Hal Boyd: Progressivism’s troubling religious test

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • The True Open Minded Mormon Draper, UT
    June 22, 2017 10:53 a.m.

    Sorry Karen, no one is being harmed. If someone is offended then that is up to them. But no one , no one is being harmed because God said not to partake in homosexual behavior and billions on earth have that belief.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 21, 2017 6:34 a.m.

    @ Yar

    "...it feels practically impossible to discuss beliefs without one or more sides getting attacked..."

    Yes, I could do without the name-calling/demonizing. But I hear you asking to be allowed to practice your beliefs without comment simply because they're religious in nature and because you mean no harm.

    But meaning no harm doesn't save us from responsibility for the effects our beliefs have on others, and the fact is that certain religious beliefs about homosexual orientation ARE harmful to LGBTs. While harm alone isn't sufficient to make an action unethical/immoral, we do expect that there be good reason for it before we allow it. I've yet to hear one for the belief about LGBTs. They're either untrue, misinformed, or they rely on, "Well, that's my religious belief and I'm entitled to it. The Constitution says so." But it doesn't say you're entitled to harm others or make them bear the burden of your belief.

    So IMO the criticism directed at this belief is merited and should continue. Name-calling, though, is an attack on the person, not the belief, and should stop.

  • Uteofferouus Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2017 2:35 p.m.

    Lest we be lulled away into a stupor with our heads in the sand we should carefully heed the wise council of Mr. Boyd in this intellectually stimulating and important column.

    We need to keep a close eye on all these so-called "progressives" who in the name of progressivism would restrict the rights of other citizens to hold personal beliefs that they do not agree with or to lesson anyone's opportunities to work in the public square.

    Woe be unto us if we were to live in a world where only "non-religious" philosophies of men were to be the only principles we could choose to espouse. A world of moral relativism is a dangerous world where an "any thing goes" is good philosophy is truly unhealthy.

    Principles of morality, honesty, love, virtue and faith in the living God have served mankind well for millennia. We will stand up and fight for these principles and we are many!

  • PorLibertad Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2017 2:21 p.m.

    @pragmatistferlife:

    You opined the following: “Because of modern science we know where humans come from.
    Because of science we know sexuality is biological. Even when science talks about environmental influences, they are talking about the biological environment”.

    Wow, you sure put a lot of faith in science whose theories for centuries have often proven to be erroneous. As an applied scientist by profession, science is not something I would put so much faith in.

    I do agree with one thing you said to wit: “Because of science we know sexuality is biological”. We know that men and women are biologically and physiologically different by design. And because of science, we also know that homosexual sex is not only counter biological but counter physiological and arguably counter intellectual as well.

    Finally, there are myriad notable scientists who have a deep and abiding religious faith – which flies in the face of many of the comments posted herein.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2017 1:47 p.m.

    @patriot
    "I would only add that Democrat Christians are becoming as rare as hen's teeth. The religion of the left is progressivism which has no place for Jesus Christ or His teachings. If you doubt me try speaking in support of the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ at ANY national Democrat event and see what happens."

    Almost every Democratic member of Congress is a Christian (most of the rest are Jewish).

    There's frequent shout-outs by Democratic speakers about the Pope, the Moral Mondays' protests in North Carolina are led by a Reverend, the science march had a well-received talk from a BYU professor who talked a lot about faith. Liberals really don't have an issue with people talking about faith. Some might just not care and tune it out. Liberals will invoke faith at times for refugees, immigration, healthcare, the environment, wealth inequality.

    So what do they have a problem with? Things they feel attack them or others (LGBT, abortion, Muslims, etc) and things that place Christianity as the implied religion of this secular country (like that God in platform thing) that is supposed to have freedom of religion.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2017 12:38 p.m.

    @sashabill
    "Speaking of intolerance, (or treating others like "dirt"), conservatives aren't the ones who shout "bigot,""

    Reading the comments here I'm pretty sure the entire premise of the conservative argument on this opinion piece is that they think liberals are bigoted against religious people.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 20, 2017 12:07 p.m.

    Good artile from Hal Boyd. Spot on. I would only add that Democrat Christians are becoming as rare as hen's teeth. The religion of the left is progressivism which has no place for Jesus Christ or His teachings. If you doubt me try speaking in support of the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ at ANY national Democrat event and see what happens. You better have body guards.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    June 20, 2017 11:53 a.m.

    Spangs,

    Speaking of intolerance, (or treating others like "dirt"), conservatives aren't the ones who shout "bigot," "racist," "hatemonger," and "homophobe" at anyone who disagrees with them. They aren't the ones who riot on college campuses and take away freedom of speech, send hate mail and death threats to small business owners, or hound people out of their jobs because of how they voted. They also aren't the ones who threaten the tax statuses, or threaten government retaliation against religious entities whose beliefs they don't take a liking to (especially while professing to believe in "tolerance," "pluralism," and "diversity.")

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2017 10:58 a.m.

    Oh, boy.

    Hal's argument that liberals have a religious "litmus test" based upon the treatment of a U.K. politician (different country, different politics) and Sanders' criticism of a man who publicly derides those of other religious persuasions as "condemned" is tenuously thin at best!

    I laugh at all of these attempts at conservatives to paint liberals as equally intolerant as they themselves are. The made-up crisis of "religious freedom" is also laughable. Freedom to treat others like dirt in the name of "religious freedom" is not a cause anyone should champion.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 20, 2017 9:34 a.m.

    The problem that we run into is that Western democracies have been the moral authority on human rights in the World. If they start to clamp down on human rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of conscience we lose our moral authority to condemn human rights.

    More worldwide suppresion of human rights will result in revolutions. More Arab Springs.

    Mr. Sanders, the world is watching.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 20, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    The good thing is, 'progressivism' does not need religion. It deals with realities and as we're all in this together, it tries to get solutions that are best for everyone.
    Regressivism can keep the religion, it will only continue to hold them back.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    June 20, 2017 8:46 a.m.

    my_two_cents_worth: "You have it backwards. It was religious conservatives who pushed..."

    I never said that conservatives don't fight for their values or try to influence government at the ballot box. We definitely do, just like liberals do for their causes.

    I was merely responding to the ridiculous notion that only the right tries to force its values (e.g. religion) on the rest of the country. Liberals do the same thing all the time.

    Too many liberals seem to think that they are the only ones who have a right to be offended when the opposition gets something they despise through the courts or the legislative process.

    We conservatives are every bit as offended every time some far left policy is implemented. We just lived through 8 years of that and now it is time for the tide to turn the other way.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    June 20, 2017 8:37 a.m.

    @Karen R.

    You know, you do have a point. According to some research I've done, persecution against atheists is an issue.

    All I'm trying to say is, I just wish more people would just simply acknowledge everyone's beliefs they disagree with and, while not necessarily agreeing with they, respect them for what they are. I mean seriously. In this day and age, it feels practically impossible to discuss beliefs without one or more sides getting attacked (religious, atheistic, or otherwise). I just wish more civility between each other was practiced more often. I do have my kinks and ignorant moments, I'll admit, but I don't desire to be anyone's enemy.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    June 20, 2017 8:35 a.m.

    LDS Liberal: "FYI -- Families are 'socialist'. Mankind is God's Family. Keep that in mind."

    So let's see...me sharing my income with my children to see that their basic needs are met is the exact same thing as government taking half my hard earned money to give to that guy down the street who won't lift a finger to help himself. I never knew. Thanks for the lesson in socialism.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 20, 2017 12:40 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2

    "take issue with liberals trying to force their version of 'religion' on the rest of us through government force?"

    You have it backwards. It was religious conservatives who pushed their religious backed Prop 8 on the voters of California. It was religious conservatives at the polling place that gave us Utah's amendment 3. It is religious conservatives across the country attempting to push their religion on the rest of us as state after state seeks to pass laws specifically designed to deny rights to those they do not like. We are tired of religion getting preferential treatment when it comes to equal rights. We are pushing back. We will continue to push back. We will prevail.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 19, 2017 10:52 p.m.

    @ Yar

    "That basically sums up my biggest complaint about this nation. It's too inconsiderate towards religious folk and their beliefs..."

    As I read your comment, I thought of all the sermons, speeches, videos, and articles I've sat through/watched/read in my 5+ decades in which religious folk vilified nonbelievers as immoral, even evil people who have empty, meaningless lives. They warn their children of the "dangers" of becoming atheist and instruct them to avoid them. In certain regions of this country it's still risky to "come out" as a nonbeliever. They risk being rejected by family and community. They even risk losing their jobs.

    Inconsiderate?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 19, 2017 10:38 p.m.

    Mike Richards - South Jordan, Utah
    June 19, 2017 2:38 p.m.

    Article VI, Section 3 states:

    ". . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    Who is to be believed, God or man? Since Adam, God has always chosen a prophet as His spokesman to the entire World. We have the Ten Commands because Moses, the appointed Prophet, revealed to us what God expected of us. In our time, an appointed Prophet has revealed that marriage is between a man and a woman, that gender is part of our eternal identity and that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. That Declaration was to the World, just as the Ten Commandments was to the World.

    We either stand with God or we stand against him.

    ========

    Says a man who proudly supports Donald Trump to best represent his values.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    June 19, 2017 9:21 p.m.

    Hutterite: "Conservatives cherry pick hot button issues that resonate with the religious while completely ignoring the rest of the tenets of the belief system of choice. It's how the access hollywood tape became acceptable to religious voters."

    Religious voters did not find the contents of that tape acceptable any more than Hillary voters found blatant lies by their candidate acceptable. Voters simply chose the candidate that was least offensive to their political views. Implying otherwise is pure rhetoric.

    Roland: "Your private religious beliefs are none of my business. It's only when you try to use the power of the government to force your beliefs on others that I take issue."

    You mean like when conservatives take issue with liberals trying to force their version of 'religion' on the rest of us through government force? Global warming policies, SSM, and punitive taxation to push a socialist agenda are just a few examples.

    Or is it only possible for one side to 'force its beliefs' on the rest of us?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 19, 2017 8:49 p.m.

    kreese - Ivins, UT
    June 19, 2017 7:13 a.m.

    We really need to call Progressives what they are, Socialists. This is not a new movement. It was around in the early 1900's. Keep in mind, Socialism gets you very close to Communism.

    ======

    FYI -- Families are 'socialist'.
    Mankind is God's Family.
    Keep that in mind.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 19, 2017 7:42 p.m.

    @unrepentant progressive

    "It is a warning to those who use their religion to justify prejudice in civil society. Otherwise we enter the realm of theocracy. Who wants that?"

    So long as the theocracy toes the line with their religious interpretations, a whole lot of people. Many of them posting here.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 19, 2017 6:28 p.m.

    "We either stand with God or we stand against him."

    Not even the 12 who walked with Christ while here during his ministry were singular of mind, nor interpreted everything the same. So please, if they, who knew Christ himself, had their own interpretations, surely you can allow a few of us to not always see the same things in the same light.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 19, 2017 5:31 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Therefore, anyone who advocates that anyone be questioned about his religious beliefs as part of his fitness to hold office is out of line and must be censored."

    Would you vote for an atheist?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 19, 2017 4:41 p.m.

    The argument made by some religious conservatives that those of us who are neither conservatively religious or conservatively political (or both) are somehow socialists/communists/etc. is silly and beneath contempt.

    Senator Sanders was asking a judge if he would let his religious prejudice against Muslims affect his judicial decisions. Our judiciary is supposed to follow the law. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. A judge who uses his religious concepts to rule prejudicially is violating the Constitution and ought not be seated if nominated.

    This is no threat to religion. It is a warning to those who use their religion to justify prejudice in civil society. Otherwise we enter the realm of theocracy.

    Who wants that?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 19, 2017 4:27 p.m.

    Hal... really.... you're going to try to pretend this is a partisan issue... that the right doesn't put religious test on its politicians either. Do you not remember Trump having to become born again this last election cycle. Or Trumps tweets about a Muslim being elected mayor of London? Really.

    I agree with the premise, but then it just falls into the regular bent of trying to pretend this is a partisan issue solely on the side of "leftist". If Hal really took the time to understand the UK, it has far more protections against religious persecution than does the US now. While some politicians may misbehave in an attempt to draw attention to themselves, in the UK you simple can't disparage someone because of their faith... it is actually against the law.

    So lets promote religious freedom without staining it with partisan politics. Things of God and things of politics should never be married together.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    June 19, 2017 4:08 p.m.

    I seriously have a problem with the religious majority who voted Trump. Trump is a very corrupt person who most of his life supported the right to abortion and who is an admitted sex offender.

    Just how is it they can support such a person?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 19, 2017 3:24 p.m.

    It's fine for voters to ask questions about candidate's religious beliefs, and even have religious bias. But Gov having a religious test one must pass to be qualified for political office... that's a different.

    There is no requirement concerning religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) to hold public office in the United States of America. Our Constitution specifically prohibits that.

    Voters can take religion and religious beliefs into consideration when voting all they want. But the GOVERNMENT (as an institution) can not require a religious test/oath as a pre-requisite for holding Public office. That's prohibited by the Constitution.

    But the Constitution doesn't tell voters how to vote. That's also prohibited.

    Bottom line...
    Voters can use any criteria in the world they want to make up their mind (even religion). Constitution says nothing about that.

    Constitution limits government (not the people).

    People can vote on any criteria they want. But government as an institution is prohibited from requiring candidates to pass a religious test of any kind.

    It's pretty simple.

    Gov can't institute a religious test. But people/voters can.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 19, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    "One's secular opinion has no more standing than another's religion-based opinion. They are both opinions and allowed under the constitution. Claiming moral superiority because one is an atheist is simple hypocrisy."

    True, however no one is claiming even a superior opinion because they are an atheist. We claim superior information, facts.

    Because of modern science we know where humans come from.

    Because of science we know sexuality is biological. Even when science talks about environmental influences, they are talking about the biological environment.

    Because of science we know when a fetus becomes self sustaining.

    This is the information atheist are prone to use to have an opinion about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

    On the other hand religious folks use their religious texts, and beliefs to populate their opinions, none of which have any proof.

    Opinions are not truth, so unless your opinion is based on verifiable facts you don't get to rule my life with your opinion. Prove it and I'll listen. Until then I don't care what your opinion is either as it relates to your own life or as it relates to mine.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 19, 2017 2:38 p.m.

    Article VI, Section 3 states:

    ". . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    Therefore, anyone who advocates that anyone be questioned about his religious beliefs as part of his fitness to hold office is out of line and must be censored. The example of Bernie Sanders' comments and questions show that Mr. Sanders was out of line and must be censored. Anyone who agrees with Mr. Sanders' use of questions about religion also must be censored. The Supreme Law of the Land forbids Mr. Sanders and anyone else to do that.

    Who is to be believed, God or man? Since Adam, God has always chosen a prophet as His spokesman to the entire World. We have the Ten Commands because Moses, the appointed Prophet, revealed to us what God expected of us. In our time, an appointed Prophet has revealed that marriage is between a man and a woman, that gender is part of our eternal identity and that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. That Declaration was to the World, just as the Ten Commandments was to the World.

    We either stand with God or we stand against him.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    June 19, 2017 12:45 p.m.

    Religion has been completely abused by conservatives. They have used it and twisted it to suit their needs. Gather votes and money because they are of good faith but hate those that are different makes no sense to me.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    June 19, 2017 12:06 p.m.

    "Liberalism in the West, it seems, is becoming illiberal toward faith."

    That basically sums up my biggest complaint about this nation. It's too inconsiderate towards religious folk and their beliefs and it wants to do nothing more than removing religion and its influence from our government for good. Little do many people realize that some laws and political movements that have existed in this nation are based on religious principles. If this nation is to improve, I suggest they stop attacking every person for holding religious beliefs they disagree with and find a way to make such people their allies, regardless of beliefs.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    June 19, 2017 10:40 a.m.

    There is nothing at all troubling with keeping religion out of politics as this nations's forefathers intended.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2017 10:32 a.m.

    One's secular opinion has no more standing than another's religion-based opinion. They are both opinions and allowed under the constitution. Claiming moral superiority because one is an atheist is simple hypocrisy.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2017 10:16 a.m.

    Considering the recent cases of county clerks wanting to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it would seem reasonable to check if someone who thinks negatively of another demographic would be willing to serve them fairly in the capacity of the government office they are seeking.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    Almost everyone in the US was a Christian in the 1860s so pretty much by default virtually everyone on both sides of the Civil War were Christian which means virtually everyone who owned slaves was a Christian and most of them probably found it to be justifiable in the Bible.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2017 10:05 a.m.

    Progressives have adopted the slogan previously used by conservatives - Extremism in the pursuit of virtue is not a vice. The alt-left has lost its perspective and is anything but liberal.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 19, 2017 8:28 a.m.

    This piece is actually quite appalling for a number of reasons.

    Boyd does not recognize the difference between criticism, some of it justified, and persecution.

    As for Sanders' comment, it seems to me that it was meant as pro-religious freedom. Boyd seems to think that Christian folks should be able to act in an unfettered way, even if at the expense of non-Christian folks. Freedom of religion applies to all, and if one religion has unchecked authority over another, then that is not religious freedom.

    Boyd seems to perpetuate the myth that religion persecution is rampant, especially against Christians. It's nonsense. Tell that to the Utah Muslim leader who was denied the right to travel merely because of his religion, and commenters on these pages rationalized it.

  • Woodworker Highland, UT
    June 19, 2017 8:00 a.m.

    @sashabill and Chessermesser: Thank you for your comments. I thought they were insightful and helpful.
    I would add that we should avoid judging the individual by the group. Sashabill has shown that her progressive views differ from others who label themselves progressives. The same is true, I believe, for liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, etc.

    Let us all be united in standing up for virtue and morality as best we can. Thank you.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 19, 2017 7:57 a.m.

    It's really just this simple. Religiously based public policy is in fact imposing religion on America. Equally true is Scientific and or fact based public policy is imposing science and or facts on America.

    When science or facts conflict with religion you have a choice. If you choose religion..fine, just be honest about it. When someone takes the scientific or fact based side, yes they are arguing against religion. Not your right to believe but against the reality of the position and the inappropriateness of it's use as public policy.

    It's also a fact that the more we have learned about the world and ourselves the more the conflict has occurred. When epilepsy was satanic possession in 1 BC it made sense. Today that position is ridiculous and if argued would be vehemently opposed.

    The same holds true for same sex attraction, the beginning of life etc. Both of these issues simply are examples of the expansion of knowledge.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 19, 2017 7:44 a.m.

    @10cc:

    "American Christianity not only justified slavery, but segregation, as well."

    No it did not. Go read the lyrics to "Battle Hymn of the Republic": "As Christ died to make men holy, let us live to make men free."

    In the Old Testament it says that it is an abomination to steal another man. Anyone who did this was subject to capital punishment.

    Half of the US went to war against the other half over slavery. White, mostly Christian, Americans died in droves to end slavery.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 19, 2017 7:37 a.m.

    Folks who do not like the requirements of conservative religion have separated themselves from that society.

    From the beginning of time when Cain slew Able there have been differences of opinion and practice.

    From the beginning of time? Would that be 13 trillion years ago with the beginning of the universe, or would that be 3 million years ago as man started in some form to roam the earth?

    I bring this up to make a point. Progressives don't care that you believe in a myth that can be demonstrated as not just false, but silly. They do care when that silly myth is the basis of your public policy that effects everyone. The argument on this thread against same sex marriage is overwhelmingly religiously based. God said this, Jesus said that.

    If you can demonstrate that life (meaning the reasonably self sustaining ability to exist) begins when a heart beat starts, then progressives would listen. However you can't because it's just not true. The idea is based solely on the idea of a soul.

    Progressives don't argue against marriage, they argue for the expansion of it. But R's argue it's importance and it's constraint based on myth.

  • sockpuppet Provo, UT
    June 19, 2017 7:36 a.m.

    I believe the differing views on religion, partcularly Christianity, viewed by left-wing and right-wing minded individuals can be traced back to vastly differing interpretations of history.

    Progressives tend to subscribe to a Howard Zinn viewpoint on American history. They view America's past as a long line of oppression and abuses.

    Conservatives on the other hand subscribe to the Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen doctrine of American history that claims America's graces far out number her mistakes.

    If you examine the past three centuries of history in this land, it's easy to identify that the predominant religious group existing in America is and always has been Christianity.

    If you favor the Zinn approach, you wish to progress past the sins of the past, and leave behind all markers of that troubled history. The predominant religion clearly being one such marker.

    If you however prefer Schweikart's learnings, you would seek to embrace the tenants of the past, and view the predominant religion fondly.

    The truth of American history (and Christianity for that matter) however, probably lies somewhere in between these two historian's rhetoric.

  • kreese Ivins, UT
    June 19, 2017 7:13 a.m.

    We really need to call Progressives what they are, Socialists. This is not a new movement. It was around in the early 1900's. Keep in mind, Socialism gets you very close to Communism.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    June 19, 2017 3:39 a.m.

    TheAtheist,

    ". . but they don't want their religious beliefs examined, criticized, and questioned."

    As one who considers myself a religious liberal, I am sharply (and publicly) critical of such beliefs as Original Sin, predestination, and the general degrading of the individual often heard from fundamentalist Protestants.

    Unlike Progressives, however, I don't question a person's right to hold public office or to participate in the political process when I don't happen to like their beliefs. Nor do I send hate mail and death threats to Christian business owners, hound people out of their jobs, or question the tax status of religious institutions.

    Progressives seem to have forgotten that separation of church and state does not - and never did - mean separation of religion from society or of faith from life. The progressives should look in the mirror if they are searching for hypocrites.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 19, 2017 12:18 a.m.

    @Justiciaparatodos

    I can’t speak for Hutterite, only myself.

    "You are not comfortable with many of the tenets of conservative religion…"

    The religious tenets of compassion, ministering to the poor, and treating other as you wished to be treated have all gone the way of the dodo bird. In their place are tenets of mega-pastors and snake oil, self-righteous indignation at the suggestion of helping the less fortunate and needy, codification of hatred and discrimination all in the name of religion, and the acceptance that the end justifies the means are what we are uncomfortable with. Very uncomfortable with.

    "but religious types are quite united actually"

    Hardly, Most of my family, friends and associates are religious and they find the nonsense bein g peddled by the political religious right as reprehensible as I do.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    June 18, 2017 11:46 p.m.

    Everyone has some basis for how they think, vote, act. Call it whatever you like...religious, conscious, moral compass, enlightment. To say that someone can not vote or act per what they believe religiously is beyond ridiculous. That's who they are.

    So anyone who says that a religious can hold office, as long as they don't bring their religion to work, well, that is impossible.

    How about everyone who is non-religious not bring their narrow view of the world to work? Again, impossible.

  • HSTucker Holladay, UT
    June 18, 2017 11:40 p.m.

    Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Modern progressivism (aka liberalism, Democrat party, pop culture, entertainment) has become incompatible with religion unless that religion is cultural Marxism.

    Keep up the good work and don't bend to those who will claim your editorials are politically incorrect. The Savior himself was politically incorrect.

    "May we maintain the courage to defy the consensus. May we ever choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong."
    -- President Thomas S. Monson.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 18, 2017 9:40 p.m.

    IMO this op-ed would carry more weight if the author had a track record of decrying all the religious tests conducted over the years before the one that affects him.

    I have no problem being intolerant of the belief that acting on one's homosexual orientation is wrong. The evidence shows that acting on this belief causes harm to homosexuals and their families, and for no objectively valid reason. So how is tolerance justified here?

    I also have no problem with a liberal who doesn't believe in abortion. However, it strikes me as antithetical to liberalism if the person wants to make this decision for others.

    Re: the British politician, it's my understanding that his religiosity was used against his party's candidates. In other words, it proved to be a political liability for his party. Is his party obligated to tolerate this just because the "this" is religion?

    IMO, the rejection by voters in spite of this guy's repeated explanations of his beliefs reflects the degree of distrust they feel towards religion (and perhaps especially the evangelical variety?).

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    June 18, 2017 9:39 p.m.

    Religious folks want it both ways: crying for religious freedom and the right to inject their religion into the public square, business, social policy, legislation, and politics; butt they don't want their religious beliefs examined, criticized, and questioned!

    Sounds like what Jesus would call "hypocrisy" to me.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    June 18, 2017 8:30 p.m.

    I'm not reading Mr. Boyd anymore. His pieces stereotype groups and there's far too much of that type of thing nowadays. We deserve more thought than he is providing, and the DN should do better as well.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2017 7:55 p.m.

    @Hutterite:

    You say "Religion. It's what divides us". No, the freedom of agency divides people like you from folks in the religious community. You are not comfortable with many of the tenets of conservative religion so you try to persuade that it is religion that divides - but religious types are quite united actually. Folks who do not like the requirements of conservative religion have separated themselves from that society.

    From the beginning of time when Cain slew Able there have been differences of opinion and practice. There have always been choices to choose (right v wrong, truth v error). So some division between those of religious faith and those of no faith or misguided faith ("the philosophies of men mingled with scripture") is nothing new.

    As Joshua said to the people of Israel: "choose you this day whom ye will serve; … but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” - again, it is freedom of choice that divides people and I am so thankful that we still have that freedom!

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 18, 2017 7:48 p.m.

    Oh egad, some of the regressive rhetoric borders on hysteria. And DN how is it that progressives are pilloried in this public square for being anti-religion.

    Sanders was hesitant to vote for a person who thinks that a religious minority is damned for all eternity and deserved of some sort of retribution. Could that person make an objective decision in his/her office when it comes to said minority? Is that what we really want in this country?

    The faithful LDS ought to know where that show ends, and I am surprised that and LDS outlet would allow such comments. I know I have had my share of comments censored when it comes to things found objectionable. Why not this?

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 18, 2017 7:27 p.m.

    Re: "only if they can vet God’s theology first."

    Pray tell, Mr. Boyd, what is "God's theology" ?

    I suspect it's what you think the Scriptures say vs. what other people think. For example, your mentions of the word abortion make me think that you have a particular view on the subject that is in harmony with "God's theology." If you are anti-abortion, may I suggest that you look over the Old Testament. It contains many passages in support of the termination of unborn life.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    June 18, 2017 6:33 p.m.

    The Democratic Party parted ways with its history as the champion of working class American anchored by Catholic immigrants and their descendants... It has devolved into liberal special interest groups who despise Christianity and they do this at their own peril... Right now they are boastful and arrogant in their approach to Christianity because they feel they are winning over people to the empty leftwing, Bolshevik philosophy they so adore... They should beware though because Americans thirst for spirituality and great awakenings do occur... Plus most educated Americans fully understand that putting their faith in the state is a dangerous ignorant move

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2017 6:24 p.m.

    progressivism is its own religion, and allows no other gods.

    hutterite,
    you have it backwards, it'e progressives/liberals that are repressive.

    imp7
    we are glad trump gave us gorsuch, and hilary was not able to put another anti-constitutionalist (consititution says whatever the prevailing culture is) liberal in the courts. we can undo trump's other damage, as we try to undo BO's, but the impact of a bad jurist, like those BO gave us, goes way beyond a POTUS term.

    Roland
    you take issue with the government forcing beliefs on others. Then you should support bakers, photographers, florists, and paharmacists being able to practice their trades without the govt requiring them to abandon their own beliefs and adopt those of the govt.

    10cc
    we don't think he was delivered by the Almighty, but we are grateful he delivered us from hilary

  • joanzone42 Orem, Utah
    June 18, 2017 4:49 p.m.

    I wish this piece could have been fleshed out with a few more examples of "religious tests" in the USA (on both sides of the political aisle). We know that Europe has been becoming more blatantly irreligious within our lifetime, but it is rapidly happening in our own country, as well.
    In my opinion, we cannot use Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith to support an argument of Progressive/Liberal ideas for big government involvement, when none of them taught that. They taught that we, as individuals and in organized volunteer groups, have a responsibility to care for the poor and needy, according to our own conscience and circumstances... not by being forced.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2017 3:19 p.m.

    This opinion piece is a wreck.

    First of all, MLK probably understood Cassius Clay's decision to become Muslim, in the same way he understood why Malcolm X became Muslim - because American Christianity not only justified slavery, but segregation, as well.

    Second, while critiquing apparent scrutiny on an obscure politician in the UK, there's no mention of the current US president, who makes a mockery of Christianity here, yet has so much blind support from so many Christians.

    Example: Two Presbyterian pastors visited Trump, who boasted he has very high approval, among evangelicals. When they responded that they're not Evangelical, a confused Trump asked what religion they were. They assured him they were Christian. The kicker - Trump himself is a Presbyterian.

    By behavior and knowledge, Trump is no Christian. But how many Christians think he was delivered by the Almighty?

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    June 18, 2017 2:17 p.m.

    Progressives were all for freedom of conscience and religious involvement in the public square during the 1960s when they were protesting for civil rights and against the Viet Nam War (I was around during that time period to witness it).

    Curiously, they seem to have changed their tune in more recent years when people started disagreeing with them (on abortion or same sex marriage, for example). This was when liberals and progressives suddenly "discovered" the issue of separation of church and state.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2017 1:49 p.m.

    As a non religious progressive, I have to say that I agree with this piece. Your private religious beliefs are none of my business. It's only when you try to use the power of the government to force your beliefs on others that I take issue.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 18, 2017 1:37 p.m.

    What's the point of this Op-Ed? Trump is in the White House. The most non-christian guy to hold that office. Yet conservatives still support him. I'm not sure whom this reflects worse on, Trump forever followers or religious leaders that try to find a reason to support him.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 18, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    "This week, however, Farron resigned from his leadership post in part because of incessant questions regarding his personal religious beliefs. In recent months he’s faced repeated queries about his views on abortion, and whether he believes homosexuality is a sin (“I do not,” he replied before parliament):"

    Is this article suggesting that conservatives are not obsessed with these kinds of questions also?

    Really?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 18, 2017 12:40 p.m.

    Ya -- consarned Progressives,
    and their "liberal" take on religion!

    Abraham
    Moses
    Jesus Christ
    Joseph Smith

    Progressives and Liberalism do NOT belong in religion!

    hrmpf!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2017 12:29 p.m.

    "Last week, America’s progressive politician du jour, Sen. Bernie Sanders, applied something that came dangerously close to a religious test while questioning Russell Vought, ...Sanders took issue with an article Vought had written about a controversy at Vought’s alma mater, the Christian-based Wheaton College. In Vought’s editorial, he wrote that Muslims were “condemned” for not accepting Jesus Christ as their savior."

    I think Sanders has a point. We don't want the administration saying Muslims are "condemned" for being Muslim. Ironic that you think this is OK Mr Boyd.

    Besides Vought's assertion is just plain false.

    I am known to be a church member by my socialists friends, and none of them object.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 18, 2017 12:10 p.m.

    Religion. It's what divides us.
    I think progressivism has responded, perhaps not in the best way, after having watched regressivism (todays' conservatives) hijack religion to do or enable their bidding. Conservatives cherry pick hot button issues that resonate with the religious while completely ignoring the rest of the tenets of the belief system of choice. It's how the access hollywood tape became acceptable to religious voters.
    Regressivism has long exploited the outcome of a troubling religious test. That, and the presence of such a test in Progressivism, suggest one thing. The more you can separate the process from religion, the better.