Reader comments
Freedom of religion under increasing attack, LDS leader says
805 comments | Read story
oh no | 3:10 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
i know what you mean everytime i am in class with these guys...they give a
narrow look of kill the messenger ..whenever i call them what they are!!
hypocrits!!
Joe Moe | 3:13 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Watch for two things now:
1) People to blatantly defy the counsel he just offered: "Be wise in one's political participation, including the framing of arguments and positions in respectful ways."
2) People on both sides of this debate to offer knee-jerk reactions. This message, given by a respected scholar of law and a current world-wide religious leader, defies quick analysis by either someone in agreement or someone in opposition.
1) People to blatantly defy the counsel he just offered: "Be wise in one's political participation, including the framing of arguments and positions in respectful ways."
2) People on both sides of this debate to offer knee-jerk reactions. This message, given by a respected scholar of law and a current world-wide religious leader, defies quick analysis by either someone in agreement or someone in opposition.
Comments continue below
observing | 3:15 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I may not quote this correctly, but it has been said that the only thing that
needs to happen for evil men (and/or women) to take over is for good men (and/or
women) to not stand up for what they believe. Democracy only works if it works
for EVERYONE and that certainly should include those of us who believe in God
and sustain, uphold and live His commandments. Elder Oaks is our modern day
Moroni, and we can listen to him and follow him, or we can repeat the history of
those who fought against God in the Book of Mormon.
Anonymous | 3:18 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Methinks this is a preface to forthcoming verdict by investigative authorities
into LDS illegal political activities in California.
Agreed, but | 3:18 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I agree with this, but its not religious freedom that is dying but religion
itself. And I, for one, am glad. Because of religion, througout history, there
has been more death, war, torture, hate, intolerence, racism, elitism, and hurt
than any other single reason. The world and society will be so much happer and
better when the human race rises above the need to answer every unanwerable
question, find morality within themselves, and abandon the human scourge and
addiction named religion. I think we are starting on that path.
Learn from our mistakes | 3:19 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I would say today's backlash against "Christians" in this country
began with the infusing of religion and politics via the Moral Majority in the
early 1980's. Nothing turns people away from religion faster that the
judgmentalism and "holier than thou" we've seen associated with
the religious right movement in their quest for power.
The pro-Prop 8 was negative, fear-mongering and in some instances less than truthful/accurate. Not to say that the anti-Prop 8 played it better. But, as an LDS person I expect higher standards for churches who claim the moral high ground. How one fights is as important as what one fights for. I was really disappointed and knew our church would pay a price for being associated with such a campaign.
The pro-Prop 8 was negative, fear-mongering and in some instances less than truthful/accurate. Not to say that the anti-Prop 8 played it better. But, as an LDS person I expect higher standards for churches who claim the moral high ground. How one fights is as important as what one fights for. I was really disappointed and knew our church would pay a price for being associated with such a campaign.
Anonymous | 3:20 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
What about tax-free religious organizations that participateg in political
activities? Not everyone in this nation is a christian. To impose christian
beliefs upon non-christians could also be considered a form of attack.
Levi | 3:20 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Keep it coming! Love this!
Memitt | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
It is not the freedom of religion that is under attack, it is the validity of
religion that is being questioned. In today's world of improved
communications and learning the false preachers can no longer so easily pull the
wool over the innocents eyes and make a handsome living amd social position
doing it. People are smarter today and they will be much smarter tomorrow, God
be willing.
Whoa | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
What a convoluted and disturbing manifesto of bigotry. He manages to attack
gays, atheists, and - well - anyone non-Christian all while rambling about our
"Christian Constitution." And, of course, since there's only one
true church ... um, okay, I don't know how to deal with that bit of irony.
I'll grant him his freedom of speech and religion, and then I'll call
it what it is: CREEPY.
freedom FROM religion | 3:22 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
so he wants full religious freedom, but other freedoms should suffer if they are
not in accordance with his church's views?
he states "Christian principles of human worth and dignity made possible the Constitution's formation more than 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of a diverse American population can sustain the Constitution today".
It is safe to say that this person, and his church, want laws based on the bible and BOM.
He also states "we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms".
for some reason, he believes that christianity is the answer. It is not christianity that provides freedom. it is that we can all follow our own paths. yet this man would have us all become christians, and have laws based on his idea of christianity.
he complains about "the intimidation of those with religious-based views from influencing or making state or federal laws" but that is because he wants the laws to be based on his religion!!
Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. Once he understands that, we can have an actual discussion...
he states "Christian principles of human worth and dignity made possible the Constitution's formation more than 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of a diverse American population can sustain the Constitution today".
It is safe to say that this person, and his church, want laws based on the bible and BOM.
He also states "we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms".
for some reason, he believes that christianity is the answer. It is not christianity that provides freedom. it is that we can all follow our own paths. yet this man would have us all become christians, and have laws based on his idea of christianity.
he complains about "the intimidation of those with religious-based views from influencing or making state or federal laws" but that is because he wants the laws to be based on his religion!!
Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. Once he understands that, we can have an actual discussion...
Well said Elder Oaks! | 3:24 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Gotta love this man! Not only a righteous man chosen to be an Apostle, but one
well versed in law who can explain how religion and public policy can and should
coexist. I had never thought of some of his points, and yet they are so clear.
Well said!
Thank you | 3:24 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Great words from a great legal mind. Thanks.
I_get_it_now | 3:26 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I remember reading in the Bible that there would be many false prophets, and to
believe in the one and only true Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Savior of Man, Son of
God, who died so that I may live. I used to get upset over LDS using my Lord
and Savior's name in their "religion", however now that I've
remembered this fact, it no longer bothers me. Their "christian"
values belong to another "christ" - not Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Whew. Glad I got THAT one figured out!
I agree | 3:27 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
freedom of religion and speech go hand in hand and if you want to fight for gays
to have the ability to marry you need to still be tolerant of others opinions as
well, even if they are different. Any rejection of that is lowering the power
of the freedom of speech that would get you that very goal.
Thick with irony | 3:28 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
This article reads like a bad joke. Where is the acknowledgment that by saying
the United States must be run by Christian principles, that atheists should stop
speaking out about their beliefs, etc. etc., Elder Oaks is limiting his view of
religious freedom to "the freedom to practice Judeo-Christian religion in
the way I interpret to be correct"?
As to Prop 8, legalizing CIVIL recognition of gay marriage does not and would not require any religion to recognize it from a doctrinal standpoint (just as civil recognition of a marriage performed in a courthouse, cathedral or mosque does not require the LDS church to recognize it as being on par with a Temple marriage). However, giving state recognition to certain religiously performed marriages (i.e., a Temple marriage) while ignoring religiously performed marriages (i.e., an Episcopal same-sex marriage) *does* constitute government giving one religious tradition more freedom than another.
As to Prop 8, legalizing CIVIL recognition of gay marriage does not and would not require any religion to recognize it from a doctrinal standpoint (just as civil recognition of a marriage performed in a courthouse, cathedral or mosque does not require the LDS church to recognize it as being on par with a Temple marriage). However, giving state recognition to certain religiously performed marriages (i.e., a Temple marriage) while ignoring religiously performed marriages (i.e., an Episcopal same-sex marriage) *does* constitute government giving one religious tradition more freedom than another.
Anonymous | 3:29 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
It's true. There is growing hostility and intimidation. I've felt it
both in public and private conversations. Religion is being pushed out by many
and they think they are doing society a favor.
Morality has long been rooted in religion, the absence of religion will only increase the relative-morality that is ultimately a trend downward. It means more divorce, more children born out of wedlock, more troubled teens, more drug and alcohol abuse, more violence and crime. This is the trend and to say otherwise is dishonesty.
Morality has long been rooted in religion, the absence of religion will only increase the relative-morality that is ultimately a trend downward. It means more divorce, more children born out of wedlock, more troubled teens, more drug and alcohol abuse, more violence and crime. This is the trend and to say otherwise is dishonesty.
Molli | 3:32 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
He is concerned about laws "prohibiting discrimination in employment
circumstances against people with unpopular religious beliefs or
practices"?
What in the world???? I'm a member of the church and the above statement makes me sick to my stomach. In other words, LDS employers in Utah ought to be able to continue to get away with giving preferential treatment to LDS members in their hiring and promoting practices!! I've seen enough of this. And now give them an excuse ... oh we are just trying to surround ourselves with people who don't have "unpopular" religious beliefs!
One of the principles this nation was founded on was to be able to enjoy ALL of the benefits of citizenship no matter what one's religious belief is. Now Elder Oaks seems to be saying that we should have the right to step away from this principle and discriminate as an employer based on religious beliefs? Did I read this wrong?
What in the world???? I'm a member of the church and the above statement makes me sick to my stomach. In other words, LDS employers in Utah ought to be able to continue to get away with giving preferential treatment to LDS members in their hiring and promoting practices!! I've seen enough of this. And now give them an excuse ... oh we are just trying to surround ourselves with people who don't have "unpopular" religious beliefs!
One of the principles this nation was founded on was to be able to enjoy ALL of the benefits of citizenship no matter what one's religious belief is. Now Elder Oaks seems to be saying that we should have the right to step away from this principle and discriminate as an employer based on religious beliefs? Did I read this wrong?
otis | 3:39 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
"Oh, come on" - you have never believed in something that you
didn't tell someone else about it, then???
Taking your stance, no business anywhere would ever succeed.
And if your ideology had been applied to Christianity in the early days, just look at all the good that would never have happened.
How about you just learn to politely say you're not interested? No one's forcing anything on you, but they have every right to be telling people what they believe.
Taking your stance, no business anywhere would ever succeed.
And if your ideology had been applied to Christianity in the early days, just look at all the good that would never have happened.
How about you just learn to politely say you're not interested? No one's forcing anything on you, but they have every right to be telling people what they believe.
Henry Drummond | 3:40 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I've always liked and admired Dallin Oaks and respect his opinion. I fear
however that he is confusing religious popularity with religious freedom. You
have every right to your religious views but demanding that I don't
criticize them violates my own religious freedom. There are many people who
resent Mormons appearing on their door step and teaching things that include the
doctrine that their current church isn't divinely authorized to perform
baptisms. Its your right to proclaim that, but its my right to disagree.
Well said Elder Oaks | 3:41 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Voting on the basis of your religious beliefs does not make you un-American as
some would say. Contrary to popular belief the words "separation of church
and state" do not exist in the Constitution or its amendments. Laws are
created because we believe certain things are wrong and other things are right.
Our voting patterns as to right and wrong can be informed by our religious
beliefs without violating the Constitution.
In disagreeing with certain practices there is still room for love and respect. Let decisions be made by the people either directly as was done in California or through the elected representatives. Let the protections of the Constitution remain. It is not Constitutional to have courts interpreting new rights and laws that do not exist in the Constitution or in statutes. But they should always strike down legislation that is contrary to the Constitution.
In disagreeing with certain practices there is still room for love and respect. Let decisions be made by the people either directly as was done in California or through the elected representatives. Let the protections of the Constitution remain. It is not Constitutional to have courts interpreting new rights and laws that do not exist in the Constitution or in statutes. But they should always strike down legislation that is contrary to the Constitution.
oh dallin | 3:42 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
so smart, yet willing to carry the water of fear.
good grief. No one is cutting back on freedom of religion. But people are questioning whether Mormons are Christians, well, outside of Utah that is.
Dallin, you are so smart and yet you carry the water of fear. I thought you were better than that.
Apparently you have to pay the piper.
good grief. No one is cutting back on freedom of religion. But people are questioning whether Mormons are Christians, well, outside of Utah that is.
Dallin, you are so smart and yet you carry the water of fear. I thought you were better than that.
Apparently you have to pay the piper.
Thanks | 3:43 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Thanks Elder Oaks! Great talk, I'll have to save this for future
reference.
Just a dad | 3:44 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Gosh, so much love ...
The Mrs. | 3:45 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I appreciate the insight Dallin H. Oaks gave. My family suffered some of the
retaliation as spoken in his comments . . . only because we support traditional
marriage. We are kind towards people of ALL faiths and circumstances. We do
expect the freedom to worship how we may and not have to be harrassed because of
it - still a believer of the faith!
A Believer's Response | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Very interesting comments....so I ask, where is the line? Can we not say the
Pledge of Allegiance anymore because it refers to God? Can we not print "In
God we Trust" on our currency because it "infringes" on those who
don't realize the very pretenses this nation was founded upon?
