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. That complicates my
task, so I ask your understanding as I speak to a very
diverse audience.
In choosing my
subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when
there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the
fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me
as I speak about religious freedom under the United States
Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that
freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is
your generation that must understand the issues and make the
efforts to prevail.
I.
An 1833
revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the
Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men
whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and
Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this
constitution “should be maintained for the rights and
protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants
101:77; emphasis added).
In 1833, when
almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings or
tyrants, few could see how the infant United States
Constitution could be divinely designed “for the rights and
protection of all flesh.” Today, 176 years after that
revelation, almost every nation in the world has adopted a
written constitution, and the United States Constitution
profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation’s most
important export is its constitution, whose great principles
stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all
flesh.” On the vital human right of religious freedom,
however, many constitutions fall short of the protections
that are needed, so we are grateful that the United States
government seeks to encourage religious freedom all over the
world.[ii]
II.
To illustrate the
importance of basic human rights in other countries, I refer
to some recent history in Mongolia, which shows that the
religious freedom we have taken for granted in the United
States must be won by dangerous sacrifice in some other
nations.
Following the
perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular
demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government
to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were
legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the
Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old
repressive attitudes persisted in all government
departments. The full functioning of a democratic process
and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do
not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of
speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the
inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.
In that
precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun
Altangerel, a department head in the state library,
courageously took some actions that would prove historic.
Acting against official pressure, she organized a
“Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member
group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and
proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship,
belief and expression, including the right to belong to a
political party of their choice.
When Oyun and
others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a
hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she
was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger
strike, which continued for five days, became a public
demonstration that took their grievances to the people of
Mongolia.
This demonstration, backed by major democratic
movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to
organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous
actions expanded into a national anti-government movement
that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of
speech, press and religion. Eventually the government
accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic
constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step
toward a free society.
For Latter-day
Saints, this birth of constitutional freedom in Mongolia has
special interest. Less than two years after the historic
hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia.
In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state
library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she
showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly
arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son,
was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members
of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of
Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our
first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was
Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at
BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in
Utah, graduated there.[iii]
III.
One of the great
fundamentals of our inspired constitution, relied on by Oyun
of Mongolia and countless others struggling for freedom in
many countries in the world, is the principle that the
people are the source of government power. This principle of
popular sovereignty was first written and applied on the
American continent over 200 years ago. A group of colonies
won independence from a king, and their representatives had
the unique opportunity of establishing a new government.
They did this by creating the first written constitution
that has survived to govern a modern nation. The United
States Constitution declared the source of government power,
delegated that power to a government, and regulated its
exercise.
Along with many
other religious people, we affirm that God is the ultimate
source of power and that, under Him, it is the people’s
inherent right to decide their form of government. Sovereign
power is not inherent in a state or nation just because its
leaders have the power that comes from force of arms. And
sovereign power does not come from the divine right of a
king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is
forced to concede, as in Magna Carta. As the preamble to our
constitution states: “We the People of the United States . .
. do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This principle of
sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s
revelation that He established the Constitution of the
United States “that every man may act . . . according to the
moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may
be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment”
(Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most
desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given
moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and
responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political
oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own
actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to
another. This is the condition the Lord praised in the Book
of Mormon, where the people — not a king — established the
laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah 29:23–26). This
popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular
responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on
a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the
burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part”
(Mosiah 29:34).
IV.
“For the rights
and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution
includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free
exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without
these great fundamentals of the Constitution, America could
not have served as the host nation for the restoration of
the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of
Rights was ratified.
The First
Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of
religion” was intended to separate churches and government,
to prevent a national church of the kind still found in
Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the
establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the
direction that the United States shall have no law
“prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
The guarantee of
the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious
freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this
“pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a
cornerstone of American democracy.”[iv] The
American colonies were originally settled by people who, for
the most part, had come to this continent to be able to
practice their religious faith without persecution, and
their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first
in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national
law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion
undergirds the very origin and existence of the United
States.”[v]
The free
“exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to
choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to
“exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with
citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of
some to act upon their religious principles must be
qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the
health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the
government could not protect its citizens’ person or
property from neighbors whose intentions include taking
human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the
basis of their religious beliefs.
The inherent
conflict between the precious religious freedom of the
people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the
government is the central issue of religious freedom. Here
are just a few examples of current controversial public
issues that involve this conflict: laws governing marriage
and adoption; laws regulating the activities of
church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in furtherance
of their religious missions — activities such as who they
will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in
employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular
religious beliefs or practices.
