This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Stuart Reid's screed ("Religious appeasers are the Chamberlains of our time," Sept. 4) prompts the following thoughts:

Religions are commonly regarded as the ultimate source of morality. Yet we regularly see religious organizations advocating — based on their interpretation of religious texts — immoral practices. Examples include Christian Scientists denying critical medical care to children, Wahabi Muslims denying human rights to women and various fundamentalists denying human rights to LGBT people. Those advocating these immoral practices no doubt sincerely believe that they are acting with righteous moral authority. When these practices bring societal opposition, they are likely to claim that their religious rights are being violated.

How is a just society to respond when religions promote harm to innocent people? The answer is clear, both legally and morally. It is the act itself that matters, not its origin. Immoral acts can and do have religious origins. A basis in religious text does not make a position incontrovertibly moral.

People are free to undertake any religious practice they like, as long as it is not harmful to others. They are not free to gratuitously harm others, even if their religion says it is OK. Society has both the right and the moral obligation to contravene such practices. Reid consistently fails to understand this.

Howard B. Parker

Salt Lake City