to continue to see an increase in the home school movement among those religious communities.
In so many ways, we are losing common ground as a people.
Ethan,
Sorry, there simply is no such freedom. Believe me, there are certain viewpoints I would love to be free from! The bottom line is that if we dismiss ideas simply because they are religious we have most certainly have placed limits on thought and expression. Is that really where we want us to go? In order for democracy to survive Americans must get better at presenting convincing arguments to those who possess differing worldviews. They have to compromise, and compromise has become a dirty word on both sides of the aisle.
Damascene,
I agree with much of what you said, especially in Americans losing common ground as a people. The problem is that we often refuse to recognize and use those common ground values as starting points and means of reconciliation and compromise. We are trapped in politics of division and that harms us all.
Consider the modern legal view of civil rights: all persons have claim to a bundle of legal rights, subject only to a few justifiable but partial restrictions (an incarcerated felon, someone who has joined the military, minors). In previous centuries, persons who were female or who were members of certain ethnic or religious categories were denied some or all of those civil rights. Conservative Christians, and Mormons in particular, want to continue denying those rights to some, while society and the legal system have largely abandoned that approach and now extend civil rights to all adults.
The whole religious liberty initiative in the LDS Church is just the latest attempt to justify LDS push back against the idea that all persons should have claim to the same basic package of civil rights. It’s an attempt to claim the moral high ground (we are defending religion!) when almost all outsiders, and some insiders, see the Church as defending the moral low ground, the right to discriminate or limit rights of some groups within the Church and, if possible, to those outside the Church. This is why Mormons are so morally tone deaf — active LDS think they are being oh so moral and defending God’s truth, while outsiders see them as morally deficient persons who sympathize and support, to varying degrees, things like polygamy and racial discrimination and general bigotry. And now we can add political authoritarianism to the list.
I always find the “Religious Freedom” arguments made by many Mormons to be very short sighted since the policies they push for; prayer in schools, the ability to discriminate based on religious belief, etc could be, and used to be used to discriminate against Mormons, especially by the Church’s political allies on the religious right.
Dave B.,
I’m not really arguing with you, but I would like to add that many conservatives don’t see it that way. For example, on the transgender issues, they are very likely to view themselves as protecting children from medical treatments procedures that are questionable at best and likely harmful. They view themselves as defending the rights of biological women (their description) against those who have enjoy athletic and physiological advantages of testosterone while maturing. So fairness comes into play. These are arguments which resonate with many Americans. Non-conservatives are likely to claim the issues are far more nuanced. But their arguments appear dubious, murky or untrustworthy from a conservative perspective. Conservatives believe they rely on traditional morality than others. They would likely laugh out loud at your charge that they are “morally tone deaf.” Any real chance at conversation and compromise then goes up in smoke.
I am reminded of the movie Babe (1995) in which two opposing camps (dogs and sheep) simply can’t talk to each other due to inherent biases in both. The character that dissolved those divisions in a rather unorthodox way was a pig named Babe. I think it will take an individual or group refusing the current dualistic political paradigm to solve many of the conflicts in the culture war. ”A little pig goes a long way.”
Damascene, your post is spot on! It’s crystal clear to believers in scriptures that we are judged by our own individual actions as well as by the actions of society. The flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, the Ten Lost Tribes, Lehi’s Jerusalem, the entire Book of Mormon, Jackson County, etc. it does not matter whether we share these beliefs or not. The point is that this is the key to why one cannot simply argue with these people, “you do your thing & I’ll do mine”. Right or wrong, that argument will never ever work for devout believers.
Religious liberty is a misdirection and the defense of it lessens the freedom of all individuals. What is religion? Why would we argue that something that is “religious” deserves an entitlement of freedom over and above those things that are not “religious”?
Observe that the LDS Church defines religion as an organized church. When Elder Oaks and colleagues defend religious liberty they do so in defense of the corporation of the church. They explicitly deny the application of religious liberty to members of the church! They explicitly declared this in regards to the Covid shots. This is also shown in the LGBT laws the church has supported in Utah where the freedom of the LDS church to discriminate is protected while the freedom of individuals in Utah to discriminate is denied.
Per the First Amendment and the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the Utah LGBT law is unconstitutional. Why is a church being granted freedoms that are denied individuals? Does not the 1st Amendment state “Congress [government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Why is a church being permitted to do something denied to individuals when the LAW specifically prohibits such favoritism?
So I object to calls for “Religious Liberty” and instead argue that the Constitution protects the freedom of all people, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. As to the question of what discrimination is permitted in society, the issue is not that there should be no discrimination but rather: What discriminations are fair and appropriate and which ones are not?
Do we have a country where people are free to choose their associations?
Do we have a country where people have freedom of conscience?
Do we have a country where people are free to speak messages that offend others?
I read that younger Americans are less enthusiastic about the freedom of speech, at least as it concerns speech in disagreement with their sensibilities. Yet at the same time younger Americans are very assertive of their “rights” to do, say and have what they want. A cognitive dissonance is apparent in the attitudes of younger Americans. They make claims of individual liberty that they want to deny to others. Do they not see that someday they will be in the “minority” and they will want the freedom to think differently than the “majority”?
I mean … he is right. But the question is – whose fault is that. Is the public stupid, or are religious groups increasingly disconnected from values that many modern people hold dear. I mean, I think there is plenty of stupidity and ignorance in the public, but religious groups bear a big part of responsibility for this.
Somewhat off-topic but – I like Dean Moore, good person–extremely kind and warm and generous and very very bright–but he’s very much a Clark Gilbert pick. Way more “Mormony” than the last dean. I was at an alumni event that had as one of its express purposes the aim of welcoming non-LDS alumni (either people who never were or no longer are LDS – this is actually a challenge because a lot of people go to BYU and then if they leave the Church they don’t feel comfortable participating in alumni activities, which isn’t great for them OR the school – so this group is trying to decouple Church membership and alumni status). Anyway, he spoke at it and it was the MOST weirdo Mormon speech for a law school dean to give. Kind of tone deaf to the audience. Did not endear me to him notwithstanding his many nice qualities.
A Disciple,
I don’t agree that the LDS Church defines religion as solely an religious institution. Consider the amicus brief filed in the SCOTUS Oregon v. Smith case. The LDS Church arguing for ceremonial use of peyote? Yep. Elder Oaks also signed the Williamsburg Charter on behalf of the Church.
What threats to religious freedom do we face? Threats overwhelmingly come from white Christian nationalists and their speed Trumpists against Muslim Americans and their abilities to build mosques and practice their religion. WCNs also threaten atheists’ freedoms from religion by trying to impose their religious beliefs on them in public spaces. The folks crying the loudest about losing religious freedom are paradoxically the greatest threats to it.
Old Man,
The Oregon v Smith case supports my view of how the Constitution should be applied to assess claims of discrimination. The majority ruled that the state had a compelling case for the regulation and the regulation was equally applied. This was not a case where the religious practice was singled out, but rather the religious practice conflicted with the state interest of having employees not under the influence of drugs.
Scalia wrote, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”[4] Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, or laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.
I can appreciate why the LDS church defended Smith’s argument. I have sympathy for Smith’s case, assuming he was acting in good faith. At the same time there is irony in the LDS position given they do not generally acknowledge support for religious exemptions for members who object to state interference. It must be appreciated that the Supreme Court, while defending the state of Oregon, recognized that the residents of Oregon had the option to change the laws of the state.
My preference would be for society to focus more on the question of “compelling state interest” when judging whether a law is unfairly discriminatory. For society to have any cohesion there must be a foundation of shared beliefs and government must recognize and support these beliefs. What beliefs and practices are valid or consistent with “compelling state interests”? That is a question a people need to ask themselves and be truthful about. Discrimination for the sake of dividing and diminishing people should be opposed. But eliminating all discrimination with the argument that all inequality is bad is an ideology that leads to anarchy as it permits every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Great post and a timely one. I, too, get the magazine as a BYU alum and was appalled by what I read in this article, but not surprised. Part of the sort of baked-in aspects of at least some strains (not all) of Mormonism and perhaps BYU Mormonism in particular are the twin notions that 1) religion (especially the ONE TRUE RELIGION) is under attack from all quarters and that Satan and his minions are responsible, which means the concept of “religious freedom” as Mormon leaders use it has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with wanting a free pass for institutionalized bigotry because of some paranoid persecution complex and 2) the idea that religions and the people who practice them are somehow inherently good, and because they are inherently good, religion does therefore much more good than harm. The intransigent nature of those twin notions, at least, apparently, on the part of high-up Mormon and BYU leadership, make it pretty much impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them about religious freedom and what it might actually mean, not to mention making it impossible to have a considered discussion about the long, brutal history of religion-inspired violence and the way that religion is so easily coopted by those who seek to harm others. Of course religion has inspired many folks to do good, and that is notable and praiseworthy, but the instances of religiously justified harm are pretty immense (slavery, colonialism, the Crusades, various religious wars, the Inquisition, ad nauseam) with staggering, long-term consequences.
The plain fact of the matter is that religious belief has only ever been a belief. To state the obvious, there has been no incontrovertible, irrefutable evidence that establishes the truth claims of ANY religion. And since that is the case, it is not a good idea to utilize a religious (i.e. unverified as true) framework when writing, passing, or enforcing civil, secular laws. To answer your last question, I think a completely secular society (at least in terms of laws and politics) would be much more likely to create a kind of equality that would ultimately be better for everyone since the overt (and covert) bigotry of religious thought (and other bigotry too, obviously) would be excised from the lawmaking process. Things would still be far from perfect, clearly, but I do think they’d be better for all. Such a thing is impossible, of course, however I do see the slow but steady waning of religious belief in this country as a positive thing. I also understand that such a trend may be troubling to others, but in the long run, IMHO it will make things better.
Old Man – my point was simply that freedom from having to belong to or adhere to any sort of religion is an aspect of religious freedom. Even the LDS church espouses that freedom in the Articles of Faith. I just think any discussion of religious freedom is incomplete without holding space for the freedom to have no religion at all.
A Disciple, “I read that younger Americans are less enthusiastic about the freedom of speech, at least as it concerns speech in disagreement with their sensibilities.”
My social media feed is chock full of millennials and gen Z folks who lean very left. I hear no rhetoric about restricting government protections on freedom of speech. I only hear support for allowing social consequences for bad speech. I can defend some tech exec’s legal right to say stupid drivel, but I can also defend advertisers’ freedom to abandon said tech exec when he’s spouting said drivel.
Be that as it may, our society is still in its adolescence when it comes to digital discourse. We haven’t quite figured out the digital equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. We need to collectively agree where the limits of free speech end in the age of the Internet.
To Elisa’s point about BYU alumni wanting to be more inclusive, that’s super interesting! One of the clearest examples of religious discrimination in America today is that BYU will revoke a student’s Good Standing if she leaves the church and void her ecclesiastical endorsement. How can a church pretend to champion freedom of religion while simultaneously ruining the lives of students who try to practice religious freedom? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Moore is correct, and the growing view that religion is a political cover that he points out is also a correct view. People’s politics are not as informed by their religion as they claim; it is political/social views first and then find the Bible verse that supports you. Observing members’ behavior over the last few years confirms this for me. And if you are a leader of a church that is increasingly arguing for religious freedom in the service of discriminatory behavior that is increasingly countercultural, you better be careful or you will end up with a church whose only members are weird bigots.
Ethan,
I stand corrected. My apiologies, I misread your statement.
The reason religion has a preferred place in our legal conception of rights is mostly historical and practical. It’s not primarily because religion has unique social value.* The law singles out religion because several centuries ago millions of people died in European wars that were caused largely by religious differences. These wars lasted for about two hundred years. Peace came only when Europeans accepted a new political order that gave secular authorities undisputed power over religious authorities. This new arrangement was possible only because churches—and, later, personal religious belief and practice—were given a special degree of autonomy within the secular state.
People got really tired of killing each other over religion, so they figured out how to create separate spheres for religion and politics. These spheres must have some overlapping space so we can all live together, but the spheres must also remain separate in order to prevent catastrophic violence. It’s a difficult balance. We typically teach the truth that maintaining this balance requires us to have mutual respect and a commitment to the rule of law. What we no longer teach is that maintaining this balance also requires us to have a healthy fear of what might happen if the balance breaks down. We no longer remember that the American Founders had the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War still in mind when they talked about First Amendment religious freedoms.
I’m not predicting that we are doomed to fall into a religious war. I am saying that we really ought to be remembering the practical reasons that were originally the basis for protecting religious freedom.
It’s becoming irresponsible to talk about legal principles of religious freedom as if we were living forty years ago, when fascism and authoritarianism were not a credible threat among the democratic powers. Advocates of religious freedom need to think deeply right now about how to protect religious freedom without feeding the fascist threat.
*Note: Many people argue that religion does have important and unique social value and that this is a reason for protecting religion in the law. I’m not going to talk about that argument because it’s not relevant to the historical point I’m making here.
I think the obvious answer to this question is neither.
I also don’t think the answer has changed over time. It has evolved from having more religious societies that people rebel from to having societies where equality under the law is challenged constantly because one group or another is more equal than another group. It goes back to democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others or the War in Heaven where a third of the host rebelled.
One more comment, in light of the question “Which makes society kinder to the people living in it? Religion or equality?” Also in light of A Disciple’s saying, “younger Americans are less enthusiastic about free speech.”
There are two sides of the coin. One the one hand, a society with lots of strictures and rules makes people fearful that if they say or do something that offends authorities, they could be ostracized, imprisoned, or killed. The fear gives them the incentive to play by the rules and be kind in a sense. Fear of being ostracized or a persona non grata in religious communities definitely keeps people being nice to each other. On the other hand, lots of fear and frustration about rules in a community can lead to backlash among a few, which if it grows, can lead to a polarizing effect where people are there come to be an increase in incidents of people mistreating each other.
In a free society, people have the incentive of generating mutual good feeling to treat each other kindly. Additionally kind treatment may lead to more buying and business. But the incentive structure takes us only so far. If sharp political disagreements set in, then the free speech zone can be a no-holds-barred environment where we have to prepare ourselves for intense and even acrimonious disagreement.
Conservative media thrives on the idea that conservatives are saying and thinking things that they aren’t supposed to and are victimized because of it. Conservatives often don’t understand that that’s the shtick: the feeling of being victimized or saying taboo things has a lure and appeal and hearing stories that cause you outrage about someone being “cancelled” or “censored” in some unjust capacity keep you listening and feeding on more and more outrage. It has been that way in conservative media for decades and it has thrived because of it. In reality, in the words of once Republican operative Tim Miller to failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate and election-denying conspiracy theorist Trumpist Kari Lake: “we live in a golden age of conservative speech.” And that’s the truth. Conservative media generates billions and billions in revenue and flourishes more than it ever has. If so-called leftist Gen Zers are so against free speech, then how come conservative media and conservative ideas are doing so well? The “anti-speech” leftists (boogeyman?) trying to crack down on conservative speech is utterly failing then. The other point is that a free speech environment is one in which individuals privately have the freedom to tell others to shut up and petition for their firing. That’s an exercise of free speech, is it not? It is only a violation of free speech when individuals leverage government power to shut down speech under threat of monetary fine or imprisonment.
Instereo,
In modern times, there have been instances in which religious tolerance has benefitted particular nations (Netherlands and Prussia) economically, culturally and politically. Free thinkers (i.e. educated and skilled religious minorities such as the Jews and Huguenots) gravitated to those countries because they faced persecution in other parts of Europe.
Also one reason that Muslim forces so easily overwhelmed the Byzantine and Sassanid empires in the 7th through the 9th centuries was that the Byzantines had a history of persecuting heretical Christian minorities (Copts, Nestorians). The Sassanids also suppressed new minority religions. Those minorities supported the growing Muslim power because they saw opportunities greater than those offered by the Byzantines. Later the Ottoman Empire exemplified religious toleration. Under the principle of “millet” system, non-Muslim communities were granted autonomy in religious and legal matters. This policy attracted diverse populations and fostered cultural exchange and economic growth within the empire. It also provided a level of stability that allowed for the coexistence of various religious groups, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
I would also argue that religious toleration in the United States has fostered a diverse and pluralistic society where individuals are free to practice their faiths without fear of persecution. This has contributed to the country’s social cohesion and economic prosperity. Unfortunately Christian Nationalism threatens that cohesion and prosperity. I fail to understand why some in the LDS tradition (another persecuted minority) would find Christian nationalism so appealing. They don’t seem to understand that Mormons are not considered part of the “Christian” nation!
Growing up where the church was not only a minority but literally unknown to the majority of people around me, I was so grateful that laws were secular and there was freedom FROM religious preferences. I had mostly lived in the northeast.
Then we moved to rural Texas. There was the law, probably, but it was ignored. There was Evangelical prayer in school. The black students had to enter the classroom last. Still nobody knew who the Mormons were and there were hardly any. I was relieved when we left there after just a year and went back to the northeast which was secular. People kept religion out of the school, the legislature and the public eye. It was private.
When I went to BYU, hearing the church talked about so often in public and finding out just how heavy handed the church was with politics never sat right with me. It just seemed so arrogant and the opposite of how we were taught to be at church. I still feel that way.
Either the older I get or the more authoritarian conservative religions get, the more I see religion as antithetical to equality, civil rights, and moral communities. That Texas experience didn’t feel good to me as a practicing Mormon, and seeing Mormons gleefully try to take away the rights of others shows me that power corrupts and reduces one’s ability to be a good person. Religious power is maybe even more prone to this problem.
Two thoughts: 1) Your grievances, at heart, are about your support for “dualism” and Christianity’s opposition to that progressive idea. Christians should believe in Jesus Christ, whose body during the Resurrection was joined again with His spirit. IOW, mind and body are one. The cult of personal autonomy believes that mind and body are separate things which ideology allows progressives who believe that idea to objectify the body (their bodies). So mutilating a human body, whether in plastic surgery or trans-surgeries, is inconsequential to what the person involved thinks/believes. The body is an object there to be subjected to the mind.
2) The purest form of religious freedom is acting according to the dictates of individual religious conscience. I believe that religious freedom is gone now — regardless of a conservative SCOTUS. Ironically for arguments sake, but no coincidence in terms of the narrative over religious freedom — SCOTUS killed true religious freedom with the Reynolds decision criminalizing polygamy (and I share this regardless of your views about the subject). The fact is that SCOTUS ruled that polygamy was illegal under the legal concept of “generally applicable laws.” Now, that legal doctrine has seesawed over the decades between “general applicability” and “strict scrutiny.” IOW, actually in your words, between discrimination by religions (i.e., your notion of bigoted religious freedom) and nondiscrimination…and also, in Utah, the idea of “accommodation.” The right of individual conscience is gone…even if a Trump Court finds moments of lucidity to protect it, such as a cake baker, florist, or website creator. But note, each of those examples is an unwillingness to do something, not imposing something on someone else. And this is where we, orthodox Saints, are at: religious freedom has come down to us separating from secularism/progressivism…us choosing not to participate in “the world” or Babylon. I’ll add that the LDS Church, my faith, shook hands with Babylon in living with the Reynolds decision and, down the road, that handshake now is symbolized by tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt status is the church’s Golden Calf…and I would say should be done away. Tax-exempt status burdens the establishment of Zion, burdens the Saints. But that is where we’re at.
Being a Christian I believe and support the God given right to exercise my agency – I can do and say whatever I like. Isn’t that the basic principle regarding agency. So, I can choose, what I think, what I believe, and how I act towards others whose beliefs and opinions differ from mine. But I am also mindful of consequences, while I may choose to exercise my agency however I like, I am also mindful o the fact that I am also responsible for any conduct, actions, or behaviours which may cause others harm. Isn’t that how life is supposed to work?
Damascene – that’s such an interesting perspective. Religious people believe God might punish an entire community for the sins of a few. That’s directly opposite to the story of Abraham bargaining for Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham got God to agree to NOT destroy S&G if there were even 5 righteous people in it. There weren’t, but just 5 faithful would have saved S&G. Alma 34:11 says this, “Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.” People shouldn’t be punished for the sins of others. It’s too bad religion focuses on the other types of stories. Probably the temple teachings about becoming clean “from the blood and sins of this generation” don’t help people trust that God won’t punish them for someone else’s sins. That’s a crappy God. This teaching probably arose as a pushback to the prosperity gospel, to teach that even righteous people can suffer because of the world’s wickedness, so trials and tribulations don’t seem like a punishment for wickedness.
Religious believers have the most fear from both teachings. Either the prosperity gospel means you’ll be blessed for righteousness, and therefore if you suffer it’s a just punishment. Or the prosperity gospel isn’t a protection at all, and a righteous person can be punished right alongside the wicked. Awful thing to teach.
Dave B. – very well said! Society is redefining ‘morality.’ From my perspective, religious standards about bodily autonomy are no longer considered moral. Instead, equality is moral. So discriminating against someone due to their sexual orientation is now immoral, whereas a few decades ago, acknowledging that differing sexual orientations are fine would have been immoral.
Old Man – I see your point about conservatives believing that they are protecting women and children from the dangers they (conservatives) see in transgenderism. My thought is that the dangers are fabricated to try and give a secular justification for what’s really a religious belief. Changing your gender is forbidden by God, but conservatives can’t defeat transgenderism by preaching religious beliefs. So they whole scale invent dangers to drum up support for passing laws. I’m not a conservative, and I don’t believe these issues are nuanced. There is not a problem with transgender women attacking cisgender women in restrooms, for example. That’s just made up. Puberty blockers are not new and experimental drugs; they’ve been around for decades and were developed to help cis people.
Elisa – I haven’t been to any alumni events, and partly for the reason you identify. I wouldn’t be comfortable there. I went to a couple of mission reunions and they were beyond awkward. Yeah, I’m not going to BYU alumni stuff. Thanks for your comments about Dean Moore. I haven’t seen that speech, but it will probably come in the next issue of the BYU Law magazine!
Brother Sky – it took a long time for me to let go of the idea that religion is always positive for society. Religion that encourages good behavior, kindness to family, honesty in our dealings, compassion for the poor and needy is positive for society. Individual behavior. When religions focus on individual behavior, I believe they strengthen society by improving individuals. I agree with what you said. I think religion has mis-stepped by trying to enforce ‘good’ behavior in entire societies. That’s where it lost the moral high ground. When ‘religious freedom’ means ‘institutionalized bigotry’, we’ve got a problem.
Kirkstall – good observation that we’re still in “digital adolescence” with regard to communicating online. I’m a strong advocate for free speech, but I can still see the harm that misinformation is causing. I include the slander against non-Christians as a form of misinformation. I don’t know how to draw lines, and I don’t think the govt should be drawing them. However, I agree with experiencing the consequences of your words. Getting criticized for saying dumb things isn’t a restriction on free speech; it’s a reaction to what someone said.
Loursat – thanks for the historical context. Great comment. Europe fought for so long over religious beliefs, and now the continent is largely secular. Religion is harming itself by turning its beliefs into a fight.
Brad D – I liked your comment. Second thumbs up. The point you made about conservatives saying outrageous stuff and then saying they’re being victimized for their beliefs reminded me a satirical take on that. Something like: “Why are you picking on me because of my beliefs? All I said was that you and everyone you love are going to hell!”
Angela – thanks for sharing that story. Secular principles protect religious people too, exactly as you described. Every religion is a minority somewhere.
William M. Joyce – claiming responsibility for the actions of others that might cause harm is too sweeping of a statement. What kind of harm? If you’re trying to prevent the harm caused by someone going to hell, then no, you shouldn’t try to prevent that harm. And like I said in my post, most of the conservative laws have to make up secular harm to try and justify the bigotry and discrimination.
Damascene
That’s not a god I would want to worship. I bet that in the next breath, those friends could gush about God’s love.
Gender Ideology is a humanistic religion with sin and falsehoods as tenets of faith. It denies the biological truth in science and seeks to deceive even children as young as three years old. Kids are smart and could easily say that their “truth” about other sciences like math and chemistry, what they should be focused on, is whatever they believe it to be. If schools teach Gender Identity Ideology, then they must also teach Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., otherwise it is a global indoctrination into the Gender Identity false religion and we Christians, True Believers, know all about this great deception because we were told ahead of time.
Like the Pope said Gender Identity erases humanity but not only that, it also denies the Image of God and harms women and children. Gender Identity is a state created, state coerced same-sex false religion that accepts lies as truth knowing it is an affront to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Male and female are not interchangeable through bodily mutilation and drugs but binary and immutable. The reason is that God’s word does not return to Him void. It accomplishes His will. Jesus warned this generation to ‘not allow yourself to be deceived.’ And because people are being forced to accept LBGTQ+ or face punishment in one way or another, it is the spiritual mark of the beast, which can be proven using the guidance and calculation Jesus provided.
Calculating the mark of the beast takes understanding who God is, what the divine scriptures teach, and the analyses must be the truth. When Jesus says ‘calculate the number of the beast’ it can be understood that He means to analyze and understand its mark using the information He provided. Jesus warned many times over to not allow yourself to be deceived, because the very elect could be deceived if it were possible. Revelation 13 talks about the beast spiritually and its effect on physical reality, how it offends God and His people, and accepting its mark has eternal consequences. Those who accept it as righteous and equal to God’s image do not have their names written in the Book of Life.
Revelation 13:18 says “This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.” I believe God has given me insight of this calculation. Here it goes: The Gender Identity ideology is not some “cultural shift” that people are deceived to believe. Here is the key to understanding the gender identity false religion that mocks God and offends His people. In Genesis 1 and 2, we learn about God’s Image. If God puts His own Image and likeness on something, He is the only one who can change it. God created man in His Image — in His Image created He him, male and female created He them. This is very specific and a very big deal, and it isn’t possible to confuse God’s Image because He only said it one time. This fact cannot be minimized. No person or government has authority to change God’s Image or add to it to create LBGTQ+. Nor can any person or government force acceptance of LBGTQ+ as righteous and equal to God’s creation of binary male and female. At the end of Genesis 1, God looked at His creation and saw that it was not only good, but very good, and sealed it with the Sabath where He rested from all that He created and made. Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is His. Creation belongs to God.
If an ideology like Gender Identity comes along and declares male and female are not binary but fluid on a spectrum and “transgender” is a possibility, then it is a counterfeit and a lie. Don’t believe it because that ideology is all about deception. Jesus said the devil is the father of lies, has been a liar from the beginning, and there is no truth in him. In adhering to Jesus’ guidance on how to recognize the mark of the beast, we see in Genesis 1 that man was created on the 6th day and the counterfeit man represents the first 6 in the mark. Jesus said the number is in its name. So, if you look at LBGTQ+ you count six characters, all of them represent sin and lies. Also, on June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when it illegally ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriage, a religious act — something the Constitution forbids, that accelerated it on a collision course with Christianity and the persecution of Christians. When the Supreme Court legislated this unlawful act, it also sponsored and empowered the humanistic, Gender Identity, Same Sex false religion. The US Supreme Court does not have authority over marriage to change it at all nor can they force acceptance of same sex marriage since marriage is religious (created and instituted in the Bible) which is why it’s also referred to as Holy Matrimony.
When you look at that day, June 26, 2015, it was on a Friday, the morning being the latter part of the 6th day of the week of the 6th month, and the evening is the beginning of the Sabath. The Sabath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. I’m almost certain that the justices had no idea of the significance of this day, but the Bible says in Eph. 6. “[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Those do understand the significance. Same Sex Marriage rejects God’s Holy Order for male with female to be fruitful and multiply and for man and wife as one for the foundation of the family. The Gender Identity ideology falsely claims that a child can have two moms or two dads which harms the child because the child is denied 50% of whom their parents truthfully are. The falsehoods of Gender Identity, LBGTQ+ and same sex marriage deny the Image of God and is represented by the second 6.
The third 6 is represented by the LBGTQ+ “rainbow” symbol that hijacked God’s rainbow symbol of His covenant with Noah. They wave the flag proudly proclaiming falsely that “love is love,” when the Scriptures say God is love! Most of them are non-believers and call God all kinds of insulting and blasphemous names. God is completely disrespected and rejected by members of the Gender Identity false religion. It falsified the rainbow symbol to represent LBGTQ+ Pride in their sin and lies. The final iteration of the LBGTQ+ rainbow flag has 6 stripes to represent each “gender identity.” Sadly, when a person sees a rainbow flag or symbol, they immediately associate it with gay pride and not the symbol of God’s Covenant with Noah. God revealed to me on Ash Wednesday, 2024 that the rainbow mockery goes beyond the Covenant with Noah and mocks the very Throne of God. Revelation 4:3 says: “3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.” And because of this mockery and the fact that LBGTQ+ celebrates and takes pride in sin and lies, rather than repent of them as Christianity demands, it is impossible for a person who supports LBGTQ+ to be a Christian.
