Reader comments
Joseph A. Cannon: Religious freedom essential to constitutional governance

Kevin | 7:26 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

I agree we should be a moral people, but we need not be religious.

When I post quotes of Thomas Jefferson's scathing critique of religion, the Deseret News censors me. Or rather, they censor Thomas Jefferson.

LEts also | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

remember that when a group of people got together and said everyone can worship how they want.... that implies none of them felt the need to lord their religion over the others, knowing that they could also worship how they pleased.

And the point? | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Is Congress trying to take away your right to religious freedom? Are the courts trying to take away your rights to religious freedom? Is your religious freedom being threatened in any way other then others demanding that same religious freedom?

You are absolutely right: religious freedom is essential - for ALL Americans.

Comments continue below

Instereo | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

I believe in what Mr. Cannon says, that a nation needs to have freedom of religion. Still, when we say we were founded as a Christian Nation, we miss what the founding fathers wanted and we also run the risk of what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion can also mean freedom from religion. I think the founding fathers understood all to well how religion can tear down a society, take away freedom, bring corruption, and oppress individuals. They were also secure enough in their own religious beliefs and with the constitution that they did not impose the powers of the state on individual religious beliefs.

So as we think about religious freedom let us remember that the constitution limits the states power and protects individual choices but if an individual wants to force that choice on another person using the state to enforce it, it's wrong.

Anonymous | 9:38 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Mr. Cannon: In spite of what Paul Johnson (who's hardly an authority on the subject) says or any other person you quote America was founded as a secular nation. The secular founding guys--James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams--won out over the religious founding guys--Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and others. There's no mention of God in the US Constitution, not even that he exists, which is a drastic departure from the state constitutions of the 1770s. The reason is the secular founding guys (who were in greater numbers than the religious guys) believed that the best way to protect religion was to remove govt from it's sphere of influence. Our govt was founded on secular (non-religious) principals through and through, and the best literature on the subject illustrates that.

Jim | 11:08 a.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Keep your religion where it belongs in your home and churches. People have a right to be free from religion as well.

Mike Richards | 12:36 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

It's curious, isn't it, that those who claim no need of God are the very people who demand that the Federal Government answer their prayers? They pray for government to pay for their every need. They pray for government to allow them to play out their lives as little children, without cares and without responsibilities.

Those who believe in God and have religion as part of their lives know that God has entrusted them with the responsibility to care for themselves and their families; to take care of their children and their parents; to participate with their neighbors in helping and supporting those in their area who have fallen on difficult times.

Religion has a purpose. It must not be messed with by government and it must not be dismissed as unneeded and irrelevant. It is the pillar that good and just people lean on in every instance of their lives as they make every major decision in their lives.

Anonymous | 2:20 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Yes...you can't go wrong basing your worldview on the revealed word from magic rocks in the bottom of a tophat. That is the only honest way to live.

Re: Mike Richards 12:36 | 3:00 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Apparently, Mike Richards has no interest in a social contract that states that we all come together for the common good to make society a place where we can all work to support ourselves and fulfill our ambitions without having to grovel for the very basics. Instead, he'd rather try to put his own words into the mouth of an invisible man in the sky. He has no sense of morality; no sense of right or wrong. He has to try to warp a fictional construct to fit his own world view instead.

Satan apparently wants man to be just as miserable as he is as he wallows in his own selfishness. Sound like anybody we know?

Go ahead, Mike. Respond to me by ignoring everything I've written and just rant about liberals instead. Go on. I dare you.

To Kevin... | 3:10 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

Wow! No doubt your opinon about not needing to be religious is well thought out and founded as John Adams' statement. Hmmm! Certainly, you are entitled to you opinion, but for me and my house we choose to believe that John Adams is spot on and that he knew whereof he spoke. As for Thomas Jefferson, yeah, well, the man was not perfect and had a few flaws himself, but was a great statesman. Too bad the Deseret News has censored your "quotes", but now that is quite convenient for you, isn't it.

STRAW MAN | 3:25 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

mikerichards loves to build up those LIBERAL STRAW MEN and then PUT A WHUPPIN on those ILLUSIONS.

TYPICAL RIGHT WING TACTIC.

PATHETIC.

Mike Richards | 3:25 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

@ 3:00 p.m.

God bless you. You're thinking of yourself and for yourself. You want us to live as He would have us live, but you would have Him barred from our lives. That has never worked.

When a society has to have laws to keep them from harming each other, that society is a godless and depraved society.

When a society has to have laws FORCING them to think of each other's welfare, that society has also become godless and depraved.

When a government uses FORCE to REQUIRE us to love and help each other, that government has become depraved and godforsaken.

When a society first respects the God that gave them life and treats each other as they would be treated, because they love each other, not because they are forced at the point of a spear, then that society still has the opportunity to become great.

I'm a pacifist but... | 4:00 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009

...I will fight for my freedom of worship and my religion and my God. I will die for it if need be.

Hello Pacifist | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 26, 2009

Meet the rest of us, who are the same. Ready to roll up your sleeves?

LDS Lib | 2:40 p.m. Oct. 26, 2009

Jesus was a pacifist,
and he was Liberal.

I'm a follower of Jesus,
so that makes me a pacifist,
and a liberal as well.

I'm also a veteran and have sworn the oath.
so that ALL may worship
who, where or what they may.

Count me in.

John Pack Lambert | 3:09 p.m. Oct. 26, 2009

To the 8:35 commentator,
When people oppose the former convent a Jewish group has purchased being turned into a synagogue with cries of "we don't want to live by a synagogue" religious liberty is in question.
When a city (in this case Washington, D.C.) rezones land that The Church of Jesus Christ bought with the intention of building a church on, that was zoned for the building of a church when the Church bought the land a few months before, and now the Church will have to apply for a special use permit that might well be denied, there is a threat to religious liberty.
When people are called before a County board, as a pastor was in San Diego, for holding a prayer meeting in his house with 15 people in attendance, especially when his having mentioned Jesus during the meeting is cited as reason for the board to be concerned, there is a threat to religious liberty.
When an individual who is handing out literature in a public park is arrested because he does not "have a permit" there is a threat to religious liberty.
There are many threats.

John Pack Lambert | 3:12 p.m. Oct. 26, 2009

To the 3:10 commentator,
based on the assumptions in other people's reasoning, the non-slave holding John Adams has clear superiority to the slave holding (and probably illegitimate children begeting) Jefferson.
If it is between a man of freedom and an owner of other men, should not the man of freedom always win out?

John Pack Lambert | 3:15 p.m. Oct. 26, 2009

Religious freedom means that I can practice my religion where I chose. It also means that when government entites rent space to groups, they can not forbid the use of the space to some groups on the grounds that they are religious.

History Professor | 7:34 p.m. Oct. 26, 2009

In his typically naïve and biased way, Mr. Cannon is a loose cannon when it comes to opining about the Constitution. It is evident that he is not a scholar, in general, and certainly not a Constututional Law scholar.

He says the First Amendment is "a recognition by the Founders of the pre-eminence of the role of religious freedom in the history of the American colonies."

Cannon’s absurd assertion picks out only the part of the First Amendment that suits his religious biases. It focuses only on the disjunction at the end.

Read it again. The statement was never meant to be taken apart into two pieces. It is one statement. It refers to two sides of the same coin: Government stays out of religion, and religion stays out of government.

The entire point of the Constitution was to establish the authority of Government in “the people” rather than in any “divine” (religious) authority of any kind. The First Amendment effectively says “Religion is irrelevant to government.” The concept of “religious freedom” as Cannon thinks of it would have been as antithetical to the Founders’ intentions as was the notion of the Divine Right of Kings!

Brian Burnham | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009

Oh, how much do I miss the condescending voice of academia? Without 'opining' too much, I'd like to follow your advice and revisit the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

It describes the essential environment required for self-governance - freedom from others' imposing of moral/religious ideals as well as a defense for each man to believe as he choses. The latter is just as essential as the former, as only belief untainted by the intervention of politics can support the societal morality required to ensure a government that pursues the best interests of its people.

Brian (real name)

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.