Quantcast
Utah

LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU

Comments

Return To Article
  • Oh Please
    Feb. 23, 2010 1:38 p.m.

    Sorry, sir, but I don't see where religious liberty is in danger in this country. I feel perfectly free to go to church, contribute to church, speak in and out of church. Nobody anywhere is threatening these things. What's the big whoop?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 1:50 p.m.

    Civil rights have become endangered because of your religious freedom.

  • ...right.
    Feb. 23, 2010 1:53 p.m.

    I agree with the above statement. I haven't seen any attacks on religious liberty. Even as a non-religious person, I understand what they want and don't see anything in the way. Besides, isn't a lack of religion covered in the religious freedom thing? I'm not against human rights at all, I just don't want your beliefs stuffed down my throat. Is that really so bad?You've got a place to go to do all the religious stuff you want. I won't go to your church and study if you don't come to my library and preach.
    I mean, if that's an attack...by all means...shoot me.

  • Re: Oh Please
    Feb. 23, 2010 1:57 p.m.

    One of these days you'll have to step out of your perfect little bubble of life and defend your beliefs. Then you'll see what the "big whoop" is--you will finally have to decide how much you really believe what you do.

    As for me, I'm trying to figure out what "gaps in health care" have to do with religious freedom.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:00 p.m.

    So, if I fire a mormon is that protected under my 'religious freedom?'

  • Just Ed
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:01 p.m.

    As a faithful Catholic, I agree with Oh Please (1:38 p.m.).

  • He is Confused
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:02 p.m.

    The religious need to recognize that criticism of their beliefs or even efforts to rid religions of their tax-exempt status is not persecution nor does it take away their freedom to practice their religion.

  • Read Bewtween the lines
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:04 p.m.

    You feel nothing because you sit back and do nothing! I bet you don't even volunteer! The big whoop is that you need to research!

  • Pagan
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    If your religion encourages you to discriminate at: work, home, in life, you may want to re-consider that religion.

  • Bruce Walter
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    Civil rights end where theocracies begin

  • Freedom from religion...
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:08 p.m.

    Perhaps a good way to look at this issue is that the Constitution guarantees the "freedom of religion." Yet, does it not also guarantee the 'freedom from religion,' which is at the heart of gay rights issues...where people primarily from the religious right advocate for the continued discrimination of a significant and valuable segment of our society...

  • Lynn
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:09 p.m.

    I think part of it is the government redefining what is moral, the government looking into foregoing tax exempt status for religious organizations, the government secular-ising religious organizations charity efforts when they receive public funds, the government trying to use tax dollars to fund abortions....

  • Will
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:14 p.m.

    We must continue to drive all vestiges of superstition out of public buildings- especially schools. Indeed it should be banned from all public life. With the help of the State, we are slowly succeeding. Soon, the only mention of "god" allowed will be to take the name "in vain"(much progress has already happened here). Humanism from a benign Progressive State will be our only salvation, not some mythical god.

  • Yep
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:15 p.m.

    If a government is free to tax relgion, it is free to tax it out of existence

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:15 p.m.

    Criticism does not equate to being oppressed.

  • ranger
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:15 p.m.

    The news piece says there where three main points in the Archbishop's talk - but only one is explicitly stated. What where the other two?

  • Bruce Walter
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:15 p.m.

    Organized Religions are no better than playground bullies

  • ranger
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:16 p.m.

    Cardinal that is...

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:18 p.m.

    re: Oh Please | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010

    Agreed.

    Religious sects are beoming more uptight because people don't blindly comply to their interpretation of the rules.

  • Bruce Walter
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    Re: what do religous freedoms have to do with higher taxes?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:21 p.m.

    Can someone please give me an example of a LDS or Catholic being attacked for being against gay marriage?

    Date, time and location please. If any story starts with 'a friend of mine' you need not bother.

  • mind your own business
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:26 p.m.

    When the religious Right finally figures out that proselytism is an assault on our religious freedoms it will be a better world.

  • Finn McGowan
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:29 p.m.

    > "...religious groups as individuals have a right
    > to exercise their influence in the public square."

    In school we all learned that Freedom means everybody gets to do whatever they want, until they start hurting or taking freedom from others.

    In that pre-mortal realm's epic war over mandatory morality or freedom to choose, on which side did you fight?

    Any "groups as individuals" who would "exercise influence" to stop others from doing things that would bring no earthly harm to anybody else are enemies of freedom, and traitors to free agency's cause.

  • RE: Responders to Oh Please
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    .... The poster's only intent was to create an arguement where there is none. Why, oh why, do you insist on responding?

  • So annoyed
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:32 p.m.

    by the people on both sides of this argument.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:34 p.m.

    groups like Americans United seem to think the First Amendment goes beyond establishment of religion and delves into silencing religous speech. Freedon of religion and freedom from relgion are two separate things - the latter being intolerance

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:40 p.m.

    Oh Please | 1:38 p.m True. You can attend any church you want.

    The fear is when people exert their right not to be bothered by religion. One reaction to the Christian right has been more atheist are coming out.

  • re: mind your own business
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:42 p.m.

    how is it an assault on your religious freedom? Nobody forces you to change your views. For the most part our missionaries and other members of our church respect other religions. We respect that you can choose to worship who/whatever you want however you want, or to not worship anything ore anyone if you want. However there are people who appreciate our missionary efforts. There are people who choose to accept our message. There are many people whose lives have been change immensely for the better because of our efforts.

    So you go ahead and keep believing whatever you feel is the right thing to believe. That is your right, and no one in the LDS Church wants to take that away from you, and the vast majority of us would defend your right to do so as vigorously as we defend our right to believe in and practice our religion. However, we also have the right to believe whatever we want. And that includes sharing our beliefs with others.

  • re; He is Confused | 2:02 p.m.
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:45 p.m.

    "The religious need to recognize that criticism of their beliefs or even efforts to rid religions of their tax-exempt status is not persecution nor does it take away their freedom to practice their religion."

    Actually the use of tax codes to control speech is a perfect example of religous intolerance. The current prohibition of political speech was slipped into law by LBJ as part of an effort to silence non-profits who dared oppose him. Of course if MLK uses the pulpit for politcal speech - that will be overlooked and he will be honored with a holiday

  • Henry Drummond
    Feb. 23, 2010 2:46 p.m.

    I don't think freedom of religion is under attack its freedom from criticism. When anyone wishes to step into politics and try to legislate their view of the world people are going to have their say.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:00 p.m.

    MLK uses the pulpit for politcal speech



    Yeah, speeches of acceptance and tolorance. Not encouraging discrimination.

  • Naruto
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:05 p.m.

    What a joke, whatever happened to separation of church and state? The religious community here in Utah control all aspects of government. It is the people that do not have a religion that are the ones under assault. This is simply a play for MORE power from these so called religios leaders who want to push their agenda on everyone else. This is the same reason why the founding forefathers came to America, because of religion controlling government.

  • Freedom
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:22 p.m.

    The criticisms of religious beliefs or religious bases expressions do not in anyway restrict religious freedom. Are the people who disagree to loose their freedom of speech to assure that religious based speech and action is not criticized? Do religious people loose their freedoms when thay can’t force others by law to obey their precepts? i.e. abortion, gay rights, health gaps? Religious conservatives seem to want theocracy rather than religious freedom.

    The bishop lacks intellectual honesty in his arguments. Freedom of religious does not include taking others freedoms away!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    "... religious freedom is now under unprecedented attack through various threats like abortion, gay marriage and gaps in health care..."

    How does abortion infringe upon your freedom of religion?
    How does gay marriage infringe upon your freedom of religion?

    Provide me some examples please.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:27 p.m.

    'threatening to close down their sacred houses of worship and telling them thier religion is illegal?' - 3:04 p.m.

    When did this happen Abe? Date, time and location please.

    If it starts with 18... it's a little late to be a martyr.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:33 p.m.

    Just because many do not agree with you does not mean you are oppressed.

    Can you:

    1) Still go to your place of worship?

    2) Still give out documentation about your faith?

    3) Talk openly about your faith?

    Yes, yes and yes.

    As such, all this talk of oprression is absurd as there have been zero changes in the freedom of expression from 10 years ago.
    As they have not changed I cannot understand why someone would claim they are loosing them. Sounds like someone just wants to be the 'bigger victim' here for sympathy.

  • re -- Elder Benson | 1:51 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:36 p.m.

