Comments about ‘Religious liberty’

"With religious liberty under increasing legal and governmental attack, what are religious people to do?"

My suggestion - first, stop making hyperbolic statements that hold little truth. Second, continue to practice your religion as you see fit. No one is stopping you. In my 58 years on this planet I have continued to attend church as often as I want. Whether it is in my little home town in Idaho where almost everyone is a member of the LDS faith or whether it is in my current residence where my fellows church members are scattered intermittently amongst the many who are not of our faith, I have never had anyone prohibit me from attending church or believing what I wish to believe. Certainly there are those who wish to challenge my faith but I'm thinking that members of my faith, including myself, take the same approach to others, hopefully in a respectful and civil way.

During my lifetime, although I didn't know it when I was youg, my faith has evolved from a small regionally dominate faith to what is now a worldwide religion that is well respected everywhere. Here in the Washington DC area the temple stands as a beacon on the Capital beltway and members of my faith play a significant role in the affiars of this community.

Let's stop trying to make a crisis where none exists.

So... The Deseret News now thinks it is acceptable to publish letters that incite violence?

Is threatening violence because you can't reconcile the rights of others with your personal religious beliefs ever acceptable?

This is beyond irresponsible. Shame on you.

Your right to practice your religion does not entitle you to expect your government to deprive other American who do not share in your religious beliefs of their constitutionally protected civil rights.

Religious Liberty:

1. The right to think and believe according to your own standards.

2. The right to voluntarily think and believe according to an accepted set of standards set by a religious faith.

3. The right to think and believe according to an accepted set of standards set by a religious faith, and be controlled by those beliefs.

4. The right to think and believe according to your own standards as secured to you by your government.

Do you really believe you would have religious liberty if everyone has complete freedom to think, believe and act as they pleased.

There is no reason to be talking extreme measures. All that has to be done is to elect a President that has the integrity to keep his oath of office. Everything that America stands for is already found in the Constitution. If we, the people, do OUR duty and elect a President and a Congress that will do THEIR duty, we will be just fine.

"With religious liberty under increasing legal and governmental attack"

Is "religious liberty" really under attack? Can you provide some examples?

From what I see, people use the term "religious liberty" to mean that they should have the right to impose THEIR brand of religion on others.

Is it just me or is the letter writer one step away from treason? Your religious liberties are not in danger. Please site some examples you are ready to go to war for.

"Religious liberty" isn't being "attacked" by anyone. What is being challenged is the right of religious people to impose their beliefs and lifeway on the country (and, especially, on the people who do not believe the same as the ones trying to do the imposing). Contrary to what some people think and/or want, the United States is not a theocracy.

re: JoeBlow,

Have you been reading the Deseret News lately? Have you not read the articles about the Catholic Church, an establishment of religion, being forced to provide contraceptives, abortions and abortifacients to employees working at its school and its hospitals?

The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws pertaining to "an establishment of religion". The President, by virtue of his oath of office, is prevented from enforcing any law that goes against the Constitution.

Congress passed a law pertaining to "an establishment of religion". There is no doubt or uncertainty of the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning contraceptives, abortions and abortifacients. President Obama tried to enforce that unconstitutional law.

HE BACKED DOWN when polls showed that he was losing the Catholic vote.

Why did he sign that law, after all, he promotes himself as being a Constitutional Scholar.

Mike Richards: You do have a problem with Obama don't you. Seems like his political demise would be the answer to your fondest dreams. It would pave the way for the righteous to rule, someone like GWB for example.

What are religious people to do? Here's a couple of suggestions. Quit discriminating against women by trying to tell them what their role in society is, how they should make their own reproductive decisions, and what their role in worshipping should be. Try not foisting your values on everone else by telling them who they should love, and marry. Try keeping your symbols and outward observances to yourselves. Do these things and you'll be shocked at how much freedom you have.

The only thing that is happening now is religions are being restricted in their ability to discriminate and exercise power over others than those who adhere to their beliefs.

The downtrodden and lambs have found their voice to exercise their constitutional rights. Do the simple things I suggest and peace will reign.

J. Thompson,

The Catholic Church issue is easily overcome by some minor wording change. Not exactly the "attack on Religion" that people would like to make this about.

And, as to your over-the-top rhetoric, who is forcing anyone to provide abortions?

Perhaps a bit of misinformation to bolster ones position?

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

It's the second half of this clause which is being violated. The U.S. government can't force me to pay for abortion. It's against my religion.

The official policy of my church says, "Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion." Exceptions are allowed for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or when the health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus has severe defects that will not allow it to survive beyond birth. "Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically."

I was born with the right to free exercise of religion. The state cannot take it away. I will fight if necessary, but only as a last resort. My first remedy is to vote. November can't come soon enough.

Midvaliean: Ms Weaver is not a traitor by any stretch of the imagination. But like so many others, including some editorial staff of the DN, she has been frightened and duped by politicians who seek to use religious freedom as a wedge issue for the upcoming elections. The Birth control issue is a classic example. Federal health policy is made to look like it circumscribes religious freedoms. The bad old government is mandating religious institution like the Catholic Church to fund health insurance policies for their employees that pay for birth control. Birth Control is morally wrong they say -- and so they should not have to pay for for that coverage. Fair enough, the President came up with a reasonable way to get around that issue. Now the Republicans have bumped up the issue and doubled down with the notion that no one should have insurance subsidized birth control. Why? because they want to maintain the political wedge issue for their right wing political base. They really don't care about the moral issues, or women, or religion. They just want power and they will do anything to get it.

T. Party
Pleasant Grove, UT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

It's the second half of this clause which is being violated. The U.S. government can't force me to pay for abortion. It's against my religion.

--------------

This is the same argument that pacifists have been having for years. It is against their religion to support war, and yet, the supremes decided that they MUST pay taxes supporting them.

How do we reconcile our laws to allow Quakers, Mennonites, etc. to follow their religion and not pay for things that they believe are immoral?

Oh spare me. Seriously.

Religious institutions just won a major case before the Supreme Court. A regulation they did not like was modified in an attempt to accommodate their beliefs. But if you want true religious freedom, then support and provide it rather than ban practices based on religious beliefs you do not like and seeking support for the ones you do like. Legalize polygamy for consenting adults who base it on their religious beliefs, then I'll take you more seriously. But you can't have it both ways. (I'm not a polygamist, by the way, but I do ask for consistency). Overturn the 1878 Reynolds case and then talk to me about your imagined assault. If there is an assault, it is by religious institutions seeking special protections. That amounts to a state supported religion.

re: Mike in Cedar City,

I have a very large problem with anyone who takes an oath to do something and then does the opposite.

I have a very large problem with anyone who seizes assects from U.S. citizen in violation of the 4th Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons,) and the 5th Amendment (nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.).

I have a very large problem with anyone who takes authority to himself without the consent of the Governed, who hold all authority except that which they have delegated to government: 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.).

Perhaps now would be the proper time for you to dust off your copy of the Constitution and compare what Mr. Obama is doing against the authority that WE, THE PEOPLE, gave him.

Any citizen who believes that Mr. Obama is defending the Constitution as required by his oath of office, does not understand the Constitution.

@J Thompson & T Party;

When a Church opens a business, that business is NOT a Church, it is a business. As such, that business is obligated to abide by Civil Laws (religious laws are not applicable to businesses).

It is not a violation of religious tenets to have Businesses, if they provide insurance, provide Comprehensive Insurance. Nobody is going to force you to use contraceptives if they violate your conscience. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion if it violates your conscience. You are still free to live your religion and your beliefs.

On the other side of your argument about your money supporting things you don't believe in; what about those of us whose money is being used to support things we don't believe in? Is that okay? Personally, I object to subsidizing religions with tax exemptions.

The only war going on here is the War Against a Decent Education which, apparently, America is losing.

The recent episode has nothing to do with religion or the First Amendment. It rests on the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment (among other things). If anyone wants to get into for profit business or receive tax subsidies then their ability to discriminate is reduced to zero. The moment the Catholic Church chose, yes they chose, to enter this marketplace they willfully subjected themselves to the same rules as everybody else. Indeed, had this been the American Atheists, the same result would have played out except all those deriding Obama's decision now would likely be hailing it in that circumstance. If the Catholic Church doesn't like the rules of the game, they are 100% free to leave the game.

The law is blind people, that is by Lady Justice wears a blindfold. It doesn't matter that it is the Catholic Church, no one should be permitted to enforce this type of discrimination. I just lament the Obama Administration didn't let the courts decide this, they would have put the Church in its place.

re: RanchHand | 8:47 a.m.

It is not left to you to decide when an establishment of religion is denied full protection under the Constitution for ANY of its activities. You may think that the 625+ hopitals run by the Catholic Church in America are not doing the work of the Catholic Church. You may think that caring for the poor, the sick, the needy, and the afflicted is not the work of the Catholic Church. You may think that giving spiritual support to those who are sick and afficted is not the work of the Catholic Church; but, you, as a citizen, have no voice in that matter. What YOU think will never change the fact that the Catholic Church is an establishment of religion; therefore, the Catholic Church is protected by the 1st Amendment from the Federal Government and from any citizen who would infringe on that establishment of religion's freedom from dominion by the government.

@pragmatistferlife
âWhat are religious people to do? Here's a couple of suggestions. Quit discriminating against women by trying to tell them what their role in society is, how they should make their own reproductive decisions, and what their role in worshipping should be. Try not foisting your values on everone else by telling them who they should love, and marry. Try keeping your symbols and outward observances to yourselves. Do these things and you'll be shocked at how much freedom you have.â
-------------

In other words, religions should just quit exercising their right to practice their religion and should just give up their right to freedom of speech.

Oh, how you are making the point of the opinion.