Friday, October 24th, 2008...9:51 am
Freedom of Religion meets Prop 8
By Hereford
More on Proposition 8. A strong supporter of Prop 8 has been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church). The Church has now become a primary target of Prop 8 opponents, harassing and intimidating the Church’s members as they try to worship.
I’ve included a first-hand account of this below. It’s important to note that temples, to those of the LDS faith, are supremely sacred buildings, which they prize particularly because they allow church members to get away from the pressures and conflicts of the regular world. Temples are typically set back from freeways and busy areas for this reason, and their beautiful grounds and interiors are designed to promote such a feeling of calm.
So for protestors to gather outside a temple is a particularly spiteful and cruel choice. The protestors knew, I’m sure, that such an affront would strike at the very heart of freedom of worship and free speech for these LDS members.
Here’s the account I mentioned earlier:
“Dear family and friends,
“I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area).
“This weekend we have stake conference [a large church meeting]. Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night. Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric [like a pastor] to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco , very close to the city of Berkeley.
“Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp. As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the offramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple.
“I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door. Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying . . . . It was a truly surreal experience, I’d never thought that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security . . . stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.
At what point does freedom of expression crush freedom of religion? At harassment? At intimidation? At physically preventing worshipers from entering their houses of worship by leaping in front of their cars? If so, we have met that terrible point.
4 Comments
October 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
/At what point does freedom of expression crush freedom of religion?/
As a Quaker, I actually have limited sympathy. We Quakers have always taken controversial political positions, and have at times suffered for it. When you become involved with the affairs of the secular world, the secular world will respond, even to the point with becoming involved with yours. These people would be protesting a non-religious organization too, if it were the primary contributor to the Yes on 8 initiative. Freedom of religion means fair treatment, not special treatment.
That said, it is troubling that the police didn’t at least show up to control the crowds and prevent them from leaping in front of cars.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
The LDS Church is a minority religion in the United States. It is an intended benefactor of the wall between Church and State in this country.
If the Church decides to pierce that wall, conservative values of personal responsibility dictate that it do so with the knowledge that the consequences will run both ways.
An entity which decides to become a political agent cannot complain when it is treated like a political agent.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I am extremely sympathetic to the discomfort of people who (accompanied in some cases by young children) just want to worship without stressful and meditation-ruining protests on the way to prayer. You’re right that LDS is not waging protests outside of gay people’s places of worship, and that it would be inappropriate for protestors to try to intimidate LDS at the Temple rather than conducting the debate through the press or political action. But were there cameras and media coverage of the Temple protest? If so, then this is exactly the sort of response that would be expected, for this is how political debate is conducted. I think everyone is sympathetic to LDS members who merely want to pray without driving through protests, but perhaps LDS shouldn’t get into the kitchen if not all members of the Church want to deal with the heat.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
It’s unfortunate, of course, that people who are aiming to do nothing more than worship in peace are not being allowed to do so. That having been said, I think that banning political speech because it disturbs others, or even because it is designed to be offensive to others, is contrary to the freedoms upon which our nation is supposed to be based. In the account quoted above, however, laws are being broken in a way that does not merit legal protection. Blocking traffic is illegal for any number of very good reasons, shouting and waving signs, even in proximity to a religious institution, is not.