The subject of "my" freedom vs "your" freedom reminds me of the
story told of an immigrant in the 1800's who got off the ship in New York
Harbor and immediately went downtown and punched the first guy he saw, giving
him a bloody nose.He was immediately accosted by a policeman.His
defense was, "I thought this was a free country."The
policeman's reply was classic: "In this country, your freedom ends
where his nose begins."
Why don't you stop worrying about imaginary threats to your "religious
freedom" and start worrying about REAL threats to a just society? It
won't solve all of your problems, but it'll be a good start.
Nietzsche once wrote »it is not their love of mankind but their impotence
of power that keeps the Christians of today from burning us«. In alma 1: 19
we read that we should not persecute those not of our faith. We need to respect
other beliefs; religious based prejudice benefits on one. Whilst one
mightn’t love every one, it is our social obligation to live side by side
with others in peace.
As someone who has faced discrimination based on my skin I can say that why I
believe the government and businesses shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate
I will never let a person or entity hold that power over me.If
religions choose to discriminate that is on them. Their numbers will continue to
shrink. If a business will not serve you then leave a bad review and move on to
the one that will. Just don’t let anyone have control over your happiness.
Just remember: back in the '60s, the religious freedom card was often
played by white folks resisting integration. All of a sudden, segregation
became a central tenet of many people's religious beliefs, in the hope that
would put it beyond the reach of government.How can we be sure that
isn't happening today? Especially now that corporations are apparently not
only people, but enjoy religious liberty of their own?
I’ll try to water my comment down so the Desert News will post it. Religious influences on Utah law making must stop. Religion
is causing friction, not the non-believer. Religion can have all
the freedom they want but should be separate from State. Who’s God is correct any way, yours or mine?
We need a new civil rights movement that puts all Americans as equal instead of
dividing them into groups! The need for more civil rights laws is over.
Discriminating against others based on gender, color of skin, age, work, etc.,
needs to be thrown into the dust bin of history. It has served its purpose.
Now it is time to refer to all Americans as Americans, plain and simple. The
days of playing victim, placing someone above another because of skin color,
gender, etc., flouts and disregards messages such as Martin Luther King's
statement that it is content of character that matters! Anything less divides
Americans along racial, gender, age, etc., lines that is unconstitutional,
unamerican, and places group identity above even God!
>>Freedom of Religion is an attack on one group of people the LGQT+.I wonder what religious LGBTQ+ person think of that claim.In
any case, that claim can't be true given that the constitutional right to
freedom of religion long predates the public recognition of LGBTQ+ persons as a
distinct community that merits civil rights protections. The First Amendment was
ratified almost two centuries before political debate over LGBTQ+ civil rights
even began, so it must logically follow that freedom of religion was included in
the Bill of Rights for some other reason than as an anti-LGBTQ+ club.But even if, for the sake of argument, we granted that "Freedom of
Religion is an attack" on LGBTQ+ persons, *freedom of religion is also a
civil right.* It's right there in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and so is on equal legal footing with LGBTQ+ civil rights. So, by legal
equivalence, if exercising freedom of religion can only be a de facto attack on
LGBTQ+ civil rights, then the reverse must also be true.
@Sportsfan 123 "example of the conditioning and indoctrination of
falsehoods of the left which contributes to the social decay and amorality this
country is gravitating towards."I've seen you use that
statement a couple of times, please give some clarification on what you mean by
the social decay and amorality this country is gravitating towards. Seems to me
it's exactly the opposite. Some of these are easily verifiable, some are
just my personal observations. In my lifetime I've witnessed increased
lifespan, decreased child mortality, decreased childhood disease, decreased
wars, decreased violent crime, less racism (although we still have a ways to
go), more equality for women, more overall charitable giving, less poverty, and
the list could go on. Social decay and amorality? Anyone, but especially if
you are an african-american, minority, or a woman what other time in history or
what other country would you prefer to live?Making it a little
easier each year for all people to love, live, work, and associate with whoever
they want without fear of being ridiculed, or cast aside as lessor human beings
seems to indicate to me we are becoming a more moral society over time.
@Sportsfan123"Read the context of the retort of said poster in
correspondence you will find I was simply pointing out that moral values were
not of modern invention with no distinction to history, which is clearly
false."So you entirely misunderstood my point then. The
phrase "Judeo-Christian" is a modern attempt to whitewash Christian
hostility towards Jews after the Holocaust in World War II.Put
simply, even if you want to argue that the US was founded on *Christian* values,
it was not founded on *Judeo-Christian* values because the Christians of the
time would have rejected the association.Claiming that the values
were "the same" and thus the phrase is still appropriate is similarly
nonsense, unless you would accept someone arguing that the country was founded
on "Wiccan Values" which match the Constitution more closely then any
"Christian Values" which directly contradict the First Amendment.So no. The only way you can argue that the country was founded on
"Judeo-Christian values" is if you also accept that it was founded on
Karen R. “That's when people lose their lives, or rights, or are
driven out simply because they believe something different than the group in
charge.”Corrie ten Boom resisted Nazi persecution, do to her
Christian beliefs, her family experience, and the Dutch resistance. Her defiance
led to imprisonment, internment in a concentration camp, and loss of family
members who died from maltreatment while in German custody.Her
family were members of the Dutch Reformed Church, which protested Nazi
persecution of Jews as an injustice to fellow human beings and an against divine
authority. She had Christian motivations for hiding Jews,
particularly her family's strong belief in a basic tenet of their religion:
the equality of all human beings before God. Their religious
activities had also brought the family a history of personal connections to the
Jewish community. Corrie's grandfather had supported efforts to improve
Christian-Jewish relations in the nineteenth century. Her brother Willem
ran a nursing home for elderly of all faiths. In the late 1930s that nursing
home became a refuge for Jews fleeing from Germany.
@ NoNamesKaren R. here.IMO, your view is akin to a guy
seeing a "No hunting" sign and concluding that it's there because
the world recognizes what an amazing hunter he is.I'm pretty
sure our founders felt the need to include the language about religion because
they'd seen the effects of state religions and concluded they weren't
so amazing, and they recognized the need to protect religious groups from their
tendency to persecute/oppress each other. I'm also pretty sure that
explicitly including non-belief would've been a nonstarter for
ratification. Too many good religious folks would've seen that freedom as
heretical.@ Sportsfan123This might be a repeat. My
initial response is on hold as I write this.I did misread the
context of your one comment. Sorry about that.Coveting: Telling
folks they should avoid having certain thoughts is setting them up for failure
and, in some, can lead to obsessive-compulsive disorders. Unethical, IMO.
Also, there's discipline in not acting on one's thoughts and maturity
in accepting them as part of being human (versus punishing oneself for it).Your last paragraph: IMO, gross generalizations are neither disciplined
rlynn,"I have seen the anger in the eyes of so-called
Christians..."That type of anger and intolerance certainly does
exist. I have also seen much the same attitude on several occasions when
"Christians" find out that I am LDS.Interestingly, liberals
display much the same attitude (shouting "bigot," "hatemonger,"
and "homophobe" at people who disagree with them). Why do liberals
display such hatred when professing to believe in "tolerance," "
diversity," and "non-discrimination"?Bigotry, when
expressed by conservative Christians, is just that -- bigotry. Bigotry
expressed by the "politically correct" crowd comprises both bigotry and
@ Sportsfan123Karen R. here."I made no
claim..."I see that now. Sorry about that."It
is not hard to understand the reasoning behind [making coveting a sin], learning
to bridal ones passions shows discipline and maturity"Teaching
people that they should attempt to prohibit thoughts is setting people up to
fail and, for some, it can also be a pathway to obsessive-compulsive disorders.
That doesn't sound very mature or ethical to me. It does sound
authoritarian. Some people respond to that, though, so if it works...But for
those for whom it doesn't, there are things like positive reinforcement,
providing positive examples, and also consistently showing faith in the
individual's ability to develop self-control and maturity."...a virtue liberals and leftist's clearly hold no value or
understamding for. Again, said posters comments are just another example of the
conditioning and indoctrination..."These gross generalizations
don't strike me as disciplined or mature.
@Karen R.: "How is it a violation of the Constitution to suggest that
freedom of conscience applies to all, whether or not that conscience is informed
by a religion?"I've never said otherwise.It is
a violation of the constitution to demand we ignore the clear, black letter
langauge which grants religous beliefs and practices special place. The
"free expression" of religion, the explicit protection against
government passing laws regarding establishment of religion, do give religious
beliefs and conduct special place."IMO, when your view of
freedom of conscience has been applied -"It is not my view. It
is the written language of the 1st amd; it is the commonly held view of the
United States Supreme Court; it was the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of the US
Congress and the signature of President Bill Clinton in passing the federal
protection of religion law.If a secular business refuses to hire a
woman he violates the law. But a church has every right to limit their
priesthood (lay or proffessional) to men only.If you object to this
speical place, then you ought to honestly seek to change the contract via
amendment. But anything to undermine the contract is a violation.
@Laura Bilington: "Even a four year old knows that "he hit me first"
is not a justification for hitting someone."And when the left
stops behaving badly because Trump behaves badly that kind of resonse will carry
some weight.Those a little older and better educated than a 4 year
old learn that if one party breaks a contract, the other party is no longer
bound by the contract. That is why we call the contract "broken". If I
don't deliver the contracted product, you are not obliged to pay me. That
has nothing to do with hitting."But what is Karen
violating?"She objects to the special place given religious
expression in our federal bill of rights. She might just as well object to due
process and presumption of innocence for suspects we all "know" are
guilty."She is expecting you to ..."I agree. I
will not promote nor participate in a homosexual wedding no matter who pays me.
