Orrin Hatch: Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    re: GaryO
    [No actually, the Separation of Church and State, means . . . The SEPARATION of Church and State.]

    Agreed. Jefferson's Wall prohibits influence in both directions.

    [This nation is much closer now to the Taliban ideal of religion and government merged as one entity.]

    Look at Al-Maliki in Iraq favoring Shi'a politicians. What a quagmire that is?

    Its a great example of why C & S s/b completely separate. If I have learned nothing else in my life. Its that people are whiners esp those who truly believe in any cause secular or otherwise.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Let's look at what those who are complaining about the ruling are really saying. They're saying that they agree that government has the right to force us to buy a product for someone else. They're saying that no one can worship God unless that worship is pre approved by government. They're saying that no one has any responsibility to pay for his/her own personal welfare. They're saying that government will tell us what we must provide employees instead of requiring people to use the money they earn to provide for themselves. They're saying that the concept of freedom is dead in America and that Obama can dictate to us every aspect of our lives. They're comfortable with that.

    They have not read the Constitution that guarantees us free expression of religion and the freedom not to have our religious conduct dictated by government. They have not read the Constitution that requires the President to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution.

    Senator Hatch is correct. Those who fight against this ruling are incorrect.

  • David Centerville, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    Do a simple search online for the meaning of separation of church & state.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 1, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    But, Orrin,

    Will you also defend a business who (now companies are people) is owned by a Jehovah's Witness who has an insurance plan that will not pay for blood transfusions?

    What about a business who is owned by someone whose "religious" beliefs will not pay for immunizations?

    Where does the rabbit hole end?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    David -

    "Rather, separation of church and state means that the state will not establish a state religion. Nothing more."

    No actually, the Separation of Church and State, means . . . The SEPARATION of Church and State.

    Our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the law.

    Obviously, the church and the state are no long separate.

    This nation is much closer now to the Taliban ideal of religion and government merged as one entity.

    Way to go "Conservatives."

    . . . You must be sooooooooooooo proud.

    July 1, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    I will remind Senator Hatch the outcome when he attempted to ban gay/straight alliances from local high schools.

    Beware unintended consequences.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 1, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    LDS Liberal

    "scripted by the Corporate Over-Lords who are America's new Gadianton Master Mahans?"

    There can only be one Master Mahan. Better read Moses again. Make No mistake they own Obama, Bush, Clinton and all other presidents before JFK. Everything they do is for the devil but coated with good intentions.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    July 1, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Are we to expect the government to mandate companies to pay for the cosmetics that women use and want? Contraceptives are far more cheaper than certain brands of lipstick. Would it not be sensible for those seeking to curtail or prevent pregnancy - to pay for it themselves.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    I have no problem with religous freedom but how come some churches keep trying to take my personal freedoms away from me?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 1, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    Now that Senator Hatch, and his crony friends on the Supreme Court, have enshrined this concept into law, I wonder how many non-Mormon woman will lose their ability to obtain birth control through their employer provided health insurance.

    And will this ever be reported? Somehow I doubt it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 1, 2014 12:41 a.m.

    Restricting religious expression may not be americas' heritage. But using the state to enable it in any way isn't, either. No one, certainly not an employer, should have any right to use a benefit as necessary as health care to foist its' religious views off on a staff member. Employers shouldn't have anything to do with the provision of health care at all, by the way. No, restricting religious expression is not our heritage. And mine, not my employers' or yours, is the most important. The sooner you recognise that fact, and allocate rights and responsibilities accordingly, the better. Until you do, you've got it wrong and are violating the entire spirit and intent of this great nation.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    The Real Maverick,

    You confuse the 12th Article of Faith with the right to free speech. Speaking against an ideology, especially one that is diametrically opposed to freedom, such as Obama's liberal agenda, is hardly breaking the 12th Article of Faith.

    If one were to attempt to harm the president, or incite violence, or disobedience to the law, would be violating the 12th A of F. There are extremists in both parties that have and will do harm to others. But the large majority are exercising their freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution of free speech. Such is also supported by the 12th Article of Faith.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    BYU Track Star: you are exaggerating the extent and meaning of the SCOUTUS decision.

    GaryO: The SCOUTUS decision was not determined by right wingers, but by right leaning and moderate justices on the court. You're exaggerating too. But you bring up a challenging point--that of separation of church and state, and the right to worship, freedom of expression (free speech). But understanding a balance between these two very important principles is easier to grasp when you understand that separation of church and state does not mean removal of religious expression from public life, nor from government. Congress raises a voice of prayer and thanksgiving. Is this a violation of the separation of Church and state?

    Rather, separation of church and state means that the state will not establish a state religion. Nothing more.

    Again, you are exaggerating. It is not the first time that government recognizes the right of religious expression: Certain tribes are allowed to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. Government does not force saluting the flag, or even taking up arms for those religious believers opposed. Try not to get too carried away.

  • MDurfee OREM, UT
    June 30, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    Everyone has a right to any kind of medical care they can personally afford. They do not have the right to force other people to pay for it, whether it contradicts their religious principles or not.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 30, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    @ Chris B

    "LDS lib,

    The courts have spoken. I hope you'll support, honor, and sustain the law as your articles of faith requires."

    Like you accepted Obama's election, obamacare's passing, and the overturn of amendment 8?

    Remember, we both supposedly believe in sustaining and honoring the law. The 12th article of faith is a beautiful thing. Except, ever since 2008, I've seen a once pround but currently dwindling political party act like spoiled children refusing to sustain and honor this article of faith. I hope that folks like you see your error, truly repent, and finally obey this important article of faith.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    June 30, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    I see some remarks from places that may have legal marijuana.
    Would it be OK for an employer to object to paying for one's grass?
    Is it any of your employer's business how you spend your wages?
    -- or what you do away from the job (assuming you are not a paid icon for your employer)?
    Is it OK for your employer to expect you to be ready, willing, and able to do your job, with an appropriate public face, when it is time for work?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 30, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    ‘Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'

    Well, that depends on the type of religious expression.

    Human sacrifice is absolutely prohibited, for example, as is everything else that may be detrimental to the general welfare and detrimental to ourselves and our posterity.

    But that has changed now with this latest ridiculous Supreme Court decision.

    For the first time in the history of the nation, religious fanatics can legally impose their will upon the government of the United States, thereby restricting the freedom of others.

    This Supreme Court has made a mockery of the US Constitution.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 30, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    "It is much more important than that. It is about whether the political agenda of some will trump the . . . liberty of all."

    Exactly, and today's Supreme Court decision carried out a political agenda that trumped liberty for all.

    The latest horrendous decision of the Supreme Court invalidated the principle of the Separation of Church and State.

    A cherished principle stemming from the first days of this Republic has been rendered perverse by foolish Right Wingers with no sense of history, proportion, or propriety.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 30, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    My concern over this SCOUTUS ruling is: how far is Hobby Lobby's reach now? This ruling allows Employers to limit their Employees access to some Medical services because the Employers deem it against their Religous beliefs and Religous Freedom. They, Hobby Lobby, is aghast that their company money is supporting employee behaviors they find abhorrant and the SCOUTUS supports this. The next reasonable step for Hobby Lobby is for them to demand the Local Municipalities discontinue offering these abhorrant Medical services to their employees because it is Hobby Lobby's Money after all, in part, supporting these Abhorrant Medical Services by extension , thereby violating Hobby Lobby's Religous belief's and Freedom,in part, again.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    June 30, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    Um .... what about that "slippery slope" thingy?

    And, my "church" supports other positions?

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    Anyone who understands the First Amendment would pen a similar article to Orrin Hatch's. Only lawless politicans and bureaucrats who would impose their secular (atheistic) beliefs on others, would object to Orrin's editorial.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    LDS lib,

    The courts have spoken. I hope you'll support, honor, and sustain the law as your articles of faith requires.

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    'Restricting religious expression 'is not America's heritage'.
    Not in Utah it's not, but SHOULD be.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    But --

    Is this the real Orrin Hatch speaking,
    scripted by the Corporate Over-Lords who are America's new Gadianton Master Mahans?