Comments about ‘Letter: Prayer participation’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 11 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake city, utah

Richard Davis is a professor of political science and employed by the Deseret News to write political columns so I would think pretty much everything he writes is of an ex-cathedra nature..based on his experience and position.

Your letter sir, implies there is something not correct about this, leading to the implication that it is also wrong for Mr. Davis to think he is wiser than the Supreme Court.

Hello...this is a national sport in America practiced by all when decisions don't go their way. Yours is just a more subtle form of this game. Criticizing the criticizer of a decision you agree with, therefor attempting to strengthen your belief.

BTW disagreements with Supreme Court decisions will all be virtue of...for some this is because of their expertise as constitutional lawyers, for some it is in virtue of their experience as political scientists, commentators, observers. However for most it is in virtue of their opinion.

American Fork, UT

"He makes an ex-cathedra style statement (they did err), which would imply that he is wiser than, and therefore entitled to correct the ruling of, our highest court." Did you read any of the columns, op-ed's, comments and letters that came out after the judicial ruling on Utah's same sex marriage ban? There was a lot of 'wiser than, and therefore entitled to' you missed there.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I believe the letter writer may be guilty of the same charge he leveled at Mr. Davis.

In any case, Mr. Davis was right. Both the SCOTUS and the MA Pledge of Allegiance decisions actually undermine rather than protect religious freedom because they say, in effect, majority (and tradition) rules. Mr. Davis (who I am assuming is LDS) recognizes that, outside of Utah, LDS don't even outnumber the Nones, much less the Evangelicals and Catholics.

It has also occurred to me that these decisions also undermine faith precisely because they relegate references to a deity as mere ceremony or a patriotic nod to tradition. In other words, "It doesn't really mean anything. We just used to believe that it did." If I was a believer, I would've preferred a stronger defense than this.

Overall, I'm beginning to wonder if these decisions represent a Pyrrhic victory for religion more than anything else.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

All politics aside --

If you believe in the #1 Commandment --
Thou Shalt not have any Gods before me,

Why would be so willing participate in a Government sanctioned prayer to Allah, Ancestors, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

God is definitely not disappointed with the ruling.

the truth
Holladay, UT

The decision was the correct one.

Religion is much more than what do in church or in your own home.

It has very strong public aspect to it.

It is how live your life publically.

No one is forced to participate, though you may have to actually exercise toleration for diverse views. Isn't that what he extreme left supposedly advocates?

No one should fear exercising their first amendment rights. But the extreme left seems to want to do that.

The first limits what congress can do, NOT the people nor their local governments.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments