Comments about ‘Orrin Hatch: Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 30 2014 3:47 p.m. MDT

Updated: Monday, June 30 2014 3:47 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

But --

Is this the real Orrin Hatch speaking,
or
scripted by the Corporate Over-Lords who are America's new Gadianton Master Mahans?

SharpHooks
Sandy, UT

'Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'.
Not in Utah it's not, but SHOULD be.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

LDS lib,

The courts have spoken. I hope you'll support, honor, and sustain the law as your articles of faith requires.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

Anyone who understands the First Amendment would pen a similar article to Orrin Hatch's. Only lawless politicans and bureaucrats who would impose their secular (atheistic) beliefs on others, would object to Orrin's editorial.

MoNoMo
Fair Oaks, CA

Um .... what about that "slippery slope" thingy?

And, my "church" supports other positions?

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

My concern over this SCOUTUS ruling is: how far is Hobby Lobby's reach now? This ruling allows Employers to limit their Employees access to some Medical services because the Employers deem it against their Religous beliefs and Religous Freedom. They, Hobby Lobby, is aghast that their company money is supporting employee behaviors they find abhorrant and the SCOUTUS supports this. The next reasonable step for Hobby Lobby is for them to demand the Local Municipalities discontinue offering these abhorrant Medical services to their employees because it is Hobby Lobby's Money after all, in part, supporting these Abhorrant Medical Services by extension , thereby violating Hobby Lobby's Religous belief's and Freedom,in part, again.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

"It is much more important than that. It is about whether the political agenda of some will trump the . . . liberty of all."

Exactly, and today's Supreme Court decision carried out a political agenda that trumped liberty for all.

The latest horrendous decision of the Supreme Court invalidated the principle of the Separation of Church and State.

A cherished principle stemming from the first days of this Republic has been rendered perverse by foolish Right Wingers with no sense of history, proportion, or propriety.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

‘Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'

Well, that depends on the type of religious expression.

Human sacrifice is absolutely prohibited, for example, as is everything else that may be detrimental to the general welfare and detrimental to ourselves and our posterity.

But that has changed now with this latest ridiculous Supreme Court decision.

For the first time in the history of the nation, religious fanatics can legally impose their will upon the government of the United States, thereby restricting the freedom of others.

This Supreme Court has made a mockery of the US Constitution.

OlderGreg
USA, CA

I see some remarks from places that may have legal marijuana.
Would it be OK for an employer to object to paying for one's grass?
Is it any of your employer's business how you spend your wages?
-- or what you do away from the job (assuming you are not a paid icon for your employer)?
Is it OK for your employer to expect you to be ready, willing, and able to do your job, with an appropriate public face, when it is time for work?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@ Chris B

"LDS lib,

The courts have spoken. I hope you'll support, honor, and sustain the law as your articles of faith requires."

Like you accepted Obama's election, obamacare's passing, and the overturn of amendment 8?

Remember, we both supposedly believe in sustaining and honoring the law. The 12th article of faith is a beautiful thing. Except, ever since 2008, I've seen a once pround but currently dwindling political party act like spoiled children refusing to sustain and honor this article of faith. I hope that folks like you see your error, truly repent, and finally obey this important article of faith.

MDurfee
OREM, UT

Everyone has a right to any kind of medical care they can personally afford. They do not have the right to force other people to pay for it, whether it contradicts their religious principles or not.

David
Centerville, UT

BYU Track Star: you are exaggerating the extent and meaning of the SCOUTUS decision.

GaryO: The SCOUTUS decision was not determined by right wingers, but by right leaning and moderate justices on the court. You're exaggerating too. But you bring up a challenging point--that of separation of church and state, and the right to worship, freedom of expression (free speech). But understanding a balance between these two very important principles is easier to grasp when you understand that separation of church and state does not mean removal of religious expression from public life, nor from government. Congress raises a voice of prayer and thanksgiving. Is this a violation of the separation of Church and state?

Rather, separation of church and state means that the state will not establish a state religion. Nothing more.

Again, you are exaggerating. It is not the first time that government recognizes the right of religious expression: Certain tribes are allowed to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. Government does not force saluting the flag, or even taking up arms for those religious believers opposed. Try not to get too carried away.

David
Centerville, UT

The Real Maverick,

You confuse the 12th Article of Faith with the right to free speech. Speaking against an ideology, especially one that is diametrically opposed to freedom, such as Obama's liberal agenda, is hardly breaking the 12th Article of Faith.

If one were to attempt to harm the president, or incite violence, or disobedience to the law, would be violating the 12th A of F. There are extremists in both parties that have and will do harm to others. But the large majority are exercising their freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution of free speech. Such is also supported by the 12th Article of Faith.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Restricting religious expression may not be americas' heritage. But using the state to enable it in any way isn't, either. No one, certainly not an employer, should have any right to use a benefit as necessary as health care to foist its' religious views off on a staff member. Employers shouldn't have anything to do with the provision of health care at all, by the way. No, restricting religious expression is not our heritage. And mine, not my employers' or yours, is the most important. The sooner you recognise that fact, and allocate rights and responsibilities accordingly, the better. Until you do, you've got it wrong and are violating the entire spirit and intent of this great nation.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Now that Senator Hatch, and his crony friends on the Supreme Court, have enshrined this concept into law, I wonder how many non-Mormon woman will lose their ability to obtain birth control through their employer provided health insurance.

And will this ever be reported? Somehow I doubt it.

FT
salt lake city, UT

I have no problem with religous freedom but how come some churches keep trying to take my personal freedoms away from me?

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

Are we to expect the government to mandate companies to pay for the cosmetics that women use and want? Contraceptives are far more cheaper than certain brands of lipstick. Would it not be sensible for those seeking to curtail or prevent pregnancy - to pay for it themselves.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

LDS Liberal

"scripted by the Corporate Over-Lords who are America's new Gadianton Master Mahans?"

There can only be one Master Mahan. Better read Moses again. Make No mistake they own Obama, Bush, Clinton and all other presidents before JFK. Everything they do is for the devil but coated with good intentions.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I will remind Senator Hatch the outcome when he attempted to ban gay/straight alliances from local high schools.

Beware unintended consequences.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

David -

"Rather, separation of church and state means that the state will not establish a state religion. Nothing more."

No actually, the Separation of Church and State, means . . . The SEPARATION of Church and State.

Our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the law.

Obviously, the church and the state are no long separate.

This nation is much closer now to the Taliban ideal of religion and government merged as one entity.

Way to go "Conservatives."

. . . You must be sooooooooooooo proud.

to comment

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