Quantcast
Faith

Churches obligated to defend principles, Bishop Wester says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    If, as Bishop Wester says, "marriage between one man and one woman is sacred and the fundamental unit of society", then why does the Catholic Church forbid priests, monks, and nuns to marry?

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Churches absolutely have their right to the public square, but only as churches, not as far as "for profit" businesses owned by a church. "For profit" church owned companies have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    But the assertions and self proclaimed importance of the church are theirs alone, of their manufacture, and we have every right in the larger public sphere to pigeon hole it into the same place every other self aggrandizing organisation that wants to impose their veneer over our individual rights.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    What? Nothing about amnesty?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Hutterite - Can I use your statement to "pidgeon hole" organizations I do not agree with? Since I believe that GLAAD, GLSEN, and other gay rights groups are "self-aggrandizing" do I get to dismiss them as you have religion? Gay rights groups are imposing their veneer over my individual rights.

    What makes your position right and mine wrong?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Jesus gave you two core principles: (1) Love god, (2) love your fellow men and treat them as you would be treated.

    Discrimination does not meet this principle.
    Denying others the right to choose how their body is used does not meet this principle.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    @ranch
    "the right to choose how their body is used…." is fine unless in involves another human, as in a viable fetus, or when it imposes a burden on society. People who abuse themselves with drugs, obesity, smoking and other "personal life styles" still demand that society take care of the complications. Those who object to helmet laws are unaware that 63% of medical expenses, according to the CDC, for those injured while not wearing a helmet are borne by society in general. The biker motto "Let those who ride decide," should be generalized to "Let those who pay have a say."

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Ranch - Jesus also made is clear that we must "deny" ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. The rich young ruler turned away from Christ because he could not give up his worldly posessions. To deny oneself means to place God's Will above our own. This is not a teaching that is popular today.

    To love God, we must be obedient to His commandments. This includes the Law of Chastity and the sanctity of the powers or procreation. Do you show love for your parents by disobeying them?

    God gave us the right to choose. I do not agree with restricting anyone's ability to choose. But I reserve that right for myself as well. If I choose to worship God, I should be able to do that without discrimination as well.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    what exactly are the forcing you to do redwings? offer the same public accommodations afforded to any other member of our society? Churches in the US have always been shielded from having to make accommodations. Churches can still deny to marry black or interracial couples if they so please. If they choose to venture into the civil society and beyond their ecclesiastical duties they are required to follow the same laws as anyone else in terms of public accommodation laws.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    This bishop can speak all he wants. nobody, no government will stop him. but on the other hand, nobody has the obligation to accept his idea, and public policy does not need his approval.

  • elliottpj Two Rivers, WI
    Nov. 21, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    We are sadly living in a time where the public sphere is shrinking and our fundamental religious liberty is threatened more than ever. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is speaking with a strong and united voice to defend faith and freedom, and carrying out the mission of Jesus to seek social justice. It's an exciting time to be Catholic as Pope Francis is transforming the church with a new evangelical zeal to edify the body of Christ.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    “The right to life and the dignity of the human person”

    Death is a natural part of life; the right to life must come with the right to die with dignity, to have the dignity and right to control your own body (including reasonably terminating an unwanted pregnancy), and the dignity afforded by advances in stem cell research.

    “The paramount importance of the family, including the view that marriage between one man and one woman is ‘sacred’".

    Nobody is arguing the “sacredness” of marriage; rather, we are arguing the legal status of marriage equality. We have long since moved past basing our legal system on religious superstitions.

    “we should be able to follow our conscience.” – but not at the expense of other’s civil rights.

    “Options for the poor and vulnerable…those who are marginalized, to unborn children, to victims of injustice and oppression.”

    Religion have exploited the poor and vulnerable and oppressed others with civil injustice.

    “Solidarity… we are our brother’s keepers.” – unless you are not a believer or are one of the “icky” sinners!

  • Casey See FLOWER MOUND, TX
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    Those who argue that that requiring organizations to provide birth control and abortion services through their insurance in the name of equality and or preventing discrimination miss what I believe is an important fact. Why should tax payers or organizations be forced to pay money to fund services that would allow someone to conveniently remove the consequences of their actions?

    The idea that people should be accountable for their actions with regard to procreative powers many say is discrimination. Instead those that espouse this concept believe that procreative urges are so great that people cannot really control themselves, or be expected to control themselves until marriage and ready for children.

    This is a very slippery slope. 50 - 60 years ago, pregnancy out of wedlock was a shameful thing. Today it is celebrated or aborted. No big deal. The young lady's long term mental well being is not considered. Also the young man has lost all respect for women. Instead the opposite sex is seen as an object to satisfy both of their immediate desires.

    Today it is adultery, tomorrow another commandment will be thrown under the bus of progress. Killing newborn babies as sacrifices? perhaps?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:04 p.m.

    @casey See

    why should my tax dollars go to pay for anyone to do anything I do not personally agree with or personally engage in? Oh thats right it is part of being in a civil society were we decide that we will pay for these things because it serves a greater social good. In the case of contraception we as a society have an interest in advocating protection to protect the larger community from communicable disease and the far higher cost of treating these illness and dealing with the collateral fallout. We need look no further then the long time failure to do so in Africa and the countless orphans left behind that have to be cared for.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 1:45 a.m.

    I agree with this article, though I didn't think I would.

    What no church has the right to do is to force its unique beliefs on people. These include no birth control, no blood transfusions, no shopping on Sunday etc.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 6:24 a.m.

    @Hemlock & RedWings;

    Apparently the DN moderators won't let me answer you honestly, even though the reply was civil, on topic and had nothing offensive in it.

    @Casey See;

    Why should my tax dollars go towards funding services that I disagree with; like the LDS missionary program. The LDS take a tax deduction for the money sent to support their broods on their missions which means that the rest of us have to subsidize a program we disagree with. Oh, and as for "controlling sexual urges", until you are willing to remain celibate forever, don't you dare require it of anybody else.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Wilf 55: RE: Marriage - I can't speak to the priests in the Catholic Church, but when Nuns take their vows, they believe they are married to Jesus Christ.

  • Florien Wineriter Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    All organizations have the right to express opinions and topractice their principles within their organizations but I don't believe they have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on the secular community. For example the Jewish practice of circumsion, Chistian babtism, and religious marriage ceremonies.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Re J-TX

    Nuns are married to Jesus? This is a marriage that leaves them unfulfilled. People need and are meant to have physical relations. A relationship with God isn't enough for people. Men need women, women need men. God visited with and conversed with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Yet God recognized this relationship as not being enough. God said it is not Good that man be alone, he then provided a woman for Adam so they could keep each other company.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Your God.

    Not mine.

    Know the difference before you attempt to force your beliefs…

    upon others.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Nov. 22, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Deacons can be married at the time of ordination.

    Widows can enter religious life. Religious life is a lifelong calling. It's more than a job.

    Some are called to celibacy. Being married to Christ or to his church is fulfilling for religious. How can being the spouse of Jesus be bad? When you are married to another human and perhaps have children you are distracted with your own life and responsibilities. Celibacy allows the work to be done that can't by people with families.

    There are churches that support civil rights, gay marriage, the environment. They are like any other nonprofit who not everyone and their brother may agree with. They have an opinion on things.

    Conception is when life begins. That is why the position on birth control and abortion are what they are.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    Ranch -

    Controlling sexual desires is not the same as celibacy. It means keeping conversation and forms of entertainment clean and not including inuendo or outright descriptions of sex acts. It means having respect for yourself, your partner, and those around you.

    As a recovering sex addict, I applaud all efforts to eliminate pornography and indecency from open society. If you want to indulge in those things, do it in private. I do not need it shoved in my face via TV, movies, advertisements, internet pop-ups, billboards, etc., and neither do my kids.....

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    RedWings says:

    "Ranch -

    Controlling sexual desires is not the same as celibacy. It means keeping conversation and forms of entertainment clean and not including inuendo or outright descriptions of sex acts. It means having respect for yourself, your partner, and those around you.

    As a recovering sex addict, I applaud all efforts to eliminate pornography and indecency from open society. If you want to indulge in those things, do it in private. I do not need it shoved in my face via TV, movies, advertisements, internet pop-ups, billboards, etc., and neither do my kids....."

    ---

    I'm confused then. How does a LGBT couple not meet the requirements in your first paragraph? How does it qualify for the second?

    You equate homosexuality to sex addition and pornography when, in fact, a loving, committed LGBT relationship is identical to a loving, committed heterosexual relationship.

  • Casey See FLOWER MOUND, TX
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:36 p.m.

    If I may reply to Ranch and Intervention and explain my views a little more. I am not advocating that individuals have to abstain from sex before marriage. What I am saying is that we, the tax payers or businesses, shouldn't have to pay for programs that in essence says that people are not accountable for their actions.

    Today, we pay women to have children outside of wedlock and the man has no consequences for his actions. Instead, we should be requiring that both the man and the woman be accountable for conceiving a child. Instead, we say we will pay for an abortion or pay the woman to have the child. Then we wonder why children grow up seeing members of the opposite sex as objects to satisfy a physical urge. Children grow up in single parent, normally single mother, homes. The boys learn that they don't have any obligations, the girls, that if they don't want to work, have babies.

    Those that have abortions, many have deep psychological issues of guilt afterwards. These are the consequences of todays social policies and mores. Sorry, in my estimation, taxes shouldn't support these activities.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    Red wings wrote:

    "As a recovering sex addict, I applaud all efforts to eliminate pornography and indecency from open society. If you want to indulge in those things, do it in private. I do not need it shoved in my face via TV, movies, advertisements, internet pop-ups, billboards, etc., and neither do my kids..."

    As a recovering believer, That is the same thing many of us have said about religion! Keep your religion to yourself and we will support keeping pornography out of the public square - to my way of thinking, both are equally offensive and harmful to society.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 23, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    @Casey See:

    "What I am saying is that we, the tax payers or businesses, shouldn't have to pay for programs that in essence says that people are not accountable for their actions."

    Then, as I said earlier, make the families of missionaries "accountable for their actions" of sending their sons/daughters out there to preach by REMOVING the tax deduction (which foists some of the expense onto other taxpayers).

    "Those that have abortions, many have deep psychological issues of guilt afterwards." -- Some, possibly, others, not so much (I know a few women who have had abortions and none of them feel guilt afterwards).

    If you require young men to marry the girls they get pregnant, you often create unstable marriages; especially when they don't love the girl. Allowing abortion protects society, as there will be fewer unwanted children being raised in unstable homes.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:50 a.m.

    Casey See
    FLOWER MOUND, TX
    Those who argue that that requiring organizations to provide birth control and abortion services through their insurance in the name of equality and or preventing discrimination miss what I believe is an important fact. Why should tax payers or organizations be forced to pay money to fund services that would allow someone to conveniently remove the consequences of their actions?

    ....... Only a man, a White man, would write that. Leaving aside whether imposing our morals and our judgements on others is OK with Jesus, let us just be practical. Unwanted pregnancies cost society a lot of money for medical care, schooling, prisons, and lost work time of the mothers. Employers save maternity leave time and expense, and get better attendance when women do not have surprise children.

    Morevover, you blame the WOMAN for getting pregnant. Suppose she is married -- do you support her refusing her husband for fear of pregnancy?