Published: Sunday, Oct. 7 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Increasingly, giving 'full reign' to Americas' religious groups
has meant giving them the green light to break the law with the expectation we
ignore it because they are a religious group. No, it's not OK to force
someone to marry their uncle or to practice hatred as a community. Religious
freedom can only exist in the framework of individual freedom that supercedes
it. We must be given our rights as humans before we're given our rights as
I love hypocrisy."Our religious freedom is more than freedom to
worship, the Constitution guarantees it..."."Your Civil
rights aren't important and even though the Constitution guarantees, WE
don't care."There are far more scriptural references to
hypocrisy in the Bible than pretty much any other sin.
The bottom line is very simple. While peope have the Constitutional right to
belive and worship as they choose, religions do not have the right to impose
their dogma and practices on people. Sadly some religions are trying to do that
imposition now (the Catholics' fight against contraception for example).
That must not be allowed.
Thank you for the well timed article. Your observation that government is
overtly trying to nudge aside the efforts of faith based organizations in
providing social services within their communities, in exchange for a washington
based social service system devoid of freedoms and respect for religious
conscience, is a frightening phenomenon that will ultimately limit religious
freedom and drive us ever closer to the socialistic, "distribute the
wealth" society that our current administration sees to "aspire" to.
If they are successful, and I pray they are not, they will remove the incentive
for hard working members of society to pursue the "american dream" and
replace it instead with a soviet style nightmare.
We are allowed to practice our religion in our homes and on the Sabbath, but no
other times. Health care workers are increasing forced to sign contracts that
they will participate in abortions, sell Plan B medications, perform sex change
operations and other actions that may be against their moral beliefs. The U of U
forced those in theater to perform and act in productions that were morally
offensive. Employers demand Sunday work in non-essential services. Religious
liberty involves more than just believing, it involves living ones religion.
Freedom of personal religious/non-religious conviction has become structural
bias against religion liberty.
Oh, please. When the Church showed up in New Orleans after Katrina, did the
government turn them away? Perhaps, in an ideal world, religious organizations
and private charities would be sufficient to provide all the necessary help, but
in this world they aren't. Good government helps to close the gap.The problem comes when "religious liberty" becomes an excuse to
deny rights and discriminate based on nothing more than "because God says
so." If you personally dislike gay marriage or abortion, that's your
right and you can live your life accordingly. Just don't try to rewrite
the law so the rest of us have to obey you.
re: Fibonacci What about those of us who are suspicious of all large
organizations (secular or faith based)? Do we have access to the American Dream
or is are Pursuit of Happiness denied? re: KJB1"Perhaps, in an ideal world, religious organizations and private charities
would be sufficient to provide all the necessary help, but in this world they
aren't. Good government helps to close the gap."I could not
have said it better. Government should exist to provide the tools/methods to
help the disengranchised. Not to unjustly punish the ambitious or raise the
whiners up/*The problem comes when "religious liberty"
becomes an excuse to deny rights and discriminate based on nothing more than
"because God says so*True. It reminds me of part of the song
Games People Play covered by Tesla and many others.
Really, desnews? Religious freedom is under attack because of health care
reform? Let's not confuse religious freedom with religious popularity.
The truth is that if we had a national single payer health system there would be
no religious conflict because religious entitys like the Catholic Church
wouldn't have any responsibility for paying insurance premiums paying for
medical services that their religious dogma opposes. This DN editorial is just
another politically motivated "be afraid, be very afraid" of the big bad
federal government diatribe. It smacks terribly of right wing conservative
Republican bias.Why am I not surprised?
Religious practice in a House of Worship are totally acceptable - but when
religious practices intrude in the public square then Religious Liberty as many
would like to define it, is no longer applicable.
You argue the constitution affords the freedom of religions to provide care
services, but "an expanding secular state imprudently tries to take on more
and more responsibility for health, welfare and education, the demands of state
administration are increasingly conflicting with vibrant faith-based
ideals."--but along with the freedom of religious practice, Americans are
afforded the freedom FROM religious practice. You ignore the ability of secular
ideals to be as vibrant as faith-based ones.Your article is based on
the premise that aid by religious organizations are able to provide the best
services for their patients based on "institutional conscience," but
some religious medical institutions are actively showing an unwillingness to
accommodate "personal conscience" by refusing to provide some medical
services the patient may feel are in their interest. Contraception, in this
case. Secular services provide access to important medical services all
Americans deserve the freedom of choice to pursue, without facing motives of
religious predominance. But the Obama compromise was an attempt to provide
religious institutions their sovereignty. Your argument is paramount
to claiming that that "individual 'religious' freedoms" should
trump individual freedoms, regardless of religion. This, too, stands directly in
the face of the first amendment.
