Religious bigotry is still bigotry. I support freedom of worship, not
"religious freedom." Religious freedom should also include freedom from
religion, but I am sure it is just some dumb dog whistle.
@Thid Barker;If consequences are justice, then when someone loses
his business for discriminating against others, it is justice. The CONSEQUENCES
of bigoted actions. (btw, god isn't the source of good or evil since he is
fictional).@NoNames;If those "moral people"
think discrimination is Christian, they don't have a conscience to violate
in the first place.Taxes support businesses, so we're being
forced to participate in bigoted business practices if we follow your
methodology.@Commenter88;What is moral or fair about
discrimination?@mad09;Why don't you show us how
religion does more good than harm? You can't.@BradJames;Why adhere to bigotry?@Yar;Bakeries are not
"religious" businesses. Forcing someone to go elsewhere to purchase
what anyone else can purchase w/o issue is unjust too.
Religions doing good work does not absolve them of the evil they do when they
promote discrimination against anyone. Businesses are not religious entities
and they should never be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Perhaps millenials would be more sympathetic to "religious freedom" if
the religious weren't so heck-bent on deny that very freedom to others.
Businesses that refuse to provide birth control FORCE their religious beliefs
onto their employees at the loss of religious freedom to the employee.
Those under 30 have been educated under some of the most socialist trends than
any prior generation of youth. They have had less of the core educational
advantages than those before them. I have always felt the core education was a
good background in reading, math, history, language, geography, science and
knowing how to write. Cursive has been mostly lost robbing them of the
advantage of reading old documents and history. Children who are more literate
can read and learn any subject they set their minds to. I watched this trend
begin in the early sixties. Entertainment has been substandard. Through all of
this, I find so many this age to be such good people and find that encouraging.
The title to the article is misleading. The study found younger Americans as
less sympathetic to Religious Freedom CLAIMS, not Religious Freedom.
That's an important distinction. Many of the high profile debates in the
last few years have revolved around cases where more and more Americans
don't think the claim of Religious Freedom is legitimate.
NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT Aug. 20, 2017 8:46 p.m.ut wrote: "wedding
industry business owners are being forced to participate in what is,
effectively, someone else's sacraments." No they are not. They have the
choice (agency) to not sell wedding cakes at all and find another way to earn a
living that aligns with their moral code. No one is forcing them to make and
sell cakes but if they choose (again agency) to make and sell cakes to the
general public they must make and sell to all. The law is very clear and simple
to understand in this regard. It is apparent that self proclaimed religious
peoples attempt to convolute the law with religious freedom claims to suit their
This is a perfect example of journalistic bias. The title could
have just as easily read "Americans under 30 are less supportive of
persecution in the name of religion than other adults"It really
is an issue of viewpoint. I stand with those who say that the
ability to practice your religion is not being infringed at all. If you want to
practice your religion commercially, you should really become a televangelist
and not a baker or photographer. A business requires a license, granted by the
state. That license comes with strings attached. If you don't like the
strings, then get into a different line of work. Your ability to privately
discriminate against those you deem sinners will continue unabated.
If the headline is accurate it's a shame. All people in this great nation
should be free to practice their religion of choice (Judaism, Hindu, Islam,
Satanism, Wicca, X-anity, etc) and conversely be free from religious
prothelytizing in the public square, religious oppression of their rights in
their everday life and government. No religion has the right to set the rules
and rights of this nation though many attempt to. Religious people only have the
right to worship as they see fit under their own vine and tree.
Maybe because they haven't had to do without it. Maybe because they
haven't had to fight for it. They are riding on the shoulders of those who
have gone before. If it is taken away, they may change their minds.
You gotta love millennials!
"Americans under 30 are less supportive of religious freedom than other
adults"Uh, Religious freedom is already a right in the US as
long as you are not discriminating against others denying them of their rights
to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This has been the case for over a
hundred years in the US. Of course young people consider it less important than
older adults. It is a given. If this is not the case please provide a story
where people were not able to have religious freedom even though they were not
denying other people theirs!
@ ngigs - Atlanta, GAAug. 21, 2017 8:17 a.m. You wrote;"
Note that in all the examples given, no individual is forced to compromise or
change their religious beliefs. Companies and corporations are not a right but
are instead and agreement with the government to perform business based on an
agreed upon set of rules... That's what you agree to when you apply for a
business license. If an individual wants to use their religion to enforce their
beliefs on another through their company, that is a huge issue."Thank you for a clear and common sense explanation.It seems to me,
that a certain group in the name of "Religious Freedom" is fighting not
to lose"privileges" they enjoyed for centuries. When a group that
was systematically discriminated against is accorded equal rights, those who
supported the discrimination feel attacked and rightfully feel they are being
forced to give something up. What is wrong here, is the notion that they ever
had the right to discriminate in the first place.Society has moved
on to recognize equal rights for all. Some are taking longer in accepting this
reality. But Justice keeps moving forward without them.
@Thid Barker: "Your argument seems silly to me!"Then you
should probably reread it.Each of those scenarios is based in
various real events of people claiming "sincere religious belief" gave
them license to refuse service to entire groups of people. The
courts do not dictate what your religion teaches. But they do dictate how you do
business with the general public - we settled that in '64. Your
doctrine is not an acceptable reason to refuse service or mistreat others. Younger people understand that. That latest attempt was in
the Texas legislature special session. A group of Religious politicians tried to
pass a law aimed at harming a minority group. People were outraged
and it failed.
Which "religious freedom", Dnews? I keep asking but those who keep
talking about it never answer what it means. Right about the time gay
marriage became legal is when we kept hearing about losing religious freedom.
The only possible conclusion is someone is confusing 'religious
freedom' with freedom to discriminate.
@ GingerMarshall: Your argument seems silly to me! No one, gay or not, is
forced to belong to any religion in America! Seems you want to force religions
(via our court system) to accept your definition of what all religions are
allowed to believe! That ain't freedom of religion! Freedom of religion
means you or I can embrace ANY religion we choose, or none at all, not what
other people choose for me or for you! Freedom of religion means you define your
own religion (or none) and leave the same privilege to everyone else! Seems you
want religion out of government but have NO problem getting government into
people's religions! Read the 1st amendment to the constitution that men and
women have shed their blood to preserve!
@Ginger Marshall.I found you recent posts on religious freedom
thought-provoking. Your post at 10:43am was about non-conformity.
Yet, your post at 11:40am was all about the need to enforce conformity, if
individuals want to be part of society in some specific way (i.e. EMT, taxi
driver, merchant, educator). Then, there are certain actions that
are simply not allowed in the name of religion, no matter who does it or how
they participate (or don't participate) in society (i.e. smoking
peyote--technically speaking, and polygamous marriage).I would be
surprised if even 10% of those under 30 even know what the First Amendment
actually says about religion. I would be even more surprised if 1% of those
under 30 understand why the religion clause of the First Amendment came into
existence. Perhaps this is the greatest problem of all for the future of
religious freedom in America. Someday, Congress may simply repeal of the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment, because it is simply too divisive.
@Yar: "Forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious
beliefs is not a fair strategy to advocate. "So an ambulance
crewed by 2 Muslim men could refuse to care for female accident victims? Muslim taxi drivers could refuse to transport female passengers, or
refuse to transport anyone who had been drinking? Christian Store
owners in the Deep South can refuse entry to black citizens?Christian Hospitals in the south can refuse to care for non-white patients?
Christian businesses can have racially segregated restrooms? Private Christian schools can refuse all non-white students? Or does this only apply if we're talking about gay people?
Recent quote from the national news, "Evangelical Christian Jerry Falwell Jr
said Trump could be more polished and politically correct but is not racist.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who last week criticized the white
nationalists' "evil, sinful, disgusting behavior," but said
unequivocally on Sunday that the faith community stood by Trump". It is
amazing that these people would be so favorable of Donald Trump, despite his
immoral life style and his failure to not make a clear distinction between the
white supremacists and the rest of us. If these people represent
mainstream religion, no wonder millennials are disenchanted with religion.
@BradJames: "Family: A Proclamation to the World, should be in every home
and meticulously adhered to."Thus perfectly illustrating the
issue at hand. While you may think your church leaders are prophets
speaking for your god, 98% of the country doesn't. The idea
that everyone must conform is why people - young people especially, but all ages
- are increasingly rejecting dogmatic right-wing religion. I
don't see any difference between demands all society follow your prophet
and demands all of society follow the Muslim prophet. Imposing your doctrine by
fiat or force is not religious freedom and is the antithesis of US
18 to 30?So they for most of "my religious liberty means you
can't marry, civil union, domestic partnership, or sign a death
registry". They got stories of hospitals keeping gay people alone as they
die because "we don't recognize your relationship". They got the
entire duration of Florida's don't for it's anti-gay adoption
law. About half of the fight over DADT.Face it folks, you choose to
try and wield "religious liberty" as a weapon against gay people in an
obvious violation of the golden rule. The kids were watching. And now the edge
is dulled. And for that matter? If you want to convince folks that
non-discrimination laws are so incompatible with "religious liberty",
maybe you should try and rescind religions coverage under those same laws? The
hypocrisy is obvious.
