Published: Tuesday, March 11 2014 2:36 p.m. MDT
Your freedom ends where mine begins. Don't tread on US!
Religious leaders were predominant in the Civil rights movement of the
1960's (Revs. Martin Luther King, Hosea Williams, and Ralph Abernathy, to
name a few). The anti-Vietnam War movement also included heavy involvement from
religious leaders (Malcolm Boyd, the Barrigan brothers, and others). Curiously,
I don't recall any liberals complaining about separation of church and
state. It's funny how liberals suddenly "discovered" that issue
when people began disagreeing with them. Similarly, the advocacy which liberals
once gave for free speech has been replaced with a concern for "hate
speech" when anyone voices a perspective which is different from theirs.Liberals threw a mighty fit over Mormon involvement in California's
Proposition 8 campaign, while they voiced no such objection to Unitarian or
Episcopalian involvement in the No on 8 campaign. As a Mormon and former
Unitarian, I found that downright laughable, not to mention blatantly
Abortifacients ARE NOT part of the ACA mandate. Hobby Lobby and
others falsely and inaccurately label emergency contraceptives as abortifacients
despite there being NO evidence that they cause in-utero loss of a fertilized
egg, Therefore they are not classed as abortifacients by scientists or medical
experts.Should we let non-science groups determine/dictate the
findings of science?
The point of the article is that when people espouse "tolerance" and
"open-mindedness", they consistantly seem to exclude people or ideas
that are intolerant and closed minded since they aren't about to change,
and want to treat others poorly and be socially immune from their behavior.
@ Spangs"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)"Spangs, what do you think about the gay barber
in New Mexico denying service to Governor Martinez because of her beliefs in
traditional marriage? Discrimination is not a one way street which most liberals
believe it is. The Arizona Religious Freedom Law was never designed
to discriminate against gays. It was designed to protect Christian businesses
from lawsuits that would follow for not catering to gay weddings. What I don't understand is why don't gay couples just take their
money to another business that would cater for their wedding? Instead, they want
to force the Christian businesses even if they have to sue them out of business
to cater for their wedding. That is what its all about to these activists. It's not about catering for their wedding. It's about full on
assault on religious freedom.
'It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious
freedom'______________________________It never has
been.I’ll give the benefit of the doubt by presuming that the
intent of the column title was to be provocative and not to give offense.
It's funny that in the first sentance the author acknowledges that what we
are seeing is an "expansive" view of religious freedom by some in our
society. Religious individuals have not had the right to discriminate period and
religion have not been allowed to discriminate outside their eclisatical duties
since the end of segregation. What this group of people are asking for is an
expansive abity to discriminate In ways they have not been allowed to in the
@Bleed Crimson;Go read the discussions of the legislators in Arizona
about their "religious freedom" bill and them come back and tell me it
wasn't about allowing "religious" people to discriminate against
It isn't hard for this so called liberal to tolerate religious freedom. As
long as we recognise that, either it applies to us all, or the entire concept is
a baldfaced lie. Religion, after all, is entirely subjective, so much so as to
basically boil down to an individual interpretation equally applicable to each
and every person on earth. So, let's all have religious freedom. But
don't be surprised when somebody builds a monument to satan in the capitol
rotunda, or throws you out of your apartment for being christian. After all,
that's the kind of freedom we're seeking, isn't it?
@ interventionDiscrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are
just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor
Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because
of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination?
You bet ya! If you don't believe she was discriminated against, then you
are a hypocrite! People need to quit singling out Christians as the only group
that discriminates. Liberal groups are just as guilty.
@Bleed CrimsonThe hairstylist was wrong to discriminate, no argument
from me. however two wrong do not make a right and their actions only reinforce
not refute the fact that discrimination should not be sanctioned by passing laws
to protect such behaviors.
@chris bI have seen you on many occasions state your support for
religions that have taken stands against gay rights.
Here in Az they were talking about gay wedding cakes as they passed the bill but
after the Governor vetoed it and it looked like it was going to cost the state
hundreds of thousands (again) in tourism and conventions they said the bill was
about "no shirt no service." HA!I thought they were
religious? They shouldn't lie about their motives.
Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah@ interventionDiscrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are just as guilty of
discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New
Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs
in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya!=======Yep, discrimination.Do you realize that
under Arizona's proposed law, that sort of stuff would have been
1,000% perfectly legal 24/7 for any and all instances?Including not
cutting your hair for being Mormon, Jew, White, or Male?Is that
really the 1920's Jim Crow America you are proposing in 2014?You bet ya!
@ Sven: Do you by chance refer to this situation, "In 2007, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis unanimously voted to impose
stiff penalties against taxi drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying
liquor or riding with a guide dog. The drivers, again motivated by religious
beliefs, could face a two-year revocation of their taxi permits for refusing
those passengers service."Or perhaps this one, "Comfort Cabs
told Sun News it took action after receiving Simmonds’ complaints and told
CBC News that most of its cabs can accommodate a guide dog.“I
sent notices out on our dispatch computer…and reminded them of the rule
that anybody with a service animal, don’t even question it, ”
Comfort Cabs operations manager Cliff Kowbel said."Since the
issues were resolved mandating service to all customers, it doesn't really
seem as if there is much for liberals to complain about.
" Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs.
Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a
gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that
is discrimination? You bet ya!"Uh. . . So you see what the
barber did was discrimination, right? And it sure sounds like you think
discrimination is a bad thing, right? So then you are against business owners
discriminating against gays, and you were against the law in Arizona that would
have made it legal for businesses to discriminate, right? You bet ya! For the person that worries rather liberals will speak out about the way
Muslims treat women, I, for one, think it is horrendous the way women are
treated by that religion. Of course, I think it is wrong how women are treated
by religion in general. It's strange, I wonder if some of you
people have ever actually met a liberal in the flesh, or do you create your idea
of what a liberal is based on what you hear on talk radio?
@Open Minded MormonTruth 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. ----------Ridiculous nonsense.
This article only makes any sense if you believe that liberalism and religion
are diametrical opposites. While that may be true of some conservative,
hierarchical, patriarchal religions, it's not true of all branches of
Christianity, let alone all religions.Take my religion, for example.
Starting from a very early version of the Christian church, the Religious
Society of Friends has powerful beliefs centered on Equality, from which its
other Testimonies of Peace, Integrity, Community, and Simplicity derive. The
manifestations of our egalitarian faith align very strongly with liberal
values.Women have led us equally with men from the start. Our
experiences with imprisonment led us to minister to the imprisoned and push for
their humane treatment. Our conflict with slavery led us to man the Underground
Railroad. Our belief in equality led us into a leadership role in the
Women's Suffrage movement.We did all this BECAUSE of religious
freedom. There is no conflict between being a strong liberal and being a strong
proponent of religious freedom. Where you err is in trying to justify limiting
secular freedoms in the name of your religion. That's theocratic tyranny,
to Craig Clark"The 17th century Puritans fled intolerance...
There must be a lesson..."Like how they could not get along with
themselves & some fled to what is now RI?Or, Massachusetts was
quite conservative and now... not so much.
Okay, I'll ask again:Why is it Liberals only seem to muster up
enough courage to go after Christians and their faith, but not Muslims? You
were outraged at the baker in Colorado who refused to make homosexual couples
their wedding cakes. You demanded that these Christians be forced to make these
wedding cakes. Liberals were apoplectic at this blatant religious intolerance!
Okay, so why is it we never hear of Liberals taking on Islam (Sharia
Law), and the intolerance of Muslims to both homosexuals and women? I mean, if
you get worked up over a cake, wouldn't the Muslim view and treatment of
women, homosexuals, and others really be something that would merit your
outrage?America certainly has a large number of Muslims living here
that you express your outrage at. “And one of the points I
want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans,
we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world...” -Barak
ObamaCan we look forward to Liberal activists vocally protesting any
Muslim businesses in the near future for their religious beliefs?((Crickets))
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments