Reasons, other than the gay leader question, for the LDS church to discontinue their relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.
- LDS Scouting is not a world-wide program. Outside of the United States, there is not a relationship between the LDS church and scouting organizations in most countries. In some other countries, charter of troops by religious organizations is strictly forbidden. To be consistent world-wide, the church should have the same program for all of its young men.
- In LDS some wards, the scout troop is an organization unto itself, operated by life-long scouts, outside the direction of the Bishop and the priesthood. Priesthood leaders often allow those outside of the Priesthood organization to run their scout troops unchecked. In such troops, those life-long scouts will often reject direction and council from the Bishop or those called to assist him.
- Priesthood leaders often do not ensure that adult volunteers are properly trained.
- Too often, the purposes of scouting and the purposes of the Aaron Priesthood are not intertwined like they should be.
- Scouting can create inequality among the youth and create divisions within Aaronic Priesthood quorums where boys should be taught that all of them are equal.
- Scouting is a great way to develop leadership skills, but often only the boys that show natural leadership skills are chosen for leadership positions. Nearly all boys will eventually become husbands and fathers and will need leadership skills in those capacities. Those who do not have natural leadership abilities who become leaders in the troop or quorum are often not trained.
- Even though scouting positions are not necessarily priesthood positions, women are excluded from leading troops, especially from the 12 year old scouts and beyond.
- Not enough emphasis on the scouting program once a boy turns 14 and enters the Teacher's Quorum. At this age, boys should be part of Varsity or Venture scouting groups.
- Even though scouting is an organization outside the church, non-members are often excluded from participating in scouting, even when there are not other scout troops inside the community. If they are included, usually it is with the sole purpose of being a proselyting tool.
- LDS members will still be free to participate in scouting, even without the church chartering units.
- Even though there are scouting programs for young women, there are no LDS-sponsored scout troops for girls.
- Scouting requires the church to raise money outside the collection of tithes and other offerings and the accountability of the Ward Clerk and Church Auditors.
- Senior full-time adult scouting leaders at the council level and at the national level are paid, sometimes handsomely, for their work.
- For many, scouting is a gospel hobby. This means that one's conviction of the church rests solely upon the scouting program.
- Some adults in the church will only accept church callings within scouting. Some adult members of the church will never accept a church calling in scouting.
- There has been sex abuse in the past with adult volunteers in scouting, even inside of LDS-sponsored organizations.
- The Boy Scouts of America will continue with or without the sponsorship of the LDS Church. In fact, scouting will probably adjust to not having the LDS church with so much power.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Now that we have Same Sex Marriage, are our Religious Liberties in Danger?
This is a question which is not easy to answer. But there have been a lot of people on both sides of the argument answering a question that we do not know today. It will take the courts years to decide where the line between religious liberty and marriage equality should be drawn. But I have done a lot of research on the subject from legal minds far superior to my own. Here is where I now think the answers lie.
1. Now that same sex marriage is legal, will polygamy be next?
The answer is unclear at this point. But let me give an argument against it. Same sex marriage was about marriage equality. Nothing will make a marriage more unequal than polygamy. If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, it tips the scale in favor of the man. It increases sexual access and opportunity for the male, but reduces it for the females involved. If a woman is allowed to have more than one husband, then the opposite is true. It increases sexual opportunity for the female and decreases it for the males. A similar argument can be made if groups of females or groups of males are allowed to marry. There is always bound to be someone left out. Also, allowing a female to have more than one husband may make it more difficult to identify the paternity of a child. (Not that marriage equality is concerned about children,) Polygamy and sexual equality are not good partners.
Although a lot of marriage and family experts believe that it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legal because of same sex marriage, there are still good arguments against it.
2. Now that same sex marriage is legal, why should we even have marriage licenses?
People have argued that marriage is a right, and I have been one to believe that you can't license a right. But there are still good reasons for a marriage license. Without a marriage license, couples who are married in the eyes of the church are just cohabiting in the eyes of the law. And if a couple is merely cohabiting, it weakens the remedies for domestic violence and other family crimes. If you take away marriage licenses, then you have to re-write all sorts of laws.
This may be something that needs to happen, eventually, but it may not be time for that, just yet.
3. Now that same sex marriage is legal, churches that continue to preach against homosexual relationships should lose their tax-exempt status.
Doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions if it goes against their religious convictions, even if the facilities that employ them are federally funded. Hospitals can even refuse to perform abortions and not risk their federal funding. It is likely that this kind of precedent will, at least for the next several decades, protect churches and pastors from having to perform same-sex marriages. Even if churches are forced to pay taxes, many will pay the tax rather than go against something that is against their beliefs. There are now several churches, including the Episcopal Church, that will perform same-sex marriages, it is unlikely that the courts will be able to force churches to change their dogmas.
Hopefully, churches and same-sex couples will simply learn to agree to disagree on this one.
4. If a run a wedding-related business, will I be forced to serve same-sex couples?
The line of public accommodation isn't clear at this point. It is true that there have been cases where bakers and photographers who have refused to accommodate same-sex couples have been forced to pay large fines. But business law is complicated. It is very likely that if this trend continues, that everyone who has a religious conviction against homosexuality may avoid entering wedding-related businesses. If that does happen, you may see these services unavailable in some cities. The courts will eventually take all of this into consideration and eventually common-sense will win out.
But for the couple in Oregon, the case that has become so well-known, recently. I think they had a poor defense. If it were me defending their case, and I am NOT a lawyer, I would have argued that my business was targeted because of my religious beliefs. I would have argued that therefore, they, the plaintiffs, were guilty of religious discrimination against me. I would have turned the tables on them. If you really don't want to accommodate a gay wedding, be prepared to play hard-ball. Hit back as hard as they hit you. It is likely your only defense.
I would also add, as a Latter-Day Saint who has lived outside of Utah, that religious discrimination has been alive and well for a long time. In some towns where I have lived, I would have had a difficult time finding a photographer, a caterer, a baker or any other wedding service provider to accommodate my LDS Temple wedding. This is because Mormons aren't held in high regard in much of the Christian community. I wounder if a Baptist has a hard time planning a wedding in Provo? I suspect non-Mormons in Utah have experienced this difficulty as well.
In my legal mind, and I speak as someone who has had only two semesters of business law, I can think of only two defenses for the wedding cake couple in Oregon. First, by serving a same-sex couple, my reputation would have been irrecoverably damaged in the community that I serve that I would have lost my customer base, and eventually my business. Even if it is the case, I doubt it could be proved in court. Another possible defense is that even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, that there is no possible remedy. That the actions of the court to punish the bakers would not have served as enough of an example to the rest of the Christian community to change their minds. I suspect that if you look hard enough, you can find a Christian photographer, or baker, or seamstress that will accommodate a same-sex couple. I would not have used either of these defenses.
Therefore, I would advise people in the wedding industry to consider carefully who they serve. It is not true that you can turn away potential customer for any reason. If you are religious, I would ask you to consider making who you accommodate a matter of sincere prayer. And I would encourage you not to turn away anyone without cause.
Outside of the wedding industry, if you business is large enough that you must get a business license from your city, then you must accommodate. There is no excuse for you, no matter how uncomfortable you are with the prospect.
I would believe, however, that the same exceptions (The Mother Murphy exceptions) that apply in race and gender accommodations, should apply in regards to accommodating gay persons. For those of you not familiar with these exceptions, if means that if Mother Murphy is renting out rooms in her house to supplement her meager, fixed income, she should only be required to rent to those with whom she feels comfortable in serving.
One more suggestion that I have. If you are in the commercial real-estate business, I would consider putting in single-commode bathrooms in future buildings instead of the traditional male/female bathrooms. This means that you have several private bathrooms together where you have a commode and a sink inside. It is really not much more expensive and will save you for transgender lawsuits later.
That is all that I have to write about this topic now, but if you have more questions that I could research, I would be happy to do so for you. Please leave a comment.
In conclusion. I do not agree with those who feel our religious liberties are in danger or that our constitution is hanging by a thread. But if we over-react, we will get there sooner than we think. I believe that we can learn to live together, and that people faith really have nothing to fear from the LGBT community.
1. Now that same sex marriage is legal, will polygamy be next?
The answer is unclear at this point. But let me give an argument against it. Same sex marriage was about marriage equality. Nothing will make a marriage more unequal than polygamy. If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, it tips the scale in favor of the man. It increases sexual access and opportunity for the male, but reduces it for the females involved. If a woman is allowed to have more than one husband, then the opposite is true. It increases sexual opportunity for the female and decreases it for the males. A similar argument can be made if groups of females or groups of males are allowed to marry. There is always bound to be someone left out. Also, allowing a female to have more than one husband may make it more difficult to identify the paternity of a child. (Not that marriage equality is concerned about children,) Polygamy and sexual equality are not good partners.
Although a lot of marriage and family experts believe that it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legal because of same sex marriage, there are still good arguments against it.
2. Now that same sex marriage is legal, why should we even have marriage licenses?
People have argued that marriage is a right, and I have been one to believe that you can't license a right. But there are still good reasons for a marriage license. Without a marriage license, couples who are married in the eyes of the church are just cohabiting in the eyes of the law. And if a couple is merely cohabiting, it weakens the remedies for domestic violence and other family crimes. If you take away marriage licenses, then you have to re-write all sorts of laws.
This may be something that needs to happen, eventually, but it may not be time for that, just yet.
3. Now that same sex marriage is legal, churches that continue to preach against homosexual relationships should lose their tax-exempt status.
Doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions if it goes against their religious convictions, even if the facilities that employ them are federally funded. Hospitals can even refuse to perform abortions and not risk their federal funding. It is likely that this kind of precedent will, at least for the next several decades, protect churches and pastors from having to perform same-sex marriages. Even if churches are forced to pay taxes, many will pay the tax rather than go against something that is against their beliefs. There are now several churches, including the Episcopal Church, that will perform same-sex marriages, it is unlikely that the courts will be able to force churches to change their dogmas.
Hopefully, churches and same-sex couples will simply learn to agree to disagree on this one.
4. If a run a wedding-related business, will I be forced to serve same-sex couples?
The line of public accommodation isn't clear at this point. It is true that there have been cases where bakers and photographers who have refused to accommodate same-sex couples have been forced to pay large fines. But business law is complicated. It is very likely that if this trend continues, that everyone who has a religious conviction against homosexuality may avoid entering wedding-related businesses. If that does happen, you may see these services unavailable in some cities. The courts will eventually take all of this into consideration and eventually common-sense will win out.
But for the couple in Oregon, the case that has become so well-known, recently. I think they had a poor defense. If it were me defending their case, and I am NOT a lawyer, I would have argued that my business was targeted because of my religious beliefs. I would have argued that therefore, they, the plaintiffs, were guilty of religious discrimination against me. I would have turned the tables on them. If you really don't want to accommodate a gay wedding, be prepared to play hard-ball. Hit back as hard as they hit you. It is likely your only defense.
I would also add, as a Latter-Day Saint who has lived outside of Utah, that religious discrimination has been alive and well for a long time. In some towns where I have lived, I would have had a difficult time finding a photographer, a caterer, a baker or any other wedding service provider to accommodate my LDS Temple wedding. This is because Mormons aren't held in high regard in much of the Christian community. I wounder if a Baptist has a hard time planning a wedding in Provo? I suspect non-Mormons in Utah have experienced this difficulty as well.
In my legal mind, and I speak as someone who has had only two semesters of business law, I can think of only two defenses for the wedding cake couple in Oregon. First, by serving a same-sex couple, my reputation would have been irrecoverably damaged in the community that I serve that I would have lost my customer base, and eventually my business. Even if it is the case, I doubt it could be proved in court. Another possible defense is that even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, that there is no possible remedy. That the actions of the court to punish the bakers would not have served as enough of an example to the rest of the Christian community to change their minds. I suspect that if you look hard enough, you can find a Christian photographer, or baker, or seamstress that will accommodate a same-sex couple. I would not have used either of these defenses.
Therefore, I would advise people in the wedding industry to consider carefully who they serve. It is not true that you can turn away potential customer for any reason. If you are religious, I would ask you to consider making who you accommodate a matter of sincere prayer. And I would encourage you not to turn away anyone without cause.
Outside of the wedding industry, if you business is large enough that you must get a business license from your city, then you must accommodate. There is no excuse for you, no matter how uncomfortable you are with the prospect.
I would believe, however, that the same exceptions (The Mother Murphy exceptions) that apply in race and gender accommodations, should apply in regards to accommodating gay persons. For those of you not familiar with these exceptions, if means that if Mother Murphy is renting out rooms in her house to supplement her meager, fixed income, she should only be required to rent to those with whom she feels comfortable in serving.
One more suggestion that I have. If you are in the commercial real-estate business, I would consider putting in single-commode bathrooms in future buildings instead of the traditional male/female bathrooms. This means that you have several private bathrooms together where you have a commode and a sink inside. It is really not much more expensive and will save you for transgender lawsuits later.
That is all that I have to write about this topic now, but if you have more questions that I could research, I would be happy to do so for you. Please leave a comment.
In conclusion. I do not agree with those who feel our religious liberties are in danger or that our constitution is hanging by a thread. But if we over-react, we will get there sooner than we think. I believe that we can learn to live together, and that people faith really have nothing to fear from the LGBT community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