@Prometheus PlatypusLet me explain something to you. Forcing
someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is not a fair
strategy to advocate. There exist religious people that just want to follow
their religion and nothing more (no ill will toward minorities, if you will).
When you punish them merely for following what they believe is right, you
unjustly take away freedom to practice their faith. I don't buy that
So often, "religious freedom" seems to mean being able to force others
to respect your religion while not respecting their rights. So many people seem
to think religious freedom trumps all other freedoms.
Yar -said: "Well if the younger generation is so concerned about
discrimination, there are better ways to combat it. Forcing religious businesses
to conform with standards contradictory to their beliefs is not one of those
ways."Religious businesses, are churches.Businesses
that are owned by a religious person, are not a religious business, and are not
a right as explained by others.People are quick to allow others to
discriminate, when believing it will never effect them anyway.
Religion and faith are two different things. If you believe they are one in the
same you are on the wrong path.
Well if the younger generation is so concerned about discrimination, there are
better ways to combat it. Forcing religious businesses to conform with
standards contradictory to their beliefs is not one of those ways.
As long as lazy Millennials pay my Medicare and Social Security - I don't
care what they think.
I respectfully say that as soon as religious freedom becomes an afterthought,
the Apocalypse is not far away. Family: A Proclamation to the World, should be
in every home and meticulously adhered to. It appears that the millennials are
preoccupied wit social justice connotations. Heaven forbid that anyone should
say something that offends someone. That's life, or at least, it used to
sounds like one day in the future, the younger generations will start to give up
their constitutional rights one by one... good luck with that
@ Usjust: Adam and Eve made a choice in the Garden of Eden. If they had not made
the choice they did, you and I would never have been born! Check out 2 Nephi 2:
23-26, it explains it beautifully!
@Thid Barker - Victor, IDThough I disagreed with it, I liked your
response. Anyone/anything that challenges my belief helps me acknowledge what
beliefs of mine are wrong or contradictory gives me a better understanding mine.
Though I doubt I could ever make you completely understand, I am going to try to
explain the of reasoning of my beliefs to you. Yes really! I chose
to live my life without religion and it defines me. I admit that I cannot find
an answer to what is the source of evil of the world because to me there is no
answer. It is just the way it is. We ultimately define what is good and evil,
yes. We define what is good and evil based on what we believe betters the world
for the rest of the world, our family, and ourselves. Yes, this matters, it
matters to everyone else on planet earth, our family, and ourselves. As for if I
want to live in a world like that, honestly, I don't know. Whether or not I
want to live in it doesn't matter, for it is the world I have chosen to be
a part of, and one that I grow to believe in/be a part of every day, so I better
get used to it. I wanted this to be a more in-depth response, but I
couldn't do it with only 1200 characters.
Or we could rephrase this as American's under 30 are more supportive of
religious freedom and an individuals right not to have another's religious
beliefs forced onto them.Note that in all the examples given, no
individual is forced to compromise or change their religious beliefs. Companies
and corporations are not a right but are instead and agreement with the
government to perform business based on an agreed upon set of rules...
That's what you agree to when you apply for a business license. If an
individual wants to use their religion to enforce their beliefs on another
through their company, that is a huge issue.Good on our
nation's adults under 30 for having the best grasp on this concept and
shame on this article for trying to paint the results with biased language!
Religion is a farce. Sorry let me clarify! Every religion is a farce. It's
been made up since man figured out how to lie. It's incredible how many
different interpretations there are of the bible. Every religion has their own
interpretation of the same book. Religion is a means of control and brainwash.
water rocket said: "It seems to me that we focus more on what people say,
and less on what God has said, through His prophets." Here is
some things to consider: God seems to change his mind often, through his
prophets, misc shaman, and individuals who claim to speak for God, although
we've been told he's unchanging?Christian religion, is
progressive and continues to evolve with society, the LDS church is no
exception, check your own history. Why did it take so long for the "Non
Policy" of blacks and the priesthood to be discovered, was God not concerned
about leaving the black man out of his order, until it was popular in society?
