[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 26 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S855-S859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, religious freedom is the first subject 
addressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 
a pair of clauses that too often are divorced from each other, the 
Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 
Religious freedom has been a passion of mine throughout my service in 
the Senate and I intend to address this critical subject in a variety 
of ways during the 112th Congress. Today, I want to offer for my 
colleagues' consideration an important speech on religious freedom 
delivered two weeks ago at the Chapman University School of Law by 
Elder Dallin Oaks.
  Elder Oaks serves in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He received his law degree from 
the University of Chicago, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Chicago 
Law Review and where he would later teach after clerking for Supreme 
Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. He also served as President of Brigham 
Young University, Chairman of the Public Broadcasting Service, and as a 
Justice on the

[[Page S856]]

Utah Supreme Court. Elder Oaks is one of the pre-eminent legal scholars 
of our time, and a man deeply schooled in the Constitution who dearly 
loves our country.
  As Elder Oaks makes clear at the outset, this speech is not about 
particular religious doctrine but about religious freedom. In fact, he 
says that his intent is ``to contend for religious freedom.'' 
Contending for something is much more than simply talking about it, 
explaining it, or even advocating it. To contend for religious freedom 
is to strive earnestly for it, to struggle for it, even in the face of 
opposition. Religious freedom is that important.
  So I ask unanimous consent to have this speech printed in the Record 
and ask my colleagues to read and consider it. The full printed version 
of this speech contains extensive footnotes which have been deleted 
here for ease of publication in the Record. But I note for my 
colleagues that the full text and notes may be found at the following 
Internet address: http://newsroom.lds.org/article/apostle-emphasizes-
the-importance-of-religious-freedom-to-society.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Preserving Religious Freedom

 (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Chapman 
      University School of Law, Orange, California, Feb. 4, 2011)

       I am here to speak of the state of religious freedom in the 
     United States, why it seems to be diminishing, and what can 
     be done about it.
       Although I will refer briefly to some implications of the 
     Proposition 8 controversy and its constitutional arguments, I 
     am not here to participate in the debate on the desirability 
     or effects of same-sex marriage. I am here to contend for 
     religious freedom. I am here to describe fundamental 
     principles that I hope will be meaningful for decades to 
     come.
       I believe you will find no unique Mormon doctrine in what I 
     say. My sources are law and secular history. I will quote the 
     words of Catholic, Evangelical Christian, and Jewish leaders, 
     among others. I am convinced that on this issue what all 
     believers have in common is far more important than their 
     differences. We must unite to strengthen our freedom to teach 
     and exercise what we have in common, as well as our very real 
     differences in religious doctrine.


                                   I.

       I begin with a truth that is increasingly challenged: 
     Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable 
     and important to our free society and therefore deserving of 
     special legal protection. I will cite a few examples.
       Our nation's inimitable private sector of charitable works 
     originated and is still furthered most significantly by 
     religious impulses and religious organizations. I refer to 
     such charities as schools and higher education, hospitals, 
     and care for the poor, where religiously motivated persons 
     contribute personal service and financial support of great 
     value to our citizens. Our nation's incredible generosity in 
     many forms of aid to other nations and their peoples are 
     manifestations of our common religious faith that all peoples 
     are children of God. Religious beliefs instill patterns of 
     altruistic behavior.
       Many of the great moral advances in Western society have 
     been motivated by religious principles and moved through the 
     public square by pulpit-preaching. The abolition of the slave 
     trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in the 
     United States are notable illustrations. These revolutionary 
     steps were not motivated and moved by secular ethics or 
     coalitions of persons who believed in moral relativism. They 
     were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision 
     of what was morally right and what was morally wrong. In our 
     time, the Civil Rights movement was of course inspired and 
     furthered by religious leaders.
       Religion also strengthens our nation in the matter of 
     honesty and integrity. Modern science and technology have 
     given us remarkable devices, but we are frequently reminded 
     that their operation in our economic system and the resulting 
     prosperity of our nation rest on the honesty of the men and 
     women who use them. Americans' honesty is also reflected in 
     our public servants' remarkable resistance to official 
     corruption. These standards and practices of honesty and 
     integrity rest, ultimately, on our ideas of right and wrong, 
     which, for most of us, are grounded in principles of religion 
     and the teachings of religious leaders.
       Our society is not held together just by law and its 
     enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to 
     the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten 
     norms of right or righteous behavior. Religious belief in 
     right and wrong is a vital influence to advocate and persuade 
     such voluntary compliance by a large proportion of our 
     citizens. Others, of course, have a moral compass not 
     expressly grounded in religion. John Adams relied on all of 
     these when he wisely observed that ``we have no government 
     armed with power capable of contending with human passions 
     unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, 
     revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our 
     Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution 
     was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly 
     inadequate to the government of any other.''
       Even the agnostic Oxford-educated British journalist, 
     Melanie Phillips, admitted that ``one does not have to be a 
     religious believer to grasp that the core values of Western 
     Civilization are grounded in religion, and to be concerned 
     that the erosion of religious observance therefore undermines 
     those values and the `secular ideas' they reflect.''
       My final example of the importance of religion in our 
     country concerns the origin of the Constitution. Its 
     formation over 200 years ago was made possible by religious 
     principles of human worth and dignity, and only those 
     principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse 
     population can sustain that Constitution today. I submit that 
     religious values and political realities are so inter-linked 
     in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot 
     lose the influence of religion in our public life without 
     seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.
       Unfortunately, the extent and nature of religious devotion 
     in this nation is changing. Belief in a personal God who 
     defines right and wrong is challenged by many. ``By some 
     counts,'' an 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.'' Others 
     who do not consider themselves atheists also reject the idea 
     of a supernatural power, but affirm the existence of some 
     impersonal force and the value of compassion and love and 
     justice.
       Organized religion is surely on the decline. Last year's 
     Pew Forum Study on Religion and Public Life found that the 
     percentage of young adults affiliated with a particular 
     religious faith is declining significantly. Scholars Robert 
     Putnam and David Campbell have concluded that ``the prospects 
     for religious observance in the coming decades are 
     substantially diminished.''
       Whatever the extent of formal religious affiliation, I 
     believe that the tide of public opinion in favor of religion 
     is receding. 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.''
       A visible measure of the decline of religion in our public 
     life is the diminished mention of religious faith and 
     references to God in our public discourse. One has only to 
     compare the current rhetoric with the major addresses of our 
     political leaders in the 18th, 19th, and the first part of 
     the 20th centuries. Similarly, compare what Lincoln said 
     about God and religious practices like prayer on key 
     occasions with the edited versions of his remarks quoted in 
     current history books. It is easy to believe that there is an 
     informal conspiracy of correctness to scrub out references to 
     God and the influence of religion in the founding and 
     preservation of our nation.
       The impact of this on the rising generation is detailed in 
     an Oxford University Press book, Souls in Transition. There 
     we read: ``Most of the dynamics of emerging adult culture and 
     life in the United States today seem to have a tendency to 
     reduce the appeal and importance of religious faith and 
     practice. . . . Religion for the most part is just something 
     in the background.''
       Granted that reduced religious affiliation puts religion 
     ``in the background,'' the effect of that on the religious 
     beliefs of young adults is still in controversy. The negative 
     view appears in the Oxford book, whose author concludes that 
     this age group of 18 to 23 ``had difficulty seeing the 
     possible distinction between, in this case, objective moral 
     truth and relative human invention. . . . [T]hey simply 
     cannot, for whatever reason, believe in--or sometimes even 
     conceive of--a given, objective truth, fact, reality, or 
     nature of the world that is independent of their subjective 
     self-experience.''
       On the positive side, the Pew Forum study reported that 
     over three-quarters of young adults believe that there are 
     absolute standards of right and wrong. For reasons explained 
     later, I believe this finding is very positive for the future 
     of religious freedom.


                                  II.

       Before reviewing the effects of the decline of religion in 
     our public life, I will speak briefly of the free exercise of 
     religion. The first provision in the Bill of Rights of the 
     United States Constitution is what many believe to be its 
     most important guarantee. It 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 forbid a 
     national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest 
     of time I will say no more about the establishment of 
     religion, but only concentrate on the First Amendment's 
     direction that the United States shall have ``no law 
     [prohibiting] the free exercise [of religion].'' For almost a 
     century this guarantee of religious freedom has been 
     understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.
       The guarantee of religious freedom is one of the supremely 
     important founding principles in the United States 
     Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all 
     50 of

[[Page S857]]

     our states. As noted by many, the guarantee's ``pre-eminent 
     place'' as the first expression in the First Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution identifies freedom of religion as 
     ``a cornerstone of American democracy.'' The American 
     colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most 
     part, came to this continent for the freedom 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 federal law formally declares: ``The 
     right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and 
     existence of the United States.'' So it is, I maintain, that 
     in our nation's founding and in our constitutional order 
     religious freedom and its associated First Amendment freedoms 
     of speech and press are the motivating and dominating civil 
     liberties and civil rights.


                                  III.

       Notwithstanding its special place in our Constitution, a 
     number of trends are eroding both the protections the free 
     exercise clause was intended to provide and the public esteem 
     this fundamental value has had during most of our history. 
     For some time we have been experiencing laws and official 
     actions that impinge on religious freedom. In a few moments I 
     will give illustrations, but first I offer some 
     generalizations.
       The free ``exercise'' of religion obviously involves both 
     (1) the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations 
     and (2) the right to ``exercise'' or practice those beliefs 
     without government restraint. However, in a nation with 
     citizens of many different religious beliefs the right of 
     some to act upon their religious beliefs must be qualified by 
     the government's responsibility to further compelling 
     government interests, such as the health and safety of all. 
     Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its 
     citizens' persons or properties from neighbors whose 
     religious principles compelled practices that threatened 
     others' health or personal security. Government authorities 
     have wrestled with this tension for many years, so we have 
     considerable experience in working out the necessary 
     accommodations.
       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. 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 a law 
     or regulation is claimed to violate someone's free exercise 
     of religion. As would be expected, many of these battles have 
     involved government efforts to restrict the religious 
     practices of small groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and 
     Mormons. Recent experience suggests adding the example of 
     Muslims.
       Much of the controversy in recent years has focused on the 
     extent to which state laws that are neutral and generally 
     applicable can override the strong protections contained in 
     the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution. 
     As noted hereafter, in the 1990s the Supreme Court ruled that 
     such state laws could prevail. Fortunately, in a stunning 
     demonstration of the resilience of the guarantee of free 
     exercise of religion, over half of the states have passed 
     legislation or interpreted their state constitutions to 
     preserve a higher standard for protecting religious freedom. 
     Only a handful have followed the Supreme Court's approach 
     that the federal free exercise protection must bow to state 
     laws that are neutral as to religion.
       Another important current debate over religious freedom 
     concerns whether the guarantee of free exercise of religion 
     gives one who acts on religious grounds greater protection 
     against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed 
     to everyone by other provisions of the constitution, like 
     freedom of speech. I, of course, maintain that unless 
     religious freedom has a unique position we erase the 
     significance of this separate provision in the First 
     Amendment. Treating actions based on religious belief the 
     same as actions based on other systems of belief is not 
     enough to satisfy the special guarantee of religious freedom 
     in the United States Constitution. Religion must preserve its 
     preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make 
     its unique contribution--its recognition and commitment to 
     values that transcend the secular world.
       Over a quarter century ago I reviewed the history and 
     predicted the future of church/state law in a lecture at 
     DePaul University in Chicago. I took sad notice of the fact 
     that the United States Supreme Court had diminished the 
     significance of free exercise by expanding the definition of 
     religion to include what the Court called ``religions'' not 
     based on belief in God. I wrote: ``The problem with a 
     definition of religion that includes almost everything is 
     that the practical effect of inclusion comes to mean almost 
     nothing. Free exercise protections become diluted as their 
     scope becomes more diffuse. When religion has no more right 
     to free exercise than irreligion or any other secular 
     philosophy, the whole newly expanded category of `religion' 
     is likely to diminish in significance.''
       Unfortunately, the tide of thought and precedent seems 
     contrary to this position. While I have no concern with 
     expanding comparable protections to non-religious belief 
     systems, as is done in international norms that protect 
     freedom of religion or belief, I object to doing so by re-
     interpreting the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise 
     of religion.
       It was apparent twenty-five years ago, and it is undeniable 
     today, that the significance of religious freedom is 
     diminishing. Five years after I gave my DePaul lecture, the 
     United States Supreme Court issued its most important free 
     exercise decision in many years. In Employment Division v. 
     Smith, the Court significantly narrowed the traditional 
     protection of religion by holding that the guarantee of 
     free exercise did not prevent government from interfering 
     with religious activities when it did so by neutral, 
     generally applicable laws. This ruling removed religious 
     activities from their sanctuary--the preferred position 
     the First Amendment had given them.
       Now, over twenty years later, some are contending that a 
     religious message is just another message in a world full of 
     messages, not something to be given unique or special 
     protection. One author takes the extreme position that 
     religious speech should have even less protection. In Freedom 
     from Religion, published by the Oxford University Press, a 
     law professor makes this three-step argument:
       1. In many nations ``society is at risk from religious 
     extremism.''
       2. ``A follower is far more likely to act on the words of a 
     religious authority figure than other speakers.''
       3. Therefore, ``in some cases, society and government 
     should view religious speech as inherently less protected 
     than secular political speech because of its extraordinary 
     ability to influence the listener.''
       The professor then offers this shocking conclusion:

       ``[W]e must begin to consider the possibility that 
     religious speech can no longer hide behind the shield of 
     freedom of expression. . . .
       ``Contemporary religious extremism leaves decision-makers 
     and the public alike with no choice but to re-contour 
     constitutionally granted rights as they pertain to religion 
     and speech.''

       I believe most thoughtful people would reject that extreme 
     conclusion. All should realize how easy it would be to 
     gradually manipulate the definition of ``religious 
     extremism'' to suppress any unpopular religion or any 
     unpopular preaching based on religious doctrine. In addition, 
     I hope most would see that it is manifestly unfair and short-
     sighted to threaten religious freedom by focusing on some 
     undoubted abuses without crediting religion's many benefits. 
     I am grateful that there are responsible voices and evidence 
     affirming the vital importance of religious freedom, 
     worldwide.
       When Cardinal Francis George, then President of the U.S. 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke at Brigham Young 
     University last year, he referred to ``threats to religious 
     freedom in America that are new to our history and to our 
     tradition.'' He gave two examples, one concerning threats to 
     current religious-based exemptions from participating in 
     abortions and the other ``the development of gay rights and 
     the call for same-sex `marriage.''' He spoke of possible 
     government punishments for churches or religious leaders 
     whose doctrines lead them to refuse to participate in 
     government sponsored programs.
       Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the 
     freedom of religion in the current assertion of a ``civil 
     right'' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching 
     against their relationships. Religious leaders of various 
     denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should 
     only occur between a man and a woman joined together 
     in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a 
     doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional 
     guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing 
     of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning 
     to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.
       Religious preaching of the wrongfulness of homosexual 
     relations is beginning to be threatened with criminal 
     prosecution or actually prosecuted or made the subject of 
     civil penalties. Canada has been especially aggressive, 
     charging numerous religious authorities and persons of faith 
     with violating its human rights law by ``impacting an 
     individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance.'' Other 
     countries where this has occurred include Sweden, the United 
     Kingdom, and Singapore.
       I do not know enough to comment on whether these 
     suppressions of religious speech violate the laws of other 
     countries, but I do know something of religious freedom in 
     the United States, and I am alarmed at what is reported to be 
     happening here.
       In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held 
     that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to 
     photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in 
     impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's 
     fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order 
     to pay. In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was 
     investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination 
     law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned 
     pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court 
     refused to give relief from the state penalties. Professors 
     at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or 
     disciplined for expressing personal convictions that 
     homosexual behavior is sinful. Candidates for masters' 
     degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities 
     were penalized or dismissed from programs

[[Page S858]]

     for their religious views about the wrongfulness of 
     homosexual relations. A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was 
     demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual 
     conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor. The Catholic 
     Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy 
     Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to 
     require further comment.
       We must also be concerned at recent official expressions 
     that would narrow the field of activities protected by the 
     free exercise of religion. Thus, when President Obama used 
     the words freedom of worship instead of free exercise of 
     religion, a writer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 
     sounded this warning:

       ``To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of 
     religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this 
     linguistic shift is troubling.
       ``The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that 
     religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of 
     worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's 
     religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to 
     engage in the public square.''

