I plan on sending the following letter to the legislature here in Utah as well as some editors of news publications and the Americans for Separation Between Church and State. I appreciate any comments that would be helpful in making this the best it can be. Troll comments will be deleted, of course. Thanks!!
I have been living in Utah for six months now and have made some observations about how the government conducts business here. My conclusion is that Utah is a good example of why there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. In Utah it is accepted and not even attempted to be hidden that the Mormon church owns and controls the state and town governments. That all laws and ordinances must pass muster with the church before it can be implemented. Which results in a set of laws that forces a non-church member to live as though they are church members. My right under the constitution to be free from religion has been ignored and the situation of a church controlled government must be challenged and rectified.
In Utah there is the blatant disregard for the First Amendment which was created to protect people from religion as much to protect people’s right to worship as they please. As Jefferson put it, there is to be a wall between church and government. It is time to erect that wall in order to protect the freedoms of all people in Utah.
Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Amendment says very clearly that there is to be no establishment of religion. The founding father, Thomas Jefferson, who helped to write this amendment further explains the reasoning and position of why it was written. He stated:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Based upon the laws that have come out of the legislature of the State of Utah as well as how the debate on changing existing laws is conducted it is clear the legislature works for the Mormon church. That following the doctrine of the Mormon church is not voluntary, private, personal, or nonpolitical. When one church controls the laws, they are attempting to force everyone in the population to live by their doctrine regardless if the person has chosen to become a member of their group. When the Taliban behaves in the manner of making church law state law the outcry is the repression of freedom, and rightly so. I make the same outcry. I do not want to be forced to live by Mormon doctrine.
The Mormon church interferes in every aspect of law creation and adjustment. The legislature is overwhelmingly Mormon and bring their personal, religious beliefs to the table when deciding how to write legislation instead of keeping their beliefs private and personal. In addition, the church leadership will routinely issue statements for public consumption on their stance regarding the changes and creation of legislation. Finally, there is the behind the scenes politicking where the legislature meets with the special interest group, this church, and hammers out a deal with them. It is well recognized that the Mormon church is wealthy and uses that wealth to influence the politics of a situation. I do not call it lobbying simply because the term does not portray the scope in which the church, behind closed doors, will bribe, bully, and demand that their wishes be met above all others using their power over legislature who are also members and their wealth.
It must be recognized that an elected official who is religious was placed into office by the public with that knowledge. However, once that elected official is in office that person is then to behave according to the ethics of their position as well as within the framework of the constitution and of law. The First Amendment prevents the elected official from putting their own religion above and before any other.
An example of how the Mormon church will control, bully, and manipulate politics is how they behaved during the national debate on equal marriage. The Mormon church opposes same sex unions in all forms, from informal to marriage. They were deeply involved in the political struggle to keep same sex marriage illegal including financing anti gay political campaigns, funding campaigns to remove politicians from power who supported same sex marriage and rallying their congregation against the political movement bringing politics into the church house. This is clearly against how a church is supposed to behaved according to the First Amendment and as a non-profit institution. In both cases the Mormon church has declared their beliefs greater than the rights and freedoms of individuals and have inappropriately worked in the political arena to further their own agenda.
In present day Utah the medaling of the special interest Mormon church is felt every day. Most notably are the two issues of whether to allow medical marijuana and whether to change existing Alcohol Content (AC) laws. The people where asked by ballet what were their wishes for allowing medical marijuana. In addition is the news that since UT is one of two states left that requires the extremely low AC in beer that the major manufacturers will no longer produce at that level. This has led to the request by the general public for medical marijuana to be allowed and that the AC beer levels to be adjusted to what the rest of the nation is already at. In both cases, unbelievably to someone from outside of Utah but without too much surprise to those who have come to understand how things work in Utah, the legislature went to the Mormon church to ask them permission to debate and pursue these changes.
In the case of medical marijuana, the bill that passed had nothing to do with the question put to the people. It instead had more to do with appeasing the special interest group of the Mormon church while giving token regard to for the needs of the public. The bill that resulted is extremely controlling to the point where medical marijuana os to be prescribed to terminally ill patients who has less than six months expectancy only. The people of Utah wanted medical marijuana legalized in the same way as it is legal in other states and other countries but their wishes, expressed at ballot, were ignored and denied. The legislature of Utah under the influence of the Mormon church has cast aside their role as representatives of the people and instead have again shown they are the puppets of the church.
Secondly is the issue of the AC in beer in UT. The levels are set at record lows, and this state is one of the last two that sets such a low limit. This has resulted in the major manufacturers are losing money in order to meet UTs needs therefore they will no longer be producing beer at 3.2 percent. Without surprise, the Mormon church has come out against changing the law to allow the higher percentage of 4.8. And also, without surprise, the legislature has kowtowed to the demands of the church so that they will not adjust the laws to what the rest of the nation is already set at.
The church has denied the government permission to change the laws and actively works to change laws and influence legislatures into keeping and creating laws that benefits their own interests. The ways in how this wrong and anathema to a democratic government cannot be strongly stressed enough. It is wrong for one church to set the agenda and override the wishes of the public. And it is expressly forbidden in the US constitution. According to the US Constitution as well as legal precedent, no church has the right to pressure the legislature into buying yellow sticky notes over pink sticky notes much less on pressuring them into dictating how the laws will be written.
In addition to the newly created laws are the ones currently on the books. One set of laws that make it difficult to live differently from the Mormon doctrine is the set surrounding divorce. It is extremely difficult for a woman to divorce her husband because the church does not agree with such an action. A man divorcing his wife, on the other hand, does not have a hard time to get the divorce. The Mormon church is a patriarchy where women are blatantly obstructed from positions of authority and power, where women have to have the permission of their husbands (whether that husband is a member or not) in order to participate in key church activities such as going to the temple, taking on a calling, or any other action that requires a bishops’ approval. In Utah, married women are heavily sedated with drugs like Prozac, more so than anywhere else in the country, because they are forced to live in situations, they do not want to be in.
Again, the example of alcohol laws comes into play when the basis for the laws are examined. The extremely controlling and convoluted alcohol laws are based upon the premise that no one should be drinking which is the position of the conservative, dry Mormon church and those who control it. The laws are set so that where alcohol consumption occurs is strictly controlled, how and what types of drinks can be made and served are strictly controlled and are altogether so convoluted that it creates a real burden on those who want to sell and consume alcohol. There is a smokescreen of protecting the public, especially underage children, from the negative effects of alcohol when the situation is about a church, it's control issues, and it is forcing doctrine on non-members.
All this focus and misdirection on regulating morality according to one religion takes away from the real business of the legislature which is to promote the general welfare of the public, protecting human rights, and being good stewards of the common wealth. What is being left undone are good roads, clean air, housing the homeless, and overall the ability to live your life with or without the constraints of religion as you so choose.
Another aspect of how the church affects society is Mormon to non-Mormon interaction. Mormons live by the tenant 'to live in the world but not of the world.' While it is clear this tenant is not strictly enforced in how much the leadership f the church interferes in the running of the state, the tenant is used as the excuse for Mormons to congregate among their own kind only. How this translates to every day living in Utah is Mormons shun and exclude non-Mormons from every part of life. Ask any person who grew up in SLC and is not a Mormon and they will unanimously tell you that the shunning is real, and it is pervasive. People are excluded from socializing with neighbors and colleagues. From being apart of boards and places of authority in business. Excluded from participating in government from PTA to town council and state legislature. The darker aspects of this shunning are that a girl in high school is sexually assaulted by the boys in her school because she is not Mormon and is therefore a ‘willing to put out’. Children in elementary school are excluded from play with their classmates because the excluded child is not Mormon which opens them to bullying. A generation ago it was a catholic boy being hazed and beaten by his classmates for being different.
This is how a religion controlled society affects those who are not apart of that religion and again why there is a need for a separation between church and state. The United States is supposed to be about the peaceful coexistence of persons of different creeds and religions. But that can only be the case when the rule of the land is an impartial one based upon the needs and rights of all people in that land. In Utah, the needs and rights of Mormons are sacrosanct and everyone else are made to be second class citizens. The leadership of this state must see that Mormons are not the only ones here and not the only ones whose needs should be met. These kinds of social concerns are the purview of the leadership of the state, and that leadership should be the elected officials only.
There is some progress being made to make the laws fair and equitable such as cleaning up old blue laws that are archaic, for example the law against pre-marital sex making it a misdemeanor. There is no reason for such a law to exist except that the controlling church has decided that they don’t want people having sex outside of marriage. As reported by the Tribune Media Wire on March 6, 2019 the Utah State Legislature voted to repeal the misdemeanor crime of fornication. However, the bill only passed with a small majority of 41-32. The opposition to repealing the law is summed up in the quote “What is legally is often far below what is morally right,” from Rep. Kevin Stratton, R-Orem, “And I recognize our laws are not strong enough to rule (an) immoral people.”
The quote from Rep. Kevin Stratton shows very clearly the wrong headed and misdirected approach to be a representative of the people here in Utah. The constitution of the US gives the basic mandates for why we have government and what we can expect from government which are found in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere in the constitution or any other government document does it say that the elected representatives are put into place in order to rule. Elected representatives are there to be the voice of what their constituents want and need then they are to try meet those needs according the framework set up in the constitution. Elected representatives are not rulers of the people, they are public servants.
Further it is not the place of an elected representative to judge the morality of the people. The government operates on ethics and promoting good ethics. While morality, good and wrong, are apart of ethics, the control of actions to steer outcomes towards what is good, the moral question of what is right and wrong is not based upon one church’s definition. Rather the question of what is right and wrong is based upon what is best for the entire population per the constitution. Again, I refer to Jefferson when he says, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,” Trying to rule the morality of the people is to set forth how people are supposed to think as well as act.
For example, premarital sex is wrong by Mormon, Catholic, and Talban doctrine and people are supposed to believe that it is a sin. However, nowhere in the constitution is premarital sex prohibited as being against the rights of the people. Therefore, the laws of the land have no right to prohibit premarital sex. In another example, murder according to those afore mentioned religions is wrong and it is prohibited in the constitution where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is decreed as rights of the people to be protected by the government. So, murder in all its forms is illegal, not because of church doctrine but because of the constitution. Church doctrine has no place in public law.
As stated in the book Thomas Jefferson and the Wall between Church and State
“The separation principle, interpreted strictly, proscribes all admixtures of religion and politics, denies all governmental endorsement of and aid for institutional religion, and promotes a religion that is strictly voluntary and essentially private, personal, and nonpolitical.”
In the centuries since the constitution and Jefferson declared that freedom from religion was a right to be protected by the government, the same has been upheld numerous times by the judicial system.
In the book Thomas Jefferson and the Wall between Church and State there are several quotes worth noting that upholds that there should be a separation between church and state.
(Jefferson’s) words “a wall of separation between church and state” are not simply a metaphor of one private citizen’s language; they reflect accurately the intent of those most responsible for the First Amendment; and they came to reflect the majority will of the American people. The words ‘separation of church and state’ are an accurate and convenient shorthand meaning of the First Amendment itself; they represent a well defined historical principle from the pen of one who in many official statements and actions helped to frame the authentic American tradition of political and religious liberty
By Hugo L. Black’s majority opinion in the landmark decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the (First Amendment) clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”… That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
In Utah, the wall does not exist which is in clear violation of the Constitution and it violates my right to be free from religion. I urge the Legislature of the State of Utah to disband the practice of approaching the church for permission to do anything that is their job to do and to ignore the statements put out by any church regarding what the legislature should be doing. I urge the State of Utah to keep their religious beliefs as being private and personal when they go into work to represent the people. The legislature is there to make sure we have good air to breath, good roads to travel on, to provide social services, and to be good stewards of the common wealth. They are not there to rule the people, immoral or otherwise. And they are certainly not there to try and correct the perceived immorality of the people based upon one religion’s definition of right and wrong.