Published: Thursday, July 11 2013 12:30 p.m. MDT
Nonsense. I do not accept your premise that you, either individually or
collectively, have any greater insight into the mind of a supreme being than I
do, and are therefore entitled to modify our society as you see fit. Humans have
an innate sense of morality which serves us well and which has helped us define
how our society should work, and America as a concept is based on individual
rights and freedoms. We're reminded of that time and again in posts to this
publication. To that end, I'm not willing to subjugate my personal rights
to the whim of an individual or collective just because they claim to have god
on their side. The bully is no longer welcome to free reign beyond the pulpit.
Yes, religions have the right to set standards for their "communities."
What are the boundaries of that community, however, is what creates the tensions
we experience in our greater community. I would suggest that we keep the
enforcement of our religious community standards within the walls of our church
buildings and our own homes. I would even caution people to allow for some
individual freedom within those areas.Religious freedom should never
trump personal freedom. After all, according to what I have been taught,
individual freedom is part of the eternal plan of happiness. We need to allow
others to choose to follow or not on their own, and we all reap the consequences
of our own actions. If personal freedom weren't so important, Lucifer would
have been sent to be the eternal enforcer. Isn't that what many of us on
these discussion boards have been taught?
I think the Muslim Brotherhood made the same sorts of arguments when Morsi and
his ilk (credit to RedShirt) were drafting their constitution.Here
is what our foremost conservative Supreme Court Justice has said about such
arguments:"To permit this would be to make the professed
doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
The only ones "modifying" society are those who demand that their view,
which is contrary to societal standards, be embraced by all. Some think it is
easier to alter Truth than it is to alter themselves.Societies grow
and strengthen based on the self-sacrifice of those in it. They collapse and
fall based on the selfishness of those in it. Rome and Greece were built on
great sacrifice and work; they fell when pleasure became the primary motivation
for citizens. So it shall be with us today.Funny thing about
atheists: They are usually the most angry, mean, and argumentative people
around. This is because they are fighting the God-nature that is born in them.
We are all children of a Loving God - it just takes some of us longer to realize
I agree w/ Hutterite.This thread will now devolve in 5, 4,...
The human experience debate tends to polarize between the individual and the
community. In other words, as the debate goes, some believe we are all
individuals and others believe we are a community. I don't think either
are correct. Certainly, we each have a separate body and personality, but we
are attached in very real ways to others around us. We can make decisions for
ourselves, but those decisions influence many others. Instead of the island
(completely individual) or the borg (completely community), I like the analogy
of the hand. A hand is different than the foot or elbow or ear like an
individual, but it is part of (and can't exist without) the body as a whole
entity. This is how I view the human experience as a part of the whole of human
The author is arguing that a "communal dimension of faith" must be
protected, which sounds good until you think about what it entails.Does a "communal dimension of faith" permit a group of people to
violate the civil rights of people not of your faith? Is religion a valid excuse
for behaviors that otherwise are illegal? Does a group of people acting
illegally with a religious motive excuse their behavior any more than individual
person acting illegally out of religious motive? It sounds very much
like you're asking for that, and that simply won't pass muster with
the Constitution.You cannot engage in unethical and illegal behavior
behind a cloak of religious piety and expect to get away with it.
"The only ones "modifying" society are those who demand that their
view, which is contrary to societal standards, be embraced by all."So lets see the majority of Americans twice voted for Obama and the majority
of Americans support gay marriage, just two of the things the majority support
and you are admittedly apposed too, maybe you should reflect a little on your
Let's see how false and misleading the rhetoric of the liberals really
is.Obamacare requires God respecting businesses to provide insurance
coverage that includes birth control pills. The "faith community"
abhors preventing birth by edict of the government. The 1st Amendment protects
us from a Congress that passes laws pertaining to the doctrine and covenants of
an establishment of religion (Catholic Church), yet Obamacare pretends that the
"faith community" are foreigners, not entitled to protection offered by
the 1st Amendment even as Obama et al are bending over backwards to give some
form of citizenship to aliens who entered this country illegally.The
Federal Court in Denver told Utah to take down the monuments to fallen troopers,
even though the faith community in Utah pointed out that the Federal government
has no right to dictate anything to an establishment of religion nor does it
have the right to proscribe religion in any way, i.e., the federal government is
not allowed to keep us from worshiping, even if that worship involves visiting
the monuments of fallen troopers. The federal government cannot rule for nor
can it rule against religion without abridging the 1st Amendment.
"If a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the
public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission."
Flemming RoseI have no problem with believers bringing their beliefs
into the public sphere - but why am I also not permitted that opportunity? Why
do believers, including my boss, get to tell me I have to act in accordance with
their beliefs?A "robust public recognition of religious
freedom" must account for the multitude of beliefs and belief systems and
not assign higher values to the beliefs of one individual over the beliefs of
I wonder how utahns would react if the Muslim Brotherhood or heck, just southern
baptists, were running our state?
the pc bullies hate religion: wow that's a surprize
The purpose of religion is to define and teach proper behavior. Freedom of
religion is not freedom to behave badly! And there is the rub, isn't it?
Who defines "bad" (or good) behavior? Either God defines proper behavior
or no one does and that society will collapse in chaos, lawlessness and
violence. History is full of examples! Yes, even in America! As Cecil D. Demille
said, "We don't break God's commandments, we break ourselves
An individual’s freedom is not compatible with the freedom of the group.
If the group is given freedom, freedom is taken from the individual. An example would be the church business that does not want of provide health
insurance covering birth control. The church is claiming that they should have
religions freedom for the operation of their business. However
their business employs non church members who would like to have such insurance.
The non-believer of the church’s belief is therefore forced
to give up the freedom to have the birth control insurance in order to have the
employment American law requires business operations to not
discriminate on the basis of religious belief.
Re: "Either God defines proper behavior or no one does ..."Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that there is no God, and that
the "divine laws" you regard as the be-all and end-all of proper
behavior are the inventions of men? And if these laws are the inventions of men,
why does that make them worthless? Because they're "only" something
men agreed on, rather than something decreed by a supernatural being?
Religious freedom does not give you the right to trample the rights of others.
There are numerous religions and not a single one of them is perfect. Not even
the local one.I should be free to worship, or not, as I see fit
without the interference of ANY other religion.
“Christians and other adherents of the major religious traditions live out
their respective faiths in community. These communities inevitably set standards
for membership, including expectations for faith and standards for life and
conduct within the community...."______________________________Out of their own mouths, they indict themselves when they say things
like that. Then they can't fathom why some people regard religion as an
organized menace to society.
@MountainmanIf it is God who defines proper behavior, then whose
God? And how do we know God's definitions? Are we to accept what is
written in scriptures, which were written by men, supposedly writing down
God's commands? Why should we accept one set of writings and reject
another? Even more problematic - why do we reject some of God's
definitions about proper behavior (like the stoning of non-virgins, or of men
who lie with men) but accept others from the same scriptural source?We reject these things because we humans have a higher sense of justice than
that written in the "scriptures". Morality and ethics do not come from
religion. They are independent of religion, and have existed ever since humans
became a social species. The mere fact that no one today is willing to stand by
the "moral actions" commanded by their scriptures is evidence that
morality and ethics do not come from religion. I suppose one could say that the
fundamentalist Islamists do stand by the moral commandments of their scriptures.
However, that is the very reason why we reject them as barbarians.
@ Chymist. Which God? Hint: the God that inspired the constitution of the United
States. All others are irrelevant.
@ Mountanman: So, the God who supposedly inspired the Constitution to not
contain any references to God and to state that there would not be a religious
test for public office, and who inspired the First and Fourteenth Amendments
which prohibit the government from respecting (favoring) one religious group
over another or interfering with free exercise of religion, now wants us to
ignore that inspired writing and have a state sponsored (favored) religion?Yeah - that makes perfect sense.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments