I bring that up not to raise the politics of health care but to note the difficulties in health care reform point to difficulties in religious freedom reform. It’s easy to pass when the vast majority support such reforms. As soon as there’s not a vast majority though then that problem of polarization and checks and balances so strongly incentivizes status quo domination that religious liberty reform becomes undoable. While we’re still a few years off, the demographics of 18-30 year olds and their views on religion strongly suggest we’ll be at loggerheads on the issue soon. Eventually secularists will be the dominate force but without the nostalgia towards religion that you have in Europe. The reality is outside of a few buildings in major cities, American religion was always suburban driven and thus lacks what say an old Anglican or Lutheran church offers – and American culture is simply has a very different romance towards the past than Europeans do. We like black and white heroes and villains. And for many, religion is becoming the villain.

I hope I’m wrong of course. But to my eyes the trends seem unavoidable.

Regarding quasi-religions, I think the point is that we’re seeing them take the place of religion but sometimes having the same dogmatism that the negative aspects of American religion have. (The stereotypes of conservative religion from the puritans through stern southern baptists) So the worry is something more akin to the religious conflicts in US history (where dominant protestant domineered Catholics, Mormons, Jews and other religions) or even the fear of a return to what we saw in the wars and conflicts of the reformation and counter-reformation movements. Perhaps that’s being overly paranoid, but there are many tensions at play in the west that seem to becoming to a head. And rather than mitigating them, thus far political choices seem to be aggravating them. (Trump being an obvious example)

As far as these quasi-religions (such as Marxism, apparently) are concerned, that, too, is a matter for each democracy to decide as part of the social debate. One can believe in Marxism. And hopefully they will not prevail in government. But if it does, that is another bridge to cross. In Russia, they are now harassing Jehovah Witnesses. Probably Pentecostals and Scientologists are next, and who knows an American Church from Utah after that. But this is not just about Marxism, but mostly about Russian Orthodoxy. China is Marxist. But they have a double worry. On the one hand there is a room for a limited form of religious freedom there; but there is an overreaction towards the fear of instability. In other words, it is not just so much Marxism, but other powers that dominate the playing field. My research shows that in Western countries, where religious freedom has been part and parcel of the social structure, religious diversity in an open religious market actually raises all positive indicators (health, social status, finance, happiness factors, etc. etc.). But in countries where there is no tradition of openness, an open market may even cause destabilization. So the strategy on religious freedom depends. But regardless of the nation, religious freedom should first and foremost start with the interaction between two individuals: me and my neighbor. Perhaps Jesus was right after all.

And you are right regarding the idea of pride. I purposely did not use pride in my blog because of this ambiguity. I used patriotism, but I meant it in the broadest sense of the word (love of fatherland). But it is more; it is a boasting type of pride (perhaps in the sense Alma Jr was talking about in Alma 29), of something one has not accomplished. It is the type of pride that shows off that someone is better or more favored by God because of place of birth, race, talent, accomplishment. All of which, I think, are an offence against others who do not have that status. Is there a better word for that in English?

I think my comments about marriage were much more US-centric. The problem was that for the US an European like solution seems to religious believers like it would be imposing religious values on them. Whether that is the case or not we’ll see. Honestly for all the tempest, I think even conservative Americans are adopting to the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage quite well. I was more speaking of the era prior to that decision where I think the “make government handle more of marriage” was a non-starter.

The problem now is a fear among some that the US won’t quite stop where the EU did with respect to religious liberty. That is they fear (perhaps unjustifiably) that secular liberals may simply take the place of where protestants were for most of the 20th century. Some (perhaps with justification) find it hard to shed too much of a tear over that inversion. Yet while there’s nothing yet to point to as a legitimate worry, I think US politics are sufficiently different from how most European systems go that there are some legitimate worries – especially relative to religious schools. You see that already in Canada in places like Alberta where Catholic control over education is somewhat under attack. I don’t know enough about the details of European schooling to know whether or if it’s an issue there. The main fear is that due to the way intersectionality and a more Foucaltian concern with power is seen that Christian schools will be treated differently from say Islamic schools due to perceived power imbalances.

With regards to Chris, I think he means looking at groups in terms of their structural dynamics rather than the content of belief. So by that measure certain Marxist groups function very similarly to religions in terms of having common holidays, fervor, dogma, and policing of dogma. In the contemporary US often certain intersectionality proponents on college campuses are accused of this. Probably a better example than even early to mid 20th century Marxists are forms of Buddhism that don’t accept the older religious trappings of gods, demons or many of the metaphysics. Zen Buddhism being a good example. The critique arises out of the evolutionary psychology of religion that suggests most of the demands arise from common human cognitive processes and aren’t as moored to the particular accident of the domination of Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture in the west. So it focuses on a common human psychology that happens to manifest in religion but also manifests in groups/ideas not as tied to God-beliefs that arose out of Jewish/Hellenism.

Regarding patriotism and pride, I think pride is the right word but I think it gets at an ambiguity in English over pride. There’s bad pride and good pride. So during the cold war a lot of Americans would look at Germans and get very confused as to why they didn’t have more pride in their country of the good sense.

Figuring out what is or isn’t good pride can be tricky and I suspect not everyone will agree. To me, good pride is in recognizing what prior generations have done for you. (This is why there’s the oddity of lots of support for veteran groups around the 4th of July) But rather than thinking these make you as individuals better than others, it’s a kind of taking up of the task such that you have a duty to continue onward and respect those who came before. That is you can acknowledge the many, many failings of the United States (slavery, manifest destiny, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment etc.) while think that the founders pointed to transcendent truths they themselves didn’t really understand.

JasonB. You are right in assuming that there may be a call to repentance for those who assume safe and right because they belong to a majority group. In Utah, this might be Republicans; in Europe this may be more left wing; or perhaps it is a group leaning towards a preference towards the center. The challenge is to find a way to deal with those who are not part of that majority group. One would think that religious people would find a way to welcome those who do not belong to the majority of believers, perhaps a little like President Uchtdorf mentions in his Conference Address of October 2013 (Come, Join with Us). And yes you are right in stating that some of those religions I mentioned (Buddhists and others) may have a name for their kindness in some places, and at the same time are known for their violence in others. True, too, that in many places Mormons are known for their kindness. But in many Mormons are not. Especially if kindness includes acceptance of the opinion of others. I think Clark was also addressing this. The question with these details is, of course, rhetorical. These questions were not meant as critique, but rather to help us find better ways to deal with some of the issues. Thank you for clarifying.

Chris g. Like Wilfried, I am curious to understand your meaning of quasi-religions. When is something a religion and when is it a quasi-religion? And is quasi-religion bad? In many countries, the government or the law determines if something is a religion. In my definition I assume a religion to be a group of people that have organized themselves around religious beliefs. And what do you mean when you explain that personalizing religious freedom stands for technical and issues that do not matter? Are the examples I give not the core teaching of each religion?

Geoff-AUS. Good to see you on this blog. You well described European Liberals and American Conservatives. Where do the Aussies stand? You are right that churches have lost a lot of credibility, and I am afraid the storm is not over yet. Moreover, they, in many cases, have changed their focus of teachings away from doctrine and morals, to practical do-gooders and humanitarianism in society. At least in Europe this is the case. In the Netherlands, I believe that 48% of the paid clerics do not believe in the existence of a God. But there is a place for these do-gooders too.

Clark. You make a good point. The laïcité (Separation of Church and State) option is not an easy feat to accomplish, and it does not solve all problems. Most countries fail to get there, but we, diehards in the FoRB arena, are still there to help them find solutions to the UN resolutions the signed up to. The problems you mentioned, such as “Christmas displays on public land, limits on what private groups can use public land temporarily, and then the more complicated questions such as drug use by religions, health safety requirements for ritual animal killing and eating, and so forth” are all part and parcel on the debate. In Europe, too, we have our share of such issues, like the EU government almost stopping churches to teach religion to minors (primary classes), the famous headscarf debates, wearing crosses in schools, and questions of Muslim Halal killing of animals that is against hygiene regulations. We can name many issues that are religious practices. Each nation has to find ways to deal with this by itself. The problems arise when a government, or one nation, or one religion, or any other group, dominates the discussion. We, LDS, too, believe in honoring the law of the land, even if we disagree with the laws. But we should be careful crying wolf when a law limits hits our religion, as if governments are out to get religions out. Most governments realize to some degree that religions have a role to play in society.
And as far as your example of governments using religions to offer services, that too can be resolved. We have an example here in the EU, a policy that religions, or any other institution, for that matter, can use subsidies to perform certain duties, so long as the funds are used only for those specific duties.

And Clark, your example of giving the power of marriage to religions is an interesting one. That could work well in a religion-run state. But I am afraid that in a society with a free market of religions (and Non’s) it may work better to let the State perform the marriages on behalf of the society it serves, and let each religion teach and practice its own doctrine on it. In the USA, for example, we, Mormons, could have our own definition of marriage, but allow the State to perform marriage as a social contract. The State, too, especially in a Democracy, should have a voice in defining marriage, even if we do not agree. But that does not mean the Government is out to limit religions.

Old Man. You make a good point in describing how in the USA religion and the right to make a choice is strongly linked and that religion in Europe is seen as imposed. However, the latter part is pretty well lost in Europe over the past 50 years or so. The current generations in Europe do not link religion with freedom at all, because religions (especially in Protestant Europe) have all but lost their social and political influence.
I should have clarified patriotism. You are right. But it is more than just nationalism. It is the pride of belonging to any group that intended in the question. Perhaps my English is not sufficient. I learn as I go. Besides, I do not think there is anything wrong with a healthy form of pride in belonging (nationalism, patriotism, or whatever). But what I plead for is that nationalism is not the same as our religion, and that religion is not the same as our nationalism. In Poland if one is not Catholic, one is not seen as Polish. When in some wards I visited in Utah, I could not participate in an overexaggerated discussion on our great LDS Pioneers who crossed the plains, or I was questioned when people saw me sing the American National Anthem out of respect for the USA. These types of pride makes it awkward for visitors or people of other beliefs. The question is how to deal with this.

Of course as with any symbolism, there’s a lot to unpack with respect to a particular person’s reaction.

You seem to tie patriotism to what I think we should call “nationalism.” I believe we should draw a line between the two. It is not necessary for a patriotic person, especially one from a pluralistic nation, to demean or alienate another political nation or state. A patriotic person can feel love or passion for it’s system of laws and benefits and rights protected by their state. And it is very possible to see the rise and successes of a state other than one’s own as being providential or inspired.

Geoff-Aus,
To echo what Clark touched on, I don’t believe that many conservative American churches or religious adherents are claiming a right to impose their beliefs upon other people. They are claiming a right to an institutional voice on select political issues and a right (shall we call it freedom of conscience?) for voters to exercise their religious or moral values in deciding issues on the ballot. There are many (including the LDS Church) who are also advocating for a civil and respectful dialogue between those whose views differ on fundamental issues. If secularists can organize and impose their views on the public through educational policy or even laws, why should religionists be barred from doing so? Can’t FoRB also mean “Freedom from secularists?

Geoff, while in some cases the protestant majority definitely imposed upon the public square, I think things are a bit trickier than it appears. In particular I think marriage is tricky particularly because its a combination of state and religion which is why it became such a flash point. I long ago advocated getting the state out of marriage as a way of resolving most of these conflicts. That is you’d have civil unions that weren’t marriages to deal with legal issues of assets and children. But they weren’t marriages. Unfortunately when protestants were in the majority they didn’t want to do that even in the 90’s when to my eyes the writing was on the wall. So I’m sympathetic to what you say, although I think in practice things are much trickier when you get out of the question of marriage.

Chris, I don’t think quasi-religions really face the same issues as religions though. Further I think issues of conscience are already treated differently from issues of religion. We can debate whether they ought be of course. Personally I think a lack of pluralism and respect for different ideologies is a huge issue in the west right now. But the apparatus of our approach to pluralism is caught up with religion, not conscience.

Jason, I think the point you make about love and respect is well made. Prior to prop-8 I think Mormons in general had a good reputation even by people who didn’t ultimately trust us. (The tension that came out, especially for Evangelicals, back in the 2012 election) With prop-8 though I think things became much more tricky primarily because love and charity became judged in terms of how you accepted gay marriage. That’s really changing, especially among those more on the social left, how Mormons are perceived. In Europe where particularly in western Europe a broad social liberalism is the overwhelming consensus Mormons are thus viewed negatively.

Chris g, I’m intrigued by your comment on “the rise of quasi-religions who evangelize post-modern humanism as a de-facto state morality”. How do you define these “quasi-religions”?

Also could you clarify: “Are FoRB protections sufficient for the pending moral re-freezing most Western societies will soon undergo when our current intranstional morality wars end?” It sounds like a compact description of a phenomenon that I need some help to understand. Thanks!

I believe churches have lost a lot of credibility by claiming religious freedom to impose their views on others.

Are FoRB protections sufficient for the pending moral re-freezing most Western societies will soon undergo when our current intranstional morality wars end? I think the practical weakness of FoRB as iperationalized is that it only stands for issues that “don’t matter” (usually technical theological issues). I’m not sure there is enough support to allow freedom of conscience on issues that “do matter” (near quasi-criminal ‘hate’). But, as Clark mentioned, it seems as if American pluralism (freedom of religion) balanced the latter. But today there seems to be absolutely no stomach for the same.

But perhaps I’m off base. As mormons we seem pretty good about accepting truly different moralities. I worry how many “nones” have similar experiences with respect to pluralistic toleration on issues that matter?

First and foremost, I loved this post. I love how you showed that governments really can only do so much to secure freedom. If people who have beliefs different then my own have to “closet” those beliefs around me how free are they really? Even if the law forbids them being thrown in prison.

I do have two small-ish quibbles with the OP.

1- Your post seems to be a left center sermon for right center individuals. As a right center individual myself I know I need the call to repentance, but as I understand the general thrust of your argument (we should value the rights of those we disagree with) it seems to undercut as you get into the specifics. Now you do add a small justification in making the discussion about “the majority” and since we a majority conservative church (at least in the US) the majority needs to wrestle with what views the minority is allowed to hold.

So here is my small-ish problem: I think the most persuasive thing you could have done was show how this rule could benefit all sides in certain circumstances. Sure, when I go to church I am in the majority, but for every year of college I was NOT at BYU I was in the minority. I was the one who had to decide what views I could tell my peers! Media also tends to lean left. Also many conservative Mormons work in places where their co-workers and bosses lean left. They feel the same pressures that left center Latter-day Saints feel in their church community. And in these spaces, it is left center people who get the privilege of sharing their opinions freely as if their opinions are self evident truths. Church is the place I get to be myself and not be a “closet believer” in certain things. Again, I think your main thesis is beautiful. Imagine a world that when someone voices an opinion different than your/my own we each stop and say “okay, if I fire back with both barrels how will that make that person feel? It probably took a lot of courage for that person to knowingly disappoint me. How can I a be a constructive force in that person’s life.” But if this is only a privilege granted to left views but not right wing views you will eventually just wind up with a new majority enforcing orthodoxy rather than an actual change.

2- “•Why is it that some religions are renown for kindness and acceptance, and we are really not?” This question seems rather two dimensional for my tastes. “Why are some religions like Islam so renown for their violence and yet we are really not?” Would rightfully get pushback.

But I also wonder what you mean by renowned? Perhaps Mormons have a different reputation in Europe than in the US but as I’ve moved around the US most people I know love Mormons. We have a reputation (at least in the non-scientific circles I run in) of being great designated drivers, willing to drop everything to help out a co-workers in a time of crisis and nice friendly people. The Book of Mormon musical seems to rely on the stereotype of kindness (though we are also portrayed as a naive dumb lot). Your questions seems to rely on the viewpoint of someone inside the church who is pushing against LDS orthodoxy, at which point orthodox followers are no longer so nice. (But again, if we are talking about reputation among outsiders, my non-Mormon friends have always ranted and raved at how kind and helpful Mormons have been.) I currently live in Japan and (again, non-scientific study) some people I know also feel judgment when pushing against their families Buddhist culture.