Supreme Court sends clear message on religion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 19, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    Amazing how every editorial in this paper somehow becomes an indictment of Obama. The mandate is not demanding abortions, but birth control. Even the Plan B and ella can hardly be considered abortions...even the most ridiculous proposed definitions of abortion (the "heartbeat bill" in Ohio) wouldn't define these as abortions. They are preventative in the same way a condom is.

    Abstinence is a great personal policy, and indeed the only guarantee against STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But it doesn't work as a public health policy because human nature is that people will have sex. Encouraging the use of contraceptives will save our health industries and welfare rolls billions of dollars and reduce the number of babies born into hostile environments.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 11:30 a.m.


    A palindrome.


    Hannah sends clear message on President Obama.

    "...Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era"?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    Esquire, please explain this loss of "individual religious freedom." How?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Without addressing the unbiased merits of the case, tt is unfortunate that Ms. Smith has politicized some key Constitutional questions that were previously unresolved. I understand her personal involvement in this case, but her position indicates a nexis between government actions and politics, with her religious beliefs. As a member of the editorial board of this LDS-owned newspaper, given frequent access to write as she chooses, I question the principle of the separation of the Church and the GOP. Saying it and then not practicing it sends a message. It is a little like the farce of the super PACs being "independent" of the campaigns, as illustrated by Stephen Colbert.

    As for the case, it was a victory for religious institutions. But was it a loss for individual religious freedom? These are two separate issues.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 7:31 a.m.

    It's nice to see that one branch of government can make a decision!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 17, 2012 6:04 p.m.

    BYU Track Star,

    I am not an attorney, but I thought the issue turned on the fact that the teacher (despite dedicating most of her time to classroom teaching) was considered to be a minister of sorts (specifically a "called teacher") with religious training.

    I am not sure non-ministerial employees could be similarly treated.

    Just my understanding.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 17, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    This ruling reminds me of case the LDS Church found itself in several years ago. The case involved a Deseret Gym employee seen drinking a beer, presumably during non-working hours. The legal theory at issue here was could the LDS Church or its agents terminate the Employement of this (low-level) Gym Employee because he was not strictly following the WofW. If I am understanding the article correctly the LDS Church is exempt from Federal EEOC laws because it is a religious organization and therefore the putative employee employement can be terminated at the whim of the LDS Church. People am I missing any details of how this ruling would have been applied in a case like this?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    This arguement just doesn't make any sense.

    The Healthcare policy doesn't force anyone HAVING anything.

    It's a menu of options to choose from.
    No one is FORCING anyone to have or participate in an abortion.

    This would be like forcing my Healthcare Company to stop covering perscriptions,
    which are alcohol based solutions [think NyQuil] and can be legally perscribed by my Doctor,
    simply because I choose not to consume alcohol on account of my personal religious beliefs.

    Keep the option,
    CHOOSE for yourselves.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    Of couse. Because there really isn't a war on Christmas, Christians, or religion in this country.