    ["I objst to the gay marriage movement forcing the choice of a few upon the majority, those of us who don't sunscribe to the gay culture"]

    forcing the choice? really? did they force you to marry someone of your own sex? if not, then no one is forcing you to do anything. you, on the other hand, are forcing a minority to comply with your religious edicts.

    so who is actually losing freedoms? think about it...

  • manaen
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:37 p.m.

    RE: Naruto | 3:05 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010,
    .
    The constitutional principle commonly known as "separation of church and state" derives from Amendment I in the Bill of Rights. Here's the entire text:
    .
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    .
    Note that this only restrains congressional influence in matters of religion. This separation of congress from religion is the separation of church and state specified in the Constitution; there is no Constitutional quid quo pro restraint on religion.

  • say what
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:39 p.m.

    so because another private citizen disagrees with you and does not do business with you then your freedoms are being lost? so did you apply this same logic when conservatives tried to boycott walt disney world for having a gay day?

  • xscribe
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:40 p.m.

    Those arguing that they are losing their religious freedom is downright laughable. Let's see someone run for president in this country who doesn't believe in God. Not gonna happen. Religion is alive and well. You can practice your religion in private just as much as you want. And isn't that what at least Christianity boils down to: A personal relationship with God? The downright hypocracy in some of these posts is nothing short of humorous.

  • same silly game
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:41 p.m.

    as a religious people you have the right to speak your mind and as a none religious person I have the right to disagree with you without your silly claims that my doing so somehow infringes on your rights.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:43 p.m.

    to -- Re: Oh Please | 1:57 p.m.

    ["One of these days you'll have to step out of your perfect little bubble of life and defend your beliefs."]

    no one is attacking your beliefs. you are free to believe anything you want. how your beliefs are being attacked?


    re --- TO: Oh Please | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 2 | 2:01 p.m

    ["Both LDS and Catholics have been openly criticized and threatened for standing up for their beliefs. Some companies won't do business with anyone from Utah on the off chance that A Mormon might work there."]

    that is called boycotting, and is perfectly legal. not an attack - it is a statement. you might not like it, but it's is in fact fair play. you started this - and now you complain because... why?


    re --- to Oh Please | 2:03 p.m.

    ["things are getting worst. And our freedoms are being taken away little by little, and we say not big deal. Than anothor freedom is taken away."]

    i'm confused... the gasys have had their freedoms taken away, yet i get the feeling you are talikng about religious freedoms being taken away. doesn't make sense.

  • RER Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:46 p.m.

    The Manhattan statement, a Christian document(beleivers in the trinty) explains ,the Christain position on freedom of religion,pro life and on traditonal marriage. Mormons do share moral values with Christians.

  • to --- Abe Lncoln | 2:01 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:50 p.m.

    ["try publicly denouncing abortion and gay marriage because of your faith and then tell me how you feel about how free you are to practice your religion. these issues are real."]

    huh? no one is stopping you from doing that. you have full freedom to do exactly what you just said. now, will you suffer repercussions? possibly. if I know a nazi owns a store, I'm not going to buy from him, and many look at anti-gay people as just another bigot, so you certainly run that risk. but it's america. at least you got to have your say.

    what you want is to be able to say anything you want, and have NO repercussions. well, sorry - it doesn't work that way. if you studied your namesake, you would see even back in his day you would suffer repercussions for things you say.

    if I stand outside a bar full of afican-americans and yell racial slurs, I'm lucky all I get is boycotted. you are standing on the hilltop and denouncing an entire segment of the population (250 million strong) and you wonder why they come back at you?

    you are really slow...

  • re -- Times Change | 2:01 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    ["For now it seems like we have our religious freedom...but for how long? People want us to keep our mouths shut and let "anything go" Well...if we do then we are doomed. The more we stand up for our beliefs the more people try to make us out to be horrible untolerant haters.That is our religious feedom in danger to the core"]

    let me put it this way....

    if the reason you are against something is a religious reason, you have no firm ground to stand on. you MUST have a reason that is non-religious.

    that's not to say you cannot speak your mind. but sane people will ignore you, and those slighted will come back at you.

    so I suggest you come up with non-religious reasons to not want things (like gay mariage) and then people may listen. but everytime you say "it goes against my moral upbringing and my religion" we have to laugh, since that means you're not even thinking about it - you're simply regurgetating what you've been taight...

