Comments about ‘Most voters favor prayer, minus Jesus, at public meetings’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 22 2014 9:45 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@SCfan – “.....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Of course…

The government cannot stop you from praying, going to church, or believing anything you want to. What they can stop you from doing is violating the 1st clause by claiming to be engaging in the 2nd clause… a fact that seems lost on many today.

Read the opinion of Scalia (perhaps the most friendly to the Religious Right SC Judge in history) in Employment Division v Smith where he essentially restates 200+ years of precedent regarding the boundaries within religion is free to operate (i.e. “free exercise” does not mean one can violate the law or Constitution).

If you still disagree, then honestly, I’m not sure what you’re arguing for… a theocracy?

clearfield, UT

I disagree that the 1st amendment is absolute about not having any religious recognition by government, or the state. You seem to be taking that side. If not then I guess we have been talking at cross purposes. (Christmas come to mind?) And the facts are on my side as my first post proved, along with the aforementioned Christmas. And as I hope you will agree with, in spite of those cases where religion has become a part of government, we do not live in a theocracy. We are no where near a theocracy and could never be. Even the most conservative/religious people in the country would not want that. Believe me, I'm one of them and I know. So, fear not. A little recognition of religion by any federal or state body is not threatening you or anyone else. And it's not establishing any religion. There is no force being used, unless you want to percieve there is but then that's your choice. However the majority should not need to change tradition because of a few irrational feelings or ideas.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@SCfan – “I disagree that the 1st amendment is absolute about not having any religious recognition by government, or the state”

I’m simply going off the document and what the SC has said about throughout our history. It seems pretty absolute to me, but I think you captured it well with your “neutrality” comment. Our government simply stays out of religion all together and thus is never in any danger of picking sides or “establishing” a position.

I am curious about your theocracy comment though in this sense – if you truly & deeply believe that following your religion is the key to eternal salvation, why wouldn’t you want that religion to be the law of land? Wouldn’t more souls be saved if the law set the boundaries on living a righteous (according to the true faith) life?

Carrying this to its logical extreme - wouldn’t we be justified in, say, burning a heretic if it meant that person could no longer influence our children and society at large? If we could “cleanse” our society of non-believers, probability alone suggests many more would be saved, yes?

Reached comment limit…

to comment

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