Freedom of religion is very important - and I have no problem with people acting
in accordance with their religious beliefs....I do not, however,
believe that my boss should have the right to use my wages and benefits to force
his or her religious viewpoint on me - I do not believe that paying
tuition to an institution of higher education gives them the right to dictate my
personal life -I do not believe an employee of a public or private
institution should have the right to interfere with my medical care because of
their religious beliefs - I do not believe that an individual who
chooses to enter the public realm by opening a business should have the right to
force their religious beliefs on society through the denial of services - And above all, I do not believe that your inability to force me to
comply with your religious beliefs is a violation of your religious freedom. I
have the same right to religious freedom as you have - you cannot ensure your
religious freedom at the violation of mine.
If a religious organization takes tax dollars or receives similar benefit can
they do whatever they want with it, or do they have to follow the same laws that
the rest of society has to follow. This seems to be the disconnect in this
argument that is routinely put forth by conservatives.
The argument for religious liberty always relies on the assumption that religion
does no harm. But for all the good we can cite about religious organizations,
the fact is that religions do damage all around the world each and every day.
They deny children education (biology/evolution), they maim helpless children
(circumcision), deny preventative health care (contraception), marginalize
entire groups (homosexuals), denigrate women (burqa requirement), and broadly
pit us against each other - just to name a few things.Likewise,
religions want us to believe that they are the exclusive bearer and keeper of
all good and moral things. Sorry Deseret News, belief in a god is not a
requirement for caring for the "sick, caring for the poor, counseling the
poor in spirit, educating the rising generation and promoting integrity in
society." All of this might be achieved more easily without religion because
religion itself is what often prevents these things from happening.
“has excluded religious considerations from important
deliberations.”Religion nearly always has a seat at the table.
Religion doesn't just belong to the leaders of religious organizations it
belongs to the followers of religious institutions. For example, the head of
Health and Human Services, Kathleen Seibelius is a Catholic. The problem is
more that religious leaders want to be the only ones occupying the seats at the
table. The Obama Administration, seeking to find areas of compromise, has
modified its requirements, though not enough to satisfy all Catholic leaders.Government represents the interests of diverse groups and respecting the
principal of equality. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their
employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.
Catholic hospitals and universities serve and employ non-Catholics. The Catholic Church is to be commended for the good work they do,
administering service to all, not just adherents, as some groups do. But their
private-govt. partnerships will require compromise at times.
Owl.No one is forced to do any thing. People do things according to
the perceived consequences of their options. And make their own choice. No adult American is forced to be an American.
Sometimes religious liberty goes too far. Adults have the right to practice a
religion within reason. Parents don't have . the right to irreversibly
mutilate their children's bodies. I am referring to forcible female and
If a religious organization owns a commercial business operating in the public
square, should it be exempt from civil law that governs the operation of
Are religious freedoms more important than personal freedoms?Should
a person be free to do bad things if those things are legal?
It's strange how the extreme left here would deny freedom, liberty and
rights to certain individuals and groups and businesses simply based
on what those individuals and groups and businesses may believe.And
then proclaim that is freedom.The fact is,There is every
right for the religious to express their religion in public square.The is nothing constitution that limits the people and their religions and
their businesses, nor their communities and states.it is government
that must not interfere. or abridge in any way.That is freedom."I may disagree with what you say (or believe, your morals,
religion, your ideology, your values, etc,)but I will defend right
to say it (in the public square)"Does the left believe this or
not?All peoples (and their beliefs, religion creeds, ideologies and
their organizations and businesses an so forth) must be welcomed in
the public square.what you may get or benefit from the government is
irrelevant, it is government that is limited not the people. Freedom
means that people and their business may do things that you do not like.But you have the same freedom as well.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments