Posted by:
MCR
(
)
Date: April 18, 2014 12:06AM
He starts off by saying he made a prediction 30 years ago, and it came true and he won't predict the next 30 years, but without predicting, he said it would go this way: increased governmental support for religion is balanced against increased governmental regulation of religion, especially church-related business activities. Because of this balance, churches would need to more actively lobby government.
I predict he's wrong. First, as others have noted, the deal with a tax exemption is that it comes with a limitation on lobbying. If churches want to get actively involved with lobbying, they're sure to see their tax exemption attacked. Second, the growing secularization of society will encourage less governmental support of religion, not more. Growing secularization also will produce a much more vocal public opposition to religious abuses of power. Greater numbers of atheists and skeptics means more critical scrutiny of religious impositions. Along with growing impatience with religious imposition on the civil rights of others will come much stricter scrutiny of church related-business, and businesses masquerading as churches. Churches are losing power, and will continue to do so.
As far as this speech, about freedom of speech, Oakes doesn't like political correctness. This is very amusing for a religious leader. Political correctness is a public attempt to avoid the traditionally bigoted speech of the past. One would think a religion would lead the effort to speak with consideration. But, as a religion full of bigots, it hurts when the church is criticized--roundly--for its retrograde, bigoted opinions. Cry me a river, Oakes.
I'm with donbagley on this one: Campus speech codes?! He thinks these are "inconsistent with what is best in our American legal tradition." Mormon authorities are so shameless. I seem to recall the venerable students at BYU prevented from protesting soda pop! Are those the codes he's talking about? How do so many people take this embarrassing person seriously?
But the thrust of his argument (so far as I could tell before I fell asleep) was to argue against the reasoning, primarily, of the DOMA case. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned DOMA on the ground that its support appeared to be grounded solely in "religious animus." Also, the federal district court in Prop 8--which decision the Supreme Court let stand--said Prop 8 was supported only be religious belief, yet religious belief could not solely support a law because that violates the Establishment Clause. Oakes doesn't like these arguments, especially the "religious animus" one because it "chills" the ability of religions to, apparently, spew hate, and then to have their superstitious hatred ensconced in the law. He claims that religion is the moral center of society, sponsoring movements like abolition. He fails to point out that religion is also the immoral center of society, sponsoring movements like slavery and like flying planes into buildings. To say nothing of the widespread genocide perpetrated by the OT God, himself; and that perpetrated by the wacko, post-crucifixion BoM Jesus. Religious animus? Hear! Hear! Let's not base our laws on it, no matter what this geezer thinks!
Thankfully, the future isn't determined by that collection of septu- and octogenarians, represented by Mr Oakes. I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he continues swimming futilely against the tide. And his fight against the tide isn't a noble one, upholding all that is good, against what he claims in his speech is the "increasing unrighteousness" of the times (Go to hell, Oakes. What's his evidence of "increasing unrighteousness" anyway? That even Mormon women hope for equality? "Increasing unrighteousness" is just another Mormon-leader trope designed to keep the masses sucking their thumbs and wetting their beds, so they need "leadership") Thank God the tide has turned, and these superstitious totalitarians are seeing their public power and influence ebb away.