True. Useless.

Dallin H. Oaks today spoke before the student body of The Lord’s University, Idaho. The transcript was then posted to the website of The Lord’s Newsroom. The juxtaposition of DHO’s opening paragraph with the Newsroom sub-heading make for a funny bit of fail:

Um, don’t post it on the fucking Internet then, mmkay? And if you are a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator in Apostleship to The Lord’s One True Church on Earth, and are speaking words handed down on high from Jesus H. Christ (with whom you share your middle initial, for His sake!), shouldn’t you want your words to reach as many people as possible?

Or are you embarrassed by what you are about to say, and want to make it clear that your imminent preaching really is only for the choir?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Anyhoo, DHO goes on to say a bunch of stuff, some of it pretty reasonable and with which I can agree. He discusses the importance of religious freedom, the important role of the Constitution and Constitutional Amendments with regard to guaranteeing religious freedom, etc. That’s all fine and dandy.

But then, the stoopid:

Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

The fuck? The argument that actions based on religious belief  be treated differently than any other action sounds an awful lot like special pleading to me.

Then, even more stoopid:

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion.

As random Internet commenter tsg eloquently explains:

There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion: you can’t be free to practice your religion unless you are free from practicing mine.

Well-said, random Internet commenter tsg.

There’s some more nonsense and whining until we register a sudden and massive spike in the StoopidMeter, requiring the inevitable invocation of tbnu’s patented red pen of illumination:

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples slaves to enjoy the privileges of marriage freedom.

…

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage slavery itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman principle of owning people has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage slavery in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage slavery should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage slavery — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Fixed that for you, DHO.

Now, for something completely different. Just kidding, it’s a bunch more stoopidity:

We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and 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. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Shorter DHO: we should be able to do whatever the fuck we want without any repercussions whatsoever.

DHO goes out with a bang. A loud, wet, spurting climax of weapons-grade stoopid:

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.

DHO is a tall frosty glass of stupid juice. I maintain that this is a political fact.