Published: Thursday, July 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"What counts is his dedication to religious liberty and the rights of
conscience ..."--- Why hide behind nice words: "rights of
conscience". Say what you REALLY mean. "Right to discriminate in
public.""the passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which strengthens the First Amendment and keeps the federal
government from infringing on the exercise of religion."--- You
mean like passing laws which prohibit *some* religions from performing legal
same-gender weddings? Isn't that an infringement on someone's
religion? I'm really tired of so-called "religious"
people reading the First Amendment as a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes
to the law and obedience to it.
The government of the United States of America should not be telling the world
how to run their religions. If the current interpretation of the Constitution
is that our president cannot interfere in American religion in America, where in
the world is the justification for interfering in the religious affairs of other
nations? Should we not allow the same freedom of religion in other
nations as in America? Why do we have the right to impose our notion of freedom
of religion on other nations? Could it be the commercial business
aspects of religion that wants our government to use our military in the same
manner as with normal business activities?
Unfortunately for you Ranch, the First Amendment is not a one way street, as you
seem to want it to be.
I just don't see all this persuction the DN and the right wing keep telling
us about. Our neighborhood ward still is enjoying it's tax free status and
the parking lot is full every Sunday. What am I not seeing?
@Ranch - I really think that we should be able to discriminate vocally in
public. If someone wants to tell me they look down on me for my religion, they
should have that right. This happens every day with LDS missionaries, and they
don't go to court over it. Of course, this freedom of expression
doesn't include violence, loss of property, etc.This whole idea
of enforcing political correctness by law is a degeneration of our
constitutional right to freedom of speech. I may not agree with vocally
castigating a religion, race, or group, but I will fight to the death for their
right to say it.
What is he supposed to do, scold all the religious bigots both at home and
SCfan says:"Unfortunately for you Ranch, the First Amendment is not a
one way street, as you seem to want it to be."--- Unfortunately
for YOU, the First Amendment protects religious beliefs that you disagree with.
@gmlewis;There is a world of difference between someone
"telling you they look down on you", and their actually refusing to hire
you, or do business with you or firing you or evicting you or voting on whether
you can marry simply because you are different. Your freedom of speech does NOT
include the right to discriminate against someone. All it does is gives you the
freedom to speak your piece.
Ultra BobRe "The government of the United States of America
should not be telling the world how to run their religions"...Where did the article say "the government of the United States should tell
the world how to run their religions"... or anything like that???
He appointed a non-christian, how dare he doesn't he know America is a
Christian Nation? Why didn't congress hold up this appointment for
several years of vetting?So is he going to be a referee between religious
groups or an interpreter between religion and government?
What many conservatives refuse to see is that the wall of separation between
church and state is actually a protective wall for all religions.We
have learned through painful experience that if this wall is dissolved that one
religion will gain more power over the others and goodbye to freedom of
religion.So if you really love religious freedom, you will do
everything possible to maintain this wall between church and state.
‘In our opinion: In an important sign, the Obama administration appoints
ambassador for religious freedom’===== I can
already guess what the "Obama-haters" knee-jerk, automatic response to
this will be...
The Rabbi David N. Saperstein would know what it is to have people heap insults
on him because of his religion. He would be uniquely qualified to speak for
religious tolerance. He would know that government CANNOT and MUST NOT dictate
religious doctrine nor listen to those who would demand that government force
religions to change any doctrine or even traditions.Religion is a
way of life for billions of people. It is not a suit that we put on before
going to our place of worship. It molds us. It reminds us that we are one
family. It gives us a foundation to know that there are boundaries that must
never be moved to accommodate those who mock religion.Having an
ambassador of religion should remind those in government that we worship God,
not government and that we turn to God for answers, not to government.
RanchClearly you are missing the points being made by others. But I
do have to ask you this question that I think deserves an answer. Just which
religious beliefs is it that you think I disagree with? Or are you saying that,
for instance, same sex marriage is a religious belief? You aren't trying
to claim that are you?
FT, please engage in more of the events going on not only around the world, but
in our own nation. People are intimidated, bullied, even dismissed from
educational and vocational pursuits on the basis of not supporting social
positions on the basis of religion. At times even I at work am attacked
personally and my work-related efforts-all unrelated to my beliefs,-enigrated on
the basis of my religion.As for the appointment of this person as
"ambassador for religion"? Given it's on social matters that those
in developed countries are most fervently attacked on the basis of religion,
it's to be expected that someone to push those social matters under the
banner of religion would be put in place, paired with inevitable taunting by
some of you.
Mike Richards says:"Religion is a way of life for billions of
people. It is not a suit that we put on before going to our place of
worship."--- I can point out hundreds of local people who show
me otherwise when they put on their "Sunday suit" and worship, then go
about the rest of the week not living their religious beliefs.@SCfan;Yes, it is a religious belief of many religions that SSM is
valid, just as it is for OSM. If you don't believe in it, don't
practice it, but when you try to prevent other religions from practicing it you
violate their religious freedom. NC's ban on SSM includes a fine for ANY
religion that performs an SSM
RanchThe ssm has been determined to come under the equal protection
clause, not the religious freedom of the First Amendment. It would be an
interesting argument though. _ _ _ LiberalI'm not
reading any "knee Jerk" Obama hating here. Apparantly yours is the only
knee that jerked. In it's usual hating on Conservatives and Republicans
I think that Ranch misunderstands the entire concept of personal responsibility
vs government duty. The 1st Amendment prohibits government from interfering
with religion, including both the "establishments of religion" and those
who practice their religion. Government cannot require that we accept any
religious doctrine. Personal responsibility requires that we stand
as witnesses for Christ at all times and in all places regardless of public
opinion or the propaganda machine of the 1.6% who demand that we accept as
normal and moral their sexual practices, even if they claim that those practices
are their religious doctrine.Christ has never told anyone to accept
the sin, only to show respect and kindness towards the sinner.The
ambassador of religion, if he does his job well, will make those points clear.
Mike Richards says:"Government cannot require that we accept any
religious doctrine."--- Then why are you legislating your
beliefs into law? You're thusly using the government to require others to
accept YOUR religious doctrine"."Personal responsibility
requires that we stand as witnesses for Christ at all times ... the propaganda
machine of the 1.6% who demand... even if they claim that those practices are
their religious doctrine."--- So, you're saying you DO NOT
really believe or follow the First Amendment except as it applies to YOUR
religion. Got it."Christ has never told anyone to accept the
sin, only to show respect and kindness towards the sinner."---
Who are you to judge us as "sinners"? Refusing to do business with us,
voting on our right to marry whom we choose, WANTING to discriminate against us
is not "kindness", Mike, no matter how you look at it.
" Religious Freedom " does not have the same meaning for everyone. Here
in Utah, for example, it is very one sided. The main religion here wants freedom
to act upon their beliefs concerning same sex marriage. The problem with this
comes because by passing laws against same sex marriage, they are infringing
upon the religious freedom of gay people! That is why we have courts. In my
opinion, religious freedom should have been a part of the lawsuits. We all know
that most of the state's arguments are based upon Mormon religious beliefs.
They have a right to believe whatever they want, but should not have the right
to pass laws that harm others and that take away their freedom, including
religous freedom! Gay people should not be forced into living their lives
according to the beliefs of others. In order to pass laws against same sex
marriage, they must prove harm done to others, and they have not been able to do
it! Religious freedom gives me the right to not believe what Mormons have to say
about gay people! It gives me the right to live my belief that God did create
Re: "I just don't see all this persuction [sic] the DN and the right
wing keep telling us about."No doubt.Liberals just
don't see religions persuction, or persecution, either, for that matter.
They're not looking. They're too busy suggesting that the first
Amendment's guarantee of American "freedom of religion" should be
re-written in liberal newspeak. That is should really be read as, "complete
isolation from seeing, hearing about, or in any way perceiving that real people
disagree with me or [gasp] believe in God."But, there is real
religious persecution going on in the world. Not just in Africa and the
Mid-East, where people are daily assaulted, burned out of their homes, driven
from their countries, and beheaded.What you're not seeing is
the misery of millions affected by religious persecution, and the fact that
there are too many in liberal America -- with many more coming across
Obama's open borders every day -- who would love nothing more than to bring
the same thing here.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments