Just because the First Amendment promotes freedom of religion, doesn't mean
there has been freedom of religion in practice.The record of the
United States is horrendous in persecutions of new religions, from the
persecution of Roger Williams's group that led to his flight to Rhode
Island, the notorious persections of Mormons in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri, and
even the burning alive of Branch Davidian children in more recent years in the
federal attacks in Waco, Texas.The problem seems to be that, while
freedom of religion is "guaranteed" under the Bill of Rights, in
practice that "guarantee" has historically not been enforced or
protected. Public schools also have effectively banned hymns and prayers and I
wonder if there are any Bibles in our public school libraries. If
things are getting worse still as the article suggests then we are in real
Just because we don't prostrate ourselves in front of your alters
doesn't mean we want to restrict your religion. Live and let live. You
stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours.
It is sad that we can not learn to care and respect each other. You mention
restriction. How far should somebody be able to go with their religous beliefs.
Being a gay person, it effects every single day of my life! Should religion be
able to dictate laws against certain people. Because somebody has a belief that
I am evil, makes it alright for them to What? In some religions, I would be put
to death. I just want to say how sad it is that we do not love each other. I
love God and I am thankful for having been raised Mormon. I don't know how
long I have wishd to share my beliefs. One tiny little restriction, I am gay! I
do have my belief in God and nobody will ever take it away, but many of you who
moan about your religous freedom look at me as if I don't even have a
beliref. What do I know? I can say one thing, I feel more appreciation for
others and we let things destroy the love we could have towards each other.
Sometimes we need those restrictions!
"Isn't having Utah Legislators make laws based on their personal
religious beliefs and not those of their constituents restricting those of the
non-mormon faith?"And you do not think this happens in
reverse?Take for example Alcohol: There are more secular reasons for
restricting alcohol than there are tobacco. New York requires warning labels on
bottles. Boston bans happy hour, etc. Do you really believe that popular
culture does not impose its viewpoint onto non-drinkers, who are often shunned
as ex-alcoholics or religious fanatics by "tolerant" people. Utah was
one of the last states to get good anti-smoking laws precisely because of
"the Mormon" issue: Which harmed us all.Last time I
checked, all "non-Mormons" do not think alike as you assume and many
Mormons and non-Mormons have a LOT of shared values.Can you name any
state or municipality where the elected officials didn't reflect the values
of the voters? (Gays in San Francisco, Baptists in Texas, etc.)The
"I am a victim of the Mormons" card gets tiring. (So i will mirror it
back with my own I am a victim of the victims schtick)
I believe that is about the time that our President was going around the world
with his message that the United States had done many things wrong. He
hasn't not mended fences with his tactics and has led to more intolerance
in all settings, political, social, economic, integrity, honesty and just
showing leadership.To have a President going around on vacations
including his wife's friends spending money he hasn't even budgeted
seems like a sin. Money isn't going out of style, it is gone. He blames
everything bad in his administration on the prior President. However, the
Congress has been a big part of his problems as they aren't minding the
financial store. They are the ones that approve budgets and have the purse
strings. They have been negligent to ensure the Secretary of the Treasury pays
his own taxes. That wouldn't cure all the problems, but it is hard to
believe the President would even nominate a person that didn't pay his
taxes fully. The Federal Reserve has been negligent in the part of
the deal, also. They are trying to make deals to make the economy look well
when not well.
Non-believer: I don't live in Utah but as you are quite well aware of the
main religious faith in Utah is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
With the state as a whole around 70% of this faith don't you think that
the constituents are members of that religion for the main part. It is awfully
funny that no one is citing any problems with Massachusetts where the main
religion is Catholic or across the south where most are Baptists.Your point is mute about Utah. The ones elected do support the major part of
their constituents. You are just in the minority.
@A Scientist@kishkumenThe religious anf religious
establishments do have a efvery right to a voice in the public square and, and
have every right to speak up anf influence and try effect change.And livbe religion publically.It's called freedom of
religion. and you have every to speak up and try effect change.Every idea, mora,l values, belief in God, should be heard in the public
squareand let the best of those win, In our republic
those who can influence the most represenatives wins or infleence the most
heartd with their values ides beliefs etc, wins, That how the
system works.That is why America is pathcwrk quit, and not grey
liberal blanket,We every should everyone live and have laws the
character they want, ans you free to go live with those that share you
values, beliefs, etc, but don't expect to live in an
area that has strong population you disagree with and expect them to go along
Oh, No! Religious people's "freedoms" are being restricted -- their
"freedoms" to......deny equality before the law to the
marriages of others, not even of their faith...deny the right of
others who be able to attend a public school without having prayers and
religious "commandments" shoved in their faces...deny the
right of others to have laws, decisions, and public policy based on reason,
empirical evidence, and data rather than religious dogma and "divine"
fiat that is not recognized as authoritative by anyone except the believers...exclude nonbelievers (atheists and agnostics) from serving in
political and public positions for no other reason than because they don't
believe...and the list could go on and on...
Here in the U.S, there have always been some restrictions on religion: Mormons
were not allowed to practice polygamy, and in fact had to discontinue it in 1890
in order to gain Utah statehood; There was also the infamous extermination order
against Mormons back in the 1800's; No religion can practice human
sacrifice (or animal sacrifice, for that matter); Today, of course, restrictions
particularily suited to caralling Christians are in vogue, especially in favor
of Muslim; No prayer in schools or public places, no crosses allowed. I highly
recommend the new film, "Last ounce of Courage" as it quite accurately
portrays the dwindling of all our individual freedoms, not just religion.
Isn't having Utah Legislators make laws based on their personal religious
beliefs and not those of their constituents restricting those of the non-mormon
I would encourage everyone to read the report. You will find that the U. S. is
very low on both the "Government Restriction" index and the "Social
Hostility" index. The list of top ten offenders includes Iran, Iraq,
Pakistan, and Israel. It seems that one of the key metrics in determining
"Government Restriction" is "Very High Government favoritism of
religion." In the U. S. we constantly struggle with Church and State issues,
but it is an essential element of true religious freedom. I have a
close friend who belongs to a certain religious sect that is being heavily
persecuted in the land of his birth. He came here to avoid being killed. For
his safety I don't dare mention either the name of his religion or the
country he came from. I know others from Africa and the Balkans who grew up
running from town to town because of state sponsored religious violence. While
its important to discuss potential threats to liberty here at home, I think from
time to time we should stop and consider one important thing:We are
very fortunate to live in the country we live in.
Blue is right up to a point. But, when do you take your rights and trample on
someone elses rights?I have a right to breath fresh air. My neighbor
has a right to smoke. When his smoke is in my air, who should be protected? Who
should decide that?I have a constitutional right to worship as I
believe. Another person has a right to be gay. When does the gay right, over
ride religions rights and force religions to change their beliefs?I
have a right to wear a cross to work. Work has the right to have dress codes.
Who decides?I have a right to free speech, even if you disagree with
it. Yet politicians like to silence the opposition or to those who raise
questions; and they have a right to not answer those questions. Who serves
who?You have a right to make money. Do you have the right to take
someone elses money? What if you use the government via taxes to take it. Does
that make it right?
alt134: For me no, democrats do not endorse terrorists but they do endorse
taking religion out of the public square.blue and no fig in SG:
Yea, it is okay for you to spout off on tolerence for your own agenda but it is
wrong for those who are anti same sex marriage to be assualted, to be driven
from their places of work and in some instances from their homes solely because
they have contributed to a cause they firmly believe in. I
don't believe in the same separation of church and state as others. I
disagree with the Constitutional judges who have placed that upon us but I
don't go around causing harm to those who do. It is my right as a citizen
of this nation to stand on my beliefs and to use those beliefs in how I vote.
That is why currently I could never vote for a democrat because of their party
@atl34"Acts of religious terrorism — such as the November
2009 shooting rampage that left 13 people dead at Fort Hood, Texas, or the
infamous underwear bomber"Our beloved barack obama stated the
fort hood shooting was a workplace violent act. Nothing about the shooters
religion. Again with the underwear bomber, from our beloved fearless leader that
personally led and killed osama, stated that it was a rogue lonely person that
carried it out. Never mentioned religious radicules.Do i think
democrats support terroism? I think the questions should be, what have
democrats done to reduce terroism and help the US to be a leader in the world?
Is releasing terroists from gitmo so they can kill our ambassadors a good idea?
Is it good to go to fewer than 47% of your security briefings to play golf and
hang out with jay-z when nations are warning you of attacks? Why is this
president still funding the muslim brotherhood? Why are we giving money to
nations that hate us? Why do we protect some innocent life in oil rich
countries, but, not other innocent life?
@Liberal Ted"This is the love and tolerance coming from the
democrats."Considering the article said... "Acts
of religious terrorism — such as the November 2009 shooting rampage that
left 13 people dead at Fort Hood, Texas, or the infamous underwear bomber
— were a key factor in the U.S. Social Hostilities Index, which rose from
2.0 as of mid-2009 to 3.4 as of mid-2010. The score moved the U.S. from the
lower end of the moderate range of hostilities to the upper end of that
range."...I have to ask... do you think Democrats actually
support terrorism, or did you just not bother to read?
Blue summed it up nicely. What qualifies for religious restriction in the US is
kind of pale compared to the rest of the world. Not being able to cure all the
gays or tell everyone when and why to have sex is one thing; getting killed for
your beliefs quite another.
In many parts of the world, zealous members of a religion murdering people who
don't subscribe to that religion solely because of their failure to believe
what the murderers believe is indeed an act of religious oppression worthy of
universal condemnation. But here in the US, stopping a church from
violating the constitutionally protected civil rights of citizens who don't
belong to that church is what now passes for a "restriction on
religion." Apples & Oranges, folks.
this is a part of the hope and change libs want. just think four more years of
the doj suing states over everything, religion is one of those things.
Cool your jets, DN.Everyone knows religious factions will be the cause of
the war to end all wars.The waring in the Middle East will never end.
America's imperialist Conservative politicians are ready to assist middle
eastern nations in the terror and destruction war will create. Republicans have
always worshiped the financial fortunes of wartime.These powerful elected
legislators only pretend they care about the world's religious freedom.
And.....unfortunately, they hold the cards for the rest of us.
This is the love and tolerance coming from the democrats. See how it works? They
will love and tolerate your beliefs as long as they are in line with what is on
the demos party platform. Oh and open mindeness and other pointless terms that
they hold dear, but, never practice.
Yeah, it needed to happen since religions were forcing their practices into
politics and public places. If they hadn't tried to force their symbols,
their religious texts, and their beliefs on to others then the restrictions
would not have been required.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the result in the US has a lot more
to do with efforts to stop Muslims from building a community center in New York
or a mosque in Tennessee have a lot more to do with it than contraception. A
bunch of Sikhs being killed also probably pushed up the hostilities index more
than some fabricated war on Christmas.