Oaks didn’t misuse First Amendment

First, since it seems you sought clarification, "religiously organized" means those who gather on the basis of a shared religion.

Second, the unique rights granted to the religiously organized to which I referred are not rights to have special influence in the political process. If anything I said implied that's what I meant, please be assured it was not. The rights to which I was referring are best illustrated in the examples I set forth in my letter. To further expound on the examples:

a) Unique rights granted to religious Sabbath observers.

Assume employee "A" and employee "B" both desire to have Saturday off at the factory at which they both work. Employee "A" tells his boss his reason for wanting it off is because he wants to attend a sporting event. Employee "B's" reason is because he is a Saturday Sabbath observer. The employer is required to reasonably accommodate "B's" request, but not "A's." "B's" right, however, is not absolute. The employer must prove that he reasonably tried to accommodate "B"s request, but could not do so while balancing the interests of the factory as a whole. If the employer cannot prove this, "B" can seek damages from his employer if he is not allowed to have Saturday off. No such protection exists for employee "A." Employee "B" has a right "A" does not have (the right to reasonably be rescheduled) and that right is based entirely on "B's" claimed religious belief. Numerous cases have been handed down affording these unique protections to the religiously organized.

b) Dress code policy

Assume a school has a dress code policy prohibiting the wearing of necklaces. Student "A" wishes to wear a necklace strictly for fashion reasons. Student "B" wishes to wear a necklace for a religious reason (e.g. a star of David necklace). The school must reasonably accommodate "B's" request (again, the right is not absolute, but unless the school can show that it could not reasonably accommodate "B's" request while balancing the interests of the school as a whole, "B" must be allowed to wear her necklace). No such protection exists for student "A." Student B receives a unique right--the right to an exception to school dress code policy (again, assuming the school cannot prove that making this accommodation would be unreasonable)--solely because of her religious belief. Again, numerous cases have been handed down protecting the rights of the religiously organized in matters like this.

You are right in that everyone gets the same right to worship. But because many will choose not to worship, those who do choose to worship are granted unique rights non-worshipers do not have. The rights becomes operative as soon as one claims a religious belief--but not until then.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions or confusions with my letter. If not, shoot me a response and I'll see if I can't be of any more assistance to you.

Kind regards,

Adam Reiser

So if he is "just wrong", and our country is fine with voter intimidation and retaliation--regardless of your political persuasion, then we are in trouble.

I for one champion Elder Oaks for what he said, not for what others are falsely claiming he said.