The problems are
not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme
Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting
the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the
Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can
guide its decisions when government action is claimed to
violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be
expected, most of the battles over the extent of religious
freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the
practices of small groups like Mormons. Not surprisingly,
government officials sometimes seem more tolerant toward the
religious practices of large groups of voters.
Unpopular
minority religions are especially dependent upon a
constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We
are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States,
but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in
the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it.
And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I
have seen a significant deterioration in the respect
accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that
the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being
weakened accordingly.
Religious
belief is obviously protected against government
action. The practice of that belief must have some
limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of
free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater
protection against government prohibitions than are already
guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the
constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special
value of religious freedom? Surely the First
Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was
intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to
other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious
belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief
should not be enough to satisfy the special place of
religion in the United States Constitution.
V.
Religious freedom
has always been at risk. It was repression of religious
belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other
dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today,
leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress
religious believers.
The greatest
infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise
of religion collides with other powerful forces in society.
Among the most threatening collisions in the United States
today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to
silence religious voices in public debates, and (2)
perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the
popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.
As I address this
audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to
what I say on these subjects, because I am describing
conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.
Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square
A writer for The
Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming
century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,”
with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of
us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the
ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by
forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious
devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public
opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably
portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on
religious freedom.
Atheism has
always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments
that freedom of or for religion should include
freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its
proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some
counts,” a recent article in The
Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million]
declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism
the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s
spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications
show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard
Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have
developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with
them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred
and scorn.”[x]
Such forces —
atheists and others — would intimidate persons with
religious-based points of view from influencing or making
the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal
commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance
this way:
“There is a
growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .
“For three
decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very
effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive
them from the public square and to delegitimize their
participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]
For example, a
prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his
objection to our Church’s position on California’s
Proposition 8:
“I’m not
intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful
things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them
out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping
hurricane victims.”[xii]
Aside from the
obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as
well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its
coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public
square must be open to religious ideas and religious
persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a
democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more
disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic,
or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]
Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”
A second threat
to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in
conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender
couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.
We have endured a
wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying
to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After
a significant majority of California voters (seven million —
over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage
to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote
as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the
Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about
what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect.
At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right
of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.
The real issue in
the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in
years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that
we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally
important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is
whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to
change the vital institution of marriage itself.
The marriage
union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the
Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and
practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of
years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage
should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the
ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters
of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right
to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of
transcendent importance that they, along with countless
others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to
protect.
Religious freedom
needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human
rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by
an international human rights group, call for governments to
assure that all persons have the right to practice their
religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or
identity.[xiv] This apparently
proposes that governments require church practices and their
doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to
have governments invade religion to override religious
doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers.
At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should
frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that
they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the
very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their
adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.
VI.
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.
First, we must speak with love, always showing
patience, understanding and compassion toward our
adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke
10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10),
to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44)
and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness
(Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).
Even as we seek
to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our
positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.
As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which
were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation
commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and
Covenants 19:30).
Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into
silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We
must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise
our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and
to participate in elections and debates in the public square
and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all
citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders.
While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so
by exception on what the First Presidency defines as
significant moral issues, which could surely include laws
affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment
of our communities and nations.
We must also
insist on this companion condition of democratic government:
when churches and their members or any other group act or
speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right
to expect freedom from retaliation.
Along with many
others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the
aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8,
including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of
church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses
and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets
of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8
coalition and other persons who could be identified as
supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation
for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times
branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious
organizations and individual believers “simply because they
supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some
leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only
added to its force.
It is important
to note that while this aggressive intimidation in
connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily
directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not
anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of
outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights
position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such,
these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so
much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they
are like the well-known and widely condemned
voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced
corrective federal civil-rights legislation.
Third, we must insist on our freedom to preach the
doctrines of our faith. Why do I make this obvious point?
Religious people who share our moral convictions feel some
intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders do not refrain from
stating and explaining our position that homosexual behavior
is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke these
words to a BYU audience:
“We follow Jesus
Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this
commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This
law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual
relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This
applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to
heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to
violate the law of chastity.
“We follow Jesus
Christ by adhering to God’s law of marriage, which is
marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has
been in place from the very beginning.”[xvi]
We will continue
to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to teach,
and trust that the precious free exercise of religion
remains strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise
this most basic freedom.