The Gender Identity false religion says a person can be LBGTQ+ and be a Christian, but just like everything else about it, this too is false — don’t believe it. Jesus already said a Kingdom divided against itself won’t stand. This is thousands of years old Scripture that has foretold what is happening in this generation, and we should all say thanks be to God that He has told us ahead of time. Now we know His word is the Truth and the calculation/analyzation of the mark of the beast, 666, is accurate and true.
Everywhere you look at that ideology you will find the number 6. I tested this theory on Greece who recently legalized same sex marriage, it was legalized on February 16th on a Friday, their time, the universal 6th day, and just prior to the eve of the Sabath. This is not a global coincidence. Receiving the mark is how you think and what you do according to the testimony of Jesus, who is THE TRUTH. If you accept LBGTQ+ as righteous and equal to binary male and female, then you have denied the Image of God and received the mark of the beast. Pastors and teachers of Christian doctrine must speak and stand boldly on the Word of God because now you know what you are dealing with. There is power in the name of Jesus! The “equality” lies codified for “LBGTQ+” have collided with Christianity and forced many believers out of business and tortured some like Jack Phillips for years. Gender Identity demands adherence in laws and in all aspects of business, including policing, while rejecting Christianity. Gender Identity ideology destroys reproduction. It wants males to share private spaces with females even though females don’t want strange males in those spaces. The Gender Identity ideology wants males to compete against females in sports, only to bludgeon the females in volleyball and other sports and steal their rewards. It denies biology and indoctrinates preschoolers into its false faith via the “genderbread” person. Just who do Gender Identity LBGTQ+ people think they are that if their sins and lies aren’t deemed righteous and celebrated then they will be offended, and will summons the government to cast Christianity and other faiths to the wayside and pronounce us Christians as hateful bigots and guilty of sogi discrimination?
Christians must recognize what this is and understand that no person or government can tell you that you must accept sin and lies as righteous or you are a hateful monstrous bigot who uses religion to discriminate, because you refuse to denounce your faith by accepting Gender Identity in any tenet. Nor can they censor what you say about your faith and love for Jesus. There is no middle ground here. You’re either with God or you’re not. People who straddle issues pertaining to God, He says, are lukewarm and make Him want to vomit.
Many homosexuals are leaving the same sex religion and beginning to recognize their sin as sin, rather than sin to be celebrated. They are returning to God with a repentant heart. This is real and it is happening now. It is critical that people understand the spiritual significance and acceptance of Gender Identity because it does have eternal consequences. Jesus is coming back, and He said to be prepared because we do not know what day or hour that He’s returning. But just like Jesus gave us the calculation for the spiritual mark of the beast, He also gave us the signs of the times to look for just prior to His return, and those signs are happening now. One of those signs is indicative of same sex marriage celebrations because people had normalized sin In Noah’s day, and Jesus referenced it when He said in Matthew 24:38: “In the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark. 39 They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and swept them all away.” Surely if they were marrying and being given in marriage according to God’s Holy Order, the flood would not have swept them all away. I think He’s referring to same sex marriage.
aquamarine,
In your whole rant I would ask you to note that you quote absolutely no scriptures that object to being transgender or mutilating the genitals. Why? Because there aren’t any. It is religionists today who have wrested the Bible to pretend God is against what God created. Here is a scripture for you, a quote from Christ in the KJV, Matthew 19:12
“For there are some eunuchs born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs that are made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
To me that’s plenty clear. Christ refers to making one’s self a eunuch, in positive terms, as doing what you are calling gender mutilation, “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”. Today’s gender affirming health care could be seen in these terms. I see it in these terms.
Also, consider the intersex people referred to as being born a eunuch. Yes, God makes intersex people, affirmed right here in the biblical verse. Any doctor can tell you babies are born with both kinds of genitalia, or without any at all, or in any variation, and if a DNA test is done it may or may not match the outside of the body.
I am a graduate student at a Catholic university. In my human development text there is a scientific study that found that cisgender men and women’s brains have significant, identifiable differences. What’s interesting is they have been able to study the brains of transgender individuals and those born in the body of a male have brains that closely resemble the brain of a cisgender female while those transgender people born female have brains that closely resemble males.
As Jesus says here in Matthew, God made them that way. Who are you to say God has done wrong, or that people who have gender affirming care are not doing it for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.