The young are seeing thru the facade of "religion" Not to
say they don't feel a love or care about their fellow man, they just
don't need religion to tell them "which" brothers and sisters to
love, and give them justification, for treating others poorly.
Don't need religion? Really? What/Who is the source of all good and what/
who is the source of all evil in the world? Do we all get to make up our own
minds on what is good and what is evil.Do we all get to make up our
own minds on what is good and evil. Of course we do, and that is exactly what
does happen. You make a personal decision, on your own, in your own mind that
you think what Joseph Smith said is good, and someone else will decide in their
own mind that they disagree, and look to a different source for moral guidance.
What the religious refuse to believe is that one can believe
stealing is wrong without believing in Moses. "The whole
premise of religion is to treat others respectfully and with love"I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. The premise of religion is you
need to be saved, and God has told me how you should accomplish that. Without that premise religion falls apart completely, and has no purpose.
Similar to how many are shocked at how quickly America's ugly history of
racism has been inflamed under a president most really didn't know when
they voted for him, many religious people seem unaware of how quickly
"religious freedom" can be used against *them* and their religion... by
other religions.They can't see it now, but freedom of religion
is best secured by tolerant, often areligious liberals, who really do believe
people should have the right to worship as their conscience indicates...as long
as it doesn't impact others.If too much religious power is
given to the majority, religious minorities will find they're on the short
end of the stick, which includes the predominant religion in the State of Utah.
I absolutely love it when fundamentalists say (something to the effect) that if
you have no religion, how do you know the difference between good and evil.Well, as most religions worldwide seem to agree on some basic
principles, I might be able to agree on that assumption. However, the larger
question ought to be why did all worldwide religions come to some basic fact
(murder is bad, as is theft and lying, etc). Is it possible that our evolution
(if you believe in that scientific Fact) provided early humans with a blue print
for survival? Is it possible our basic nature is to be empathetic and to bind
ourselves to a group? Is it possible that group behavior demands some of the
basic concepts of good and evil?
I think what we're seeing here is that the focus of each generation is
progressively more set on the individual and less on institutions like religion,
family, marriage, society at large and so forth. There is some good arising
from that focus but also a lot of bad. We're losing our ability to be
tolerant of other opinions outside our own sphere. Some are villifying religion
based on very shaky so-called evidence claiming religion causes more harm than
good. Fact is, people are going to fight and seek for power over one another
based on any difference they can find. We need to bring back God into our
society. We need to continue allowing and supporting religions freedom because
religions lead to way more good than has been measured by any study. Focus on
the individual really means that we've become selfish, entitled and our
society is falling into anarchy because we refuse to follow a moral standard.
Religion is our reminder to have a moral standard and that is really why so many
are tearing it down. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable to have someone or
something standing for right when you'd rather do as you wish.
The solution is simple. Let business owners decide whom they will serve, leave
the government out of making moral decisions for business owners. When someone
is discriminated against unjustly in their mind, let them spread the word. Then
let each individual who has heard about it decide whether or not to use the
products or services of that business, and whether or not to spread the word
further. In other words, let the market decide, let the market be the judge.
With the myriads of definitions floating around out there who knows what anyone
is talking about anymore. My understanding of religious liberty is the ability
to choose which religion to affiliate with and practice the tenants of,
according to one’s conscience or ditch religion altogether. There are
still some places in this world where there is a state religion and it is
illegal to practice anything else. Every time I hear the term “freedom of
religion” it is sounding more and more as if this is referring to freedom
from the tyrannical grip of oppression. I have no problem with what others
believe or don’t believe about whichever preferred deity, and I think that
is their business in the first place. It is possible to not agree with or
condemn behaviors without condemning other people . I wish the capacity to agree
to disagree wasn’t going the way of the dinosaur.
I think the problem is that there has been some overreach in the name of
religious freedom, and young people recognize that.Nobody wants to
ban people from going to the church of their choice, or praying to the God they
worship. But should plaques of the Ten Commandment be allowed in public spaces?
Why should a for-profit company be allowed to poke their nose in the private
medical business of employees by deciding not to cover contraception? And do we
really want to live in a world where business owners can decide not to serve
someone because of their religion, sex, or sexual preference?Young
people see these as examples of religious intolerance, not religious freedom.
And it turns them against religion, too.
