Conscientious objection

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 20, 2012 12:36 p.m.


    Your question has already been discussed and answered by the Supreme Court. You can't control what the Government does just because you pay taxes, or refuse to pay taxes because the Government does something you don't like (like war). But YOU YOURSELF CAN refuse to participate in war. Hint... that's what the lady in the article is doing (objecting to being forced to do it herself, not control what others do, or get out of paying taxes because of something the Government MAY do).

    What we are discussing is the concept of "Conscientious Objection". That's when you individually don't want to be forced to do something that is against your moral beliefs like fight in a war provide abortions, provide abortion pills, etc). NOT your example. They are two totally different things.

    Refusing to pay taxes because the GOVERNMENT may do something against your religious beliefs is a whole different thing, not protected as part of the concept of conscientious objector.

  • Dart Thrower Ogden, UT
    March 19, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    So.....if my religion states that there should be no mixing of the races, is it OK for me to refuse service to interracial couples? If I believe that marriage is between a man and women, can I refuse to sell a wedding gift for a gay marriage?

    If you agree to operate in the public domain, you need to operate at the lowest common denominator for what is legal. No exceptions. You can do whatever you want in church, but business is not church.

    Religious zealots are ruining this country. It is only a matter of time before we have car-bombs and IEDs on our streets as these people "protect their rights" in some ill conceived attempt to save us all from their belief of what is right and wrong.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    March 19, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    I hold a deep moral opposition to war. War leads to thousands of murders. Can I refuse to allow any of my tax dollars to be used for war?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    Henry Drummond
    You have twisted the topic and missed the point.

    The conscientious_objectors want to be able to control what THEY do (not what OTHERS do). You twisted it 180_degrees into YOU want to control what OTHERS (Mormon missionaries) can do. Do you see the difference?

    The person who doesn't want to provide birth_control themself (due to religious beliefs) is not trying to control what OTHERS can/can't do. They are trying to regain control of their OWN actions. People who want birth_control can get it from any of a thousand other people without moral issues... but don't force this person to do what YOU want... even if what you want them to do is against their religious beliefs! That would be like the Government FORCING all Muslims to eat pork weekly or something... a government policy like that wouldn't fly in America... would it???

    Stop trying to control what OTHERS are allowed to do (mormon_missionaries, etc).
    We should all focus on what WE do (not what we will allow OTHERS to do).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    You should feel free to not deal Mormons seeking your services. You totally have that right. You have the right to turn down Mormon's money for any reason you want. But fact is... businesses in America turn out to be less bigoted than people like you. They see one person's money is as good as another. I've yet to see a business that will refuse to take people's money because they are Black, Mormon, etc. It's PEOPLE who get caught up in that type of bigotry, not businesses.

    This is a different issue than people refusing to pay their taxes for stuff they find morally repugnant. That is a good debate to have, but that isn't what this article is about. This article is about people being forced individually to DO something that is against their religion. We already have established precident on THIS issue (can't force people to serve in the military if it is against their religious beliefs, etc).

    The Government forcing you to pay taxes for THEM to go do something you find immoral is different than the Government forcing YOUR to go do something you find immoral.

  • sportsfan21 OREM, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:14 a.m.


    I'm surprised that a lawyer wouldn't see the difference between the case at hand. Pharmacies aren't discriminating against people (as your example implies). They would be choosing not to supply a drug and are only discriminating against a product. A better example would be someone approaching you to represent them in a small claims case if you were a criminal defense attorney. Referring them to another lawyer who works with small claims wouldn't be discriminatory.

    Some pharmacies choose not to carry expensive heart medication and only carry a similar drug that is less expensive. Should we overturn that right? Should we make them sell nebulizers and oxygen machines? Those items are prescribed by a doctor but we don't demand pharmacies to carry those.

    Maybe I should challenge restaurants that only carry Pepsi products. After all, it's my choice what I drink.

  • peabody Steamboat Springs, CO
    March 19, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    Just get out of business. As lawyer I cannot refuse service to someone whom I think is guilty.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2012 9:06 a.m.


    Rather than throw insults at others, you should deal with the truth or untruth of the argument.

    The right and authority to regulate business operations in a given local is inherent in the government of that local.

    The people who issue the business licenses are usually the businessmen and civic leaders of the local.

    Regulations such as close on Sunday, no pornography, age to buy cigarettes or beer, and even what products are legal and which are illegal along with many others are the prerogatives of the local government.

    Business operations are not people and do not Constitutional rights.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    "A government may not force a business to operate in a certain way or sell a certain product, but a government can deny the business a license to operate within its authority. " - Ultra Bob

    If a government can deny a license to a business that refuses to supply a certain product, or to a doctor who refuses to provide a certain type of service, then YES, it is forcing them to carry that product and provide that service.

    Leftists evoke the language of freedom and choice only when it furthers their narrrow-minded ideological agenda. They do not believe in choice vis-a-vis abortion for doctors, nurses and pharrmacists. They do not believe in choice with regards to parents who want to send their child to a private school and not have to pay for that education twice.

    People, businesses, and institutions are not extensions of the government. They don't have to do something because a bureacrat or legislature wants them to if it violates their individual rights. Restrictions on freedom must be compelling and necessary, whether its the restriction on the right to have an abortion, or compelling someone to perform one.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2012 6:39 a.m.

    If churches would not cry wolf saying something as benign as contraceptives is so wrong they can't follow a health care law everyone else is required to follow, they would have more political capital when it comes to objecting to forced particapation when it comes to abortion and plan B contraceptives which are similar.

    Just because you have a moral objection to something isn't an automatic pass not to obey the law. We all pay taxes for wars regardless if we agree with them or not. But moral objections are enough to ask society for a pass.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2012 10:38 p.m.

    Pharmacists and doctors should have to display signs saying which services they do not or will not offer so that people can make an informed decision about which doctors and pharmacists they want to visit.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 18, 2012 9:13 p.m.

    Does a State issued license to sell pharmaceuticals require the pharmacist to sell those pharmaceuticals or does it permit him to sell those pharmaceuticals?

    There is a world of difference between permitting and requiring.

    When we receive a license from the State to drive a car, are we required to drive a car, or are we allowed to drive a car?

    A pharmacist is required to be certified and licensed to protect the public. After receiving a license, the pharmacist is allowed to dispense medications.

    Does a patient have the authority to tell a doctor which procedure to perform or how to perform that procedure? If the patient does not like the doctor, or his recommended procedure, or the method the doctor chooses to perform that procedure, is the patient required to use that doctor, or can the patient choose another doctor.

    Does an insurance company provide a list of "approved" doctors before issuing a policy or does the insurance company hide that information from the public?

    There is no legal or ethical reason to force anyone to set aside conscientious objection, but many people use force when logic fails.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2012 8:16 p.m.

    A Georgia lawmaker thinks that, because he lived on a farm and delivered stillborn cows and pigs, a woman should have to carry a dead fetus until she goes into natural childbirth - regardless of any risk to her health.

    No fetus ever has or ever could survive a tubal pregnancy and if the pregnancy is not terminated, chances are that the woman will not survive either. Catholic hospitals will not do a chemical flush of a tubal pregnancy, because that would be an abortion - but they can and will maim the woman by removing the entire fallopian tube with the fetus inside it. The result to the fetus is the same, but the outcome for the woman is vastly different.

    Santorum thinks that rape victims should "accept this horribly created  in the sense of rape  but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life..." if they get pregnant and not have a choice.

    If women want birth control they should not be able to count on their insurance to cover the cost, in spite of all other prescription medication being covered.

    And now, pharmacists also get to override a woman's choices.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    March 18, 2012 8:01 p.m.