Fourth, as advocates of the obvious truth that
persons with religious positions or motivations have the
right to express their religious views in public, we must
nevertheless be wise in our political participation.
Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights
movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even
the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally
and wisely.
As Latter-day
Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act upon
the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience —
whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular
justification. At the same time, religious persons will
often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing
arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those
who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute
to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential
in a pluralistic society.[xvii]
Fifth and finally, 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.
Conclusion
It was the
Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made
possible the formation of the United States Constitution
over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts
of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that
constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary
concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant
guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has
written,
“generated by a
people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a
half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who
first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every
person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]
Professor Dinesh
D’Souza reminds us:
“The attempt to
ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis
ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its
spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without
the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]
Religious values
and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and
perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the
influence of Christianity in the public square without
seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is
a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public
square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act
must always be protected by what is properly called our
“First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.
My dear brothers
and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I
have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior,
who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose
revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have
affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution,
which as we have said, was given by God to His children for
the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to
understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence
throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ,
amen.
Notes
[i] Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1978), 141.
[i] Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1978), 141.
[ii] Final Report of the Advisory Committee
on Religious Freedom Abroad to the Secretary of State
and to the President of the United States, 17 May 1999,
6–7, 30–65. The International Religious Freedom Act,
adopted in 1998, 22 USC 6401 et seq., established an
office of international religious affairs in the U.S.
State Department headed by an Ambassador at Large and
the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom.
Both of these bodies submit annual reports that assess
the status of religious freedom under international
standards worldwide and help encourage better
implementation of commitments countries around the world
have made to respect this fundamental right.
[iii] The information about events in
Mongolia was obtained from correspondence with President
Odgerel and from Mary N. Cook, former senior missionary
and wife of Richard E. Cook, the first mission president
in Mongolia.
[iv] Final Report of the Advisory
Committee, 6.
[v] 22 USC 6401(a).
[vi] Michael Spencer, “The Coming
Evangelical Collapse,” The Christian Science
Monitor, 10 Mar. 2009.
[vii] E.g., John A. Howard, “Liberty:
America’s Creative Power,” Howard Center, 22 June 2009,
6.
[viii] “In God’s Name: A Special Report on
Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, 3 Nov.
2007, 10.
[ix] E.g., The Six Ways of Atheism,
which was advertised “to absolutely disprove the
existence of God, logically and simply,” was sent free
to leading universities and public libraries in all
major English-speaking countries in the world. Press
release, 26 May 2009.
[x] Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative
Power,” 6.
[xi] Hugh Hewitt, A Mormon in the White
House? (Washington DC: Regnery, 2007), 242–43.
[xii] Karl Vick, “Gay Groups Targeting
Mormons,” Salt Lake Tribune, 30 May 2009, A8
(Washington Post story).
[xiii] “A New Order of Religious Freedom,”
First Things, Feb. 1992, 2; also see Neuhaus,
The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1983).
[xiv] The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle
21 (Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006).
[xv] “No Mob Veto,” New York Times,
5 Dec. 2008.
[xvi] M. Russell Ballard, “Engaging Without
Being Defensive,” BYU Commencement Address, 13 August
2009.
[xvii] Among the advocates of this position
are Kevin Seamus Hasson, The Right to be Wrong
(San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005); Douglas Laycock,
Anthony Picarello Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson,
Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging
Conflicts (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008); and
Michael J. Perry, “Liberal Democracy and Religious
Morality,” 48 DePaul Law Rev. 1, 20–41 (1998).
For examples of this kind of advocacy, see What’s the
Harm? ed. Lynn D. Wardle (University Press of
America, 2008); and Monte Neil Stewart, “Marriage
Facts,” 31 Harv. J. of Law & Pub. Policy 313
(2008).
[xviii] John A. Howard, Christianity:
Lifeblood of America’s Free Society
(1620–1945) (Monitou Springs, Ohio: Summit Press,
2008), 57.
[xix] “How Christianity Shaped the West,”
Hillsdale College, Nov. 2008, Vol. 37, No. 11, p. 5.
******************************************************
Plainview Texas Branch; Lubbock Stake Announcements;
Saturday, October 17th 2009: 10:00am to 12:00pm Primary Program Practice
Saturday, October 17th 2009: 5:00pm SYC @ Stake Center
Saturday, October 17th 2009: 7:00pm Dance @ Stake Center
Sunday. October 18th, 2009: Branch Council
No comments:
Post a Comment