I treat everyone the same. I happily provide general services to all.Legal rights are in place and were won partly by promises I'd never be
affected by someone else's marriage. Keep your promises and leave me free
not to promote not attend your event. Even children know we should keep our
Freedom of Religion is an attack on one group of people the LGQT+. Some on
mention that being Gay is a lifestyle and thus it can be judged, by that
standard be a Christian is also a lifestyle and can be judged. I find that
most all religions are bigoted and homophobic. Being Gay is NOT a lifestyle it
is a state of being, just has having blue eyes, or dark skin. I have seen the
anger in eyes of so called Christians as they call me a sinner and come unto
Christ, yell insults at me all the time saying they do it in love...really? Turn
inward, look at your self. Why do you hate me so much that you want to take away
Karen R. - Houston, TX---As for not coveting, that's a thought
crime. No deed required. Just think it and "Guilty!" I don't know
if this rule is unique to Christianity, but I'd be surprised if other
religions didn't include something similarly ridiculous and oppressive.---The development of 'thought' crime was a significant
element in Judaism, which Christianity and Islam have inherited.For
the West, Greek and Roman morality/ethics centered on action, and the judgement
that an 'act' was good or bad, etc. was based not on the thoughts of
the individual, but behavior.There of course was plenty said in the
Hebrew and later Christian writers on the topic of 'behavior' relative
to moral codes, but the idea that one could 'sin' in one's
thoughts, was a divergence from Greek and Roman philosophies.This
idea that a crime requires an act, has been enshrined in the Constitution in
concept of 'Freedom of Thought' and 'Freedom of Expression',
where thoughts and their expression do not constitute 'crime'. And of
course exhortations to commit 'crime', are acts...This is
contrary to defining 'covet' as a 'crime/sin'.
Karen rI made no claim that killing and lying was an advent of the
christian faith, your words not mine.Read the context of the retort
of said poster in correspondence you will find I was simply pointing out that
moral values were not of modern invention with no distinction to history, which
is clearly false.As for coveting being oppressive thought -
it's simple, controlling ones thoughts can help control ones actions. If
one does not covet thy neighbors wife then the likely hood of infidelity
decreases. It is not hard to understand the reasoning behind that, learning to
bridal ones passions shows discipline and maturity a virtue liberals and
leftist's clearly hold no value or understamding for.Again,
said posters comments are just another example of the conditioning and
indoctrination of falsehoods of the left which contributes to the social decay
and amorality this country is gravitating towards.
As long as we have God in our lives, the United State will remain. There are
different names, in different religions, but almost all are respecting God as a
higher power who wants peace for all people. Extremist are just that. Extreme.
How can man kind love his neighbor and then want to cause harm to other
religious mined, peace loving people? How can so many people want to eliminate
people of Christian, Judisim or any other God loving religion? Peace on Earth,
Good Will to all of Gods Flocks.
@ RiDal"No one has a 'right' to Health
Insurance."Thank you for your opinion on a subject I didn't
@ Sportsfan123"Thou shall not kill, thou shall not lie, thou
shall not covet....."The rule of thumb that we refer to as the
Golden Rule encompasses killing and lying and has been found across cultures of
all kinds, and long predating the advent of Christianity.So, no -
time and morality did not begin with your preferred religion. Humans long ago
figured out that not killing each other is a better idea than the opposite if we
want to survive.As for not coveting, that's a thought crime.
No deed required. Just think it and "Guilty!" I don't know if this
rule is unique to Christianity, but I'd be surprised if other religions
didn't include something similarly ridiculous and oppressive.
Here's the core misunderstanding that adds to the advocacy of
discrimination:Contributor Robin Wilson says........."when the LGBT
Community OR the faith community....."See the problem there? Once
again LGBT Americans are labeled as the enemy of faith.Two categories:
Believers vs. non-believers.That is insidious. And dishonest.
That's how the war on our Constitution is presented by those who's
advocacy for "compromise." Us vs. Them. Insidious. Imagine, if
and when, bolstered by the notion that "deeply held religious beliefs"
must always be honored, goods and services are denied to LDS Americans, by
other Believers or non-believers.....just because they can? Imagine
Christian Fundamentalists discriminating against Muslims, Atheists, and
Jews.......just because they can?We already have a safe, sane, and just
remedy to discrimination in Our Constitution. It says ALL. That means that
I, as an LDS Believer, cannot be discriminated against, because no one can or
should be discriminated against. Period. My rights are not secure if the
rights of everyone else are categorized or denied for any reason.
Constitutional Rights are not subject to religious biases.
@ NoNamesHow is it a violation of the Constitution to suggest that
freedom of conscience applies to all, whether or not that conscience is informed
by a religion? IMO, when your view of freedom of conscience has been applied -
i.e., that some forms of belief are special in ways others are not - that's
when the disrespecting takes place. That's when people lose their lives,
or rights, or are driven out simply because they believe something different
than the group in charge."Either there is a Creator of some
sorts and there are natural rights endowed into every human (DoI), or rights are
merely a human construct."How do we tell the difference until
your god demonstrates an ability to enforce these rights without human
Many do not like President Oaks words.(Their anger over that certain
line of President Oaks is most telling, by the way....)No one is
asking those who disagree to like those words.We expect that if the
likes of mockers like the writers of the Book of Mormon musical--and those who
attend it and gush over it (and all other mocking in print, television, policy
making etc etc etc ) are allowed to do so without interference, then LDS people
should be able to have their beliefs and how they live their lives without
@NoNamesAccepted wrote,"Consider carefully. The US Constitution
is our contract with each other. If you violate part of it, you have no claim to
expect me to respect the parts you hold most dear."Even a four
year old knows that "he hit me first" is not a justification for hitting
someone.But what is Karen violating? She is expecting you to treat
all people the same, no matter what their religion, race, or gender orientation.
It is not OK to use "religious freedom" as an excuse to treat some
Notice that whenever the discussion, or advocacy turns to "Religious
Freedom," someone is usually advocating discrimination.There have
been no efforts from the so called Left, to curtail or destroy my Faith. I can
pray, worship, discuss and share with anyone, anytime. No one has ever
told me that I could not buy a cake, tires, rent an apartment, or get and keep a
job because I am an LDS Believer. Never.I am free to love non-believers.
I am not afraid, harmed or threatened in any way. My faith is strong enough to
be the Witness I am called to be. No non-believer has ever insulted me
for my LDS faith. I will gladly share my talents and skills with LGBTQ
Americans.How are they not worthy of my God given generosity? I am an
I.C.U and trauma R.N. I save lives. How could I devote thirty years to saving
the lives of strangers in mortal danger, only to learn that I should not bake
them a cake? Is my "artistic expression" only for those who are morally
spotless?To give, aid, comfort and compassion to others strengthens our
witness, and helps to change lives and what perfect strangers may mis-understand
about LDS Americans. God tells me: Go. Give. Then give some more.
@Karen R.: "It's the "special place" that I object to."Consider carefully. The US Constitution is our contract with each other.
If you violate part of it, you have no claim to expect me to respect the parts
you hold most dear.Either there is a Creator of some sorts and there
are natural rights endowed into every human (DoI), or rights are merely a human
construct. In either case, the Constitution is where we have documented some of
our most fundamental and important rights. As we heard frequently
during votes on Prop 8 in Cali and similar measures in Utah and across the
nation, "My rights are not subject to popular vote."My duty
to my God, my rights of conscience, will be respected by any society that hopes
to be civil and successful. Societies that fail to do so--either because of
secular hostility to religion, or because one religion oppresses all
others--fail to protect other essential rights. Religious rights are the canary
in the mine for all other human rights. Their special place is well earned, and
consituttionally guaranteed. Object if you like. But nothing short of a ConAmd
can honestly change that. We can work together to secure all rights, or fight
Escher enigma"The idea that there *are* "judeo
christian" values, morality, or anything, is a modern invention distinct
from actual history."Thou shall not kill, thou shall not lie,
thou shall not covet.....2000+ year old religious literature says
judeo christian values, morality is historic, there is nothing modern about
it.As far as india, china and japan being 1st world is debatable,
japan for sure China only in the last 30 years that has adopted capitalism as
it's form of economic structure and they allowed a central bank for the
first time in it's history in 1995 to handle their monetary system.
Westernised economy and culture in asian countries is new and recently
adopted.Said posters comments are a great example of the
indoctrination and conditioning from the left, which is not history, it is
Thomas,Religious people during the 1960s were endeavoring to shape state
action and policy regarding civil rights and the Viet Nam War. Involvement
in the public square is usually intended to influence or change state policy.Ranch,Religious people on both sides of the Prop 8 campaign were
exercising the exact same right to participate in the public square.
Complaining about separation of church and state in regard to those on one side
of that issue, while voicing no such objection toward those on the opposite
side, is pure hypocrisy.Race does not denote a pattern of behavior
or action. LGBT lifestyles, however, do denote patterns of behavior and are
thus open to the making of moral or value judgments. Individuals are within
their rights to make such judgments and religious bodies are within their rights
to express such standards publicly.Meanwhile, it's interesting how
those who profess to believe in "nondiscrimination" seek to restrict
activities on college campuses by religious groups whose beliefs they don't
happen to like. Nondiscrimination apparently is based on whether the
politically correct community happen to like one's beliefs.
The debate regarding religious freedom, and the other side of that coin freedom
from religion have become more intense, more politicized, and less civil because
religious organizations continue to spend millions of dollars and political
capital to codify their tenants and beliefs in our laws. They work hard to force
non-believers to live by their values and standards by depriving them of their
civil rightsI believe in freedom of religion and though an atheist
myself I think my freedom to not believe is no more precious than
another’s right to believe. Where I draw the line is when either side of
this debate starts trying to force any behavior on the other by passing any laws
that interfere with their civil rights, their freedom to choose, or their
freedom to believe, as they will.When you pass laws against same sex
marriage because that is against your religion you are imposing your beliefs on
those who do not believe as you do. That is wrong. I would rather see all
religion banned than see them exercise that kind of power and influence over the
beliefs and rights of others.
Yes, religeous people believe in "absolute right and wrong," but they
can't agree among themselves about where to draw the line. When the 9/11
hijackings took place, there is little doubt about who the most ardent religious
believers were.The closest way to evaluate what is right or wrong in
modern civilization is humanism. Some argue, "look at what the atheist
Stalin did; we need God so that doesn't happen to us!" But that
argument rests on premise that genicide and mass murder in order to establish
and purify totalitarian states is obviously a bad thing. But how do we know
*that*? Certainly not from the bible, where we learn in the Old Testament that
God commanded his chosen people to perform genicde to acquire the chosen land
and then instilled a brutal system of government where you couldcfet stoned for
working on Sunday.Yes, humanism values eventually grew out of
Judeo-Christian values, and religeous sentiments inspire many to live by
humanism. But it is humanism that should be protected and encouraged, not
"religion" which encompasses a broad range of beliefs and systems of
ethics, some of which are actually evil.
The idea that colonialism is responsible for keeping 3rd world countries in
poverty is a PC canard. Third world countries are backwatered because of their
corrupt cultures and failure to adopt Western values of equally applied
retributive justice, economic freedoms, classless social structures, etc.
Colonies such as Canada and the US, where these values were preserved by the
colonists have prospered. Colonies that have collapsed back into their
tribalist cultures have not. Cultures and ethnic demographics in the US that
have clung to their cultures of anti-enlightenment values and refused to
assimilate are similarly disadvantaged. Not as a result of colonialism but,
rather, due to a failure to adopt the cultural values of the colonizers that
gave rise to the power to colonize in the first place. Those values came from a
mix of biblical ideals of justice, Greek and Roman attempts at representative
government, hundreds of years of negotiating individual rights with Western
European monarchs, and the recognition that religious freedom is an essential
component of individual liberty and the right not to be coerced into performing
religious acts that violate one's moral values.
I don't think religious freedom is in danger. Just yesterday we saw a
religion write legislation to overturn the will of the people then call the
legislature into session to pass it.
@RiDal"The country was founded by predominantly Christian people, and
upon judeo-christian morality [
"Judeo-Christian" was created in the 1900s to try and morally align
Christianity with Judaism after the holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the
complicity of Christians the world over. So no.
"Judeo-Christian morality" had nothing to do with it. Especially when
you remember that the First Amendment directly opposes the First Commandment.@Sportsfan123Same story. The idea that there *are*
"Judeo-Christian" values, morality, or anything, is a modern invention
distinct from actual history. Also, you're forgetting that India, China
and Japan are all first world countries that don't have a lot of Christian
When President Dallin H. Oaks claims "[
] if you don't believe in
God, you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, and you don't see
any benefit to society by giving a special place to religion or religious
preachers or activities", he oversteps his bounds. He can speak for what
Latter-Day Saints believe because that's how his church operates. But he
has no authority to speak for anyone else.Quite simply, he is wrong,
and he is wrong to make the attempt.When Johnnie Moore says
"People should not be discriminated against, but religious freedom cannot be
compromised", he's basically admitting that he expects *me* to shoulder
the burdens of *his* religion. He gets to discriminate against me because of
"religious freedom", but I can't discriminate against him because
"people should not be discriminated against". That's obviously
untenable. Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to be nasty. But
it's the same rules for everyone, not special license to discriminate for
you.Something I didn't see anyone mention? Christians
organizing to keep Muslims from building mosques. Violence against Jews.
IceskaterSaid poster comments are mostly true based on todays
numbers and population, however my point was the countries founded and had been
prodominently influenced by judeo christianity over time. Social and economic
growth happens over time like centuries, for instance countries north of the
equator or global north as of 1910 had 82% of the globe's christian
population, compared to 2010 statistics global north only has 39% of the world
population of christians.Point being countries who have had long
term established influence of judeo christian influence have prospered far
better than those that hav not over time.
Religious freedom.......how about freedom from religion?
RiDal - Sandy, UT---@Real Ute: The country was founded by
predominantly Christian people, and upon judeo-christian morality, ethics, and
values. The few founders who "weren't Christian" were actually
Deists, who believed in God, but just rejected the particulars of any one
denomination. ---The Founders where heavily influenced by the
government organizations of the Greek City states, which were democratic in the
sense that all citizens could vote on issues. The Roman Republic was also used
as a model of government. Both predate Christianity by centuries and have no
connection to biblical forms of government.No Biblical forms of
government were used in the Founder's discussions as recorded in various
ways which formed the founding set of the US.The history of the
Hebrews is one of 'judges' which were 'called by god', or
'kings' who were anointed by 'prophets of god'.There is absolutely nothing of the sort in the foundation documents of the US.
They are based on men, given the era, discussing forms of government, and
deciding on a particular form of such, and removing the idea of a 'nobility
leadership' based on birth, or leadership based on 'belief in
Sportsfan posted: "Values like honoring and respecting women especially
valuing their virtue and abstaining from sex before marriage" as one of the
"moral advances of western civilization". What a joke.
'Valuing their virtue' isnt about them, its about the religious value
that men put on an 'asset' which women were/are considered in the
bible and throughout history by the religious. Religion has always treated
'their virtue' more like whether a cow gives milk or not. Something to
put a price on. Its is only under the modern enlightenment view that women are
considered human instead of chattel. "secular views do not value which
promote social degradation like children born out of wedlock."Most
children born out of 'wedlock' in this country are born to
believers.LDS people divorce at similar rates to everyone else (higher
than nonbelievers) and divorce is much more significant in number of single
parent situations.@sashabill"Liberals were all for
religious participation in the public square during the 1960's and
'70s when they were protesting for civil rights and against the Viet Nam
War."You not seem to understand the difference between the
public square and the state.
Religion has cursed man more than bless him and it has been extremely
discriminating towards who it benefits. And it is only supposed real.
Alternatively, science and nature blesses all equally and condemns all the same.
And it is proven real. Universal Paganism seems more appealing each passing
religious squabbling day.
@sashabill;Were religious leaders during the civil rights era trying
to TAKE AWAY rights from citizens or include them? Were religious
leaders during the Prop-h8 debate trying to TAKE AWAY rights from citizens or
include them?As a Mormon and former Unitarian, you ought to find
position of: "I don't want to be discriminated against for my religious
beliefs, but I want to use those religious beliefs to discriminate against
others" to be rather hypocritical (to say the least).The SCOTUS
determined in the 60's that religious belief wasn't a legitimate
reason to discriminate against blacks and other minorities; it isn't a
legitimate reason to discriminate against LGBT people either. If it is okay for
that religious belief then it has to be legitimate as an excuse to discriminate
against others; otherwise it becomes an 'establishment' of this belief
above other beliefs - in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Let's not forget that "religious preachers" were on both sides of
the debate over slavery and the Civil Rights movement. Both sides resorted to
Biblical authority for their positions on race and discrimination. That is the
problem with resorting to religion alone to resolve questions of right and
I never see my comments? Am I on some silly "list" or something? If
so, I can only assume that the truth hurts? Maybe it will take a while.
@sportsfan. It is interesting you assert that the prosperity of the
west is due to our Christian values while 3rd world countries aren't
prosperous for their lack of Christian values. I assert it is to colonialism
which has left many third world countries both Christian and in economics
despair. You likely will find more Christian's in the third world countries
across South America and Africa then you will find in modern day Europe and the
None of the selected speakers truly said anything of significance, so it is hard
to understand what they believe will happen in 2019. That being said, I do want
to understand what religious freedom truly want to be able to "do
freely". You can still go to church, you can still pray, you can still
worship. Your ability to "practice" only seems to be impeded in
scenarios when you believe your "absolute" understanding of right and
wrong entitles you to descriminate against others, such as the LGBTQ+ community
and other minorities. I struggle to understand how keeping you from
discriminating is in itself discrimination? Elder Oaks also makes an incredibly
flawed argument asserting that religion has been on the right side of history
but forgoing the numerous cases where it hasn't.
Liberals were all for religious participation in the public square during the
1960's and '70s when they were protesting for civil rights and against
the Viet Nam War. Revs. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and Hosea Williams
were just a few of many religious leaders involved in the Civil rights movement
of that time. James Reeb, a Unitarian minister from New England, was attacked
and killed while participating in civil rights efforts in the South.The anti-Viet Nam protests also included significant involvement by religious
leaders. Malcolm Boyd (Episcopal priest) and William Sloan Coffin (chaplain at
Yale) were just a few examples.More recently, those who objected to
LDS, Catholic, or evangelical involvement in California's Prop 8 campaign
curiously voiced no such problem with Unitarian, Episcopal, or UCC involvement
in the No on 8 campaign.They seem to have changed their tune about
religious participation, however, when people began disagreeing with them on
issues like abortion or same sex marriage. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I
find this rather hypocritical, to say the least.
Thom jefferson"Other great moral advances in western
civilization came about through public preaching changing peoples hearts, not
through secular arguments""List them. I cant think of
any."Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Look at
all of the modern westernised countries, most if not all were established based
on judeo christian values or have a prodominent influence from it.Then look at the countries that are not christian and are of other faith based
influences, whats the difference? The one with no prodominent judeo christian
influence's are still 3rd world countires and have not advanced socially
amd economically.Values like honoring and respecting women
especially valuing their virtue and abstaining from sex before marriage,
something todays secular views do not value which promote social degradation
like children born out of wedlock. These children have a 86% chance less likely
to grow up and become positive contributors to society because they have only
one parent if not at all, secular views have encouraged one abhorant behavior
which begats another one like abortion.Secular views encourages
social decay more than it helps.
@RiDal;Employees pay a portion of their health insurance costs
(it's deducted every payday from their checks) - then they likely have
exorbitant deductibles, they absolutely have a right to determine for themselves
what their health requirements are REGARDLESS of the "religious beliefs"
of their employers. Unless the employer pays 100% of the costs, then the
employer's religious belief are completely irrelevant.
"The abolition of slavery was brought about by religious preachers." No, it was several hundred thousand Union soldiers and someone who gave
his life for the cause in Abraham Lincolin. "The civil rights
movement was brought about by religious preachers."Considering
the source of this remark in the light of history makes me light-headed
Orson - Woods Cross, UT---Dig a little deeper into your history, as
he suggests, and you will find religion was the foundation for the country you
live in and for the good laws that were passed and for the good lives that were
lead by leaders and regular folks alike.---You have a point
that many of those from Europe who settled in what has become the US, did so out
of 'religious grounds.'In many cases, those groups were
persecuted, ranging from disenfranchisement, imprisonment, death, in their
country of origin. Yet all too often, when they arrived in the colonies, they
set up their own theocracies, from which those who dissented fled.This story has played out repeatedly, including the story of the Mormon
Pioneers coming to Utah... and lated the Mormon fundamentalists who fled to
Mexico after the changes to church doctrine in the late 19th Century.When Utah repeals laws which criminalize those 'closely held
beliefs' of such groups, I'll be convinced that there is real
'religious freedom' being set as a goal.Otherwise, the
current call for religious freedom is just another word for institutionalized
@Karen RThere needs to be a baseline reality check here: No
one has a "right" to Health Insurance. Health Insurance is a *product*.
An employer supplies it as a *benefit*. No one is being denied any
"rights" by anything that Health Insurance does or does not cover. Condoms cost less than 33 cents each.Somehow, America became to most
prosperous and powerful nation on Earth long before there was "universal
health care". In fact, it was long before there was any such thing as
"health insurance" at all! Prior to WWII, Americans bought their own
health insurance, and it was true "insurance" against catastrophic
expenses. It was not a "grab-bag of freebies" like it is now.
Employer-provided insurance was a benefit that employers provided as a
competitive way to skirt the wage and price controls instigated by Democratic
President Roosevelt. So it was actually "greedy, competitive
corporations" that began the whole custom of providing health insurance! I am fine with Health Insurance companies offering or not offering whatever
they want, but it has nothing to do with anyone's "rights".
Thanks Karen as you really have master Elder Oaks statements. He claims to be
losing religious freedoms, yet he can not name even one freedom he has lost.
Not one!It is the terror of those who claim to be religious to
subvert the civil and legal rights of others they deem less than worthy. That
is the cry of those who claim without any substance that they are losing their
"religious freedoms". It is a false claim and a wolf in sheep's
clothing.That is not about religious freedom. We as a secular
society have the right to be free of others religious dogmas. That is the real
meaning of the First Amendment. Sadly there are even those here who won't
study the foundations of our Constitution. It was not founded upon Christian
principles, and most of the founders were not Christians. Most were Deists.
Simple knowledge of our history will take these distortions away.
Mods: Comment meets rules:"...you don't see any benefit to
society by giving a special place to religion..."--- Absolutely.
Religion should be just another organization and does NOT deserve a
"special place"."...as a believer in the law and right
and wrong."--- You believe discriminating against other people
is "right", but you're so wrong."The civil rights
movement was brought about by religious preachers."--- They were
trying to INCLUDE not exclude & to END discrimination. How could you forget
that critical fact?""Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion,..."--- Allowing the religious to
discriminate against LGBT citizens but not Black citizens ESTABLISHES that
particular belief. Violation the 1st Amendment."These rights
are not negotiable."--- So you want to allow the religious to
discriminate against blacks (and Mormons) too?"We haven't
found the answers that will allow everyone to be treated fairly."--- Yes we have. Don't allow businesses to discriminate against ANYONE.
It's easy."It's not about using religion as a tool to
justify harm to other people."-- Amen!
" if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in absolute right
and wrong"What a repellent and fallacious statement.Please provide me with a religion-based absolute right or wrong.I
will tell you a secular wrong: murdering an individualIf god told me
to kill my son to prove my worthiness or faith, I would politely refuse. That is an absolute.
To "Real Ute " how about you atheists leave Christians people alone.
Stop pushing your religion of atheism into everything. You hate it when a law is
enacted that even has a hint of Christian values attached to it, but you ignore
the fact that much of what your ilk wants to do only pushes atheism onto
everybody else.So, tell us, how do you enact any laws that
don't push atheism, Christianity, or any other religious belief. (FYI,
atheism is a religion.)You do realize that the Founding Fathers may
not have adhered to any one religious group, but they had deep beliefs in God.
Your arguments sound a lot like the others of your ilk that only read
revisionist history books written by liberal professors rather than reading the
journals of the Founding Fathers and the journals of those around them.
@Real Ute: The country was founded by predominantly Christian people, and
upon judeo-christian morality, ethics, and values. The few founders who
"weren't Christian" were actually Deists, who believed in God, but
just rejected the particulars of any one denomination. So the
statement "The USA was not founded by Christian, Period." Is simply
false.Period. Unbiased readers can easily research these facts.
No one opposes "religious freedom"...right ? The way this works is
that everything any conventionally religious person believes, will be redefined
as "bigotry" and "exclusionary".All because you believe
that there actually are "men" and "women", etc.
"We visited Arizona State University to expose the dangers of a world where
people no longer know how to civilly disagree."Are you
suggesting religion makes people civilly disagree? History does not
support the claim.
@Orson "Dig a little deeper into your history, as he suggests, and you will
find religion was the foundation for the country you live in and for the good
laws that were passed and for the good lives that were lead by leaders and
regular folks alike."But the 19th Century enlightenment was just
Holy smokes! This sure brought out a bunch of religious antagonist comments
with an ax to grind. I think they miss the message by these
highlighted people... that no one should have their rights denied and that the
believer and non-believer are both entitled to their opinions and the right to
worship or not worship as they please. These people are seeking to do that...
not sow hate and discord and oppression as many commenters here would make you
believe.The message I hear from these men and women in the article
is quite different. It is one of peace and goodwill... to ALL men (and women.)
The United States of America was not founded by Christians! Period, the end!
Read the "true" history of our founding fathers and what they actually
believed during "the age of enlightenment."
I wish religious folks would just leave us non-believers alone and do their own
"They need to be talking expressly about how religion benefits not just
believers, but all of society. "Well then go ahead. I simply
dont see it. This is literally YOUR paper. If you arent going to do it here and
now then when?Robin Wilson "Other states say we can't
discriminate against the religious adoption agencies turning LGBT persons
away."Simply not true. There are states who say you cant turn
gays away and still get state money. The difference is obvious and should have
been included in your statement. I hope it was an oversight. Montserrat Alvarado "There are cases about adoption and foster care
services in Michigan and Pennsylvania. There's been a lack of willingness
to yield to common-sense solutions that have existed for years."How about the common sense solution of not taking state money? "We're working on cross cases, which ask whether you can have a
memorial in the shape of a cross on public land."Why do you need
and why should we allow your religious symbols on public land?Rachel
Laser "We are witnessing the weaponization of religious freedom. It's
been turned...that's licensing discrimination and harm."Yep. GOP pandering to xians for votes.
Modern political correctness / liberalism / progressivism / atheism is actively
working todestroy everything worthy and of good report left in this sorry
world.If it brings a good wholesome Christmas spirit and brings joy
and happiness to people, itshould be criticized and destroyed--such is the
thinking.I going to watch that show this year, just because of this
garbage. Same with the Charlie Brown show, and that school district is
"Fewer and fewer people believe in God. And if you don't believe in
God, you don't believe in absolute right and wrong,"Neither
do you. Its just that we admit it. Right and wrong are human constructs, just
like god. "and you don't see any benefit to society by
giving a special place to religion or religious preachers or activities."Thats true. I dont. I think religion is bad for humanity. "People who make light of religious freedom forget the history of the
things that made this country great. The abolition of slavery was brought about
by religious preachers"And fought tooth and nail by other
religious preachers who could quote the bible where 'god' endorsed
slavery. Something those fighting slavery couldnt do. "Other
great moral advances in Western civilization came about through public preaching
changing people's hearts, not through secular arguments."List them. I cant think of any."These rights are not
negotiable. We can't stand still and see them weakened."What supposed 'rights' do you claim have been or could be weakened?
The right to polygamy? How about the right to sacraments like the use of peyote
Karen,You haven't mastered Elder Oaks' argument. Religion has never been the only game in town. Yes, atrocities have been
committed in the name of religion, but that doesn't negate his argument.
Dig a little deeper into your history, as he suggests, and you will
find religion was the foundation for the country you live in and for the good
laws that were passed and for the good lives that were lead by leaders and
regular folks alike.Freedom of religion from government interference
is the very first amendment. It was considered the most important. Now it is ignored as a school district in Kentucky censors a biblical reading
out of Charley Brown. Religious freedom is being destroyed more every year and
month and week. As Elder Oaks said, fewer and fewer people believe in God. Our
country is going down the tube and will pay a high price for it.
"if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in absolute right
and wrong".Such words are defamatory.And the reason
so many people increasingly question their faith traditions. Good people doing
good things, and avoiding the bad things, exist across faith traditions and
extend to those who have none. The converse is equally true and why one
philosopher mused that it took religion to make good people do bad things.Furthermore, the declaration of a belief in an blanket declaration as
this is generally associated with religious tribalism in that God has apparently
issued different messages of acceptable behavior to different sects claiming his
true word.There are many paths up the mountain, and the absolute
claim of absolute truth through an absolute faith tradition is beyond hubris.
"And if you don't believe in God...you don't see any benefit to
society by giving a special place to religion or religious preachers or
activities."It's the "special place" that I object
to. The argument for it - that religion was on the side of abolition and civil
rights - ignores that religion was also on the side against those things. And
the claim that religion is responsible for all the good things in civil society
ignores that, for millennia, religion was the only game in town - by force of
law (or just plain force). Nonbelievers were not welcome. And the polls
reflect that they still aren't. That isn't religious freedom.
That's "freedom of belief for me, but not for thee."IMO, what would make religion legitimately special is if its supernatural
claims were based in fact rather than assertion. Until that day, my position
will remain that no belief system deserves to have its hand in the public till
while remaining exempt from public rules.P.S. The inclination of
some corporate heads to use their health insurance programs to impose their
religious beliefs is another argument for universal healthcare. Their way, IMO,
is lord and serf thinking.