    The right to obtain a good or service does not imply the right to obtain it from a specific individual. As a matter of illustration, allow me to compare the situation to another publicly-provided professional service that we, as Americans, have a right to receive:

    We all enjoy the right to have an attorney represent us in legal matters. However, approaching an attorney about representing you does not obligate them to take your case. They would not be denying you your right simply because they do not personally represent you. You have the right to AN attorney, but you do not have the right to any specific attorney's services. Ideally, the attorney would then direct you to another attorney who is known to take cases similar to yours.

    Likewise, we all have the right to seek an abortion if we so choose. As with the example of legal representation, the existence of that right does not hinge upon whether it is received from a specific individual. Ideally, the medical professional would then direct you to another medical professional who is known to perform the procedure you seek.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 18, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    Despite the protestations of the left,

    People jave right to ther bigotry,
    they right to their hate,

    as well as right to thier love,
    and a right to thier tolerance and accetance.

    and we all have a right to proclaim it in the public square,

    and it is none of the federal governments business,

    what you do nou have a right to is someone else services,
    or products
    or labors,
    or skills or time or talents,

    to claim such you would have to trample over some else's rights,

    your rights do not take precedence over anothers.

    if you do not like or agree with them then do not do business with them.

    nowdays the few that may exhibit extreme exercises in conscience would not stay in business long.

    Let the system work.

    education is the answer not force.

  • Johnny Moser Thayne, WY
    March 18, 2012 7:49 p.m.

    When the LDS Church divested its Hospitals and Health services many people wondered why they would even consider something like that. Seems mightly like prophetic wisdom in hindsight.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 18, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    I had a severe dislike for the far right propaganda that Amway distributor groups subscribe to. So, knowing that simply objecting and complaining about it wasn't the answer, I left it all behnind, gladly. There's a message in there somewhere.

  • Ginger Ravenna, OH
    March 18, 2012 7:01 p.m.

    We granted the right to control a business when we decided it was a good idea to license pharmacies and pharmacists. Licensing is controlled by the states, as it always has been. As such, you won't find it in the US Constitution other than a general agreement with that arrangement in the Tenth Amendment.

    Pharmacists are not in private business, they are a state regulated profession and have to obey state regulations on dispensing drugs, one of which is they don't diagnose a patient's condition as a physician can. Anyone deciding that a given woman requesting Plan B should not receive it is diagnosing her condition and deciding appropriate disposition rather than letting it be properly diagnosed by a physician. That is exactly what is happening in this case. The only people with standing in this situation is the pregnant woman and a competent gynecologist. If someone doesn't like it, they may move elsewhere; this is what liberty looks like.

    Would you like your pharmacist deciding whether you should be able to buy medicines you choose? Lets allow women to make their own responsible, adult choices. I think they'll get it right more often than our politicians will.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 18, 2012 6:47 p.m.

    That's the whole point Mike. If we decide "conscience" comes before law then what good is it?

  • Ginger Ravenna, OH
    March 18, 2012 6:30 p.m.

    Loss of respect for life was lost hen we decided to let children starve, suffer illness without care and die because their parents don't have jobs which allow them to purchase required medicine or treatments. Since it largely those same people which advocate this neglect of living children who also advocate legislative interference with women's reproduction, they have no moral credibility. When they begin lobbing for free access to health care, living wages for families and dignified access to food, then I'll begin to listen. Until then they are plainly what we all those who preach one thing for others but don't live it themselves.

    The Hippocratic Oath argument is a non-starter, ask a doctor. We are not talking about unethical practice. Try justifying an amputation as "doing no harm".

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 18, 2012 5:34 p.m.

    Not every store sells all possible products. Should the store manager fire employees who tell customers that the store does not carry all products? When a product causes death, should that employee be fired for selling something that was designed to kill?

    Every doctor swears an oath to "do no harm". Does abortion harm anyone? How about the unborn baby?

    There is room for conscientious objection. There is room in this world for tolerance for those who have a conscientious objection to depriving someone of the chance to be conceived and of the chance to be born.

    Many in this community know that our life did not start at birth and that it does not end at death. Many of us have a conscientious objection to preventing mortal life from starting. Most of us have a conscientious objection to taking the life of the unborn.

    What kind of people would demand to have us destroy life because they believe that destroying life is acceptable? When did it become acceptable? When did our society lose respect for life?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 18, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    In principle, you make some good points. There are at least two problems. First, some activities fall outside purely personal activities. Some activities are expressly public service and the provider is carrying out the instructions of a health care professional (doctor) and the provider has not right to substitute their judgement for that of the doctor. If a pharmacist cannot abide by this, they should seek another profession. The second issue is that I don't think you fully believe in what you are saying, that it really depends on the issue and whether you agree with it. If you are consistent, you will condone polygamy and other activities. I do not see a compelling public interest as long as there is not compulsion. Will you go for it?

  • sportsfan21 OREM, UT
    March 18, 2012 4:49 p.m.

    I agree with Mike Richards.

    Henry, you're examples are not even close to the same issue. First, prohibiting mormon missionaries is discrimination according to religious beliefs. Doctors aren't just denying one group of people, they are choosing not to perform abortions. It's more similar to a dentist not offering root canals than your example. Discriminating procedures or products is allowed. Discriminating people is not.

    Second, a local prosecutor swore an oath to uphold the law and his employer also had him agree to uphold the law when he/she was hired. So, since he/she broke both agreements, he/she would be fired. A doctor does not swear an oath to perform abortions and if he/she is self employed or has an employer that does not require them to perform abortions during hiring, they can choose not to offer abortions without being fired.

    As long as a doctor goes out of his way to help a woman find a competent doctor nearby to do the procedure, what's the problem?

    Bookstores don't have to sell the Book of Mormon
    Doctors don't have to perform abortions.

    Doctors are only required to give procedure when the situation is life threatening.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 18, 2012 4:20 p.m.


    Read the Constitution.

    The 1st Amendment keeps anti-Mormon laws from being passed.

    Article IV, Clause 2 states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    If a State of a community wrote anti-Mormon laws, the Federal Government would pursue that State or that Community (SHALL, PURSUANCE require action by the Federal Government).

    A local prosecutor WOULD obey the Constitution or he would find himself being prosecuted.

    Religion is protected. Selling contraceptives or preforming abortions is not.

    Read the Constitution. It is all there.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 18, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    There are communities who would love to restrict or prohibit Mormon Missionaries from proselyting in their neighborhoods because it offends their deeply held religious beliefs. Nondiscrimination laws get in the way, however. I believe if the Deseret News gets its way, you could easily see a local prosecutor refuse to enforce such laws because his religious convictions tell him that Mormons do not deserve such protections. You can't have it both ways. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    "A government may not force a business to operate in a certain way or sell a certain product, but a government can deny the business a license to operate within its authority. " - Ultra Bob

    If a government can deny a license to a business that refuses to supply a certain product, or to a doctor who refuses to provide a certain type of service, then YES, it is forcing them to carry that product and provide that service.

    Leftists evoke the language of freedom and choice only when it furthers their narrrow-minded ideological agenda. They do not believe in choice vis-a-vis abortion for doctors, nurses and pharrmacists. They do not believe in choice with regards to parents who want to send their child to a private school and not have to pay for that education twice.

    People, businesses, and institutions are not extensions of the government. They don't have to do something because a bureacrat or legislature wants them to if it violates their individual rights. Restrictions on freedom must be compelling and necessary, whether its the restriction on the right to have an abortion, or compelling someone to perform one.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2012 12:36 p.m.

    @the truth
    "yet the far left who talks of tolerance and compassion,

    would strip the very essence of freedom and agency away, and force all to live in their version of utopian sameness and faux social morality.

    The far left isn't the one forcing women to be probed just to try to make them feel guilty. Utopian sameness and faux social morality... I'm pretty sure you just described social conservatives whether you intended to or not.


    You forgot about southernors who fly the rebel flag while questioning the patriotism of liberals.

    Could've sworn that Afghanistan was started 7 years before Obama got into office... so it's hardly "Obama's war". You could say it's bush and obama's war though.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    Did Hutterite forget Obama's war in Afghanistan and only remember Bush's war in Iraq? Such selective indignation belongs on the comics page of the DN. Both wars reflect the thoughts often expressed in the military - war is old men sending young men to die.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    We have rights and freedom because we came together and agreed to limit some of our own rights and freedoms in exchange for the rights and freedoms we wanted most.

    Every right, every freedom that we have came about because our government, the American people, has the ability to limit and control the freedom of others to harm us.

    Business exists at the will of the society government. A government may not force a business to operate in a certain way or sell a certain product, but a government can deny the business a license to operate within itÂs authority.

    There are no Constitutional rights for a business operation.

    Freedom of religion is about the individualÂs freedom to believe as that individual wants. It does not give freedom of religion to churches or a religion itself. And while the individual has the right and ability to believe any thing he chooses, he may not have the right to act on his belief.

    We do not allow human sacrifice not how intensely a person may believe.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 18, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    Thanks for the very well written editorial. But, it missed the primary point that underlies the problem.

    When did we, the American People, give government the authority to tell us what we MUST do in our private occupation? We do not work for the government, yet they want to tell us what products we must sell and what procedures we must perform.

    Where is that authority enumerated in the Constitution?

    Government has greatly exceeded its authority. Now it demands that we kill unborn babies and that we prevent babies from being conceived. How does that "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    I always chuckle when groups of people claim protection and rights under the name of a Nation they don't serve or pledge allegiance to.

    Muslims who seek our religious freedoms and civil rights but won't salute our flag.

    Immigrants who cry out for "rights" protected by laws they chose to break and demand public services they do not pay taxes to.

    Draft dodgers who claim umbrage under liberties they choose not to defend themselves.

    In a way, we've all become kindergardeners who want toys and ice cream from stores we fight against and that we didn't pay for. Maybe it doesn't matter who our President is when the people are so far from deserving any help.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    March 18, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    Well written article, I couldn't agree with it more!

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    March 18, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    I have missed some of the articles that apparently have led up to this one. However, I am extremely grateful that my mother, who nearly died at my birth because of pre-eclampsia had not been encouraged by her doctor to end the pregnancy to avoid that peril. I am also grateful that I did NOT end the pregnancy I definitely did not plan. I am so glad that someone else benfitted by my impulsive behavior and that I don't have an abortion to remember. That would be hard on my conscience, which has enough other memories to address! Sadly, much of this boils down to placing convenience ahead of conscience.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 18, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    @Hutterite: "Next time some fool wants to invade Iraq, i conscientiously object." You mean Iran? Good for you. But you can only conscientously object if they draft you. Then you have to show that this is a sincere belief. You cannot for example argue that you think that the current war is immoral, or that you disagree with the wars because there are better alternatives. You have to disagree with war, period.

    There are legal precedents about this and even with the questions that a draft board can ask as they determine if you are a conscientous objector.

    It is good that the discussion has evolved to the point where we are discussing conscientous objectors. I think that a society should allow conscientous objectors. I am not going to force a Quaker into the army because of some tea-party ethic about law and order and the government always knows best.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 18, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    I see a of people who pride themselves in being liberal and compassionate taking the same tough law and order stand that I might expect to see in an Arizona tea-parties talking about illegal immigration.

    Some supposedly conservative people have suddenly realized that government too set on justice, law and the common good can metamorphose into something that looks a little like 1930's fascism.

    I enjoy these discussions.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    March 18, 2012 9:12 a.m.


    Actually, you can refuse to provide services to anyone you wish. If you are a photographer, you are not forced to take pictures of Mormon weddings. If you serve food, you don't have to provide green jello with carrots.

    It is usually the left that wants to enact laws that will force people to use certain light bulbs, drive certain cars, embrace certain sexual preferences, and give free stuff to other people.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    March 18, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    The article cited in this editorial doesn't describe the circumstances leading to the second trimester abortion.

    Eclampsia requires bed rest. But what if you are a poor mother with mouths to feed? Armchair ethicists vote to support the right of a pharmacist, but refuse to support taxes that would help a woman forced into a traumatic dilemma.

    If you care so much about babies, compensate that woman's lost wages so she can afford to be bedridden. Pay for child care and pre-natal care do she can continue to feed and clothe her other children. Pay parents and employers for sick child leave. Ensure that children have access to medical and dental care. If you want to stop abortion, don't just try to pass laws so you can feel smugly self-righteous. Pass laws that eliminate the financial burdens that drive the majority of abortion decisions. Studies indicate that such a move could reduce abortion by up to 80%. You cannot put your wallet ahead of your ethics without the risk of hypocrisy.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 18, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    Next time some fool wants to invade Iraq, i conscientiously object.

  • Ginger Ravenna, OH
    March 18, 2012 6:27 a.m.

    Denial of service in a public place the essence of bigotry. D Rhonda Mesler and her co-litigants refuse to sell fertility enhancing drugs as well? I suspect they have such moral objection in that kind of interference with human conception. They have cherry=picked their moral positions based on their biases, as has DN.

    Is Rhonda Mesler prepared to assume the responsibilities of an unplanned child and its overwhelmed single mother? Do she make exceptions for rape or incest? Does she judge whether these have really occurred as described to her? Does make efforts to prevent a suicidal teenager from ending both lives? I think not. She just feels smug in her denial without taking any social or moral responsibility. You know, the kind of responsibility that Jesus preached when he said "love your neighbor as yourself".

    What Rhonda Mesler shows is a focused love of self without the extension of that love to a neighbor in a moment of crisis.

  • sportsfan21 OREM, UT
    March 17, 2012 8:32 p.m.


    I can answer those questions in order.

    No, you can't turn away someone because of their beliefs. But if you run a bookstore you aren't required to sell copies of the Book of Mormon.

    No, you can't choose which taxes you pay because we all share the rewards and consequences of our country. But you can speak out against the things you don't agree with and elect representatives to change laws that are against your beliefs.

    No, you can't use personal beliefs to defend your bigotry. But you can use your voice to speak out against choices (not people) which you are against.

    No, we don't abandon our social contracts or let society lose morals. We respect that others believe differently than us and work together to have each of our needs met. We respect a pharmacies decision to not sell a drug with which they disagree as long as they respect us in helping us find a nearby pharmacy to fill our prescriptions.

    Hope this helped.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    March 17, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    Thank you for this excellent editorial and also the accompanying article about religious objectors. I also appreciate the thoughts of "the truth" above.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 17, 2012 6:54 p.m.

    RE: Blue

    You should be free to follow to follow your conscience,

    and enjoy it's rewards,

    and reponsible to accept it's consequences,

    and yet the far left who talks of tolerance and compassion,

    would strip the very essence of freedom and agency away, and force all to live in their version of utopian sameness and faux social morality.

    there is no social contract without totalitarian control,
    it implies you must force others to live, talk, think, behave, a certain way.

    True freedom is individual reponsibility, individual morality, individual charity, individual love, and so on,

    being taught the correct path by love, patience, and long suffering,

    and true great society is created, by a person coming by their own agency to understand, through love and service to others and honesty and morality and work,

    makes a people of one heart and one mind,
    this creates that true utopia the left desires.

    And if you find that the government funding certain activities repugnent,
    shouldn't the government be funding less activites and not more, and not be our task master(a government that is supposed to be the people and not a distant body)?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 17, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    So... may I, out of deeply held personal conviction, now refuse to deal with Mormons who come to me seeking my services?

    May I similarly refuse to pay the portion of my taxes that fund government activities I find morally repugnant?

    May I now exercise my personal bigotries against my neighbors by asserting personal conscience?

    Do we all now just abandon the notion of the social contract that holds a functioning and fair society together?

    Increasingly, wrongly, and tragically, today's crop of religious conservatives regard the narrowing of the mind and inward-turning of the soul as a virtue.

    We become a _less_ moral society through this narrowness.