Published: Friday, July 18 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Well said Mr. Bell. Your essay reminds of the founding principles of our
nation. Thank you for doing that.
"Principled opposition to California’s Proposition 8 brought
retaliation against donors and activists."--- It wasn't
"opposition" to Prop-8 by religious orgs, you supported Prop-8. Denying
others the legal benefits you enjoy; based on your religious beliefs, isn't
"principled", it is discriminatory. "Political
correctness says that opposing same-sex sexual relationships and marriage on
religious grounds is intolerant, bigoted and homophobic. "--- It
isn't "political correctness" to say that bigotry is bigotry. You
can oppose something all you want in your church; when you try to force others
to adhere to your beliefs by legislating them, then you are practicing
bigotry.Additionally you aren't "defending religious
freedom" by passing anti-marriage laws; you are violating someone elses
religious freedom when you prevent them from performing their own rites
legally."Nor is it an excuse..., for distortion "; --- You mean like distorting the truth about homosexuals? We're
not out to "get your children"; we're not the "boogey man"
you've made us out to be. You can't claim to be religious and then
turn around and vote away someone else's rights.
The problem with religion is that there seems to be such a weak correlation
between ethical behavior and religious enthusiasm.One of my devout
neighbors wouldn't dream of mowing his lawn on Sunday, but seems to have no
problem moving his SUV to my side of the street before an impending snow storm.
"Religion properly understood and practiced civilizes believers; it curbs
selfish impulses; it makes better people"False. Religion is a
human construct in which people's selfishness can be exhibited more fully
with the benefit of seeming noble or righteous. Even if the Hobby Lobby folks
spend more money or miss out on tax incentives in order to avoid the appearance
of supporting abortifacients, they have already positioned themselves as moral
crusaders which is arguably the whole point. There's very little incentive
in choosing the right unless an audience is present.
Agreed! If Hobby Lobby is as religious as they claim they are, then
why do they get all of their junk from China? Does god support Communism? Is
Communism consistent with the lessons taught in the New Testament? Is murdering
political dissenters encouraged by the Savior? Is abusing little children and
paying women pennies consistent with the principles of the gospel?If
Hobby Lobby really wants to be consistent then they must change their suppliers
immediately.Otherwise, they're just full of it.
Religious freedom means that you have an absolute right to live your religion.
It does not mean that you get to force everyone else in the country to live by
Greg, heres the thing. Religious people have an obligation to not hate, due to
their religious principles. Non religious people have no such obligation.
Therefore, if the hate is coming from the secular left, it is considered OK,
because there is no moral imperative to not hate. If religious people hate, it
violates the basic tenants of their moral position. Now. Would it be OK for a
religious person to hate Hitler? Certainly hating what he did would be OK, but
hate the person? I myself would admit that I hate Hitler the man and would not
feel any qualms about that even though I am a religious person. Maybe some
would say I'm wrong, but I believe hating evil is in fact a good thing.
And I find it hard to seperate the people who commit evil from the act itself.
I think every Nazi killed in WW11 was a good thing until the evil was stopped.
Today I think every terrorist killed is a good thing for the same reason. To
kill an enemy and yet say you love them, because God tells me to love them, is
to me, absurd.
It would be nice if our current president, didn't spend his time vilifying
anyone that opposes his agenda, stir and play the race card whenever he
can't rebuttal an argument, budgeted conservatively rather than talking
about it. That would go a long way in moving this country forward. Instead he
talks about his dislike of white people that have a religion and own a gun. Same
with Eric Holder. While at the same time they praise the Black Panther party for
showing up in military fatigue and batons, standing outside of election
locations. Praise the occupy movement and democrat controlled cities used tax
dollars to support them, while using the IRS to attack and intimidate anyone
conservative.Yes there are things that go the other way around. But,
when you control the "bully pulpit" you should at least control your own
crowd.Harry Reid supports the slaughter of millions of unborn
children using tax dollars. Calling it womens right to choose. Yet fundamentally
denies in most cases the woman made the choice to engage in an act to begin
with. Yet he complains about children being bombed. Does that make sense?
Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean you hate then. It
is the liberal media that handles most of the hating, conservatives are starting
to stand up for what they believe in and for some reason they call that hate.
Liberal Larry said, '...wouldn't dream of mowing his lawn on Sunday,
but seems to have no problem moving his SUV to my side of the street before an
impending snow storm."I'm puzzled by your analogy.
I'm not sure why your neighbor would move his SUV to your side of the
street in a snow storm or how that might benefit him or how it would burden you.
After all, it is 'the street', it's not your street or his
street, it is owned by the public.
My religous friends, neighbors and relatives are no better people than any
agnostics or aethist I know. The only difference is a lot think they are.
@U-tar;"Standing up for what you believe in"? If you
don't believe in something, YOU don't participate in it. If you
don't believe in drinking, you don't drink; but you don't prevent
others from drinking. If you don't believe in abortion, you don't
have one; but you don't prevent someone else from having one. If you
don't believe in marrying someone of your gender, you don't; but you
don't get to tell someone else they can't.You're NOT
"standing up for what you believe in"; you're attempting to force
others to live by your beliefs. There is a vast difference between the two.@ECR; the plow can now plow the neighbor's side of the street but
not Larry's. If not unethical, at least pretty selfish behavior.
"...they must speak and act consistent with the moral tenets they believe
in."Really? You are telling a free people that they "must
speak and act" a certain way? Sorry, this simple statement exposes the
author for what he is...the antithesis of anything "freedom".
The premise that religion exists independent of the human mind is where belief
goes wrong for me. All this does is conveniently remove it from responsibility.
Any harm done in the name of one's religion can simply be dismissed as
"improper understanding and practice" on the individual's part. It
also creates the room for the claim of "the one, true religion," which
of course never causes any disagreements or conflict.Religion can be
beneficial for some, but it certainly is not required to live a principled,
virtuous, and self-sacrificing life. It is only required to live a religious
life.BTW, "we were mentioned first so that means we're the
most important" sounds a little juvenile to my ears. It's also a
fatuous claim. I imagine someone facing criminal prosecution finds Amendments
4, 5, 6 and 8 pretty important, too.
As a defender of religious freedom, I do walk the walk. That's why I rail
against any dilution of my rights by such actions as giving them to inanimate
Some people would punch a "religious person" in the nose and then expect
that person to turn the other cheek. That's exactly what Obama did when he
told Nuns that they had to pay for contraceptives. That's what Obama did
when he told Hobby Lobby that they had to pay for abortifacients. Should we refrain from telling others that Obama is breaking the law by
writing legislation just because we are Christians? Stating, "Obama is a
crook" is different from stating, "Obama is writing and signing
legislation into law, which is not authorized by the Constituion; therefore,
Obama is a crook". Both statements would be correct, but the first statement
could be considered a personal attack while the second statement could be seen
as a simple statement of facts followed by a conclusion that Obama is a
crook.Elder Oaks served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court.
Surely no one would suggest that he not find someone guilty because a Christian
should not judge.Some posters delight in personally attacking other
posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should
@Mike Richardsre: "Some posters delight in personally attacking other
posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be
done?"I am one of those who "claims church affiliation"
(note: I am fully affiliated in every way) and has been concerned by the tone of
your comments, though I hope I have never personally attacked you. What should be done? Live our religion. Welcome people to join us instead of
pushing people way. Turn the other cheek. Show true compassion--meaning being
willing to suffer together with those who suffer. Follow the tenets explained in
this article. Be magnanimous.Assume the best about people. Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. Give equal importance and respect to
another person's feelings and experiences as your own. Listen
to and accept other people's feelings. Don't tell other people what
they do or do not feel. Don't ridicule or shame them for their feelings.
Accept that you do not have a right or responsibility to control another
person.Those are things I learned at church that have helped me
engage in more meaningful and productive conversations.
It's time to impeach Justice Roberts. All he is is a shrill for corporate
welfare.Corporations are not people, no matter how much loud the
Liberal LarryFurthermore, if your neighbor parked his SUV on your
side of the street during a snowstorm, it would be towed away before the snow
plow came thru. In any case, like ECR, I don't get your point.FTHow do you know that your religious friends are not better than
the non-religious. Your not being judgemental now, are you?HutteriteYeah, all those inanimate corportations being run by all
those inanimate people.
Hear hear, excellent essay by Greg Bell. Two thumbs up!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments