This is a never-ending struggle. Where to draw the line between you doing what
you believe is right, and me doing what I believe is right?If my
religion required that on each summer solstice I dunk myself in pink paint at
sunrise and then spend the day standing on my head singing "Hey Jude,"
would I feel justified in expecting the government to provide me with the paint,
a place for the pink paint dunking, and require that you join me in the "Hey
Jude" chorus?What if your failure to get pink and sing along
with me was considered by me to be highly offensive?Why are _your_
religious beliefs worthy of government enforcement upon all citizens, but my
Solstice-Pink-Headstanding-Hey-Jude religious beliefs are not?Your
religious beliefs do not trump my right to be left alone by you and your
religion.When I tell you that your efforts to enforce your religion
on me and others who don't share your beliefs, that is _not_ persecution.
Only to a religious person is being told you can't
unconstitutionally persecute someone considered religious persecution.
Yet another thinly veiled article about religion being under attack.If I had nickle for every time one appeared in the DN; I could get
Romney's advice on how to open an account in the Caymans.
RE: Blue Is religion forcing their values on you or are you forcing
your values on a much larger very religious community.You are free
to live in any town or city that shares your values.When you live
in Utah did you expect the major religion, and majority population to just roll
over for you? Why does the left want a one size fits all solution to
governing?Let Freedom ring, let each town, city, community have
their values and laws they want. Let have their own character.You
are free choose where you want to live That is beauty of america and it;s
constitution, power resides with the people, it is a patchwork quilt not a big
grey leftest blanket.
I think this article is the most grievous travesty against truth and history
that I have ever seen. The words “They don't mean that
Americans' right to religious freedom is a right to believe whatever we
want to believe”, and the words “The free exercise of
religion means the ability to act on those beliefs”. are the
exact opposite of the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. No one except deranged people would believe that anyone, everyone, can have
absolute freedom of action in a civilized society, be they religious or
per the truth 6:10 p.m. July 1, 2012"Why does the left want a
one size fits all solution to governing?"For the same reason
that organized religion feels that one size must fit all??
Ultra Bob: do you seriously believe that the author of the column really meant
that anyone can absolute freedom to do anything? I certainly didn't take it
that way, and I'm sure it wasn't meant that way. The more reasonable
interpretation is that we can act on our beliefs as long as they don't hurt
others. My guess is that most readers took it that way. The author didn't
realy think it was necessary to spell it out in those words.
The biggest threat to religious freedom is organized religion itself.We have one religious group (Christians) who are attempting to make laws that
favor their own religious beliefs at the expense of every other religious
belief.Anti-same-sex-marriages laws.Anti-Muslim laws.Anti-This laws.Anti-That laws.What about those religions
that believe same-sex marriages are okay in the eyes of god? There are several,
including some Christian sects. There are Christian sects attempting to promote
anti-Muslim laws.You are your own worst enemies. As you fight
against the freedom of other Americans, you will find yourselves being more and
more pushed aside.The freedom to practice your religion does not
mean that you can force others to adhere to your religious beliefs.
Your Freedom of Religion ought to extend up to the point where mine begins. I went to Church yesterday, no questions asked. Prayed with my family,
no police interrupted my prayer. Observed to keep the Sabbath Day Holy, no
justice of the peace tried to imprison me. As far as I can tell, my rights to
practice my religion are alive and well.There was a certain church
here that allowed older gentlemen to marry younger women against their will. We
as a society, and wisely so, have said that isn't right. We, as a society
have placed certain restrictions even on that First Ammendment right. Why?
Because someone's rights interferred with another's.Thefore, I live my religion, and I have to allow you the same right to believe
or disbelieve, otherwise it is hypocrisy. As certain, wise man said "We
claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our
own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where, or what they may." The only way this works is if we have
In my world I try to go by what people say and not try to add or detract
imaginary meanings. I have to believe that the Deseret News and the
Mr. Dwight Duncan, Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of
Law-Dartmouth, says what they mean.
Ultra Bob: Many times people don't mean exactly what they say. When someone
asks, "How are you?" do you really think they want to hear about all
your aches and pains? (Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on who is asking
and if you have recently been in the hospital etc.). When someone says "Good
morning" but it is raining outside, are they lying? When someone says
"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" do you really believe him? If
someone says, I believe in obeying the law, are you then surprised if he drives
56 in a 55 zone? I hope these illustrations are useful.
Did we all read the same editorial?A Catholic attorney, using
examples from US history, world history, and contemporary life outside the
United States, illustrates how religious rights in the United States may be (and
in the case of Catholics ARE) eroded.How is this
"persecution" of non-believers (per Blue)? A "thinly-veiled article
about how religion is under attack" (Hank Pym)? (This is hardly
"thinly-veiled." It is overt. Calling it "thinly-veiled" gives
it a sinister aspect, however.)This is the "most grievous
travesty against truth and history that [Ultra Bob has] ever seen"! Ultra
Bob ought to read and compare travesties more. His is not the "most
grievous travesty against" hyperbole I've ever seen, but it deserves an
honorable mention."The truth" believes that it is
"right" vs. "left" political split. (As a believing,
non-Republican, left-leaning Centrist, I respectfully disagree.)And
Ranch, who has previously professed general disbelief in religion, feels that
his religion is being infringed upon, and steps to the defense of Muslims and
homosexuals, who, he feels, are somehow being hurt by this article? Based on the editorial, I have reason to believe Catholics' religious
beliefs are being infringed.
The writer got it right. Our allegiance is either to God or it is to man. When
man dictates that we must abandon God, then our only choice is to serve God.I would submit that most of those who make such ridiculous remarks about
religion have a desire to abolish any religion that would tell them that God
does not approve of the way they live their lives.What is religion
if not a "moving force" that guides us towards a godly way of life? If
we remove God from religion, then that "moving force" can never guide us
towards God. It's simple.Those words uttered so many centuries
ago are still profound, "choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the
gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we
will serve the LORD".The gods being foisted upon us have nothing
to do with God or with religion; therefore, we must reject them.
@J Thompson"The writer got it right. Our allegiance is either to
God or it is to man."When man made up God then our allegiance is
only to man. Especially when God is in the image of man (or vice versa) ... how
convenient that we'd believe the supreme ruler of the universe is like us.
The two July holidays present an alarming dichotomy: the first celebrates
independence and our vaunted "freedoms" and the later celebrates the
arrival of tattered latter-day saints to "freedom's last abode" -
the Salt Lake Valley - outside of the United States, where finally they enjoyed
a measure of freedom from the prejudice of the mob and the neglect of government
@ Jeff 11:49 a.m. July 2, 2012Do you not recognize thinly veiled
sarcasm?I cannot taking articles on religious freedom in the DN too
seriously. Because, I know how it will devolve.
So sad but too bad. How many times did this nation go to war when in some cases
when a near majority opposed based on moral
There is plenty of religious freedom in this country. It just can't come
from our religous-neutral government. Government buildings, schools, etc.
shouldn't have Christian symbols and sayings, etc. What about our citizens
of other faiths? They don't deserve that. And you Christians
wouldn't dare allow Muslim quotes, etc. on any public buildings. So be
equal and honest with everyone.Outside of government ran things,
there is plenty of religious freedom. I heard in the Chicago Tribune that a
group from a few different states held a mass resignation ceremony in a public
park in SLC the other day. The other week I was at the Chi Gay pride parade and
a group of Christians were waving their flags with very nasty stuff written on
them about homosexuals. Both of these are modern cases of religious freedom and
freedom of speech. It's here.Biggest case I've seen
against religious freedom is the ending of polygamy. Other than that I've
mostly seen it as free.
To Counter Intelligence 11:21 a.m. July 2, 2012Salt Lake City, UT"Your Freedom of Religion ought to extend up to the point where mine
begins."And if someone wants to force Catholics to provide
abortion inducing drugs: their religous and/or secular rights have ended and
Catholics have begun.----------------------------Nobody
is trying to "force" Catholics to provide abortion-inducing drugs. In
the first place, the Catholic Churcch (in its role as a church -- an
establishment of religion) does not have to fund contraceptive mediccations. On
the other hand, organizations owned by the Catholic Church, not being
etablishments of relition, do not have the right to violate the laws of the
United States. Additionally, the drugs in question (including but not limited
to the so-called morning-after pill) only work to stop pregnancies from staring.
NONE of them in any way interrupt an already-started pregnancy. You (and the
Catholic Church), of course, have every right to teach and/or believe what you
choose. You (and the Catholic Church do NOT, however, have the right to impose
that religious or philosophical belief on anyone else.
Despite being a non-religious person myself, I actually think it's great
that people have the religious freedom to act according to their consciences
(provided they aren't harming others as they do so). I also
recognize that is the right of every religion and individual to judge, classify,
and withhold service from any group of people. I don't want your religion
to be forced to marry homosexual couples, if that is not something you are
comfortable with. That's absolutely fine and I never want that to change.
But don't do it on the taxpayer's dime. Pay taxes, and you can do what
you want. I think that's fair and straightforward; if you want to go
tax-free, you should have to jump through the government's silly hoops. Pay
your taxes, and you can avoid all the hoops.
@Ranch:"We have one religious group (Christians) who are
attempting to make laws that favor their own religious beliefs at the expense of
every other religious belief.Anti-same-sex-marriages laws.Anti-Muslim laws.Anti-This laws.Anti-That laws."It
may help if you were more specific on the "Anti-this" and the
"Anti-that" law.With regards to Anti-Moslem laws, I
don't know what you mean. However, for the record I consider the
Judeo-Christian tradition, to be more correctly, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition.One little question, if a Moslem doctor did not want to
grant an abortion to a woman after her 4th month of pregnancy because of his
religious belief, should be required? What if there is Moslem in a counseling
program at a university who does not want to counsel someone about their gay
relationship? Or a Moslem photographer who does not want to photograph a gay
wedding?Should their religious beliefs be permitted or should they
be subjugated to some people obsession with law and order at all costs?
@Tekakaromatagi;We have cities in the USA that have recently tried
to pass laws preventing Moslems from building mosques in their neighborhoods.
They pass laws stating that we shan't have "Sharia Law" (we
shouldn't, but we shouldn't have "Christian law" either).I like the phrase upline where someone posted "your religious
freedom ends where my nose begins".
It's sad that the religious freedom thing is being attacked.
It's the reason we came to this land and created the U.S. and now
we're deteriorating it?