Comments about ‘It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 11 2014 2:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Religion is on the attack, pitting itself against equality in the secular arena. Religion has no valid reason to deny products or services to customers or employees when those areas are in conflict with the religious person's values. Forcing employees to adhere to one's religious values is as offensive as denying service to customers based on your sense of "religious conscience". The problem is that these "religious conscience" issues are not universally applied, but situationally applied.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I see the Taliban and Sharia Law entertwined with Government,
and
I see America and our seperation of Church and State.

I choose the later,
with all of it's consequences.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

Excuse me, but why do people separate gay people from religion when they bring up religious freedom? Since when have religious people ever had a problem with their freedom? Religious freedom does not mean that you have a right to do anything you want by saying that it is part of your beliefs! That would be absurd! People could do almost anything and say that it is their beliefs and they should be able to do it because of freedom of religion! It is pathetic to see how people use religion to excuse something as bad as discrimination! It is pathetic when somebody hates gay people so much that they can not take a picture or make a cake! I know, growing up Mormon, that I wasn't taught to act so childish and we were all taught to treat people better than that. Give me a break to those of you who are Mormon. I would like you to stand in front of my face and tell me that is what you learned growing up Mormon! It is pathetic and embarrassing that anyone would incorporate discrimination and hatred into their religion! What would the Savior say?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

‘It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom’

Truth be told,
tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism.

Conservatives would have us all;
praying to the same God,
attending the same churches,
wearing the same clothes,
eating the same foods,
drining the same drinks,
listening to the same music,
going to the same schools,
studying the same subjects,
and
shunning Science.

Utah is a perfect example of this....

Like Henry Ford once said,
"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

Close minded.

Sven
Morgan, UT

It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims. Hmmm?

Funny, but I haven't heard any outrage from Liberals about the Muslim cab drivers who have been REFUSING service to those passengers who have alcohol in their possession or working guide dogs.

Although it took place in Canada, Liberals have been strangely silent about the religious intolerance of the Muslim barber in Canada who refused to cut the hair of a lesbian. Take your pick, this Muslim was either discriminating because she was a lesbian or a woman. Now this is a conundrum for Liberals, which group do they support...homosexuals or Muslims?

Speaking of which, where is the Liberal outrage about the horrible, degrading treatment of women under Sharia Law?

Nope, Liberals save their "religious intolerance" outrage for really important stuff like a Colorado Baker refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexual couples.

Sorry, but when Liberals stay silent on the "intolerance" of Muslims, while castigating Christians, they cannot be taken seriously in their outrage.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO the problem is that many liberals think that anything short of all out attack on religion equates to government establishing a state religion.

They can't be neutral.. they have to be AGAINST religion. I don't get where liberals get THAT from the Establishment Clause.

===

The 1st amendment states both...
-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... AND
-Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Both of these TOGETHER make up the "religion clauses" in our Constitution.

Liberals over-emphasis the first (to the point of paranoia) and ignore the 2nd. It can be said that religious people focus on the 2nd clause (to the point of paranoia). IMO we need to use them BOTH equally (not just one or the other).

===

IMO... Government should not establish a State Religion... but they should also not prohibit the free exercise of ANY citizen's chosen faith. Even if it offends them.

Now it gets tricky when the free exercise of one's religion impacts another (jihad, not selling flowers, etc)... But I think we can address these without saying Government must suppress freedom of religion (due to red-herring GLBT issues).

Sven
Morgan, UT

Open Minded Mormon said"

"Truth be told,
tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism."

Yeah, the "tolerance and religious freedom" under liberals has been wonderful!

Dear Leader and Liberals showed this wonderful tolerance and religious freedom by forcing Christian based religious institutions to offer sterilization, abortion drugs, and contraception services as part of their health insurance plans. Nice try, but this was a direct assault on "tolerance and religious freedom."

So tell us, will Liberals and Obama force Muslims to comply with these same standards? Will Obama and the Left force Muslims to accept the LGBT lifestyle? ((Crickets))

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I much prefer the notion of freedom of religion as opposed to the notion of religious liberty.

Freedom of religion implies the right and freedom to believe in whatever way a person wishes. It is a personal thing that should mainly be kept within the private sphere of the person and the group of like minded.

Religious liberty implies the right and freedom to act upon a religious belief in the public sphere, even to the point of imposing that belief upon others.

The article states: "Liberalism should have the confidence to tolerate institutions, even large ones, that have competing and contrary missions to those of the state."
America was created by promises the that all men are created equal, have certain rights and would have equal justice. And freedom.

However, our society is made up of thousands of competing groups vying for control of people according to their own desires. The control groups might include parents, schools, churches, business operations and political governments all the way up to the federal government.

It seems likely to me that we cannot allow any group to void the promises of our political governments and still have one nation under God.

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

Liberalism in no way has any problem with religious freedom. The article is based upon this premise, and I am sure many uninformed folks in the conservative bubble believe this; but it has never been true and never will be. The Arizona law was not about religious freedom. It was about discrimination in the public sphere. Just because you serve a gay person lunch doesn't mean you endorse their lifestyle. This is using a sacred tenet of our American culture (religious freedom) to destroy another sacred tenet (equality).

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Any time I read people using phases like "monocultural elite class" or "Liberals direct their "religious intolerance"" it is really easy to decipher what the narrative the writer is trying to promote. Any sense of objectivity are long since history. some of the suppositions being made - that "liberals' are against religion are on their face silly - and at best ignorant. A true liberal would deny no one their right to believe as they please. They would not dictate what real religion is - or isn't. That is the definition of liberalism.

"Speaking of which, where is the Liberal outrage about the horrible, degrading treatment of women under Sharia Law?"

"Sorry, but when Liberals stay silent on the "intolerance" of Muslims, while castigating Christians, they cannot be taken seriously in their outrage."

Kind of like the silence around the mosque in New York City…. is that the intolerance you are speaking of?

We have gotten so deep into partisan silliness here….show me a Christian that is denied their right to believe… and I will listen. Otherwise this sounds like more of a self persecution complex. Woo is me…. please.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

THIS Liberal 100% supported the Muslims right to build a Cultural Center in New York City.
as opposed to
FoxNews and their Conservative right-wing viewers who did everything they possibly could to stop them.

Religous Freedom is under attack by the intolerant uber-far-right-wing,
NOT the Left.

Sven --
How does an employer providing a coffee maker at work impose on my religous beliefs?
No one is FORCING me to drink coffee.
Therefore, it doesn't.

Healthcare access for Women?
Same difference.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sven
"It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims."

Americans are very Ameri-centric. Sometimes detrimentally (when we try and claim we know what's best for people in other nations without understanding a thing about them) but understandably so, after all it's where we live. Muslims make up roughly 1% of Americans. And that's why Christianity gets more attention. The majority of Americans self-identify as Christians of some sort. When unified strongly enough they can influence public policy. Muslims can't. People generally don't care what religions do internally (consider that despite many thinking all-male clergy is sexist, there's really nothing in the manner of protest about it, and the protests that do occur are mostly by members in the church rather than outside it). They care about what religions do externally. Since Christians have this level of influence in this nation, but Muslims don't, and since other nations policy doesn't directly impact us as much as policy in the U.S., that's why there's more attention towards one than the other.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@Sven

You said: "It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims."

First, given that the majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, profess to be "Christian" in one flavor or another your "religious intolerance" comment is more hyperbole than actual fact.

Second, I have never had a Muslim admonish me at a community meeting for excluding "Under God" when I repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. To date, no Muslim has ever threatened me with physical harm for refusing to stand for the singing of "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. Muslims were not behind Arizona's failed attempt to legalize discrimination and are not a part of the many other "hate in the name of religion" initiatives in other states. Muslims do not try to use zoning laws to prevent the building of Christian Worship centers in their neighborhoods. "Good" American "Christians," on the other hand, do all of the above all of the time. Does that help answer your question?

jsf
Centerville, UT

this liberal also posted on these boards in June of last year he loathed conservative members of his own church. Seems tolerance is only a virtue of the true liberal who then can be intolerant of those with differing opinions because his cause is right.

As far as who says what school you have to go to, what you have for subjects, what you can and cannot eat or drink, try New York. Not exactly a bastion of conservatives. As far as shunning science, which group says the science is settled and there is no room for discussion.

How does a government forcing me to provide a coffee maker at work not impose on my religous beliefs?

Can the government force me to provide for those who do drink coffee. Liberals will tell you the government can force you.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

The editorial is question here gets the topic backwards. The question needs to be framed differently: how should a liberal majority interact with and treat an illiberal minority? Can the pluralistic majority long survive if it refuses to set boundaries on the behavior of an intolerant minority which wishes to discriminate against other members of society?

At the time of the Loving decision, a majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Today, a majority support interracial marriage. Should the majority permit the minority to act in ways which harm inter-racial couples? Catholic teaching opposes divorce. Catholics are allowed to preach against, believe it is wrong, but they are not permitted to outlaw it. What's more American Catholics at least are voting with their lives - and getting divorces.

Essentially right now we have a minority arguing they have religious reasons for opposing marriage equality and asking to be exempt from treating same sex couples the same as they treat heteorsexual couples. Same sex couples are, rightfully, demanding equal treatment in public accommodations. Which action is more damaging to the community?

10CC
Bountiful, UT

I think religious minorities asking for exemptions in providing services will be a short-lived phenomenon.

Rosa Parks demonstrated the power of the boycott in sculpting business behavior, and it won't be long before vendors who choose to discriminate will in turn feel the power of discrimination, as customers look elsewhere.

In 5 years this will be a non-issue.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@Sven

Dear Leader and Liberals showed this wonderful tolerance and religious freedom by forcing Christian based religious institutions to offer sterilization, abortion drugs, and contraception services as part of their health insurance plans.

Simply not true. They are legally allowed exclusions but must make it known that they will use those exclusions. Now, if your idea of “religious tolerance” is about letting for profit entities and their owners force their religious beliefs on their employees through the offered health plan, then yes, I am “intolerant.”

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

'It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom'

=======

I know that Liberals will support a Religion’s freedom to choose to marry Same-Sex Couples.

I'm curious if Conservatives are more or less as tolerant in supporting other people's Religious Freedom whether they agree with them or not?

[ie.e, the true test of tolerance and freedom.]

Oh and btw --
'It doesn't have to be hard for conservatives to tolerate religious freedom'

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

On the one hand you have comments by Sven and 2bit that are entirely valid and accurate, but the only argumentation actually in response to them seem to be these conservative/religion-villifying generalizations, and insistances such as "religion being on the offensive" and "illiberal minorities" that are simply not sensible. "Open Minded Mormon", for instance, insists that "conservatives would all have us praying", but this with a mindset drawn from those who would abolish all prayer if it were somehow able.

The point of the article is that when people espouse "tolerance" and "open-mindedness", they consistantly seem to exclude people or ideas that aren't in harmony with a specific, unified set of cultural ideas or norms that they set. These norms include socialism, denial of free religious expression, and sexual promiscuity, among other things.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

The 17th century Puritans fled intolerance in England to seek religious freedom in the New World. But as they put down roots here, they proceeded to fashion a social order that was anything but tolerant, especially towards those Catholics and Quakers who were foolhardy enough to venture into New England.

There must be a lesson for us Americans somewhere in there.

to comment

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