Quantcast

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
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm with A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY
on this one --

Because, truth be told -- Jesus was a Liberal.
[The Pharisee's were the Conservatives.]

I'm Liberal BECAUSE I believe in Christ, not in spite of it.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

RanchHand (3/11 10:33am): A patron can refuse to do business with me because of my personal convictions. He can exercise prejudice against me and encourage his associates to boycott me as well. Yet you would deny me the right to choose my business partners. That is blatant discrimination. Business should be conducted between equal partners conducting a mutually beneficial transaction. If both trading partners are not satisfied, there should be no deal.

OpenMindedMormon: I've rarely seen such close-minded sentiments.

Absolutes such as ONLY (in all caps no less) are invariably wrong. I challenge your claims. For more than 200 years, America has valued religion and not one of the indicators you mentioned was in evidence, even in Utah. Not everyone prayed to the same God, dressed the same, or listened to the same music. Hollow rhetoric is not a good substitute for truth.

The truth is exactly opposite of your claims. This new form of liberalism wants us all to act and think alike. There is little indication of tolerance or religious freedom in the liberal movement, unless you agree with their paradigm. If you disagree, show me something besides rhetoric to prove it.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Here's the deal. Look around you. A conservative environment is hostile toward religious freedom. It is disingenuous for conservatives to say otherwise. There is nothing of significance in the real world to support their argument. Joseph Smith certainly understood this.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

Esquire: You saying something doesn't make it true. Have you anything specific to add that can support your point?

Tolerance is neither the purview of conservatism or liberalism. Both have elements of tolerance and intolerance. You are trying to establish a link where none exists.

Led by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, conservatives attempted to control and even eradicate actions and thoughts that were sympathetic to communism. People had careers ruined and reputations besmirched.

Today, the new McCarthyism is the liberal stance in favor of SSM. Even the abortion issue never reached the levels of intolerance of the the LGBT agenda. Once again, we have seen careers ruined and reputations besmirched. Once again, we are seeing people afraid of speaking their minds and fearful of consequences. Once again, the government is complicit in this oppression through legislatures and judges. Once again, rights are being trampled. Most germane to this conversation is a blatant intolerance among liberals.

In short, intolerance is not a function of the political spectrum. It is a function of our human natures. Each of us has biases based on our own ethical and moral codes. To politicize that is merely additional evidence of one's prejudices.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@LDS Liberal

Jesus said, "Render...unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

He didn't say render everything unto Caesar.

The fact is, there is a tension between liberty and equality. When the two collide, many of us prefer liberty.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

What about liberal religions like Methodists and Unitarians, they both support gay marriage, why is it ok to override their religious beliefs and stop them from performing gay marriages. Or does religion only count if it espouses conservative beliefs?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

religion wants everyone to be tolerant of their intolerance.
Reasonable people understand that they can't have it both ways.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Joe5

The first Puritans who settled in New England expelled anybody, including Roger Williams and Ann Hutchison who didn't conform to their religious practices. They also imposed the death penalty on any expelled person who tried to return to the colony.

Virginia had anti-Quaker laws.

I would recommend further reading on the early practice of religion in the U.S.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

1aggie: And ... What is your point?

- Are you trying to say that liberals have never shown intolerance because your examples of religious intolerance certainly don't prove anything of the kind.
- Are you trying to draw a parallel between religion and conservatism because, again, your examples don't make that point at all.

I said that intolerance is not a factor of the political spectrum. I have no idea what is the context of your response or how it pertains to my point.

So... great history lesson for a fifth grade history class, but not really pertinent to this discussion as far as I can see.

By the way, with respect to religion, it might be interesting to note that every state constitution has reference to a divine being whether they call him Providence or God or Divine Being or whatever. I would recommend further reading of the various state constitutions to better understand the role of deity in our society.

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ joe5, I am saying, as clear as a bell, that conservatives will restrict your personal religious freedom when it conflicts with their personal views. Your assertion on SSM is a perfect example. However, there are many, many other examples. Conservativism conflicts with personal freedom. Conservativism is more about institutional interests. Is that clear enough?

NorthboundZax
Makanda, IL

The author's agenda is all too apparent when he even goes so far as to argue that women should be denied birth control under a single-payer system on the basis of 'religious freedom'. There may be serious problems with a single-payer system but it would straightforwardly address the 'problem' of the poor Catholic Church having to provide plans with birth control for employees whether Catholic or not.

For some reason, I think even the author would balk at Jehovah's Witnesses denying health care plans that allow blood transfusions. Or Christian Scientists denying all health care plans other than faith healing. After all, those bad health care plans aren't directed specifically enough at women and/or gays to be worth fighting for on the grounds of 'religious liberty'.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@joe5 - Back in the 60s, lots of segregationists claimed their reputations were besmirched and their careers were ruined and I'm sure they blamed the government and Civil Rights activists.