First off, Kelsey Dallas, you need to know that you can never "eat too much
avocado toast." That's a universal truth, shared by young and old
alike.On the merits of the discussion, before any intelligible
comment can be made, we need to know what is your definition of "religious
freedom." Most of us have adopted the theory of that fine old adage,
"your freedom ends where my nose begins."
@ ThidWe get it that life would make little sense to you without
your religious paradigm. But millions of people daily prove that a religious
paradigm isn't necessary to be good or for one's life to be filled
with meaning. They also demonstrate agreement with you on good/evil
fundamentals. They don't go around lying, stealing, cheating, or
killing.Which makes your complaint sound an awful lot like,
"People don't think the same as me anymore." (Boy, do I wish the
older generations in the Muslim world had this complaint.)@
NoNamesAccepted"It is easy to infringe on conduct one
doesn't personally engage in."Yes, LGBTs are well aware of
The moment religion became associated with a political party was the start of
the decline. The trouble is, politics is filthy and corrupt and when
you link religion with politics it becomes filthy and corrupt too.
I think religion is great. I don't think religious people imposing
their beliefs on others is great.Living in a place where I'm in
a religious minority has made me really appreciate the importance of the
separation of church and state.
Religion, among other things, is a moral value system that a willing community
agrees to adhere to in order to respect rights, thoughts, and fairness of
others. The exception to that is the State religion, which is usually
crypto-theocratic, and carries with it the penalty of law to a specific moral
value system by those with money or powerful political resources, no matter how
skewed, narrow, hypocritical, or false those morals might be. The
whole premise of religion is to treat others respectfully and with love. The
whole premise of the state religion is to crush anyone or anything that does not
think in only one way, like those in power. What many on this board do not
realize is that they are part of religion, a very specific and morally imposing
one, that is sanctioned and organized by the state but not labelled by
traditional monikers. The only check against it is the plurality of religions
outside the state.This is all covered ad nauseum in the literature
the founding fathers relied upon and invoked in drafting both the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence. But you have to actually read about the
history of ideas to know it.
@mycroft:Orwell was suspicious of religion in only one respect: when
the State adopted its own crypto-theocracy and applied it through political
enforcement, sloganeering, and virtue signalling. Many would say that we are
indeed well on our way to such.But to apply Orwell to shut down the
plurality of religions is completely antithetical and is itself quite a feat of
Believe it or not, I don't think it has as much to do with the lack of
religious affiliation, as it does the lack of literacy and reading of the great
works. Today you are likely to find most graduates from college have never read
a single Shakespeare play. Not long ago, it would be hard to find a high school
graduate who had not read a Shakespeare play. I have a very
intelligent anti-religious friend who is a millenial. He had heard that
Orwell's 1984 was an important thing to read from someone older than he. I
asked him how it went and he just stated he could not read all the way through
it. It was too long, he said. The last book he read was "Hatchet," in
high school. Orwell is too long? Wow. Unfortunately, he represents most under 30
today.If you don't understand the deep thought contributions of
our civilization, or even read some of the Bible, you don't understand how
critical religion has been to the shaping of civilization itself.
It seems to me that we focus more on what people say, and less on what God has
said, through His prophets. Here is something to consider: It has been
prophesied that in the last days, if it were possible, even the very elect would
be fooled. The bottom line is that we all have the God given right of agency.
However, the four elements are: 1) There must be a right and wrong choice. 2)
We must have a knowledge of the right and wrong choices we make. 3) We must not
be forced to make one choice over another (we must make those choices on our
own). 4) There is always a consequence for the choices we make (good or
bad).Can we "choose" to believe God knows what He is doing,
or that He even set any "rules" of conduct? Sure we can choose to
believe or not believe, but that will not change the reality of reaping the
whirlwind, or reaping eternal glory. For those who choose to ignore the reality
of God, they had better hope that they are right, because if they are not ...
well, the consequences of their choices may not serve. them well. Agency and
the natural man are two subjects you really need to study. Then pray about them
(or not, as you choose).
Third Barker: "a world without good and evil"...in religious
terminology, wouldn't that be considered Eden? Sounds pretty great to me.
The headline seems misleading as it focuses on a mostly small minority of the
percentage of the people surveyed.
Let us remember that at the time California voters approved Prop 8, not a
single, material legal right was denied to homosexual couples. California
continued to recognize same-sex civil unions with every legal benefit granted to
heterosexual married couples. So why the push for
"marriage"? Why the anger over being denied use of a word?Because marriage carries social significance beyond the legal benefits.
Marriage grants social approval. Being denied the use of marriage contributes
to the lack of dignity afforded homosexual couples. (So argued same sex couples
in court filings across the nation.)Marriage is special.Marriage is different than every other contract or relationship.And becauae it is different, men of faith rightfully also feel differently
about it. It is a sacrament.Gasoline, groceries, entertainment,
lumber, the lunch counter, employment, etc are just goods and services unrelated
to sexual identity.But wedding cakes, photographs, catering, and
reception hosting are all about weddings. Don't force me to participate in
your sacrament. You don't want to be forced to partake of my sacraments.
So progressive admits nobody should be forced to drink, even as she continues to
assert that people should be forced to support or participate in homosexual
celebrations as a condition of earning a living.I don't know
what makes inter-racial relations any different than single race relations.
Maybe racists can tell us that. But we all know exactly what makes homosexual
physical relationships different than heterosexual, congugal marriage. Someone refusing service to a mixed race couple has few possible reasons
other than bigotry toward skin color. Someone declining to
participate in homosexual events whose primary social purpose is to grant social
approbation to the sexual relationship that is otherwise illegitimate can
object rstionally to behavior without any bigotry at all.But wedding
industry business owners are being forced to participate in what is,
effectively, someone else's sacraments.General goods and
services should be available without discrimination. Creative talent must be
allowed to avoid promiting a message to which the creator objects.
And herein lies the problems with some claims of religious liberty. To whit it
was said: "When the drinkers complain about alcohol laws in Utah, remember
the glee you expressed here about the more secular, younger generation being ok
with infringing on religious liberty".I take it that a younger
generation was okay with alcohol service. So did you have to engage in drinking
alcohol after the laws got changed? No, you are still free to pursue your own
religious sensibilities. No way your religious liberty was infringed upon.
Nobody told you to do anything.Further analogies are just as clear.
No one tells you to get divorced, yet we have normalized divorce. Same with
same sex marriage. If you don't want an abortion, no one tells you that
you must have one. Women are allowed to make that choice based on their own
religious counsel.So the real problem is that some religious people
don't see the difference between allowing a behavior or practice that they
find a violation of their religious belief and what they see as religious
liberty. It would appear that this claim of religious liberty is an attempt to
enforce their own beliefs on all of us by prohibitions.
Don't need religion? Really? What/Who is the source of all good and what/
who is the source of all evil in the world? Do we all get to make up our own
minds on what is good and what is evil? If so, good or evil just doesn't
really matter does it? Want to live in a world like that?
Stalwart: interesting how you Californias believe federal recognized rules and
regulations apply against things that may infringe on religion but not on laws
dealing with marijuana. Ultra Bob: it's ok if you don't
believe in God, he still believes in you.The young also believe in
first amendment free speech but only if it agrees with them. Example UC
Looks like the anti religion zealots are out in force today.The take
away from this article is simple:It is easy to infringe on conduct
one doesn't personally engage in.When the drinkers complain
about alcohol laws in Utah, remember the glee you expressed here about the more
secular, younger generation being ok with infringing on religious liberty.And do be careful what you hope for and push in laws. It was an attempt
to impose criminal penalties on movie makers that resulted in your much hated
Citizens United decision.Respect for sincere religious beliefs,
reasonable accommodation to prevent forcing decent people from having to violate
their moral conscience will lead to far better results than trying to rub
anyone's noses in conduct they don't want to associate with.Remember what the supreme court ruled in Truax v. Raich, "“the right
to work for a living
is of the essence of that personal freedom and
opportunity which it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to
secure"Creative talent enjoys both free speech, religious, and
free association rights to decline work.
Ya still have the choice. Without that, what? I can see how religion has lost
taste. I've gone down that rabbit hole, I didn't like what at the
bottom of it, it isn't Jesus. That is what ya have to find on your own. Ya
might think differently about September eleventh, to say marry Christmas.
I believe that Organized Religion is a man made invention used to enslave the
minds and bodies of people. Its ultimate purpose is the same as every other
organized group of humans, the ownership and control of the wealth of the world.
Having the most sought after product in the world, life after
death, their business success is unapproachable successful and their market is
every living person in the world. The bad news is that the same thing that
makes organization religion possible is their worst enemy. A
thinking, reasoning, eager to earn mind is the thing that is spoiling their
product. As humans find out the truths of this world they no longer accept to
organized religious story.Religion is good when it provides the
answers we need and want and right or wrong, our minds are freed up to do other
things than worry about death. The fact is, that much of human progress in
life has been made possible by organized religion. Every person has
a religion for his personal life, and no matter the force of outside pressure,
his own religion can only be changed by the logic of his own mind. It is this
inner consensus that I regard as freedom of religion.
And the young shall show us the way.Leave it to the younger
generation to recognize that the freedom from discrimination, whatever it's
rationale, is the higher value than the freedom to discriminate against others
with religious claims. These young people of all religious stripes see the
hypocrisy that us older folks have been stuck with for generations.Listen to your children and grandchildren. It is soon to be their world to
run. We messed it up enough. Time for their leadership.
This is an interesting study. I wish the writer had included more of specific
questions and included statistics, comparing generations on certain
questions.I think it's very important for us to explicitly
define what religious freedom is and what it isn't. Obviously we are going
to disagree on some of the specifics. I fear that the term "religious
freedom" is used too often as code for "we want the ability act in ways
that may be discriminatory against certain groups without experiencing either
government consequences or public shaming." Isn't there a way that this
freedom could be defined in more positive terms? Isn't there a way we could
make this discussion less of a dog whistle, and more of a nuanced, heart to
heart discussion?I do not blame anybody for fiercely defending the
right to live as they chose, and with whom they choose. When we talk about
religious freedom, are we really talking about same-sex marriage? I think that
members of the LDS Church would understand what it is like to be discriminated
against due to uncommon marriage practices, and find ways to live more
harmoniously with others who wish to marry in way different from us.
I think pretty much everyone supports religious liberty, they just differ in
belief on what all constitutes religious liberty. Does religious liberty include
refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? What about the same for
an inter-racial couple? Does religious liberty include allowing churches to
perform same-sex marriages if they want to? (a couple states actually made this
illegal alongside their gay marriage bans while most had it as "they can do
it if they want but it's not going to be recognized by the state").
@impartial7Since when is religion supposed to be disorganized?
Religion is discriminatory? Really? If you keep God's commandments, He
blesses you, if you choose otherwise, He withholds His blessings! Religion
doesn't discriminate, we make choices and the consequences of our choices
are fixed: that's not discrimination, its justice! Some may ignorantly
whine about that being discriminatory, but they are choices we all make! Are
those who choose to qualify for God's blessings (here and especially in the
next life) discriminated against or is it the ultimate consequences of our
choices=justice? How could it be otherwise for any of us? If not, there can be
no justice nor mercy and all things are void and life has no purpose or meaning!
Read the scriptures, it's wonderfully explained therein! Stop watching fake
news and keep the commandments, especially loving God and your neighbor!
Disagreeing with God's commandments is not evidence of discrimination,
rather its our choice and choices in life make all the difference and the
consequences, like them or not, are fixed by eternal laws! Isn't it great
that we each get to choose?
There is an old adage that is apt for this article which states, "your right
to swing your fists stops at my nose." As pointed out by Mycroft above, the
term "religious freedom" is insular and does not pertain to your
treatment of others, particularly in the public sphere. When a
person decides to enter the marketplace by opening a business, the business is
amoral; it is not baptized and does not attend church. Rather, the business
owner is opening a for profit entity (not human) that is utilizing
infrastructure and commerce which subjects them to the Commerce Clause of the
US. Thereby subjecting the business owner to comply with recognized federal
rules/regulations. We've already had this discussion and the
discriminatory practices of the right lost - see SCOTUS case Heart of Atlanta
Motel. Regardless, if your "religion" teaches you to treat
any other person differently, you need a new faith.
Mycroft and Impartial 7 nailed it. Young people are aware of what is behind the
drumbeat of religious 'freedom' these days.
Well, the terms "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" (as
they're used these days) are Orwellian doublespeak -- the "freedom"
and "liberty" to discriminate against and marginalize those who
aren't members of your in-group. When the in-group is the religious right,
the "freedom" they seek is legal sanction enabling political and
cultural dominance. If millennials are disinclined to fall for that -- great!
""They also show a strong sense of concern about
discrimination.""Our younger people have acted and know what
older Americans don't want to acknowledge. That organized religion divides
and creates hostility. Exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached. Hopefully,
we are at a tipping point that will begin an enlightenment where we understand
that organized religion is not good for our country.