"Mormon Student"

[Susan Freiman]

I'm equally troubled by the breadth of "religion" as justifying special 
treatment.  If the purpose of the separation between church and state is 
to protect religion from interference by government, and to protect 
people from compulsion to believe a prescribed doctrine, then a lot of 
these exemptions seem to me to have strayed pretty far off track. 

On the other hand, there is merit to the Jewish principle of requiring 
obedience to rules which are far from the original rule, in order to 
"build a fence around the law,"  so a person won't stray into prohibited 
conduct by mistake.

Susan

Paul Finkelman wrote:
> It strikes me that Fred's description is one that lends itself to the
> argument that this is not a "religious obligation" at all, but is more
> of a social obligation.  There is no religious or theological
> requirement; no formal penalty, and nothing holding you back down the
> road, and you *can* do it later.  Community pressure may be strong, but
> is that, or should that, be a concern of the state or courts.   Should
> the courts order the state to change its policies because of informal
> community pressure?
>
> Perhaps I am the only one on the list troubled by the assumption that
> because there is a religious connection to an activity that makes it
> exempt from state law and that the state should accommodate what is a
> social choice that is surely not "community service" in any secular
> meaning of the term.  It might make good policy for the state to allow
> *anyone* a year off for any reason whatsoever.  But, I do not see why
> there should be a free exercise right in this case to an exemption from
> what is otherwise a religiously neutral and quite reasonable rule.  I
> have a friend whose daughter wants to take year off to go to Israel to
> improve her Hebrew and will probably work on a Kibbutz.  If she had this
> scholarship would it be a religious exemption?  Her "mission" to Israel
> is connected to her faith as is her desire to improve her Hebrew.  Is
> that enough of a religious connection to also demand and get an
> exemption.  What is someone is simply religiously motivated and wants to
> go mediate for a year and then come back and retain the scholarship? 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Gedicks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:31 PM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: "Mormon Student"
>
> It's been literally years since I posted on this site, but I am a
> regular lurker.
>
> I'm not sure that "choice" really solves anything, but FWIW, here is my
> answer to Paul's question, as an active (if slightly heterodox) Mormon.
> And like a lot of religious or theological questions, the answer is
> complicated, so I hope this is not too long.
>
> Formally, a mission is optional.  There is no LDS church doctrine or
> policy which prevents a young man from full participation in all the
> ordinances of the church if he fails to serve a mission.  I know a
> number of older men who did not serve missions when they were young who
> are fully engaged in church leadership positions.  (As some of you may
> know, Mormons have a lay priesthood.)
>
> Informally, however, there are powerful influences that make serving a
> mission at age 19 culturally or socially, if not theologically,
> mandatory for young men.  (For women, a mission is truly optional--i.e.,
> formally and informally.  Don't make me explain why.)  The entire youth
> program of the church is focused on getting young men to serve missions
> at 19.  Church leaders talk about it incessantly.  If you choose not to
> go, a variety of informal social/cultural penalties are triggered.  All
> your  church buddies disappear on their own missions.  People (including
> your parents) wonder why you're not going, whispers of "worthiness" or
> "testimony problems" circulate in the hallway.  Active Mormon women
> won't date you, or won't date you seriously.  In youth congregations you
> won't be considered for the more responsible callings.  You're viewed as
> spiritually "less than."
>
> It is possible to serve a mission at a later age--my recollection is
> that young men remain generally eligible until age 25, and occasional
> dispensations are made for those in their late 20s.  The experience of
> the church, however, is that those who don't serve at 19 get caught up
> by life--school, work, women, marriage, etc.--and rarely serve at a
> later date.  Hence the focus on 19.
>
> Of course, once you get married and settle into a Mormon ward, no one is
> going to be asking you on a regular basis, if at all, if you served a
> mission.  In fact, some folks believe it's a little impolite to ask,
> unless you know the person well (which, I suppose, is evidence of the
> informal belief that good Mormons serve a mission).
>
> The bottom line is that there is no doubt among active Mormons--really,
> none--that if one's aspiration is to be a fully active, believing Mormon
> male who faithfullly lives the principles of the church, then you serve
> a mission, and you serve it when you're 19.
>
> To reiterate a point that someone else suggested, I have little
> confidence that a court gathering evidence and trying to make a finding
> on this point would get it right.
>
> Fred
>
> Frederick Mark Gedicks
> Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law
> Brigham Young University Law School
> 504 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602-8000
> (801) 422-4533
> (801) 422-0391(fax)
> gedicksf at lawgate.byu.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>      and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386 
> pfink at albanylaw.edu
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>