Deseret News | Clash of orthodoxies shows the faith-reason dichotomy

Reader comments
Joseph A. Cannon: Clash of orthodoxies shows the faith-reason dichotomy

jim | 12:26 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

mr cannon's bold assertation that the purpose of the first ammendemnt as envisioned by the founding fathers---is to protect religion--- is at best, a outside the main stream interpertation. not justified by an historical support. intrestingly, it is part of a reinterperation of history by conservative activists who wish to create a history to advance their agendas. sad, for people who so strongly demand attention to original intent.

re: jim | 12:26 a.m. | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Cannon's interpretation of the first amendment is absolutly correct. To imply that it is outside the mainstrem is wrong. Jim's redefinition of the fisrt amendment ironically gives credence to the rational of the article.

re: Jim | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

If Cannons interpretation is not mainstream; What is your interpretation? The belief that the first amenemdment is designed to punish or silence religion is a perversion desiged to rationaize left wing intolerance of religous thought and speech. That is neither mainstream or historically accurate.

Comments continue below

Hah | 7:18 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Talk about "reinterpret[ing] history" to "advance their agendas"! If you read the Federalists papers and the opinions of most all the founding father's comments on the reasons behind the 1st amendment, you would be able to see that protection of religion was their very intent. You say "mainstream", I say "liberal". You ignore what you want in order to promote your status quo. It's like you climb a peak, and proclaim you're at the top, ignoring the rising stretch before you.

The historical support is there, just covered over by your own hysteria.

You are still wearing the blinders of liberalism and their "living constitution" ideas. Instead of protecting and fomenting a plethora of free, dialog-ing religions, including your own precious atheism and secularism (which are religions; see Webster),your POV has instead instilled one state religion, with any who align themselves with YOUR beliefs receiving preferential treatment. Those who don't are shouted down and insulted, encouraging an environment of fear and disenfranchisement.

You have become the very thing you preach so vehemently against.

Faith & Reason | 8:02 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Faith supported by reason (objective factual evidence) is simply reason, while faith without reason is simply irrationality. Comforting lies are lies nonetheless.

Mr. Cannon also conveniently ignores another crucial motivation of the Founders when they wrote the First Amendment - to protect government from religion.

re: faith and reason | 10:47 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

The First Amendment protects against the establishment of a state religion - but was NOT designed to protect government from religion.
Government does not need protection from its citizens. The First Amendment protects citizens from the government. Contrary to illiberal hysteria: religous people are citizens and share the right to freedom of speech (also in the first amendment)and assembly. The First Amendment protects religous people from anti-religous fundamentalists who wish to silence religion and its legitmate role in the public realm. Comforting lies to the contrary are lies nonetheless

Anonymous | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

How many faithful Catholics and orthadox Jews lean left politically? How much LDS philosophy which includes responsibility and work; plays out in practice more similarly to the lives of my most moral atheist associates than anything like my fundamental Christian associates. I think I have a few questions about the premis here before I can get any meaning from this article.

jackhp | 12:26 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Boy, it must be nice to be a newspaper editor. Cannon sure gives himself a lot of space to say not much of anything . . .

fuzzy | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

What constitutes "reason" versus "irrationality" is debatable. Athiests and agnostics refuse to consider that there may indeed be realities beyond their limited vision (and even the 5 sacred senses.) I think we can see which side is more liberal and open-minded.

protection | 1:15 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

The founders were most certainly more concerned with protecting religion and citizens from the government, not the other way around.

A ship of fools | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Cannon is the worst thing that has happened to the Deseret News. It was doomed before he got there but he certainly has made the process quick. It is sad but the Deseret News has little time left and what time it did have Joe cut that into small percentages.

Religion is not all light | 1:45 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

In his article, Cannon sites the Bible as being against slavery. This is not true, the law of Moses allowed the keeping of slaves as long as they were foreign, it was forbidden to keep slaves of your own nationality. [leviticus 25:44 nd Exodus 21:7].

Sadly, religion has had a lot of dark episodes, not only now with the Moslems, but during the middle ages the church regularly burned people at the stake for believing in doctrines that went against church policy.

There is light in this world. Put to point a finger at religion and claim with a blanket statement that light comes from religion simply is not true. Religion has light and darkness, as do most other organizations and philosophies.

Question: | 2:16 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Where in recorded history - anywhere - has a government based on dogma and rejection of reason been known for its respect and protection of individual liberty?

The claim that the purpose of the 1st Amendment's establisment clause is solely to protect religion from governmental mischief and offers no protection to the people against religious mischief is absurd.

Mike Richards | 2:47 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Let's review the clause in the 1st Amendment that pertains to religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The onus is on Congress. They are restricted. They cannot interfere in religion, but the people are not restricted in worshiping as they please nor are they restricted in promoting their religion nor are they restricted in inviting others to join with them.

When our life's purpose, as given by the Son of God himself says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.", then, is it not important that we spend more than a few casual moments out of our life examining religions and their teachings about God?

Why would anyone be quick to dismiss religion just because they have found an example of religion gone awry? How many have stopped eating because once they had got a stomach ache? Yet, too many have decided that God is so much inferior to themselves that they dismiss Him from their lives and then complain from that time on how unjust life is.

Faith and reason | 3:09 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

All have the "right to life,"liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Faith in God: For you created my inmost being you knit me together in my mother's womb, I praise you because I am fearfully made and wonderfully made your works are wonderful I know that full well. (Psalm 139:13,14 NIV)
Faith in reason: Ultra Sound

re: question | 3:37 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

"The claim that the purpose of the 1st Amendment's establisment clause is solely to protect religion from governmental mischief and offers no protection to the people against religious mischief is absurd."

who claimed that?
speech and influence are not mischief
mischief is mischief and relgion has no right to engage - but religous critics have no right to use the government to promote their intolerance of religous speech or thought

RE: Religion is not all light | 4:36 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Let's not overstate the negative side of religious zealotry.

During the middle ages not as many were hurt by religious extremism as you like to think,

and pales in comparison to what secular governments and other non- and anti- religious groups have done,

the hundreds of millions murdered, maimed, tortured, raped, imprisoned, freedoms taken away, control exercised over the people, by governments and others for NON religious and ANTI-religious reasons.

Maud | 8:06 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

There was a time in history when what I believed was between me and God. I was allowed to vote my conscience in the privacy of the voting booth and, thus, make my will known.

Now, I am surrounded by those who tell me that my vote is no longer mine - that if I am a good Mormon I MUST vote a certain way - that if I am a good Christian I MUST support certain legislation - that those who favor God favor certain candidates. These people tell me that religion is no longer between me and God but is a matter for the ballot box. They tell me that I must support laws that make religion into law, laws that force others away from their private relationship with God and into the relationship with God that these others have determined is best.

When you vote, please vote your conscience and your beliefs - but please also allow me that same opportunity. There is a reason politics and religion are not supposed to be discussed in polite company.

Loose Cannon... again | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Cannon wrote: "The First Amendment was designed to protect religion from governmental intrusion and also to protect religions in general from state-imposed dominance of one denomination."

This is not true. The language of the First Amendment is very clear. If the authors had meant to convey what Cannon wrote, they would have wrote essentially the same thing. They did not. As is typical with religious synchretists, Cannon tries to twist the facts to support his preconcieved (religious) conclusion and agenda.

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!

BGR | 4:22 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Great

apologetics the true scholasticism out reasons reason

just great

Sam | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 20, 2009

I like his last comments- atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on reason. Religious people just use more targeted arguments because they have faith that supports propagation of further investigation into a given subject, which probably makes the honest religious person probably more focused and more open minded than their agnostic or atheistic counterparts. Often atheistic beliefs settle on the first indications of reason, and accept it as fact BECAUSE it is based on reason, while upon further investigation, there are deeper issues at hand, and things aren't what they seemed at first glance. It contributes to a closed world view just as much as the atheists would say hyper religion promotes a closed world view as well.

Jerry W | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 20, 2009

Sometimes proponents of liberal and athiestic points of view portray religion as a very negative part of the human experience. As far as Christianity is concerned they point out some of the injustices that have been practiced by religion, to support their ideas. What they fail to understand is what Europe,in particular, was like before the advent of the Christian religion. Atila the Hun and other assorted heathens inflicted terrible injustice and death to countless numbers of nations and pleople. When you start downing religion stop and think about this.

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.