Published: Sunday, Nov. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Contemporary capitalism has advanced a widening gap between the super wealthy
and the working class. This should be of some concern to you. What impact
might the kind of religious liberty you advocate have on this widening gap and
its potential to shred society?
The DN will certainly get posts from the standard politically correct crowd
arguing that "they are tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a bigot":
while remaining oblivious to the fact that such arguments merely prove that they
are wrong on both counts. Religious freedom is not a negotiable item; it
is a constitutional guarantee.
Please don't be prejudiced toward us, when we are prejudiced toward others.
A man's religion is between God and himself; it is not between the man and
the State on any level of government. The Declaration of Independence declares:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."The
founding fathers knew that government did not grant rights to us, but that our
Creator gave us unalienable rights; then, to guarantee the right to worship as
we pleased, without government dictating to us how we should worship or what our
doctrine and covenants should be, the founding fathers added this to the
Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"Government
cannot dictate to us individually how we are to worship or how we are to perform
religious covenants. Government cannot dictate to an establishment of religion
its doctrine or how it is to perform its covenants. Marriage is a sacred
religious covenant. Government has no authority to define marriage. That
definition belongs to God and to God alone.
People of faith are not being denied their right to conscience. As individuals.
But rights apply first to individuals, and people are recognising that religion
no longer has the right to try to interfere with that process. Religions'
desire to oppress others will have to take short shrift in favour of rights to
those it wishes to oppress. That's ok, it's just religion after all.
It doesn't have to like gay marriage, even though there really isn't
anything to dislike about it.
Pacifists are not forced to serve in combat roles in the military - they are,
however, required to serve and work with individuals who have and currently do
serve in combat roles, in spite of the fact that combat violates their religious
principles.There is no reason to treat those who oppose same-sex
marriage any differently than we treat those who oppose war and killing - they
can choose not to participate in it for themselves, they can teach their
children that it is wrong and against their beliefs, but they cannot act out
against those who hold a different viewpoint.You have the right to
your beliefs - you do not have the right to punish those whose beliefs are
different than yours.
So I have to wonder do those of you that agree with the DN and if the DN itself
likes the fact that "counter intelligence," always places you in the box
of being a victim?
I'm always reminded of an old adage. Your right to swing your fist ends
where my nose begins. Your right to religious freedom ends when it impacts my
lawfully granted rights.
"... untold consequences for children." Children are already being
raised by gay couples. Would not being recognized as a LEGAL family actually
result in positive consequences for their children?Property tax
exemption protects "entanglements" which could endanger religious
freedom? The exemption is the trade-off for religion not imposing itself on the
democratic political system - separation of church and state.The
exemption helps to reduce "government expenditures"? It dramatically
reduces tax revenues which causes smaller state budgets and larger federal
deficits. Reduction in government expenditures is due to the need to cut
spending because of a lack of this revenue source more than it is churches
having more money for charity. If churches were taxed it would actually
encourage more tax-exempt charity. "... to live according to
one's conscience" does not mean you can impose your belief system on
others and discriminate against them. You can still practice your beliefs
unrestrained in your own personal life - which is what really matters. There is so much flawed logic in this article.
The honoring of religion and churches has not come about because of the good
that religion and churches do, but rather by the political power that religions
and churches have over the governments of people. If the work in
building a new nation was inspired by God, why did the founding fathers do it in
secrete. To me the Bill of Rights was driven by the greed and
corruption of the governments of the colonies many of whom were church
controlled. It has been my observation that when people do the work of god,
they tend to shout it our. The lack of concern for the individuals welfare in
the Bill of Rights tells me that the motivation changed from the Declaration of
Independence. I believe that religious, church, charity, and all
such do not deserve the special accommodations that they claim.
"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."I like this article of faith. If
only we could live up to what it says.
The extreme left posting here once again show they have no understanding of the
1st amendment, and what freedom of religion and speech and assembly is ands
means. If you deny religious people and religious groups access to
the public square , a public voice in the affairs of this country, then you
might as well tear up the first amendment. @pragmatistferlifeWould care to show any example where you "rights" have been
impacted?The government does NOT "lawfully grant rights".So, I take it your right to your beliefs and ideologies ends when it
impacts my "lawfully granted rights"?
spring streetThose who fight for religious freedom are only victims
if they allow those who seek to deny religious freedom to get away with being
perpetrators*. Saying NO to a perpetrator is the antithesis of
being a victim.Although I do realize that it must be very
frustrating for the left to have someone mock their game (but not my
problem)(* a category that includes passive/aggressive politicos who
perpetrate in the name of victims)
I'm sure that the Deseret News Editorial board is completely happy to allow
Evangelicals to hang "No Mormons Served Here" signs in their windows.Bigotry, which is what this OP Ed promotes, harms people. You are not
allowed to use your religion to harm others; that's why the government
reserves the right to reign in religious excesses.Additionally, how
much do you want to bet that these "conscientious objectors" to same-sex
marriage and serving LGBT couples enjoy R rated moves that promote sex out of
wedlock? How many of them watch TV and have nothing to say about all the
pre-marital sex on these shows? That is what is called "hypocrisy", and
I'm sure that these so-called "Christians" have read the passages
in the bible where Jesus (as well as the OT) have nothing but condemnation for
@CI So how exactly did your comment stand up for religious freedom, al I
see is a primitive strike to try to squelch anyone that may disagree with you by
claiming they are attacking the DN and in the process make the DN out to be a
victim. If you have a valid case to make for religious freedom why don't
you do the DN a favor and just make it.
sorry that should be preemptive
Your 'conscience'…? Stops, at my life.
Focus on your OWN actions before trying to dictate the actions, of others.
spring streetWell comments by Hutterite, Ultra Bob, Pagan,
RanchHand, Apocalypse please, pragmatistferlife, nonceleb, Marxist and yourself
would seem to indicate that a preemptive strike was downright prophetic. And I did make a case for religious liberty - you were just were too
busy feigning offence (aka I know you are but what am I) to grasp it - so let
me repeat: Religious freedom is not a negotiable item; it is a constitutional
guaranteeNothing else really needs to be said about it
@CII have to wonder if you stopped to think that your first comment may
set the tone for the way other respond? perhaps there is a reason you feel the
need to set such a tome.
intervention "perhaps there is a reason you feel the need to set
such a tome"Yes there is; the most intolerant people I have
experienced in my life are those that think they are tolerant because they
perpetrate in the name of rescuing victims.therefore if my tone made
perps uncomfortable - good
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments