Religious liberty advocates call for faiths to join forces

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    June 8, 2013 1:27 a.m.

    The reason that it impacts me is because when people bring their religion into the public forum, they are, in effect, causing me to sponsor, at least partially, their religious point of view. Whatever public venue they choose to display their religious devotion in, as a taxpayer also belongs to me, and I don`t want to participate.
    Have you ever given some good, hard, thought as to why you want your religion public? Just why is it that religious people are not satisfied making their religious devotions in private?

  • mattwend IDAHO FALLS, ID
    June 6, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Why does it impact you if there is a cross or ten commandments anywhere? This is where I do see infringements on religious rights. I don't use the cross as a symbol in my own religion and I don't have a problem with someone else who does. I can appreciate, or ignore, monuments as I choose, but if I dislike something, should i have the right to make "them" take it down? Why must all signs of religion be abolished from public life?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 5, 2013 5:51 a.m.


    The moment you try to force others who believe differently than you to live BY YOUR belief system and your religious beliefs you become an "intolerant bigot" - absolutely. Tolerance means that you live your beliefs and allow others to live theirs. If you believe in "tradition", by all means, live it YOURSELF. Allow others to live their non-traditional ways. That is what tolerance is about.

  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    June 5, 2013 2:01 a.m.

    The idea that religion is under attack is laughable, and inaccurate. What is under attack is someone trying to force their religion on to me. I have no desire, whatsoever, to attack your religion, I really don`t care how/what/when/where you worship. Please afford me the same courtesy.
    The problem, as I see it, is that the religious folks want to make their religious devotion public, such as prayers in schools, displays of the 10 commandments in courtrooms, "In God We Trust" on state issued license plates, cross monuments on public land. I do not agree with you inserting your religion into the public arena, of which I am part owner. Why is it that religious people feel the need to make a public spectacle of their faith? Why can they not keep it confined to their homes and churches? Do they feel that they will garner more brownie points in the afterlife by publicly declaring their devotion?

  • dtlenox Olympia, WA
    June 4, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    The overall nastiness and rudeness of those who are anti-religion and/or pro-same-sex marriage is just more evidence that religion is in danger. When people accuse those who oppose same sex marriage as bigots and hypocrites, that is just plain nasty and rude. That is the kind of attitude that I find so prevalent these days. So it's supposedly fair to be accused of being an "intolerant bigot" just because one believes in the traditional definition of marriage. This kind of treatment is just more evidence that our society is becoming less and less tolerant of and more and more nasty towards anyone who does not follow the "politically correct" trends. They just can't grasp the concept that one can be respectful of others without changing their views supporting the traditional definition of marriage. I guess that's the only way they can argue their point, by accusing those who hold opposing views of being bigots. You can be respectful of others without agreeing with them, but I sure don't see that coming from the same sex marriage supporters.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 4, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    I see nothing but the most typical anecdotal evidence that religious freedoms are somehow under attack. Kids not being able to wear a cross necklace to public school? Ha, even if that were true, those case are far and few between. Probably the same amount of schools that illegally allow religious groups to come onto the campus of a public school to hand out religious materials and to proselytize. For every isolated incident like the scenario above, I could probably show you the same someone/group in clear violation of the 1st Amendment. For example - school prayer at graduations? Please, imagine if Johny is asked to give a prayer at graduation and then says something offensive to the majority of people in attendance, that could happen, just offering up a Christian prayer when 75% of those in attendance are Christian, why bother? You're not a church, public schools allow all creeds to attend right? Why isolate or offend then? These are no brainers.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    "what if you only make cakes between of a marriage that represents a man and a women because that is the only skill that you learned"

    It is physically impossible for that hypothetical to even be valid.

    "It is his business. I can take my business elsewhere!"

    So all those civil rights sit-ins... you oppose the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to not discriminate in that manner and you think what they should've done was just take their business elsewhere?

    @the truth
    "One need no farther than Obama's own actions and treatment and words toward Israel."

    His support of the same boundary (with land swap) arrangement the last several presidents have supported? His unwillingness to just give a blank check to Israel letting them do whatever they want? Nevermind the fact that Israeli leaders generally think everything is just fine with regards to relations between the two countries. You have an odd definition of what it makes to be anti-semitic.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @the truth
    As someone who is free to go to church whenever I feel like it and was perfectly able to read the Book of Mormon (as an investigator) between classes while at Penn State I can't say I feel like my religious rights have ever been challenged in any manner.

    @G L W8
    "Obama DID attack the Catholic's position on birth control"

    Most Catholics don't even practice that position. Regardless, there are religious exemptions in the legislation. A church is not the same as a business.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 4, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    @the truth;

    You have none of it in you.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 4, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    Lessons on how to assert religious authority on a hesitant society: Step one - Create a straw man/boogie man to bash unmercifully. In this case so-called secularism, and then throw in Humanism for good measure; Step two; complain ad nauseum about the straw man/boogie man youve created by insisting that they are somehow working against the efforts of religious freedom by insisting that the 1st Amendment means that religion should have no undue influence over those who are not religious; Step three; employ the use of logical fallacies and false analogies in order to try and make your point; Step four; push for the enactment laws that will protect religious freedoms that already exist so that you can show some sort of advancement for the cause, even though the new laws do absolutely nothing to actually advance your cause to begin with; Step five; Divide and concur by associating others you are already fighting with to the straw man/boogie man youve created, in this case the LGTB community, et al (Democrats, etc); and the final step, hope to gain sympathy from the gullible masses.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    @the truth – “It is not compensation but a fringe benefit paid for by the employer at his will and generosity. Compensation is your salary or wage.”

    Really… well since the #1 (and only) objective of any business is to make money, why doesn’t this kind, beneficent business owner just take it away?

    Do you really believe any business would be able to do so without a dollar for dollar increase in wages and still be able to attract the labor they need (which means this fringe benefit is de facto compensation)?

    But in any event, nice red herring equivocation… sorry if the rest of my comment caused a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.

  • Ghost Writer GILBERT, AZ
    June 4, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    I believe people who feel a need to constantly berate big bad "organized religion" simply don't want to make any commitments that require personal sacrifices (like getting up on Sunday morning and going to services, and then following through on any covenants made). I'm constantly amazed when a few go apoplectic when someone knocks on their door and sincerely invites them to church. They are free to do so, and you are free to politely say no thank-you. The most preachy people I know these days are athiests and non-believers.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 4, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    Once again I will repeat what I have often said, which is that if a religious faith focuses on its core values - taking care of the poor the weak and the sick and the afflicted instead of wandering off into political campaigns and becoming holier the Thou, the various religions would not be attacked and be forced to defend "religious liberty". If you are a religious faith looking for the "boogie man" who is taking away your religious liberty you have no further to look than the mirror. (If you are LDS – think of this as how many times do you go to Church / Church activities as to how many times to you see you Home / Visiting Teaching families - pretty simple). You need to set a better example.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    June 4, 2013 4:41 a.m.

    Google "Obama Paves the Way for Sharia Law." I'd like to put my head in the sand and deny that any such movement could exist, but all I'd do is get sand in my hair, or my brain.

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    June 4, 2013 4:15 a.m.

    It is important to recognize two things. First, the decline of religion and increase of immoral behavior in popular culture has caused many to abandon that which is righteous in favor of pleasure seeking self-gain.

    The evidence is not only in statistics, but one only need look around to the standards of modesty, charity, sexual purity, and other virtues that are fast disappearing entirely. Many nations have become entertainment centered in their values that emulate hedonistic behavior, thinking there are no consequences. Yet, addiction, divorce, STDs, violence, and many other results are obvious.

    Second, while the evidence is thin at best that Obama himself is directly assaulting religion, it is readily apparent that oppositional leftist organizations are thriving under his regime. These groups are not only seeking for "equality" as they put it, but go much further to turn the tables on what religious organizations historically did with gaining control by way of intimidation and hypocrisy.