The claim that opponents of same-sex marriage are suffering anything like McCarthyism is rhetorical excess. Nodiscrimination laws are nothing like McCarthy and his HUAC hearings.

Opponents of same-sex marriage treat gay people as if they are less fully human than straight people.

Same sex couples (and their children if they have them) suffer real-world harm from not being able to legally marry. Gay persons suffer real world harm when other persons refuse to treat them as equal to straight persons - loss of jobs, housing, relationships, added burdens just to do things straight people every day without a second thought. Recent research shows the burden of anti-gay prejudice negatively impacts gay persons' health and life-span.

It is painful for opponents of same-sex marriage to be accused of being prejudiced especially when they see themselves as decent people. No straight person would ever acquiesce to the idea that he or she does not have a right to marry. Why should gay people?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I don't sleep with a pillow or use hair conditioner!
Why should I have to pay extra for a hotel room that provides pillows and hair conditioners!

I should have to be forced to pay for something I will not use!

[See how completely stupid this arguement about Healthcare really and truely is?]

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

LDS Liberal says-

"I don't sleep with a pillow or use hair conditioner!
Why should I have to pay extra for a hotel room that provides pillows and hair conditioners!

I should have to be forced to pay for something I will not use!"

Who gives a rip about hotel room features? No one is making you rent a hotel room. The government isn't forcing you to rent one, and it isn't forcing your employer to rent one for you. Nor should the government force anyone to buy insurance.

[See how completely stupid this argument about Healthcare really and truly is?]

If people want to pay for their health care themselves, and choose which care is worth paying for, or getting insurance for, they should be able to choose without being fined by the overreaching, all powerful, owned by big business government.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

Esquire: Clear but inaccurate.

Liberals want to restrict my right to bear arms.

Liberals want to control how I run my business.

Liberals offer hollow freedoms that dehumanize and subjugate people. They view freedom as having indiscriminate sexual activity, killing unwanted children, and being idle. True freedom is opportunity whose companion is responsibility.

Blacks, of all people should know this. Liberal policies since the 1960s have stolen billions of dollars of black wealth and have relegated blacks to the slums and tenements as a result. This isn't even debatable when one relies on the facts instead of rhetoric and excuses. But that's not a strong point of liberals.

Compare national social indicators for blacks 50 years ago to today. Just two for brevity.
- In 1961, there were more two-parent black families than white families. IN 2014, the two-parent black family is almost extinct.
- 1n 1961, the median household income ratio between whites and blacks was 2:1; In 2011 it was 4:1.

What made the difference? Liberal policies (Dodd-Frank being one of the most blatant examples) are designed to impoverish and enslave. That is the opposite of freedom.

Last post. I guess you get the last word.

A Man's Perspective
Salt Lake City, UT

@Noodlekaboodle

"What about liberal religions like Methodists and Unitarians, they both support gay marriage, why is it ok to override their religious beliefs and stop them from performing gay marriages."

-----------
Who is stopping them?

It is not like conservatives are proposing that non-government sanctioned marriages have police and SWAT teams show up to stop them.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

these posts provide perfect evidence of the illiberalism of modern politically correct liberals who love to lecture on tolerance but never actually do it

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

The fact of the matter is this --

You are Free, and your Freedom of Religion to be as intolerant, racist, bigoted, as you want to be remains "WITHIN" the boundaries of your religion.

However,
Religous freedoms have boundaries, and those boundaries end in the public square and business sector when you encounter those who do not share those beliefs.

It's like swinging your arms all you'd like,
but,
Your freedom to swing your arms ends when you hit someone else's nose.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

Open Minded Mormon,

I agree with your prophet, Mormon Prophet Monson, who according to Mormons, speaks for God.

Its nice to know that Prophet Monson(speaks for God) agrees with me.

Such a great feeling, and I'm not even Mormon.

Do you not follow your church leaders? Not only have they said they are against, they've also said it should only be legal for a man and a woman to be able to marry.

Quite clear from your church leaders. I agree with Mormon prophet Monson

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

Some of you have the wrong idea of what religious freedom is! Here is a description for you:

Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" — is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]

Some of you self righteous people somehow try to take religious freedom as something that only belongs to you! Gay people have the religious freedom to not believe the degrading beliefs put out there by some people! So, we do need to fight for religious freedom. The freedom that gay people have to live their lives as they please without the discrimination of other religions!

Now, you should look up what " Religious Discrimination " means because many of you are definitely guilty of it!

to comment

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