The reason that Religion is being attacked is because people have recently began to question practices that have been embraced for generations. Whether it be the definition of marriage, saying prayers in school, or printing references to God on or currency. Non-religious people are moving the line and freaking out when believers rightfully push back. You view it as us PUSHING our religious views on you, we view it as you PUSHING your anti-religious beliefs on us. Don't get all whiny when we take a stance. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything! So don't go blaming us for speaking up.
The reason that Religion is being attacked is because people have recently began to question practices that have been embraced for generations. Whether it be the definition of marriage, saying prayers in school, or printing references to God on or currency. Non-religious people are moving the line and freaking out when believers rightfully push back. You view it as us PUSHING our religious views on you, we view it as you PUSHING your anti-religious beliefs on us. Don't get all whiny when we take a stance. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything! So don't go blaming us for speaking up.
Mike in Texas | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I fail to see where there is any effort or political will to waive or weaken the
establishment clause. The issues and concerns that Elder Oaks raises seem to me
be entirely tangential and incidental. Now, if it were up to me sir, I would tax
churches as we do for any other business or corporation. Now, if government was
contemplating a radical proposal like that somewhere in the political landscape,
I could see why he might have reason to complain. But employment rights, issues
relating to marriage laws? Me thinks, that thou doth protest (way) too much
sir!
Re: Oh, come on | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
We do not push our religion on any man, woman or child. We proclaim it to
those who will listen. All you have to say to the missionaries at your door is
leave and they will. You don't even have to open your door and they will
leave after ringing twice to see if anyone is home.
Proclaiming beliefs is not pushing anyone. You do have the freedom to avoid our religion.
Proclaiming beliefs is not pushing anyone. You do have the freedom to avoid our religion.
Get over yourself idiots | 3:50 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
RE:oh no
"i know what you mean everytime i am in class with these guys...they give a narrow look of kill the messenger ..whenever i call them what they are!! hypocrits!!:
If you don't like other people exercising their rights then plug your ears because people will continue to do so. If you don't want to be civil then don't expect religious people to be civil.
I say this as an atheist and a liberal who has had it with morons thinking someone exercising their constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.
The right to speak, express one's opinions and vote based on those opinions is fundamental.
You can call other people hypocrites but it only proves that you are a moron. Oaks is correct when he states: "insist on the constitutional right and duty to exercise one's religion, to vote one's conscience on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates."
He was also correct in saying that "incidents of violence and intimidation "are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic."
Religious people have the same right to vote as you and I so get over yourself.
"i know what you mean everytime i am in class with these guys...they give a narrow look of kill the messenger ..whenever i call them what they are!! hypocrits!!:
If you don't like other people exercising their rights then plug your ears because people will continue to do so. If you don't want to be civil then don't expect religious people to be civil.
I say this as an atheist and a liberal who has had it with morons thinking someone exercising their constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.
The right to speak, express one's opinions and vote based on those opinions is fundamental.
You can call other people hypocrites but it only proves that you are a moron. Oaks is correct when he states: "insist on the constitutional right and duty to exercise one's religion, to vote one's conscience on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates."
He was also correct in saying that "incidents of violence and intimidation "are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic."
Religious people have the same right to vote as you and I so get over yourself.
Good Article | 3:50 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
This is a good message; although extremely biased. I wish I had a dollar every
time I was discriminated against by Mormons, because I am Catholic. Not being
apart of the Mormon religion has always been a limiting factor in promotions,
and work details. The irony, is that our country was not founded on the LDS
view of Christianity, but was founded on the Catholic view of Christianity.
Maybe the good Elder should include all the facts, not just the ones he wishes
to manipulate...
To: Oh, come on | 3:51 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Who is to say it isn't the religion of homosexuality that is "PUSHING
'their' religion on others"? In fact I think that is exactly
what is occuring. Elder Oaks mentioned that the current laws (and yes Prop 8
had a predecessor that was law that the court overturned causing Prop 8 to have
to be passed for essentially the second time) are what were being defended
against those trying to change it. The actions of those defeated in terms of
vandalism and "outing" those who supported Prop 8 is simply a thuggish
voter intimidation tactic. It is pretty clear that the democratic process
worked and those who lost resorted to name calling, voter intimidation and are
trying to change the discourse in order to overturn established law. Basically,
your argument is weak that Christians are forcing something on you, when it is
clearly the same from the other point of view that you are trying to force your
religious (or lack thereof) beliefs onto them. Get over the disparaging of
beliefs already, it is rather pathetic.
Keep it up... | 3:52 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
... you're making Oaks's point for him. Ironic to see all the
anti-religious bigotry being spewed here today. The truth hurts, huh?
Notbrochuckschro | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
That's rich - Coming from the apostle in the middle of theocratic Zion.
Time to Push Back | 3:57 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
It is religion that has been attacking others' rights for centuries. Even
Senator Reid, who is LDS, has stated that the LDS church abused its power by
pushing Proposition H8 in California.
Oh-Oh | 3:57 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Contributions and attendance must be both be down. If religion gave people
anything more than anti gay scare tactics and right wing politics these days,
maybe there wouldn't be such an exodus.
Your votes based on stupidity | 3:58 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
freedom FROM religion
"Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. Once he understands that, we can have an actual discussion..."
So once he agrees with you then you will condescend to allow him and those who agree with him to take part in the democratic process? Once he gets to the point where he worships your opinion on how he will practice his religion (he can do it at home, in his church but you FORBID him to practice it in the public square) then you will condescend to have a discussion with him.
Why don't you write him a letter stating "you can vote as long as your don't vote based on your religious opinions but you will not forbid me from voting based on my stupid opinions, scientific opinions or atheistic opinions. Freedom of religion is what I define it as and if you believe that your religion requires you to vote based on your belief then you are FORBIDDEN to vote."
Such fascist, totaltarian, and anti-democratic attitudes are rejected by anyone with any sense including those of us who are atheist and liberal but let's vote on whether you can vote.
"Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. Once he understands that, we can have an actual discussion..."
So once he agrees with you then you will condescend to allow him and those who agree with him to take part in the democratic process? Once he gets to the point where he worships your opinion on how he will practice his religion (he can do it at home, in his church but you FORBID him to practice it in the public square) then you will condescend to have a discussion with him.
Why don't you write him a letter stating "you can vote as long as your don't vote based on your religious opinions but you will not forbid me from voting based on my stupid opinions, scientific opinions or atheistic opinions. Freedom of religion is what I define it as and if you believe that your religion requires you to vote based on your belief then you are FORBIDDEN to vote."
Such fascist, totaltarian, and anti-democratic attitudes are rejected by anyone with any sense including those of us who are atheist and liberal but let's vote on whether you can vote.
sheep1 | 4:01 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
His point is that all people have a right to an opinion, and when it comes to
politics, they have a right to vote that opinion. Was it not a "VOTE"
that was cast in CA for or against prop 8? Yes, and we have the right and
obligation to vote. On the other hand, your retaliation mentality, to coerce
and intimidate those who voted different they you is what he is talking
about.
Oh, no; I hope no "Mormon" is "pushing" their religion on you. If they think enough of you to offer you one of their most precious gifts, you must be nicer than your comments indicate.
Oh, no; I hope no "Mormon" is "pushing" their religion on you. If they think enough of you to offer you one of their most precious gifts, you must be nicer than your comments indicate.
Anonymous | 4:01 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
He is a good and righteous man, his words are to the point of what is right.
Jeremy | 4:02 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Religion is under attack?
Where? Who is denying others to practice religion as they would?
With all due respect to Oaks, all preople should have freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including freedom of religion, but I also agree, this is precedent to the ongoing debacle.
Where? Who is denying others to practice religion as they would?
With all due respect to Oaks, all preople should have freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including freedom of religion, but I also agree, this is precedent to the ongoing debacle.
I used my "Constitutional | 4:05 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Right" to leave religion all together. You guys have so many fairy tales
and misinformation that it's really sad. The founing fathers wanted people
to be able to be free of religions like yours that encompass their whole lives
and discourages freedoms. You have this twisted...as usual.
Anonymous | 4:06 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Nonsense!
This is more evidence that the LDS organization is not a religion at all but a political movement.
This is more evidence that the LDS organization is not a religion at all but a political movement.
Stop acting like a baby | 4:06 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
RE:Molli
"One of the principles this nation was founded on was to be able to enjoy ALL of the benefits of citizenship no matter what one's religious belief is. Now Elder Oaks seems to be saying that we should have the right to step away from this principle and discriminate as an employer based on religious beliefs? Did I read this wrong?"
I'm not Mormon but I will answer for him since its clear that you are to stupid to understand what he was saying. No employer should be forced to hire a person because you don't have a right to the "free association of another." You have no more right to force an employer to hire you then you do to force me to be your friend.
They don't need to give a reason for not being your friend, employing you or associating with you.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right and so is the right to tell you to take a hike because you are ugly, stupid or a Democrat (I've been fired because I'm a liberal but I'm not crying). So get over yourself.
"One of the principles this nation was founded on was to be able to enjoy ALL of the benefits of citizenship no matter what one's religious belief is. Now Elder Oaks seems to be saying that we should have the right to step away from this principle and discriminate as an employer based on religious beliefs? Did I read this wrong?"
I'm not Mormon but I will answer for him since its clear that you are to stupid to understand what he was saying. No employer should be forced to hire a person because you don't have a right to the "free association of another." You have no more right to force an employer to hire you then you do to force me to be your friend.
They don't need to give a reason for not being your friend, employing you or associating with you.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right and so is the right to tell you to take a hike because you are ugly, stupid or a Democrat (I've been fired because I'm a liberal but I'm not crying). So get over yourself.
Blinders On | 4:07 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
Oaks is a bright guy, but he has blinders on when it comes to the Constitution
and the LDS Church. The Constitution guarantees Mormons the right to speak out
and to practice their religion (as long as it doesn't break the law, like
polygamy), but the Constitution does not guarantee the Mormon or any other
religion the right to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Surely Oaks
knows that many of the Founding Fathers were not practicing Christians at all,
but deists and agnostics. Religion is all well and good, but the State has no
place in endorsing one religion--or indeed, ANY religion or its practices.
Question | 4:07 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
"Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious
doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers."
So, what about religious practices you don't believe in - such as polygamy or human sacrifice? Or, for that matter, religions that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages?
I have no problem with you having your freedom of religion - I just don't think it should be able to infringe on mine.
There are obviously times when it is just for the government to prohibit certain types of religious practice. There are also obviously times when the government can authorize or promote things that are against religious doctrines - such as requirements to seek medical care when a child's life is in danger even if the parents don't accept modern medical practices.
This balancing act is not an attack on religion - it is a balancing act. And sometimes things will be approved by the government that religions don't agree with and vice-versa.
So, what about religious practices you don't believe in - such as polygamy or human sacrifice? Or, for that matter, religions that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages?
I have no problem with you having your freedom of religion - I just don't think it should be able to infringe on mine.
There are obviously times when it is just for the government to prohibit certain types of religious practice. There are also obviously times when the government can authorize or promote things that are against religious doctrines - such as requirements to seek medical care when a child's life is in danger even if the parents don't accept modern medical practices.
This balancing act is not an attack on religion - it is a balancing act. And sometimes things will be approved by the government that religions don't agree with and vice-versa.
Re: Agreed but (3:18PM) | 4:08 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I must disagree with your assertion that Religon has caused war, racism, hate,
and intolerance. A reading of 20th century history reveals that the godless
world has not fared any better. Tyrants and philosophers adopted godless
hegelian and nietzschean ideals which in turn justified fascism and nazism. A
godless world isn't any better. If we really want to make the world a
better place, we should take James' council and take care of the poor and
needy. After all, that is pure religion. I think you will find that whenever
man makes himself the center of his being, be it in the religious world or the
agnostic, he always finds a twisted way to glorify himself, and that
glorification often leads to the humiliation and suffering of many others. I
would suggest reading The Rebel by Camus. It is a wonderful book which I think
you would enjoy.
Wow! | 4:10 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
"He underscored recent changes in religious devotion nationally, including
a rising intolerance of Christianity, the rejection of God's existence or
authority, the growing hostility of atheism and the intimidation of those with
religious-based views from influencing or making state or federal laws"
Does this sound like anything we've seen lately? Oh wait this comment board.
Does this sound like anything we've seen lately? Oh wait this comment board.
re -- I agree | 3:27 p.m | 4:12 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
["freedom of religion and speech go hand in hand and if you want to fight
for gays to have the ability to marry you need to still be tolerant of others
opinions as well, even if they are different. Any rejection of that is lowering
the power of the freedom of speech that would get you that very goal."]
speech and laws are two entirely different things. you can shout at the top of your lungs that you don't want gays to marry, but to create laws based on your religious princilples (of which gay marriage is one) then you are in fact TAKING AWAY freedoms, not protecting them.
speech and laws are two entirely different things. you can shout at the top of your lungs that you don't want gays to marry, but to create laws based on your religious princilples (of which gay marriage is one) then you are in fact TAKING AWAY freedoms, not protecting them.
Try intimidating me. I dare you! | 4:13 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
RE:Henry Drummond
"I fear however that he is confusing religious popularity with religious freedom. You have every right to your religious views but demanding that I don't criticize them violates my own religious freedom."
There's a difference between criticizing a person's opinion and harassing and intimidating people for exercising their constitutional rights.
"There are many people who resent Mormons appearing on their door step and teaching things that include the doctrine that their current church isn't divinely authorized to perform baptisms. Its your right to proclaim that, but its my right to disagree."
If you don't like it then ask them to leave but Oaks isn't complaining about people refusing to listen to Mormon Missionaries instead he's simply pointing out that it is anti-democratic to attack and intimidate people for exercising their right to vote.
That obtaining a list of voters based on how they voted and what causes they supported and going after them for doing so is anti-democratic and that only nice people wouldn't punch you in the face and beat the living daylights out of you for harassing them for how they voted.
"I fear however that he is confusing religious popularity with religious freedom. You have every right to your religious views but demanding that I don't criticize them violates my own religious freedom."
There's a difference between criticizing a person's opinion and harassing and intimidating people for exercising their constitutional rights.
"There are many people who resent Mormons appearing on their door step and teaching things that include the doctrine that their current church isn't divinely authorized to perform baptisms. Its your right to proclaim that, but its my right to disagree."
If you don't like it then ask them to leave but Oaks isn't complaining about people refusing to listen to Mormon Missionaries instead he's simply pointing out that it is anti-democratic to attack and intimidate people for exercising their right to vote.
That obtaining a list of voters based on how they voted and what causes they supported and going after them for doing so is anti-democratic and that only nice people wouldn't punch you in the face and beat the living daylights out of you for harassing them for how they voted.
Steven | 4:13 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009
I understand how people feel about their faith. But leave me and those that
don't believe in your rules and regulations alone and go after your own
church members. If you don't believe in something like same sex marriage
then good for you. All that is being asked is legal recognition of marriage for
everyone, not the recognition to get married in your temples. There's a
difference. If you say "freedom of religion" than I say "freedom
from religion" so that your realm of influence doesn't encompass me.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Great S.L. once a raceway of sorts 10:41 p.m.
- Arsonist sought in Salt Lake fire 10:34 p.m.
- Wright happy with his bronc ride 10:31 p.m.
- NHL roundup: Wings nip Rangers 10:28 p.m.
- Donaghy says didn't affect games 10:19 p.m.
- NBA roundup: Lakers clobber Suns 10:17 p.m.
- Answers for the BCS 10:13 p.m.
- Cal hopes for Best vs. Utes 10:02 p.m.
- Pearl Harbor survivor returns 9:57 p.m.
- Officials conflicting ob bin Laden 9:56 p.m.
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- BYU professor killed in crash
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Tiger's SUV, personal life are a wreck
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
316 - Letters: Liberal because LDS257
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing213
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl97
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
I agree with "not the brightest". Thank you! Also, to me this is a perfect...
Utah gets a team that was just blown out 10-42 by the 7th-place team in the...
Utah vs Cal is a toss up but here's to Wynn playing in his back yard: Utah...
Another Vegas Bowl, Another beat down from a Pac-10
Wow, I thought everyone would be in agreement about this and know that both...
An excellent reminder of the true reason for the Christmas season.
Great idea and well written article. Make it about sports again rather than...
Cal is a flaky team. Great one week, putred the next. BTW, how 'bout them...
This is the BCS protecting their own. by not allowing a BCS team match up...
Congrats to BYU for their bowl invite against a quality opponent. Go Utes!
Advertisements
No one's threatening your right to exercise your religion. What many people are against, however, are members of one religion PUSHING your religion on others.
We don't care if you are Scientologist, Moonies, Muslim, Buddhists, Catholics, LDS, Baptists, Methodists. Keep it to yourself unless we ask!
Let's make a deal:
You have the freedom to practice your religion.
We have the freedom to avoid your religion.
Don't forget that we're taxpayers and citizens, too.