I wrote this in response to another blog entry.  Click here to see rightascension's entry.

BYU is in an interesting position.  Its sponsoring organization was, at one time, considered a cult and very outside the mainstream of  the American cultural and religious experience (for lack of a better word).  However, perhaps beginning with the quest for statehood, "The Church" has been striving for acceptance and recognition nationally and internationally.  It calls the Founding Fathers of the country which once dispossessed it INSPIRED, as well as the Constitution they penned, which guarantees certain freedoms.  Among those freedoms are freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  However, the establishment clause allows people to worship as they wish and has allowed religions to operate with a fair amount of autonomy.

Hence, BYU's gordian knot.  It operates as part of an autonomous religious entity but it competes with other universities within, accepts monies from, and prepares students for the larger secular culture. Because of its religion status it is able to play by two sets of rules, applying the one(s) which suit its mission as situations arise.  This in-and-not-of-the-world status leaves the institution open to criticism whenever secular-vs.-non-secular decisions have to be made.  It will never be able to please the entire community.  Are these decisions policy driven, inspiration driven, ego driven, economically driven, politically driven or just haphazard reactions?  Who knows, outside of those making the decisions.  The decision not to rehire someone who expresses his or her personal views, without consultation with an employer whose position is just the opposite, isn't such an unusual thing.  It's not like the employee is a whistle blower, having discovered an illegality, or is it?

I guess I'm most confused by Nielsen's blurting it out, calling attention to himself and the issue, in a forum where he knew he'd receive the most support statewide.  Does he think that the LDS Church is a democratic republic?  Was his letter a declaration of independence?   If it was then I guess he got what he wanted, his independence

SUAS