    Christianity and Judaism are subjected to increased ridicule, antagonistic propaganda, and sometimes persecution. The lawsuits that serve no purpose but to eradicate religion from the public square are driving religious groups and people underground. Those who deny these things aren't viewing reality.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    June 3, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    Someone said: "One could not, and should not, separate our laws from moralality and virtue."

    That perspective confuses having a moral code with being religious. Research shows that the two are not necessarily related. Some of society's greatest leaders, say Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dorothy Day, were deeply religious. Others, including Thomas Jefferson and Clarence Darrow , were not. The scientific data reveals people who are regular churchgoers do not make more moral decisions than those who are unchurched, attend a church, synagogue or other organized gathering sporadically, are agnostic or atheist.

    And, remember (it cannot be repeated too many times) we do not live in a theocracy. Religion will never be the controlling factor in our government. A closely related myth is that the U.S. was founded as a Christian country. That is false. The United States government was secular from the beginning, despite its many other flaws.

    People reveal they are good by their unselfish acts. Their empathy. Their generosity. Their forgiveness. By doing unto others.... They don't have to belong to any particular religion or even be religious to achieve that.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    June 3, 2013 5:33 p.m.


    One need look no farther than the IRS scandal.

    One need look no farther than Obama's own ideology and radicals and extremists he surrounds himself with and their views.

    One need no farther than Obama's own actions and treatment and words toward Israel.


    What right?

    You have not been denied a single constitutionally guaranteed right.

    By the way business owners have rights too, and they are citizens with guaranteed rights as well.

    You can ask for their services, but you can not demand it, you have no entitlement or constitutional right to their labors and services nor property or money or talents or skills.

    @Tyler D

    It is not compensation but a fringe benefit paid for by the employer at his will and generosity.

    Compensation is your salary or wage.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 3, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    @twinfallsid – “They are not preventing their employee from using it, they are objecting to paying for it.”

    Can you explain how that is occurring given that it will be funded through insurance premiums which are a part of each employee’s compensation?

    How is that any different than if an employee paid for birth control out of their paycheck? Based on your statement, that would still fall under the definition of the employer “paying for it.”

    And if you still insist that this is a line that should be drawn (which would appear to go directly against Scalia’s opinion in Employment Services v Smith) would it be OK for a Christian Scientist business owner to offer only insurance that did NOT include blood transfusions (since that is against their religion)?

    There are many other (not-purely-rhetorical) examples we could come up with… I’m just curious where you would draw the line.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    June 3, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    the truth,

    You state: The Obama administration is indeed constantly attacking Christianity, Judaism, conservatives, and any other group that opposes his views and ideology.

    Please give some real honest examples.


  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    June 3, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Religious faith of all varieties is under attack from many directions. I'll just explore one ares-Education. In public schools wearing a cross or a Tshirt with a religious message is discouraged or punished while blasphemy using terms of Diety is allowed and even encouraged in "creative writing', Religious books are being pulled from library shelves while anti-religious remain. Any discussion of the religious underpinning of our Constitution or laws have been removed from history classes. That's a sample of what's happening in K-12. We are Ben Franklin said, " A half truth is often the biggest lie." In college the majority of professors are liberal anti-religious in their teaching. I had to drop two graduate classes at a well known university (in the 60's)because the professors would not accept any religious oriented ideas in their classes. Its much worse today and as one U of U prof told me it is his mission in life to destroy the faith of young LDS returned missionaries. The left does not just disagree they want to destroy not discuss. Why religion threatens them is a mystery to me.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 3, 2013 12:59 p.m.


    You can take your business elsewhere because frankly, you're not in any danger of having the provider of a service or product deny you that service or product.

    The point is that these people are in business and the law is such that discrimination is illegal. You're saying it's okay to discriminate and violate the law. It isn't. If you aren't aware of the legal requirements before you go into business, or are unwilling to obey them due to your "religious convictions", then you shouldn't be in business.

    There is absolutely no reason on earth (other than flat out bigotry) to deny your product or service to someone - to use your "religious values" to do so only makes your religion look disgusting. Bigotry is NOT a value that any religious should condone.

    While I personally wouldn't want to use a bigoted baker for my cake, I shouldn't be required to go from baker to baker until I find one who will fulfill my needs. Nobody should have to do that.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 3, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    It’s encouraging to see religious groups put aside squabbles over creed to come together on issues of common ground. But they won’t accomplish much by using the same tone deaf rhetoric that merely throws more fuel onto the fire. Respected religious leaders should know better than to use alarmist appeals describing controversial issues on which honest people disagree as an insidious attack on religious liberty.

    Proverbs 17:27 tells us “Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.”

    Words of wisdom for all to hear.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 3, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Ranchhand: I absolutely would allow someone that didn't want to make a cake for me for any reason to not make it. It is his business. I can take my business elsewhere! How simple can it get! This is making a mountain out of a molehill! This is very childish. Actually it sounds like something my children used to say, "I'll take my marbles home because someone hurt my feelings." O.K. take your marbles home. Argument over! Haven't heard that one out of my kids for years. They couldn't get any more attention, so they had to move on to something real. I don't know, maybe there isn't a difference between forcing someone to go to a gas chamber and someone not getting their cake made.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 3, 2013 10:41 a.m.



    Please do a search for an article about the baker in Oregon who refused to bake for the wedding of a lesbian couple on the "it violates my religious beliefs" argument.

    A reporter did an article and guess what:

    He made a cake for a pagan celebration.
    He made a cake for a divorcee's divorce party.
    He made a cake for a single woman who was sleeping around.

    All of the above cakes "violated his religious beliefs", yet he made them anyway. What he did in denying the lesbian couple's request was to single them out and discriminate against them.

    What if the baker refused to make a cake for a Mormon's wedding becuase he felt Mormons were cultists and that "violated his religious beliefs". Are you okay with that too? Unless you answer YES, then you're a hypocrite (Jesus didn't like the hypocrites an condemned them, btw).

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 3, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Ranchhand: what if you only make cakes between of a marriage that represents a man and a women because that is the only skill that you learned to run a your business and you don't know how to make a cake between a cow and dog or any other arrangement that someone requests? If you are ignorant,don't have the ability, or your skills only allow you to make a cake specifically the way you learned, then how is that discrimination?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 3, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @very concerned;

    Actually, voting away the rights of one group, making them live by your beliefs is an imposition of YOUR beliefs upon them.

    Churches that believe in "tradional values" should live those "traditional values" themselves and let others live as they see fit. Here's a "traditional value" for you: wives and children were the property of the husband.

    Refusing the goods and services of your business to those with whom you disagree is not a "legitimate right" of the majority; it is discrimination.

    @the truth;

    The Constitution doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of others based on your religion. The rights of others shouldn't even be up for a vote by the majority.

    The religious who vote against same-sex marriages are infringing upon the rights of those religions that believe same-sex marriages are okay. Who is attacking whom? The religious are the ones infringing upon the religious rights of others.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 2, 2013 11:23 p.m.


    Instead of lumping all the "above" comments into one gross strotype you may actually answer the question I asked earlier. How is Obama using his elected office to speak out and attempt to set public policy any different from an elected offical that shares your conservative Christian views doing the same thing?

    June 2, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    Anyone need evidence that religion is under attack? The preponderance of evidence is in the huge number of earlier comments from those critical of religion: "Obama doesn't attack religion", "the Churches brought it on themselves," "The DN publishes articles that propagandize religion", and so forth.
    Obama DID attack the Catholic's position on birth control, that's obvious. And the Churches defending their core beliefs is viewed as an offensive (no pun intended--by me, at least) maneuver to cram doctrine down people's throats? Get real, people! As to the DN being so one sided, it looks to me like they were willing to publish an overwhelming majority of opinion critical of the article, which article the critics obviously didn't read very carefully. But then they're too busy regurgitating talking points to give the subject much careful consideration.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    June 2, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    many modern religions have become their own worst enemies when they abandoned their core principles of honesty and integrity. The country is moving slowly towards a more far and just society were crime rates, teen pregnancy and abortion rates are very low when compared to other periods in our history, religions need to be able to respond to peoples realities and not use lies and deceit if they wish to remain relevant.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    June 2, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    Funny how it is the extreme left on this site that is has eyes shut, and are living in denial.

    The Obama administration is indeed constantly attacking Christianity, Judaism, conservatives, and any other group that opposes his views and ideology.

    And I know of none of these group that has imposed their views other than by legal and constitutional means. (I believe the left and secular groups do the same, and are often more insidious and underhanded in imposing their views)

    It has become a tired old canards these blatant assaults by the left on religion and faithful and then claiming such doesn't exist.

    The religion and faithful and churches have equal voice to influence government and lawmaking as any group or individual on the left.

    The Constitution does not p[protect any one from hearing opposing, and/or disagreeable voices,

    nor does the constitution protect you from being offended or uncomfortable.

    If you do not like living where a majority have opposing views then perhaps you should vote with your feet or accept the fact you a minority and will never have voting power to change things to your liking.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    June 2, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    very concerned wrote:

    "...please contemplate the possibility that there are no truly or completely *secular aspects of society.* I can hardly think of any laws, policies, platforms, or politics that do not have religious (or at least ethical or moral) undertones."

    Oh, my! What a horrifying thought!

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    June 2, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Perhaps the DN is sensitive to this religious persecution issue due to the history of the Mormon Church and the fact that the Mormon Church is coming under increasing critical scrutiny . Often from some of its own members and former members.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 2, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    @very concerned – “I can hardly think of any laws, policies, platforms, or politics that do not have religious (or at least ethical or moral) undertones… One could not, and should not, separate our laws from moralality and virtue.”

    Can you please how religion is synonymous with morality or that somehow laws are not in essence codified morals?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 2, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @very concerned
    So if you are not imposing your values by the use of voting and lobbying etc. how is my doing the same to extend secular views an attack on you.?

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 2, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    More common is that churches are champions of traditional values that have served us well for hundreds of years. These values have only recently come under threat of extinction through the efforts of people who, by and large, despise those churches. They despise those churches for taking any stand for morality and virtue. The point of this article is in describing a situation in which religions are trying to retain their own rights, not to *impose* their will on others. These are religious rights espoused and codified by our Founding Fathers.
    One of the important points of democracy is indeed in protecting the minority, but in so doing, it should not endanger the legitimate rights of the majority. This concept really should be self-evident and obvious, not requiring any defense. But I guess it does need defense the way things are going.

    For those without religion who keep crying *diversity*, getting rid of religious groups is hardly the way to achieve true diversity.

    True, we can misunderstand and claim rights that were never there in the first place. Or we can try to rewrite the universal laws of peace and contentment. But that won’t work.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 2, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    *Efforts by evangelicals and other conservative religions to impose their views on secular aspects of society likely have much to do with 'unchurching’.*

    It is an old argument that the religions are *imposing* their will. Voting, lobbying, and proselytizing are not imposing. They are legal forms of getting one's points heard: Legal forms of persuasion, using the pen or ballot rather than the sword so to speak.

    And as far as someone imposing wills on *secular aspects of society*, IMHO, please contemplate the possibility that there are no truly or completely *secular aspects of society.* I can hardly think of any laws, policies, platforms, or politics that do not have religious (or at least ethical or moral) undertones. Morals and ethics are the lifeblood of religions and their discourse. The laws of the land almost universally deal with how we treat (or mistreat) each other. One could not, and should not, separate our laws from moralality and virtue. Of course there should not be state-sponsored religion. And neither should there be government controlled by religions until He, Jesus Christ, who is the perfect Governor, comes and takes his rightful place.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 2, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    Since when is religion under attack? Why does the Dnews keep posting article like this?
    Bigotry may be under attack and certain religions espouse certain types of bigotry but the sooner they figure out they can't espouse bigotry the better off we'll all be.
    Again, religion isn't under attack. But that said, people are becoming enlightened to reality so religion isn't being confused with 'truth' as much as it used to be.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 2, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Well stated Interloper.

    Long ago I predicted the marriage between politics and religion would be detrimental to both.

    And so it has.

  • twinfallsid TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 2, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    "prevent their employees from choosing to use contraception".
    They are not preventing their employee from using it, they are objecting to paying for it.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 2, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Interloper: The reason why some young people have become 'unchurched' is because those churches have become politicalized, rather than looking to Christ for answers. Anyone that becomes a pawn of 'political correctness' is going to be confused, including becoming disengaged from God's teachings. However, that doesn't mean at all that they don't believe in God. They are just searching for real answers. The real answers are there and he that has eyes to see and ears to hear will come to the living waters. Contrary to what you have stated, Americans are deeply religious and the turmoil in our politics is just a barometer of how deep Americans feel about God. It is awesome. Although the number of athiests have risen dramatically the last few decades, the number of people turning to God, and their commitment level, has risen dramatically. Conscience is a difficult thing to squelch.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    June 2, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    This group could do so much good in the world by trying to reduce religious strife. Instead they focus on same sex marriage and contraception. It seems to be the only thing they care about anymore.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 2, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    To Interloper 11:59 p.m. June 1, 2013

    Well said.

    I am a person of deep faith. The Obama administration has done NOTHING to attack my faith or my ability to beieve as I choose and/or to practice my religion as I deem appropriate. While a few who make these claims of "attacks" on reigion may actually (and misguidedly) belive their claims, the majority who make those claims are just paying politics, trying to use government establish THEIR religion in the United States contrary to the provisions and protections of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and impose their view of religion and their-reigion-based morality on the people of the United States. I beieve in free agency. They don't.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 2, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    Religion is all about power in the here and now, and now that this influence has waned a bit churches are sure playing the victim card a lot.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 2, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    Religious persecution does exist. Worldwide, religion "A" is attacking religion "B" and they both occasionally team up to attack religion "C." That's real enough, and it happens exclusively in nations with strong religious control of their governments.

    But the notion that here in the U.S. and other First World nation that religions are somehow being "persecuted" is a laughable fantasy.

    What certain religious conservatives are clutching their pearls about is in fact merely a growing unwillingness to permit baseless authoritarian superstition serve as an excuse for unjust behaviors that they've grown accustomed to getting away with.

    Playing the "Help Help I'm being repressed!" card is always an effective fundraising tool, and so religions are playing that card for all they're worth and crying all the way to the bank with their tax-free income.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 2, 2013 5:30 a.m.

    Those who scream "war on religion" basically do so because they are being forced to follow the law.

    They claim that the constitution protects "religious freedom" when in fact it is constitutional restrictions and the enforcement of the constitution that are causing their grief.

    Yes, they want "religious freedom" whether it is constitutional or not.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    June 1, 2013 11:59 p.m.

    There is NO attack on religion by the Obama administration. This is a tiresome political meme of the Republican Party. Inviting a few people who call themselves Democrats, while acknowledging they are far Right, does not change the fact this group is a gathering of conservatives backing Right Wing issues, such as alleging a right of employers to prevent their employees from choosing to use contraception.

    Organized religion is on a downturn in the U.S., with more and more people choosing to go 'unchurched.'

    ""Young people are resistant to the authority of institutional religion, older people are turned off by the politicization of religion, and people are simply less into theology than ever before," [Barry] Kosmin told USA Today."" (Based on research by the Pew Foundation.)

    Efforts by evangelicals and other conservative religions to impose their views on secular aspects of society likely have much to do with 'unchurching.'