Comments about ‘In our opinion: Honoring religious conscience’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Nov. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Apocalypse please
Bluffdale, UT

Please don't be prejudiced toward us, when we are prejudiced toward others.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

American Fork, UT

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.

spring street

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.

spring street

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?

salt lake city, utah

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"... 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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Kearns, UT

"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 truth
Holladay, UT

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.


Would 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"?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

spring street

Those 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)

Huntsville, UT

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 hypocrites.

spring street

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.

spring street

sorry that should be preemptive

Salt Lake City, UT

Your 'conscience'…?

Stops, at my life.

Focus on your OWN actions before trying to dictate the actions, of others.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

spring street

Well 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 guarantee

Nothing else really needs to be said about it

slc, UT

I 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.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT


"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

to comment

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