       Fortunately, more recent expressions by President Obama and 
     his state department have used the traditional references to 
     the right to practice religious faith.
       Even more alarming are recent evidences of a narrowing 
     definition of religious expression and an expanding 
     definition of the so-called civil rights of ``dignity,'' 
     ``autonomy,'' and'' self-fulfillment'' of persons offended by 
     religious preaching. Thus, President Obama's head of the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, 
     recently framed the issue in terms of a ``sexual-orientation 
     liberty'' that is such a fundamental right that it should 
     prevail over a competing ``religious-belief liberty.'' Such a 
     radical assertion should not escape analysis. It has three 
     elements. First, the freedom of religion--an express 
     provision of the Bill of Rights that has been recognized as a 
     fundamental right for over 200 years--is recast as a simple 
     ``liberty'' that ranks among many other liberties. Second, 
     Feldblum asserts that sexual orientation is now to be defined 
     as a ``sexual liberty'' that has the status of a fundamental 
     right. Finally, it is claimed that ``the best framework for 
     dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people's 
     claims as `belief liberty interest' not as free exercise 
     claims under the First Amendment.'' The conclusion: Religious 
     expressions are to be overridden by the fundamental right to 
     ``sexual liberty.''
       It is well to remember James Madison's warning: ``There are 
     more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the 
     people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power 
     than by violent and sudden usurpations.''
       We are beginning to experience the expansion of rhetoric 
     and remedies that seem likely to be used to chill or even to 
     penalize religious expression. Like the professors in 
     Illinois and Wisconsin and the lay clergyman in California, 
     individuals of faith are experiencing real retribution merely 
     because they seek to express their sincerely held religious 
     beliefs.
       All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing 
     toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by 
     forcing it to give way to the ``rights'' of those offended by 
     such speech. If that happens, we will have criminal 
     prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech 
     offend those whose public influence and political power 
     establish them as an officially protected class.
       Closely related to the danger of criminal prosecutions are 
     the current arguments seeking to brand religious beliefs as 
     an unacceptable basis for citizen action or even for argument 
     in the public square. For an example of this we need go no 
     further than the district court's opinion in the Proposition 
     8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
       A few generations ago the idea that religious organizations 
     and religious persons would be unwelcome in the public square 
     would have been unthinkable. Now, such arguments are 
     prominent enough to cause serious concern. It is not 
     difficult to see a conscious strategy to neutralize the 
     influence of religion and churches and religious motivations 
     on any issues that could be characterized as public policy. 
     As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, 
     Religion and Society, the proponents of banishment ``have 
     developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with 
     them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred 
     and scorn.'' 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.''

       The forces that would intimidate persons with religious-
     based points of view from influencing or making the laws of 
     their state or nation should answer this question: How would 
     the great movements toward social justice cited earlier have 
     been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious 
     proponents had been banned from the public square by 
     insistence that private religious or moral positions were not 
     a rational basis for public discourse?
       We have already seen a significant deterioration in the 
     legal position of the family, a key institution defined by 
     religious doctrine. In his essay ``The Judicial Assault on 
     the Family,'' Allan W. Carlson examines the ``formal 
     influence of Christianity'' on American family law, citing 
     many state and United States Supreme Court decisions through 
     the 1950s affirming the fundamental nature of the family. He 
     then reviews a series of decisions beginning in the mid-1960s 
     that gave what he calls ``an alternate vision of family life 
     and family law.'' For example, he quotes a 1972 decision in 
     which the Court characterized marriage as ``an association of 
     two individuals each with a separate intellectual and 
     emotional makeup.'' ``Through these words,'' Carlson 
     concludes, ``the U.S. Supreme Court essentially enlisted in 
     the Sexual Revolution.'' Over these same years, ``the federal 
     courts also radically altered the meaning of parenthood.''
       I quote Carlson again:

       ``The broad trend has been from a view of marriage as a 
     social institution with binding claims of its own and with 
     prescribed rules for men and women into a free association, 
     easily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs 
     of individuals. However, the ironical result of so expanding 
     the `freedom to marry' has been to enhance the authority and 
     sway of government.''
       ``As the American founders understood, marriage and the 
     autonomous family were the true bulwarks of liberty, for they 
     were the principal rivals to the state. . . . And surely, as 
     the American judiciary has deconstructed marriage and the 
     family over the last 40 years, the result has been the growth 
     of government.''

       All of this has culminated in attempts to redefine marriage 
     or to urge its complete abolition. The debate continues in 
     the press and elsewhere.


                                  IV.

       What has caused the current public and legal climate of 
     mounting threats to religious freedom? I believe the cause is 
     not legal but cultural and religious. I believe the 
     diminished value being attached to religious freedom stems 
     from the ascendency of moral relativism.
       More and more of our citizens support the idea that all 
     authority and all rules of behavior are man-made and can be 
     accepted or rejected as one chooses. Each person is free to 
     decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong. Our 
     children face the challenge of living in an increasingly 
     godless and amoral society.
       I have neither the time nor the expertise to define the 
     various aspects of moral relativism or the extent to which 
     they have entered the culture or consciousness of our nation 
     and its people. I can only rely on respected observers whose 
     descriptions feel right to me.
       In his book, Modern Times, the British author, Paul 
     Johnson, writes: ``At the beginning of the 1920s the belief 
     began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, 
     that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, 
     of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value.''
       On this side of the Atlantic, Gertrude Himmelfarb describes 
     how the virtues associated with good and evil have been 
     degraded into relative values.
       A variety of observers have described the consequences of 
     moral relativism. All of them affirm the existence of God as 
     the Ultimate Law-giver and the source of the absolute truth 
     that distinguishes good from evil.
       Rabbi Harold Kushner speaks of God-given ``absolute 
     standards of good and evil built into the human soul.'' He 
     writes: ``As I see it, there are two possibilities. Either 
     you affirm the existence of a God who stands for morality and 
     makes moral demands of us, who built a law of truthfulness 
     into His world even as He built in a law of gravity. . . . Or 
     else you give everyone the right to decide what is good and 
     what is evil by his or her own lights, balancing the voice of 
     one's conscience against the voice of temptation and need. . 
     . .''
       Rabbi Kushner also observes that a philosophy that rejects 
     the idea of absolute right and wrong inevitably leads to a 
     deadening of conscience. ``Without God, it would be a world 
     where no one was outraged by crime or cruelty, and no one was 
     inspired to put an end to them. . . . [T]here would be no 
     more inspiring goal for our lives than self-interest. . . . 
     Neither room nor reason for tenderness, generosity, 
     helpfulness.''
       Dr. Timothy Keller, a much-published pastor in New York, 
     asks:

       ``What happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible 
     that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you 
     pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, 
     how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You 
     won't!. . . .
       ``Though we have been taught that all moral values are 
     relative to individuals and cultures, we can't live like 
     that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles 
     as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those 
     who don't share our values. . . . People who laugh at the 
     claim that there is a transcendent moral order do not think 
     that racial genocide is just impractical or self-defeating, 
     but that it is wrong. . . .''

       My esteemed fellow Apostle, Elder Neal A. Maxwell, asked: 
     ``[H]ow can a society set priorities if there are no basic 
     standards? Are we to make our calculations using only the 
     arithmetic of appetite?''
       He made this practical observation: ``Decrease the belief 
     in God, and you increase the

