But -- Is this the real Orrin Hatch speaking, or scripted by the Corporate Over-Lords who are America's new Gadianton
'Restricting religious expression 'is not America's
heritage'. Not in Utah it's not, but SHOULD be.
LDS lib,The courts have spoken. I hope you'll support, honor,
and sustain the law as your articles of faith requires.
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.
Um .... what about that "slippery slope" thingy?And, my
"church" supports other positions?
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.
"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.
‘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
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
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no problem with religous freedom but how come some churches keep trying
to take my personal freedoms away from me?
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.
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.
I will remind Senator Hatch the outcome when he attempted to ban gay/straight
alliances from local high schools.Beware unintended consequences.
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.
But, Orrin,Will you also defend a business who (now companies are
people) is owned by a Jehovah's Witness who has an insurance plan that will
not pay for blood transfusions? What about a business who is owned
by someone whose "religious" beliefs will not pay for immunizations?
Where does the rabbit hole end?
Do a simple search online for the meaning of separation of church & state.
Let's look at what those who are complaining about the ruling are really
saying. They're saying that they agree that government has the right to
force us to buy a product for someone else. They're saying that no one can
worship God unless that worship is pre approved by government. They're
saying that no one has any responsibility to pay for his/her own personal
welfare. They're saying that government will tell us what we must provide
employees instead of requiring people to use the money they earn to provide for
themselves. They're saying that the concept of freedom is dead in America
and that Obama can dictate to us every aspect of our lives. They're
comfortable with that.They have not read the Constitution that
guarantees us free expression of religion and the freedom not to have our
religious conduct dictated by government. They have not read the Constitution
that requires the President to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution.Senator Hatch is correct. Those who fight against this ruling are
re: GaryO[No actually, the Separation of Church and State, means . . . The
SEPARATION of Church and State.]Agreed. Jefferson's Wall
prohibits influence in both directions.[This nation is much closer
now to the Taliban ideal of religion and government merged as one entity.]Look at Al-Maliki in Iraq favoring Shi'a politicians. What a
quagmire that is? Its a great example of why C & S s/b
completely separate. If I have learned nothing else in my life. Its that people
are whiners esp those who truly believe in any cause secular or otherwise.