Comments about ‘Dwight G. Duncan: Religious freedom — use it or you might lose it’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 1 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

This is a never-ending struggle. Where to draw the line between you doing what you believe is right, and me doing what I believe is right?

If my religion required that on each summer solstice I dunk myself in pink paint at sunrise and then spend the day standing on my head singing "Hey Jude," would I feel justified in expecting the government to provide me with the paint, a place for the pink paint dunking, and require that you join me in the "Hey Jude" chorus?

What if your failure to get pink and sing along with me was considered by me to be highly offensive?

Why are _your_ religious beliefs worthy of government enforcement upon all citizens, but my Solstice-Pink-Headstanding-Hey-Jude religious beliefs are not?

Your religious beliefs do not trump my right to be left alone by you and your religion.

When I tell you that your efforts to enforce your religion on me and others who don't share your beliefs, that is _not_ persecution.

Only to a religious person is being told you can't unconstitutionally persecute someone considered religious persecution.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

Yet another thinly veiled article about religion being under attack.

If I had nickle for every time one appeared in the DN; I could get Romney's advice on how to open an account in the Caymans.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: Blue

Is religion forcing their values on you or are you forcing your values on a much larger very religious community.

You are free to live in any town or city that shares your values.

When you live in Utah did you expect the major religion, and majority population to just roll over for you?

Why does the left want a one size fits all solution to governing?

Let Freedom ring, let each town, city, community have their values and laws they want. Let have their own character.

You are free choose where you want to live That is beauty of america and it;s constitution, power resides with the people, it is a patchwork quilt not a big grey leftest blanket.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think this article is the most grievous travesty against truth and history that I have ever seen.

The words “They don't mean that Americans' right to religious freedom is a right to believe whatever we want to believe”,

and the words “The free exercise of religion means the ability to act on those beliefs”.

are the exact opposite of the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.

No one except deranged people would believe that anyone, everyone, can have absolute freedom of action in a civilized society, be they religious or otherwise.

Wally West
SLC, UT

per the truth 6:10 p.m. July 1, 2012

"Why does the left want a one size fits all solution to governing?"

For the same reason that organized religion feels that one size must fit all??

RG
Buena Vista, VA

Ultra Bob: do you seriously believe that the author of the column really meant that anyone can absolute freedom to do anything? I certainly didn't take it that way, and I'm sure it wasn't meant that way. The more reasonable interpretation is that we can act on our beliefs as long as they don't hurt others. My guess is that most readers took it that way. The author didn't realy think it was necessary to spell it out in those words.

Ranch
Here, UT

The biggest threat to religious freedom is organized religion itself.

We have one religious group (Christians) who are attempting to make laws that favor their own religious beliefs at the expense of every other religious belief.

Anti-same-sex-marriages laws.
Anti-Muslim laws.
Anti-This laws.
Anti-That laws.

What about those religions that believe same-sex marriages are okay in the eyes of god? There are several, including some Christian sects. There are Christian sects attempting to promote anti-Muslim laws.

You are your own worst enemies. As you fight against the freedom of other Americans, you will find yourselves being more and more pushed aside.

The freedom to practice your religion does not mean that you can force others to adhere to your religious beliefs.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

Your Freedom of Religion ought to extend up to the point where mine begins.

I went to Church yesterday, no questions asked. Prayed with my family, no police interrupted my prayer. Observed to keep the Sabbath Day Holy, no justice of the peace tried to imprison me. As far as I can tell, my rights to practice my religion are alive and well.

There was a certain church here that allowed older gentlemen to marry younger women against their will. We as a society, and wisely so, have said that isn't right. We, as a society have placed certain restrictions even on that First Ammendment right. Why? Because someone's rights interferred with another's.

Thefore, I live my religion, and I have to allow you the same right to believe or disbelieve, otherwise it is hypocrisy. As certain, wise man said "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The only way this works is if we have secular laws.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

In my world I try to go by what people say and not try to add or detract imaginary meanings.

I have to believe that the Deseret News and the Mr. Dwight Duncan, Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth, says what they mean.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

Ultra Bob: Many times people don't mean exactly what they say. When someone asks, "How are you?" do you really think they want to hear about all your aches and pains? (Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on who is asking and if you have recently been in the hospital etc.). When someone says "Good morning" but it is raining outside, are they lying? When someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" do you really believe him? If someone says, I believe in obeying the law, are you then surprised if he drives 56 in a 55 zone? I hope these illustrations are useful.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

Did we all read the same editorial?

A Catholic attorney, using examples from US history, world history, and contemporary life outside the United States, illustrates how religious rights in the United States may be (and in the case of Catholics ARE) eroded.

How is this "persecution" of non-believers (per Blue)? A "thinly-veiled article about how religion is under attack" (Hank Pym)? (This is hardly "thinly-veiled." It is overt. Calling it "thinly-veiled" gives it a sinister aspect, however.)

This is the "most grievous travesty against truth and history that [Ultra Bob has] ever seen"! Ultra Bob ought to read and compare travesties more. His is not the "most grievous travesty against" hyperbole I've ever seen, but it deserves an honorable mention.

"The truth" believes that it is "right" vs. "left" political split. (As a believing, non-Republican, left-leaning Centrist, I respectfully disagree.)

And Ranch, who has previously professed general disbelief in religion, feels that his religion is being infringed upon, and steps to the defense of Muslims and homosexuals, who, he feels, are somehow being hurt by this article?

Based on the editorial, I have reason to believe Catholics' religious beliefs are being infringed.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

The writer got it right. Our allegiance is either to God or it is to man. When man dictates that we must abandon God, then our only choice is to serve God.

I would submit that most of those who make such ridiculous remarks about religion have a desire to abolish any religion that would tell them that God does not approve of the way they live their lives.

What is religion if not a "moving force" that guides us towards a godly way of life? If we remove God from religion, then that "moving force" can never guide us towards God. It's simple.

Those words uttered so many centuries ago are still profound, "choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD".

The gods being foisted upon us have nothing to do with God or with religion; therefore, we must reject them.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@J Thompson

"The writer got it right. Our allegiance is either to God or it is to man."

When man made up God then our allegiance is only to man. Especially when God is in the image of man (or vice versa) ... how convenient that we'd believe the supreme ruler of the universe is like us.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

The two July holidays present an alarming dichotomy: the first celebrates independence and our vaunted "freedoms" and the later celebrates the arrival of tattered latter-day saints to "freedom's last abode" - the Salt Lake Valley - outside of the United States, where finally they enjoyed a measure of freedom from the prejudice of the mob and the neglect of government officials.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

@ Jeff 11:49 a.m. July 2, 2012

Do you not recognize thinly veiled sarcasm?

I cannot taking articles on religious freedom in the DN too seriously. Because, I know how it will devolve.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

So sad but too bad. How many times did this nation go to war when in some cases when a near majority opposed based on moral

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

There is plenty of religious freedom in this country. It just can't come from our religous-neutral government. Government buildings, schools, etc. shouldn't have Christian symbols and sayings, etc. What about our citizens of other faiths? They don't deserve that. And you Christians wouldn't dare allow Muslim quotes, etc. on any public buildings. So be equal and honest with everyone.

Outside of government ran things, there is plenty of religious freedom. I heard in the Chicago Tribune that a group from a few different states held a mass resignation ceremony in a public park in SLC the other day. The other week I was at the Chi Gay pride parade and a group of Christians were waving their flags with very nasty stuff written on them about homosexuals. Both of these are modern cases of religious freedom and freedom of speech. It's here.

Biggest case I've seen against religious freedom is the ending of polygamy. Other than that I've mostly seen it as free.

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

To Counter Intelligence 11:21 a.m. July 2, 2012
Salt Lake City, UT
"Your Freedom of Religion ought to extend up to the point where mine begins."

And if someone wants to force Catholics to provide abortion inducing drugs: their religous and/or secular rights have ended and Catholics have begun.

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

Nobody is trying to "force" Catholics to provide abortion-inducing drugs. In the first place, the Catholic Churcch (in its role as a church -- an establishment of religion) does not have to fund contraceptive mediccations. On the other hand, organizations owned by the Catholic Church, not being etablishments of relition, do not have the right to violate the laws of the United States. Additionally, the drugs in question (including but not limited to the so-called morning-after pill) only work to stop pregnancies from staring. NONE of them in any way interrupt an already-started pregnancy. You (and the Catholic Church), of course, have every right to teach and/or believe what you choose. You (and the Catholic Church do NOT, however, have the right to impose that religious or philosophical belief on anyone else.

zabivka
Orem, UT

Despite being a non-religious person myself, I actually think it's great that people have the religious freedom to act according to their consciences (provided they aren't harming others as they do so).

I also recognize that is the right of every religion and individual to judge, classify, and withhold service from any group of people. I don't want your religion to be forced to marry homosexual couples, if that is not something you are comfortable with. That's absolutely fine and I never want that to change. But don't do it on the taxpayer's dime. Pay taxes, and you can do what you want. I think that's fair and straightforward; if you want to go tax-free, you should have to jump through the government's silly hoops. Pay your taxes, and you can avoid all the hoops.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Ranch:

"We have one religious group (Christians) who are attempting to make laws that favor their own religious beliefs at the expense of every other religious belief.
Anti-same-sex-marriages laws.
Anti-Muslim laws.
Anti-This laws.
Anti-That laws."

It may help if you were more specific on the "Anti-this" and the "Anti-that" law.

With regards to Anti-Moslem laws, I don't know what you mean. However, for the record I consider the Judeo-Christian tradition, to be more correctly, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

One little question, if a Moslem doctor did not want to grant an abortion to a woman after her 4th month of pregnancy because of his religious belief, should be required? What if there is Moslem in a counseling program at a university who does not want to counsel someone about their gay relationship? Or a Moslem photographer who does not want to photograph a gay wedding?

Should their religious beliefs be permitted or should they be subjugated to some people obsession with law and order at all costs?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments