Published: Saturday, March 17 2012 12:00 p.m. MDT
So... may I, out of deeply held personal conviction, now refuse to deal with
Mormons who come to me seeking my services?May I similarly refuse to
pay the portion of my taxes that fund government activities I find morally
repugnant?May I now exercise my personal bigotries against my
neighbors by asserting personal conscience?Do we all now just
abandon the notion of the social contract that holds a functioning and fair
society together?Increasingly, wrongly, and tragically, today's crop
of religious conservatives regard the narrowing of the mind and inward-turning
of the soul as a virtue. We become a _less_ moral society through
RE: BlueYou should be free to follow to follow your conscience, and enjoy it's rewards, and reponsible to accept it's
consequences, and yet the far left who talks of tolerance and
compassion, would strip the very essence of freedom and agency away,
and force all to live in their version of utopian sameness and faux social
morality. there is no social contract without totalitarian
control, it implies you must force others to live, talk, think, behave, a
certain way.True freedom is individual reponsibility, individual
morality, individual charity, individual love, and so on,being
taught the correct path by love, patience, and long suffering, and
true great society is created, by a person coming by their own agency to
understand, through love and service to others and honesty and morality and
work, makes a people of one heart and one mind, this creates
that true utopia the left desires.And if you find that the
government funding certain activities repugnent,shouldn't the government
be funding less activites and not more, and not be our task master(a government
that is supposed to be the people and not a distant body)?
Thank you for this excellent editorial and also the accompanying article about
religious objectors. I also appreciate the thoughts of "the truth"
Blue,I can answer those questions in order.No, you can't
turn away someone because of their beliefs. But if you run a bookstore you
aren't required to sell copies of the Book of Mormon.No, you can't
choose which taxes you pay because we all share the rewards and consequences of
our country. But you can speak out against the things you don't agree with and
elect representatives to change laws that are against your beliefs.No, you can't use personal beliefs to defend your bigotry. But you can use
your voice to speak out against choices (not people) which you are against.No, we don't abandon our social contracts or let society lose morals. We
respect that others believe differently than us and work together to have each
of our needs met. We respect a pharmacies decision to not sell a drug with which
they disagree as long as they respect us in helping us find a nearby pharmacy to
fill our prescriptions.Hope this helped.
Denial of service in a public place the essence of bigotry. D Rhonda Mesler and
her co-litigants refuse to sell fertility enhancing drugs as well? I suspect
they have such moral objection in that kind of interference with human
conception. They have cherry=picked their moral positions based on their biases,
as has DN.Is Rhonda Mesler prepared to assume the responsibilities
of an unplanned child and its overwhelmed single mother? Do she make exceptions
for rape or incest? Does she judge whether these have really occurred as
described to her? Does make efforts to prevent a suicidal teenager from ending
both lives? I think not. She just feels smug in her denial without taking any
social or moral responsibility. You know, the kind of responsibility that Jesus
preached when he said "love your neighbor as yourself".What
Rhonda Mesler shows is a focused love of self without the extension of that love
to a neighbor in a moment of crisis.
Next time some fool wants to invade Iraq, i conscientiously object.
The article cited in this editorial doesn't describe the circumstances leading
to the second trimester abortion.Eclampsia requires bed rest. But
what if you are a poor mother with mouths to feed? Armchair ethicists vote to
support the right of a pharmacist, but refuse to support taxes that would help a
woman forced into a traumatic dilemma. If you care so much about
babies, compensate that woman's lost wages so she can afford to be bedridden.
Pay for child care and pre-natal care do she can continue to feed and clothe her
other children. Pay parents and employers for sick child leave. Ensure that
children have access to medical and dental care. If you want to stop abortion,
don't just try to pass laws so you can feel smugly self-righteous. Pass laws
that eliminate the financial burdens that drive the majority of abortion
decisions. Studies indicate that such a move could reduce abortion by up to 80%.
You cannot put your wallet ahead of your ethics without the risk of hypocrisy.
Blue,Actually, you can refuse to provide services to anyone you
wish. If you are a photographer, you are not forced to take pictures of Mormon
weddings. If you serve food, you don't have to provide green jello with
carrots.It is usually the left that wants to enact laws that will
force people to use certain light bulbs, drive certain cars, embrace certain
sexual preferences, and give free stuff to other people.
I see a of people who pride themselves in being liberal and compassionate taking
the same tough law and order stand that I might expect to see in an Arizona
tea-parties talking about illegal immigration.Some supposedly
conservative people have suddenly realized that government too set on justice,
law and the common good can metamorphose into something that looks a little like
1930's fascism.I enjoy these discussions.
@Hutterite: "Next time some fool wants to invade Iraq, i conscientiously
object." You mean Iran? Good for you. But you can only conscientously
object if they draft you. Then you have to show that this is a sincere belief.
You cannot for example argue that you think that the current war is immoral, or
that you disagree with the wars because there are better alternatives. You have
to disagree with war, period.There are legal precedents about this
and even with the questions that a draft board can ask as they determine if you
are a conscientous objector.It is good that the discussion has
evolved to the point where we are discussing conscientous objectors. I think
that a society should allow conscientous objectors. I am not going to force a
Quaker into the army because of some tea-party ethic about law and order and the
government always knows best.
I have missed some of the articles that apparently have led up to this one.
However, I am extremely grateful that my mother, who nearly died at my birth
because of pre-eclampsia had not been encouraged by her doctor to end the
pregnancy to avoid that peril. I am also grateful that I did NOT end the
pregnancy I definitely did not plan. I am so glad that someone else benfitted by
my impulsive behavior and that I don't have an abortion to remember. That would
be hard on my conscience, which has enough other memories to address! Sadly,
much of this boils down to placing convenience ahead of conscience.
Well written article, I couldn't agree with it more!
I always chuckle when groups of people claim protection and rights under the
name of a Nation they don't serve or pledge allegiance to.Muslims
who seek our religious freedoms and civil rights but won't salute our flag.Immigrants who cry out for "rights" protected by laws they chose
to break and demand public services they do not pay taxes to.Draft
dodgers who claim umbrage under liberties they choose not to defend
themselves.In a way, we've all become kindergardeners who want toys
and ice cream from stores we fight against and that we didn't pay for. Maybe it
doesn't matter who our President is when the people are so far from deserving
Thanks for the very well written editorial. But, it missed the primary point
that underlies the problem. When did we, the American People, give
government the authority to tell us what we MUST do in our private occupation?
We do not work for the government, yet they want to tell us what products we
must sell and what procedures we must perform. Where is that
authority enumerated in the Constitution?Government has greatly
exceeded its authority. Now it demands that we kill unborn babies and that we
prevent babies from being conceived. How does that "secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?
We have rights and freedom because we came together and agreed to limit some of
our own rights and freedoms in exchange for the rights and freedoms we wanted
most. Every right, every freedom that we have came about because
our government, the American people, has the ability to limit and control the
freedom of others to harm us. Business exists at the will of the
society government. A government may not force a business to operate in a
certain way or sell a certain product, but a government can deny the business a
license to operate within itÂs authority. There are no
Constitutional rights for a business operation.Freedom of religion
is about the individualÂs freedom to believe as that individual wants. It
does not give freedom of religion to churches or a religion itself. And while
the individual has the right and ability to believe any thing he chooses, he may
not have the right to act on his belief. We do not allow human
sacrifice not how intensely a person may believe.
Did Hutterite forget Obama's war in Afghanistan and only remember Bush's war in
Iraq? Such selective indignation belongs on the comics page of the DN. Both wars
reflect the thoughts often expressed in the military - war is old men sending
young men to die.
@the truth"yet the far left who talks of tolerance and compassion,would strip the very essence of freedom and agency away, and force all
to live in their version of utopian sameness and faux social morality."The far left isn't the one forcing women to be probed just to
try to make them feel guilty. Utopian sameness and faux social morality... I'm
pretty sure you just described social conservatives whether you intended to or
not.@USAloverYou forgot about southernors who fly the
rebel flag while questioning the patriotism of liberals.@4601Could've sworn that Afghanistan was started 7 years before Obama got into
office... so it's hardly "Obama's war". You could say it's bush and
obama's war though.
"A government may not force a business to operate in a certain way or sell a
certain product, but a government can deny the business a license to operate
within its authority. " - Ultra BobIf a government can deny a
license to a business that refuses to supply a certain product, or to a doctor
who refuses to provide a certain type of service, then YES, it is forcing them
to carry that product and provide that service.Leftists evoke the
language of freedom and choice only when it furthers their narrrow-minded
ideological agenda. They do not believe in choice vis-a-vis abortion for
doctors, nurses and pharrmacists. They do not believe in choice with regards to
parents who want to send their child to a private school and not have to pay for
that education twice.People, businesses, and institutions are not
extensions of the government. They don't have to do something because a
bureacrat or legislature wants them to if it violates their individual rights.
Restrictions on freedom must be compelling and necessary, whether its the
restriction on the right to have an abortion, or compelling someone to perform
There are communities who would love to restrict or prohibit Mormon Missionaries
from proselyting in their neighborhoods because it offends their deeply held
religious beliefs. Nondiscrimination laws get in the way, however. I believe if
the Deseret News gets its way, you could easily see a local prosecutor refuse to
enforce such laws because his religious convictions tell him that Mormons do not
deserve such protections. You can't have it both ways. Either we are a nation of
laws or we are not.
Henry,Read the Constitution. The 1st Amendment keeps
anti-Mormon laws from being passed. Article IV, Clause 2 states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or
laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." If a State
of a community wrote anti-Mormon laws, the Federal Government would pursue that
State or that Community (SHALL, PURSUANCE require action by the Federal
Government).A local prosecutor WOULD obey the Constitution or he
would find himself being prosecuted.Religion is protected. Selling
contraceptives or preforming abortions is not.Read the Constitution.
It is all there.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments