Quantcast

Comments about ‘Fighting the good fight for religious right’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Aug. 18 2013 6:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Article quote Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Executive Director, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: "Objectively, I grew up poor. But I never felt poor. We were rich people temporarily without money. With education and will, we would eventually triumph. And we did."

I'd bet you $1000 that she didn't vote for Obama.

And I'd bet you another $1000 that she never would.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Why would anyone vote for someone that doesn't believe in religious liberty? BO doesn't, so I find it difficult to understand why anyone would vote for someone that wants to destroy religious liberty. Forget all the other 'social justice' issues. This Religious issue alone would bar any thinking person from voting for him, something most previous generations would have been educated enough to process to its conclusion.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

It isn't just religious liberty that's under attack by the Socialist-in-Chief. Freedom of the press, free speech, prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure, requirements for obtaining a search warrant, etc., are all under attack.

Making religious speech or freedom of conscience a crime is part and parcel with socialism.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@bandersen - "This Religious issue alone would bar any thinking person from voting for him"

Hogwash!

The kind of religious liberty the Right is currently championing is when a few activist religious people can bend every aspect of society towards their beliefs and pseudo-morals (e.g., birth control). Today it’s healthcare, but if they win this fight it will encourage religious intrusion into our lives for decades to come.

Thankfully Scalia’s precedent in the Oregon Peyote makes it clear that should never happen.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

So, are we back to fighting 2012 all over again? Mr. Obama, now in his second term, will not stand for reelection again, though I suppose he could run for a different office, as John Quincy Adams did.

bandersen's implication that current Americans are just plain dumber than their ancestors would be pretty hard to prove, unless, perhaps, you take into account that GWB was duly elected once (and that wasn't in 2000). If the voting public ARE dumber, then shouldn't the preceding generation take some of the blame?

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

Great article about a great organization run by what appears to be a great person.

I sincerely hope she and them the greatest of success in fighting for rights to freedoms of thought and expression that are under constant and mounting threat from not just the current Progressive in Power, but all like him.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

It's good to know that someone has the passion to never give up in fighting for my free agency. I hope that God watches out and over her.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

So, a positive article about a woman's success story...

...is turned into a Bash Obama tirade by off-topic, disruptive comments?

sashabill
Morgan Hill, CA

I contribute regularly to the Becket fund, and will proudly continue to do so. I encourage others concerned about these issues to do likewise.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The premise here is that the employer has freedom to practice their religious beliefs AND to impose them on their employees. This reflects the bias conservatives have with the employer-employee relationship. Employees have rights too.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

@ A Scientist - Provo, UT - "So, a positive article about a woman's success story...is turned into a Bash Obama tirade by off-topic, disruptive comments?"

Scientist -

Obama is not being spoken negatively here for false reasons out of thin air.

Obama IS being spoken negatively here because HE'S the guy that championed the disaster of a nationalized health care law.....they don't call it "Obamacare" for nothing.

If you utterly refuse to see that then there's nothing we can do to help you....

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

@ marxist - Salt Lake City, UT - "The premise here is that the employer has freedom to practice their religious beliefs AND to impose them on their employees. This reflects the bias conservatives have with the employer-employee relationship. Employees have rights too."

Seriously?

That's the best you've got in this debate? "Employees have rights, too"?

This may come as a shock to you but I agree with you 100%. Employees DO have rights.

If an employee doesn't like where they work they have a right to look for another job.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Hobby Lobby is a business run by persons of faith in a way consistent with their values, which preclude paying for drugs that may cause abortions. "

The drugs in question don't cause abortions. They work by preventing ovulation and fertilization. Hobby Lobby is applying its own label to the drugs. Perhaps Hobby Lobby should also protest against paying for anti-inflammatory drugs as well since they may cause a miscarriage early in pregnancy.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

RE: A guy with a brain "If an employee doesn't like where they work they have a right to look for another job." Speaking as a socialist, an employee has rights in his or her present employment situation - since he/she does the work. If he/she had a union such rights could be negotiated and enforced. But just because guys like you destroy unions doesn't mean such rights can't be asserted, which I do without apology.

?
SLC, UT

Maybe Ireland is on the right track and where some could be willing to compromise. Prove that the abortion to be performed is medically necessary, if not the pregnancy should progress as any other pregnancy. The same goes for brith control pills. Prove that it is medically necessary. Otherwise, why should anyone have to pay for another's recreational use for them.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Tyler & Marxist: It makes me realize why I am as close to being a Libertarian as you can get. Some people don't even understand the implication of arguing in favor or any government intrusion! It's called 'States' Rights' for a reason and its in the Constitution. If you don't believe in the Constitution, then I would much prefer the Libertarian values, something that doesn't threaten me at all. It's the 'government has all the answers' crowd that baffles me the most, and the outright giving up of Individual liberty they espouse, all for the 'greater good', of course. I laugh the most at this crowd. Liberty isn't even understood by this crowd. Everything is only seen through the eyes of Big Brother. Whether anti-religious fervor, Athiest boredom, or anti-capilist tirades, Government is their only means for redemption. Any other generation, and particularly our Founding Fathers, wouldn't even respond to such nonsensical caricatures of wisdom.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@bandersen – “Any other generation, and particularly our Founding Fathers, wouldn't even respond to such nonsensical caricatures of wisdom.”

That was quite a beating you gave your strawman.

I think the Founders would share my view that the democratically passed and constitutionally affirmed laws of the land cannot be subverted by any individual’s religious or otherwise moral objections.

And there is a long list of SC precedents upholding this view, including Scalia’s majority opinion in the case I cited above which contained the following unambiguous statement:

The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "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."

So do you believe in the Constitution or can religious activists be “laws unto themselves,” and in the case of the “generally applicable” ACA law, decide how that law applies to others?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Tyler: You do have a point. However, I doubt the Founding Fathers would uphold Supreme Court justices that allow for murder of infants, something the Supreme Court has affirmed. The laws of the land in many cases affirm the 'legality' that which is abhorrent to any decent and liberty loving patriot. The Becket foundation has a pretty good record for upholding (Since you believe in upholding the law of the land, right?) religious liberty issues, Hobby Lobby being just one of them. Or do private organizations have any rights in your world? Is there any such thing as an individual right in your world, or are we all to be defined by what the state defines us as? I don't believe in government healthcare! So, in your world, I guess I just go to prison. Of course, I'm pretty certain your belief in sending me to prison doesn't equate with denying an irresponsible adult birth control. So much for common sense. Perhaps 'Animal Farm' would be a good read, or better yet, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. Or, perhaps, just reading the bible would confer some wisdom about the importance of choice.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Bandersen
"Any other generation, and particularly our Founding Fathers, wouldn't even respond to such nonsensical caricatures of wisdom."

Would those be the same Founding Fathers who didn't think equal rights should include women and blacks?

I thought this quote by Grover Norquist in an interview with Diane Rhem interesting:

"NORQUIST10:49:57
Well, obviously, there are some things that the government does that it does well. And our government is less destructive of economic growth and human liberty than most of the other governments around the world. So if you're grading on a curve, we're doing pretty well. I think we can do better yet and be less expensive and less intrusive.

Norquist also conceded he didn't know what the various governmental depts do, so he wouldn't advocate for wholesale abolishment.

Obviously Capitalism needs a referee. Otherwise we would return to the days of tainted air, food, water etc. i often wonder if it truly benefits taxpayer wallets to be paying for services once done by the military and now being done by for-profit entitites. The DOD is one of the largest blackholes in our economy.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@bandersen – “I doubt the Founding Fathers would uphold Supreme Court justices that allow for murder of infants, something the Supreme Court has affirmed.”

I think R v W was a bad ruling and abortion should have been left to the States. Surprised?

That said, if you believe State protected life starts at conception, then don’t have an abortion. Pretty simple…

“Is there any such thing as an individual right in your world, or are we all to be defined by what the state defines us as?”

Rights are defined in the Constitution and we have a process for testing laws against those right. Like it or not, ACA has passed that test.

If you don’t like it, you’re free to go through the same (democratic) process to repeal it. If you’re advocating something more subversive, then in my view you place a higher value on your own convictions than you do the Constitution and Democracy.

And regarding birth control, you do realize that 99% of Americans have used it, yes? And it is paid for through premiums (i.e., earned compensation)… just like Viagra.

to comment

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