A: The church does
not endorse any particular candidate or political party, however:
“The Church does… Reserve the right as an institution to
address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant
community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the
Church” (Official Statement on Political Neutrality, http://www.mormonnewsroom.org).
This has been the case throughout the church’s history. For instance, the church expressed support
for the so-called (and much praised) “Utah compromise” (Utah senate bill 296)
which contained language designed to protect LGBT individuals from
discrimination, while also protecting and preserving religious freedoms. In the case of California Proposition 8, the
church sent a letter to congregations in California encouraging members to get
involved in efforts to pass the proposition, but the church was not directly
involved, nor did it donate any money to those efforts. Less recently, church leaders encouraged
members to speak out against ratifying the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in
the United States. There are many other
examples of the church urging members to speak up on one issue or another on “issues
that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that
directly affect the interests of the Church.”
Note the careful wording in the passage quoted at the top of
this article. The church reserves the
right to “address” issues. In the recent
letter about marijuana, the strongest language used by the first presidency is
that they “urge” the members to speak up in opposition to the legalization of marijuana. (Note that nowhere in the letter is anyone
specifically told to vote one way or another). That’s because such letters
constitute counsel rather than commandment.
As such, they do not represent any kind of direct mandate to the members
to vote one way or another. That means
that you are left to reason for yourself as to what the right course of action
should be. Even if they could force the
members to vote a certain way, the brethren would not do it.
“Some may believe that reason is not free when religious leaders
have spoken, but I doubt that any religious leader in twentieth-century America
has such a grip on followers that they cannot make a reasoned choice in the
privacy of the voting booth. In fact, I have a hard time believing that the
teachings of religions or churches deprive their adherents of any more autonomy
in exerting the rights of citizenship than the teachings and practices of labor
unions, civil rights groups, environmental organizations, political parties, or
any other membership group in our society.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values
and Public Policy,” address given 29 February 1992, Brigham Young University
Management Society, lds.org).
I believe that the leaders of the LDS Church would echo “New
York governor Alfred Smith, the first Catholic to receive the presidential
nomination of a national political party, [who] felt compelled to assure voters
in 1927, ‘I recognize no power in the institutions of my Church to interfere
with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement
of the law of the land.’” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The last freedom: Religion from the public school to the public square.
16. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
If you did happen to choose to vote for the legalization of Marijuana
in one of the elections in question, there would be no institutional
consequences whatsoever. You could
continue to be a member in good standing, and it would never be mentioned at
any rate, because voting is seen as a matter of personal choice. (It might be a
different question if you decide to advocate your political opinions over the
pulpit, but that is a separate issue).
Why would the church choose to address (what appear to be)
secular issues like the legalization of marijuana for recreational or medicinal
purposes, or doctor-assisted suicide?
While it is my opinion that the first presidency feels that the passage
of such laws would affect the moral fabric and character of our society, they also
happen to concern subjects that fall into the purview of religion. Specifically, suicide has eternal
consequences if you believe that there is a life beyond this one. Also, the church teaches that its members
should follow the word of wisdom, and they have interpreted the word of wisdom
to include a proscription against the use of recreational drugs. It is only natural that the church would
encourage its members to oppose a law that would make it easier to use and
abuse substances which the Lord has commanded them not to use.
However, “while the political argument against [legalizing
recreational or medicinal marijuana use, or doctor-assisted suicide] is rooted
in religion, one does not need to rely on religious teaching to have a morally
based position against [these issues]” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The last freedom: Religion from the public
school to the public square. 218. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Thus, the leaders of the church have expressed concerns
based on the science (or lack of reliable scientific data) surrounding these
issues, and general concern for the moral welfare of our society, and they have
encouraged members to speak out on this basis. At any rate, such expressions
are protected by the constitution as political speech, regardless of the source
from which they came.
Unfortunately, there is an idea that is current among
contemporary secularists and popular in internet forums and among the ignorant,
that religions should be forced to stay out of politics. However, this has no actual precedent in the
laws or the history of our country.
The first amendment to the constitution states only that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it state
that religion must never be involved in politics. The phrase “separation of church and state”
appears nowhere in the founding document of our society. The language in the first amendment can in no
way be construed to support the idea that religion should have no part in
public discourse.
“The [founders]…did not create an impenetrable wall to
prevent any relations between government and religion. Nowhere in the constitution are the words
“wall of separation” to be found.
However, subsequent misinterpreters of the Constitution and its Founders
have embraced the now-proverbial “separation of church and state,” with some
advocating a government that is indifferent to the role of religion in our
society.” (Wallace, J. C. (2005). Challenges and opportunities facing religious
freedom in the public square. Brigham
Young University Law Review, 2005(3), 597-610).
However, because churches have been granted tax exempt
status by the IRS, they are subject to certain restrictions if they wish to
maintain that status. They are forbidden
from endorsing candidates for public office, or advocating for or against such
candidates over the pulpit. Tax exempt
religious organizations cannot make donations to a particular candidate for
public office, nor can they distribute campaign literature or place campaign
signs for a candidate on church property (ffrf.org).
That said, churches are allowed to do the following and
still maintain their tax-exempt status:
“Under current law, churches, as well as other 501(c)(3)
organizations, may engage in nonpartisan campaign activities, primarily
consisting of voter education. Thus, they may organize and coordinate
nonpartisan get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives; sponsor nonpartisan
candidate debates or forums, so long as all legally qualified candidates are
invited to appear and wide spectrum of issues are covered; educate all candidates
on issues of public interest; and create legislative scorecards or voter
guides. All of these permissible activities must be done on a nonpartisan
basis” (ffrf.org).
In short, even under the more stringent requirements for tax
exemption, churches are not forbidden from engaging in politics and addressing
political issues. If you care to read
the first presidency letter regarding the proposed legalization of marijuana,
you will find that it is extremely brief (only three short paragraphs), but it
points out that “the dangers of marijuana to public health and safety are
well-documented. Recent studies have
shed light particularly on the risks that marijuana use poses to brain
development in youth” (First Presidency
Letter, Oct. 12, 2016). Whether you
agree with this statement or not, the language employed by the First Presidency
serves mainly to introduce the members to the issue so that they can do more
research on their own, and as such falls squarely under the heading of “voter
education,” which is perfectly acceptable under the law. (Nobody is being
spoon-fed anything, in fact so little is being offered that it almost requires
the reader to do more research in order to understand the letter itself).
As American society becomes increasingly secularized, the
idea that the Church should have no right to speak out on controversial public
issues (or to advise its members to speak out) has gained increasing
acceptance. This view has become particularly popular among disaffected church
members. Hostility to religious involvement in public discourse seems to have
infected much of the conversation surrounding religion and politics in Utah in
particular, as well in the rest of the nation in general.
“Some public policy advocates have attempted to intimidate
persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making laws in
our democracy. One part of this effort is the recent characterization of the
free exercise of religion as limited to the privilege of worshipping in the
protected space of our own homes, churches, synagogues, or mosques. Beyond
those protected spaces, the argument goes, religious believers and their
organizations have no First Amendment protection—not even normal free speech
guarantees.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society,” Claremont Graduate University Religious Freedom
Conference, March 25, 2016)
In the wake of the church’s most recent letters regarding
marijuana and doctor-assisted suicide I saw many individuals who complained
about the LDS church getting involved. Some even going so far as to claim that
the church is “corrupt” for interfering in public matters, as if the church was
doing something unlawful, or unethical by expressing an opinion on a subject
that affects many of its members. I have
found that many Americans seem willing to tolerate religion, only so long as religion
stays in the segregated corner they have constructed for it, and keeps quiet
about anything important or about anything which might affect their daily
lives.
“Americans seem to be most tolerant of religious viewpoints
when these opinions are without consequence.
Even the clergy are expected to act like good secularists when entering
the political sphere” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The last freedom: Religion from the public school to the public square.
31. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
“Apparently, churchmen can preach morality and religion as
long as they do not suggest that their particular brand of religion has any
connection with morality or that the resulting morality has any connection with
political policies. Stated otherwise, religious preaching is okay so long as it
has no practical impact on the listeners’ day-to-day behavior, especially any
behavior that has anything to do with political activity or public policy.”
(Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values and Public Policy,” address given 29
February 1992, Brigham Young University
Management Society, lds.org).
Despite the protestations of ignorant voices on the
internet, religion has long held an important place in the United States as a
voice for reform and moral courage. For
instance, the abolitionist movement was led by churches and their leaders
(mostly mainline protestant and Quaker).
The civil rights movement of the twentieth century similarly was led by
religious leaders, and found shelter in churches. We tend to forget that “reverend” is an
important part of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr’s title. He was a practicing pastor and minister in
the American Baptist church.
“Advocates who seek to banish religious arguments from the
public square should answer this question: How would the great movements toward
social justice in the United States, such as the abolition of slavery or the
furthering of civil rights, have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if
their religious proponents had been banned from participating on the issue by
the assertion that private religious or moral positions were not an acceptable
basis for public discourse or lawmaking?”
(Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society,” Claremont Graduate University Religious
Freedom Conference, March 25, 2016)
Moreover, religion has long played a central role in
activities that advance social welfare, such as giving food and aid to the
poor, teaching people to read, contributing to and participating in disaster
relief efforts, and so forth. The
positive effects that religion has on our society are plentiful and
well-documented, and to force religion to cease all involvement with the civic
and political sphere would be to the detriment of American social and civic
welfare.
“Generations of social science research has informed us of
the positive effect that religion has on civic and political life. It is indispensable in both spheres. It has always served as a source of strength
for those who are otherwise disadvantaged.
The same religious convictions that incline people towards moral
judgment…incline them to do good deeds” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The last freedom: Religion from the public
school to the public square. 204. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
“Religious institutions have always been at the heart of
American civic life, serving as incubators for social activity that benefits
society and maintaining a sphere of individual and group freedom outside the
control of public authority” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The last freedom: Religion from the public school to the public square.
216. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
The assertion that religion has no place in the political or
civic life of our country is just plain wrong.
Those that make such claims are typically threatened because the
religion in question happens to disagree with them. However, in a “free and robust” democracy,
disagreement is bound to happen. One
might even say that disagreement and the resulting argument is important to the
democratic process. Just because a view
differs from your own does not mean that it should be disqualified from public
discourse. Similarly, just because a
view is expressed by a religious person or organization does not mean that view
is automatically disqualified from democratic expression. Or, in a favorite
quote of mine:
“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.” (Richard John Neuhaus, “A New
Order of Religious Freedom,” First Things,
February 1992, www.firstthings.com).
“In a democracy…all arguments deserve a hearing. The problem with contemporary secularists is
their determination to disqualify faith-based arguments from public discourse
as an accommodation to a normative framework on which we can all agree. Their position suggests that if they do not
find a point of view persuasive, it does not deserve to be included as a part
of legitimate public debate. Taken to
its logical end, secularism would confine all expressions of religiosity behind
the church door” (Viteritti, J. (2007). The
last freedom: Religion from the public school to the public square. 34. Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Efforts to silence religious voices in the public sphere
amount to nothing more than censorship, which has no place in a pluralistic
society. As Dallin H. Oaks once said, “In
a nation committed to pluralism, this kind of hostility to religion should be
legally illegitimate and morally unacceptable” (“Religious Values and Public
Policy,” 1992).
This movement to silence religious voices was predicted
years ago by Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as explained
by Jeffrey R. Holland, also of the Quorum of the Twelve:
“We should be genuinely concerned over the assertion that
the single most distinguishing feature of modern life is the rise of secularism
with its attendant dismissal of, cynicism toward, or marked disenchantment with
religion. How wonderfully prophetic our beloved Elder Neal A. Maxwell was—clear
back in 1978—when he said in a BYU devotional:
…Your discipleship may see the time come when religious
convictions are heavily discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism
[will seek] to disallow certain . . . opinions simply because those opinions
grow out of religious convictions.
My goodness! That forecast of turbulent religious weather
issued nearly forty years ago is steadily being fulfilled virtually every day
somewhere in the world in the minimization of—or open hostility toward—religious
practice, religious expression, and, even in some cases, the very idea of
religious belief itself.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Religion: Bound By Loving Ties,”
BYU Devotional, Aug. 16, 2016).
This open hostility is no longer contained to ignorant and
intolerant voices in the public sphere.
It has spread to the highest levels of government. Recently, an interfaith coalition, which
included The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sent a letter
addressed to President Barack Obama, President Pro Tempore of the U. S. Senate
Orrin Hatch, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, “in response to a report
issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.”
“We wish to express our deep concern that the Commission has
issued a report, Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Non-Discrimination
Principles with Civil Liberties, that stigmatizes tens of millions of religious
Americans, their communities, and their faith-based institutions, and threatens
the religious freedom of all our citizens.
The Commission asserts in its Findings that religious
organizations “use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate.”
What we find even more disturbing is that, in a statement
included in the report, Commission Chairman Martin Castro writes:
“The phrases
‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except
hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance,
racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of
intolerance.” (Interfaith Group Asks US
Government to Reject Report that Stigmatizes Religious Americans, October
12, 2016, mormonnewsroom.org).
These church leaders are right to be “deeply concerned” by
the language of this report. It is
essentially laying the groundwork to deny the validity of appeals to religious
freedom when religious people seek to act out of conscience based on their
faith. By labeling religious freedom a
code word for discrimination and bigotry, Martin Castro is changing the
lexicon, and by so doing he is building a case by which others can ignore the
bill of rights and perhaps even prosecute those who appeal to their freedom of
religion for protection in the exercise of their faith when it happens to clash
with the political orthodoxy.
When numerous voices among the people and even from within
the government call for religious voices to be silenced, all free-thinking
people should be alarmed. This is a
clear and present threat to all who seek to exercise their rights of conscience
and to preserve the free exercise of our rights to free speech, religious
establishment, and free assembly as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
While you are not required to agree with the Church leaders
on political matters, you should be fiercely protective of their right to
express their opinions. If religious
voices are silenced, they won’t be the only ones to be silenced. Our democracy depends on the free exchange of
ideas and respect for others, even when you do not agree with their
opinions. Become educated on the issues,
learn to understand the importance and value of our rights as citizens, and do
not be afraid to speak out when our rights are in danger. There has never been a more important time
for people of good faith (including people of religious faith) to speak out in
defense of religious rights.
You may also be interested in my article "God's Truth Is The Truth, Even If You Disagree With It."
Here is a related video on religious freedom from the LDS Church:
You may also be interested in my article "God's Truth Is The Truth, Even If You Disagree With It."
Here is a related video on religious freedom from the LDS Church:
Perfect answer thank you so much
ReplyDelete