religious freedom

You are currently browsing articles tagged religious freedom.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts.
Thanks for visiting!

A UK teen is being prosecuted for calling Scientology a cult.

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

Officers confiscated a placard with the word “cult” on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

As annoying as it is to be called a “cult,” why is prosecution necessary? The LDS Church has likely been called a cult a time or two in the UK. Has that ever been prosecuted? Hopefully, no.

20 May 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 3 comments

Romney Revisits “Faith in America”, Defends Atheism

9 May 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 15 comments

Last night, Mitt Romney followed up on last December’s “Faith in America” with a new speech called “Freedom & Religion: Perfect Together.” The speech was given at a dinner for the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

He took the opportunity to answer some criticisms and adjust his comments in response. Some critics took issue that he had no word on religious liberty for those who choose to not believe. They may be happy to hear that he took their criticism to heart.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off — after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers — why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

He continued with defending his also heavily questioned line “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” To defend those sentiments he cited the Founding Fathers and the last two popes.

As a politician, I imagine Gov. Romney wants to be known for more than just being the “Mormon candidate.” But, it’s nice to see that he hasn’t dropped his defense of religious freedom now that his personal faith isn’t under the microscope anymore. Romney may not win over any of his critics but hopefully his thoughtful response will help them see him in a better light.

The LDS Church responds to Judge Walther’s suggestion that LDS officials supervise FLDS prayer sessions. Besides not understanding what exactly was being proposed or directly asked, it wouldn’t be appropriate.

[Scott Trotter, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] also acknowledged that such a request would not be fair, either to the polygamous FLDS, which “long ago chose a different path from ours. In fact, many in these isolated communities view us with some hostility as part of the outside world they have rejected.”

22 April 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 3 comments

Clueless FLDS Judge

22 April 2008 by David H. Sundwall | 9 comments

It sounds like the Texas judge supervising the FLDS matter could not be more clueless or insensitive. After ruling that nursing mothers could not stay with their children, Judge Barbara Walther graciously allowed that the mothers could meet and pray with their children twice a day on the condition that they were supervised by an “appropriate religious person.”

Who is an “appropriate religious person”? Not anyone from their own church but the judge recommended someone from the “mainstream LDS Church” or another church! Understandably local LDS leaders are “baffled.”

Not content to break families apart, Judge Walther now seeks to manage the religious life of the FLDS. What authority does she have to determine who is an “appropriate religious person”? How much clearer does the LDS Church have to be that it has nothing to do with the FLDS? Hopefully the ACLU or someone will kindly help the judge to find a clue.

Supreme Court agrees to take Utah religious speech case.  Sounds like this is the flipside of most Ten Commandments cases: where once the government allows a religious monument on public land, is it required to allow any and all petitions for monuments from other churches?

The dispute stems from Pleasant Grove City’s refusal to allow the display of a “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” monument in the same park that is the home for a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles 47 years ago.

At issue is whether a donated monument displayed by a municipality remains the private speech of the original donor, or is government speech; and whether placing donated monuments in a government-owned park creates a public forum or whether the government retains authority to select which monuments to display. . .

Summum, a Latin term meaning the sum total of all creation, was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City. The Seven Aphorisms refer to a notion that when Moses received stone tablets on Mount Sinai inscribed with writings made by a divine being, he actually received two separate sets of tablets — the Seven Aphorisms and the Ten Commandments.

31 March 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

Religion matters increasingly more in politics because it matters less to increasingly more people.

Today, because there is a big and powerful bloc of voters who resent the role of religion in politics, and because there is another bloc equally convinced of the good effects of faith on public affairs, our political process now raises issues of faith, just as it raises divisive issues of immigration, economic, and foreign policy. Any contested issue of public importance provides an opportunity for political actors to try to motivate, reassure, deceive, energize, and otherwise mobilize voters. The more visible and intense the political rhetoric, the more sure you can be that the issue cuts very close to the majority.

24 March 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

George Weigel was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on dealing with radical Islam and gave a great explanation of what true tolerance is:

The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending. That’s the only kind of dialogue that’s going to support those Islamic reformers, and they do exist, who wish to create an Islamic case for civility, tolerance and the free society as we understand it.

3 January 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

The Bloggernacle’s own Nate Oman cross-posts between Times and Seasons and the San Francisco Chronicle (!) with “Mormonism’s Al Smith moment?”  The stakes of Romey’s campaign are much higher than just winning the nomination:

By raising the possibility that Mormonism de facto disqualifies one for the presidency, the furor over Romney’s religion has thrown the full citizenship of all Latter-day Saints into question. Ultimately, history suggests that the question can only be laid to rest by a Mormon being elected president. This fact does not provide a reason for electing Romney, but it does mean that, whether they like it or not, the stakes in this election are very high for Latter-day Saints. It is also a cautionary tale for members of any other marginal American tribe seeking the privilege of being judged as an individual.

2 January 2008 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

LDS Newsroom: “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men — Not Just Those Who Share My Beliefs”

Ill-informed comments can be easily forgiven, and chances to engage in discussion to develop mutual, accurate understanding and respect are often seized upon — as they should be. But when a person starts excluding someone of a different faith as a legitimate participant in society because there are theological differences — then a line has been crossed.

28 December 2007 by David H. Sundwall | 2 comments

On Faith on “Faith in America”

10 December 2007 by David H. Sundwall | No comments

The Washington Post’s On Faith Blog features responses to Romney’s “Faith in America.”  I wonder if/what Michael Otterson will post.  Or if he’ll sit this one out as to avoid any appearance of an offical Church response other than the restatement of neutrality? (Never mind, just after I clicked “post” they have a special post by Otterson discussing “Are Mormons Christians?“)

Kathleen Flake:

After nearly thirty years of overt pandering to and exploitation of religious fear and sentiment, the Republicans have unleashed the dogs of sectarianism on one of their own and probably their strongest candidate. As a Democrat, I confess that such self-destructive behavior is gratifying. As a Latter-day Saint, it’s not that much fun to watch. I have fantasies of sending the dogs back on self-proclaimed “Christian leader” Huckabee. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjtGgfhKIvo. But, two wrongs do not make right.

Richard Bushman:

I liked Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. . . People continue to ask if a revelation to the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be binding on him in the political realm. His answer was uncompromising: no. Wouldn’t this get him in trouble with his own church? The answer again is no. For over a century, the official church has explicitly stated that Latter-day Saint politicians are not bound by the church’s political stands.

Chuck Colson

This much-heralded speech was being likened to John Kennedy’s 1960 speech. Ironically, Romney handled the situation in a more consistent way than Kennedy did, the latter saying he would not allow his religious convictions to influence his policies. But for any person of faith, his religious convictions cannot be ignored. Romney walked the fine line better than Kennedy did.

Stephen Prothero

The speech Mitt Romney just delivered is in my view an instant classic in American civil religion . . .

Going farther than most other conservative Republicans, Romney thoroughly entangled religion and freedom, which, he argued, “endure together, or perish alone.” But he sounded more like a 1960s liberal than a 21st Century conservative when it came to his vision of the religious character of America. Instead of simply saying that he respects other religions, Romney said he envied and even loved features of all the faiths he has encountered, Judaism and Islam included. Refusing to serve as a spokesperson for his own faith, Romney said that if he becomes President he will “need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”

Blog co-founder, Sally Quinn thought that the line ‘Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom” should have come from Osama Bin Laden.

Governor Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address

6 December 2007 by David H. Sundwall | 1 comment

The full text of Governor Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address

Read the rest of this entry »