to the sound of guns: LDS apostle on civil rights
.
.
Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an address on religious freedom yesterday at Brigham Young University – Idaho. One of his remarks attracted wide media attention because he compared voter-intimidation of African-Americans during the civil rights movement in the South with the harassment some LDS church members experienced following a concerted and church-led effort towards the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Many have already argued the case for and against this analogy, while some have also said that there is in fact no comparison that can be made. Judge for yourself at the following video-link where Oaks justifies the use of this analogy.
The question that interests me however, and also probably those checking out this website, is whether or not one can actually make a credible link between civil rights activists in the South and Mormons in the West. The idea seems rather odd at first for several reasons:
1. the LDS church only granted the priesthood to its members of color in 1978, and
2. members of the LDS church are neither known for their progressive politics, nor for a tradition of nonviolent direct action, and finally;
3. the LDS church as such or its members are neither the victims of systematic physical violence, nor of political and social discrimination. Unfortunately their gay and lesbian “opponents” in this political debate are continuously exposed to it.
4. Admittedly, civil hostility towards mormons continue unabated in the US and Europe, but the mormons do not need help in fueling under that hostility. “Smile to the world and the world will smile to you” does not seem to be the maxim by which the Church abides, when Oaks suggests that ”atheism’s threat is rising as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness”, or frames gay rights as ”newly alleged” civil rights.
..
..
For all these reasons, Oaks’ evocation of the African-American experience during the Civil Rights movement sounds more like a shot in his own rhetorical foot and does not make his speech a credible appeal for greater and more inclusive civil rights. I doubt mormons suffered police brutality in this case? However, the point he is trying to make is that religious freedom is a civil right, but the problem is that people are not solely religious.
Do not misunderstand me, religious freedom is an important right to protect and Oaks makes a valid point by explaining that this right is not a given in many countries in the world, but I think it is a paranoid exaggeration to suggest that “there is a rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates”.
.
.
The only reason why this might be reality, is exactly because religion is not known for being on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the persecuted or even on the side of civil rights, but rather has been a negative conservative force in political debates. This kind of rhetoric in a global church movement alienates all those within the movement that are gay, also in countries where homosexuality is much less acceptable and in fact where it is still a criminal offense – and perhaps the LDS church would still want it that way in those countries. This is why the separation of church and state is so important: to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority (be it a secular majority or a religious majority).
Now, onto the subject that is of interest to us: nonviolence. Dallin H. Oaks draws on the experience of a hunger strike in Mongolia that resulted in greater democracy and a new-found religious freedom for the country. The lady who led the hunger strike later became one of the first converts to join the church in Mongolia and her son is now the first stake president in that country:
.
In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.
When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.
For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional government in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church.
What I love about this story, the only story that Dallin H. Oaks draws on in his speech to make his point about civil rights, is that it is about the power of nonviolent direct action to create positive social change against an oppressive regime. It was the courageous act of a woman (please note!) that decided that her rights, both as a woman and as a citizen of Mongolia, should no longer be violated. Her strong belief in freedom led her and her co-workers to carry out a hunger strike. Mahatma Gandhi was one of those who “perfected the art” of hunger strikes in his pursuit of freedom for India as an independent nation free from oppression and British rule.
However, Dallin H. Oaks shows little understanding for that kind of nonviolent direct action, when he starts his speech with the following lines:
.
In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.” So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.
It is a very poetic maxim, but alas it is lost on those of us who believe in nonviolence – unless he too would interpret “the Battle Hymn of the Republic” as a hymn of praise to the God of peace and that truth and nonviolence are marching on…
This website started because I wanted to challenge the “warrior” culture that is prevalent in the LDS church, its current theology and religious reasoning. Stories like those of the “last battalion”, “Black Hawk Down”, “put on the whole armour of God”, “young stripling warriors”, “Helaman’s army”, etc. are all examples of a militarized movement that uses a military logic to explain its purpose and mission in the world. If only mormons could use that energy and the power that derives from such a discourse to fight for equality, social justice and against poverty, the grave consequences of climate change, food insecurity, unjust trade agreements, etc.
And yet, the LDS church and Dallin H. Oaks in particular, have a very limited and narrow definition of what civil rights are all about – a definition that excludes economic, social and cultural rights. I don’t want to turn this post into a lecture about the different generations of human rights, but political and civil rights is a very US-centric definition of what human rights are all about. Already in the 1950s this narrow definition was challenged in UN circles and else where. If I was to accept Oaks’ narrow definition of what human rights are, then yes, within that definition it is clear that gay rights are “newly alleged” civil rights.
.
.
But let the story of Oyun Altangerel inspire you, as a prophetic people, to join the ranks of those who fight nonviolently for their freedoms and for their rights in Burma, in Bolivia, in Tibet, and other places, and who wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against “powers and principalities”, against injustice and against the tyranny of the majority, “because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
It will not be by sword nor gun that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth [satyagraha] is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel [of Peace].
