Sara Barr, BYU <\/p>\n
Brett Scharffs, director of BYU's International Center for Law and Religion Studies, speaks at the university's Religious Freedom Annual Review on Thursday, July 6, 2017. <\/p>\n
PROVO More faiths were represented at BYU's Religious Freedom Annual Review this week than in the conference's previous three years, but on Friday that diversity revealed the complexity of issues religious people believe they face. <\/p>\n
While presenters on one panel all praised increased interdenominational unity of purpose in defense of religious expression, clear differences emerged about how to move forward. <\/p>\n
Several championed an effort to forge a federal version of the Utah Compromise, a 2015 law based on the idea of a \"fairness for all\" approach, which passed with the direct backing of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The law protected LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing and hiring while also providing renewed safeguards for people of faith to exercise their religious beliefs. <\/p>\n
Others said the compromise went too far. <\/p>\n
\"There is a real split in religious communities now about how best to advance religious freedoms,\" said Elizabeth Clark, associate director of the BYU law school's International Center for Law and Religion Studies, the conference sponsor. <\/p>\n
For example, John Jackson said he has at times tearfully apologized to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in regular meetings with Equality California for the way some have been treated in the name of Christ. But the president of William Jessup University, an evangelical Christian college, said he can't be party to a federal version of the Utah Compromise. <\/p>\n
\"I remain very dubious,\" he said, because a national compromise would enshrine civil liberty protections for LGBTQ people. He predicted his comments would be the fireworks between the Fourth of July and Utah's Pioneer Day on July 24. <\/p>\n
\"I'm unwilling and unable to support any legislation that normalizes gender fluidity or gender inconsequentiality or that normalizes same-sex sexual behavior,\" he said. \"Please know that I am unequivocally for civil protections for all persons in our constitutional republic regardless of status or standing. Simultaneously, I'm biblically, theologically, parentally and pastorally unable and unwilling to affirm any view of gender which suggests that maleness or femaleness are arbitrary, self-selected, fluid or inconsequential.\" <\/p>\n
During a question-and-answer session, Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, expressed worry about attempts to preserve religious institutions by compromising on \"basic human anthropology.\" He said surrendering the belief that man-woman marriage is the foundation of society \"goes too far\" and is incorrect from a Catholic point of view. <\/p>\n
Both men drew some applause. While the conference organizers back the fairness for all approach, they welcomed the diversity of opinion. <\/p>\n
\"We don't come together expecting to agree with everything we say,\" said Brett Scharffs, director of BYU's International Center for Law and Religion Studies. <\/p>\n
Other than drawing those clear lines, Jackson and Reilly built bridges. <\/p>\n
Reilly outlined what he called serious threats to religious higher education. Those challenges extend to health plans, accreditation, academic associations and athletic leagues. He said Catholic schools face an increasing number of lawsuits from students and faculty who wish to force them to give up their Christian missions. He expected a trickle to turn into a downpour in the near future and offered a solution. <\/p>\n
\"Legal experts repeatedly ensure us,\" he said, \"that when religious institutions comply with internal policies that are clearly presented and rooted strongly in their religious belief, First Amendment protections are likely to prevail.\" <\/p>\n
Alarmingly, he said, many schools have vague, inconsistent polices and practices. <\/p>\n
\"Unpreparedness leads to fear,\" he said, backing religious educators into corners from which they mount weak defenses or compromise their religious identity. <\/p>\n
Without different legal and public relations tactics, \"we're going to lose,\" said Shapri LoMaglio, vice president for government relations and executive programs at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. <\/p>\n
She argued for freeing religious liberty from the culture wars and doing away with dramatic speech, outraged postures and circular logic. <\/p>\n
LoMaglio backed the federal version of a Utah Compromise\/Fairness for All. She said it polls well because it speaks to values held by both conservatives and liberals. <\/p>\n
\"We hope it will be an effective mechanism nationally,\" she said. <\/p>\n
Steven M. Sandberg, BYU's deputy general counsel, advised conferencegoers that they can make a long-term difference with courage, hard work and connecting one-on-one with others, saying the best protection is friends who defend believers because they know them. <\/p>\n
He told the story of a Christian psychologist whose relationships on a national psychology accreditation board averted a negative change in accreditation standards for religious schools. <\/p>\n
Clark, the center's associate director, said the conference's presenters also included a Unitarian pastor and a woman who is an elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. <\/p>\n
\"We can learn so much from each other,\" she said. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View post:<\/p>\n
At BYU conference, differences emerge on protection for religious ... - Deseret News<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sara Barr, BYU Brett Scharffs, director of BYU's International Center for Law and Religion Studies, speaks at the university's Religious Freedom Annual Review on Thursday, July 6, 2017. PROVO More faiths were represented at BYU's Religious Freedom Annual Review this week than in the conference's previous three years, but on Friday that diversity revealed the complexity of issues religious people believe they face. While presenters on one panel all praised increased interdenominational unity of purpose in defense of religious expression, clear differences emerged about how to move forward Continue reading