[[Page S859]]

     numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being 
     `society's supervisors.' Such `supervisors' deny the 
     existence of divine standards, but are very serious about 
     imposing their own standards on society.''
       Elder Maxwell also observed that we increase the power of 
     governments when people do not believe in absolute truths and 
     in a God who will hold them and their government leaders 
     accountable.
       Moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion 
     and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen 
     to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the 
     proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free 
     exercise of religion.
       The founders who established this nation believed in God 
     and in the existence of moral absolutes--right and wrong--
     established by this Ultimate Law-giver. The Constitution they 
     established assumed and relied on morality in the actions of 
     its citizens. Where did that morality come from and how was 
     it to be retained? Belief in God and the consequent reality 
     of right and wrong was taught by religious leaders in 
     churches and synagogues, and the founders gave us the First 
     Amendment to preserve that foundation for the Constitution.
       The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends 
     on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in 
     our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God--
     however defined--that translates these religious teachings 
     into the moral behavior that benefits the nation. As fewer 
     and fewer citizens believe in God and in the existence of the 
     moral absolutes taught by religious leaders, the importance 
     of religious freedom to the totality of our citizens is 
     diminished. We stand to lose that freedom if many believe 
     that religious leaders, who preach right and wrong, make no 
     unique contribution to society and therefore should have no 
     special legal protection.


                             V. Conclusion

       I have made four major points:
       1. Religious teachings and religious organizations are 
     valuable and important to our free society and therefore 
     deserving of their special legal protection.
       2. Religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of 
     this country and is the dominating civil liberty.
       3. The guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening 
     in its effects and in public esteem.
       4. This weakening is attributable to the ascendancy of 
     moral relativism.
       We must never see the day when the public square is not 
     open to religious ideas and religious persons. The religious 
     community must unite to be sure we are not coerced or 
     deterred into silence by the kinds of intimidation or 
     threatening rhetoric that are being experienced. Whether or 
     not such actions are anti-religious, they are surely anti-
     democratic and should be condemned by all who are interested 
     in democratic government. There should be room for all good-
     faith views in the public square, be they secular, religious, 
     or a mixture of the two. When expressed sincerely and without 
     sanctimoniousness, the religious voice adds much to the text 
     and tenor of public debate. As Elder Quentin L. Cook has 
     said: ``In our increasingly unrighteous world, it is 
     essential that values based on religious belief be part of 
     the public discourse. Moral positions informed by a religious 
     conscience must be accorded equal access to the public 
     square.''
       Religious persons should insist on their constitutional 
     right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their 
     consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections 
     and in 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 and religious organizations. In 
     this circumstance, it is imperative that those of us who 
     believe in God and in the reality of right and wrong unite 
     more effectively to protect our religious freedom to preach 
     and practice our faith in God and the principles of right and 
     wrong He has established.
       This proposal that we unite more effectively does not 
     require any examination of the doctrinal differences among 
     Christians, Jews, and Muslims, or even an identification of 
     the many common elements of our beliefs. All that is 
     necessary for unity and a broad coalition along the lines I 
     am suggesting is a common belief that there is a right and 
     wrong in human behavior that has been established by a 
     Supreme Being. All who believe in that fundamental should 
     unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom 
     to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they 
     are. We must walk together for a ways on the same path in 
     order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when 
     that is necessary according to our own beliefs.
       I am not proposing a resurrection of the so-called ``moral 
     majority,'' which was identified with a particular religious 
     group and a particular political party. Nor am I proposing an 
     alliance or identification with any current political 
     movement, tea party or other. I speak for a broader 
     principle, non-partisan and, in its own focused objective, 
     ecumenical. I speak for what Cardinal Francis George 
     described in his address at Brigham Young University, just a 
     year ago. His title was ``Catholics and Latter-day Saints: 
     Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom.'' He proposed 
     ``that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with 
     other defenders of conscience, and that we can and should 
     stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the 
     coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the 
     rights of conscience for individuals and for religious 
     institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide 
     of forces at work in our government and society to reduce 
     religion to a purely private reality. At stake is whether or 
     not the religious voice will maintain its right to be heard 
     in the public square.''
       We join in that call for religious coalitions to protect 
     religious freedom. In doing so we recall the wisdom of 
     Benjamin Franklin. At another critical time in our nation's 
     history, he declared: ``We must all hang together, or 
     assuredly we shall all hang separately.''
       In conclusion, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ I 
     affirm His love for all people on this earth, and I affirm 
     the importance His followers must attach to religious freedom 
     for all people--whatever their beliefs. I pray for the 
     blessings of God upon our cooperative efforts to preserve 
     that freedom.

                          ____________________