  • Great!
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    The LDS church and Catholics come to gether. There is a PR tour de force for ya.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    Maybe, instead of unbelievers attacking those that believe. They should use that energy and help create jobs for the economy, rather than attacking what someone believes or how they want to worship.

  • Levi
    Feb. 23, 2010 3:59 p.m.

    If you don't want gay marriage, DON'T HAVE ONE.

    If you don't want abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

    But don't tell somebody else they can't based on your fairy tales.

  • GW
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    The bottom line is this; Religious individuals are going to practice their religion as they see fit. They, reguardless of there sect, have a testimony of their belief which is sacred to them. Most Americans are this way. There is a few who have no moral obligation to behave to any standard of behavior,and regard sacred things as stupid or " getting in the way of their civil rights" want to take away our religious freedom in order for them to justify their secular progressive belief system. Maybe Glenn Beck is right!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    "Does the name Carrie Prejean ring a bell? She got ridiculed because she stated her religious beliefs in a public venue."

    First of all you need to substitute "ridiculed" with the word "criticized". She is welcome to her opinion, and I am welcome to criticize it. Ain't freedom grand!

    Anyone in California that thinks their religious freedom was taken away because of prop 8 and protests, think again. NO ONE HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM YOU! If I choose to peacefully protest your temple while standing on PUBLIC property, THAT IS MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    If I choose boycott the Marriott hotel, or any Mormon owned business, THAT IS MY RIGHT.

    We also have the right to assemble, so as long as we are doing it within the bounds of the law.

    And before you blame any vandalism on the anti-prop 8 crowd, I would appreciate tangible evidence before accusations fly.

    If someone was fired because they are Mormon, instead of whining about you being a poor picked on individual, why don't you take them to court and sue him out of business as he cannot legally be fired for being Mormon.

  • making a mess
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    Proselytism is practiced by Christians and Muslims and is making a mess of the world each thinking they have "THE WAY."
    The only formal religions that do NOT proselytize are Jews and Muslims.
    Good for them.

  • RE: Freedom
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:06 p.m.

    This intellectual honesty or lack thereof is a two way street. You would take away my freedom and use my tax dollars to pay for abortions against my will, thus taking away my freedom.


  • re -- rkl | 2:06 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:07 p.m.

    ["If we understand that Church (any Church) and State(law and politics)must be separated. If we understand that Church should not have any direct influence on matters of state, then we have misunderstood the concept."]

    you can have any influence you want - just expect backlash. the problem is - you want your cake and eat it too. doesn't work like that. you make 250 million people mad at you, you are bound to catch some grief for it.

    why is that so hard for you all to understand? do you even get that you are totally outnumbered?

  • re --- to Oh Please | 2:08 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    ["You must not live in California"]

    i live in california and I agree with Oh Please. you can still do all your religious things and you have lost no freedoms. gays, on the other hand, have lost freedoms.

    so i don't get what you are trying to say.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    re --- Freedom from religion... | 2:08 p.m.

    ["Perhaps a good way to look at this issue is that the Constitution guarantees the "freedom of religion." Yet, does it not also guarantee the 'freedom from religion,' which is at the heart of gay rights issues"]

    you need to gain an understanding of what "freedom from religion" means. it means you cannot force anyone to adhere to your religion or your moral code based on religious reasons. if it makes sense and you can make an argument without using religion, then fine. but if you oppose something on religious grounds, and try to force that onto others, it will not fly.

    and I'm sure you will disagree. because you feel you are the majority and so the minority must bow to your demands.... fortunately, that's why we have a 3rd branch of gov't.

    so good luck with that.

  • re -- Freedom | 2:08 p.m.
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    ["The Catholics and LDS have been attacked by others for thier beliefs. Where is our freedom to worship and believe what we do? When others seek to destroy our beliefs and religion, our freedom to believe and worship is taken away."]

    define "attacked". because other than a few bad apples doing graffitti or such, I have heard of no "attacks".

    your problem is you want to be able to say anything you want and have NO repercussions (probably because you actually believe you are in the right).

    but you have succeeded in irritating (to say the least) about 250 million people....

    did you really think you could do that without repercussions? if a nazi group goes on TV and says things about blacks, do you think they would have no repercussions? after all, they also believe they are right...

    your problem (and your greatest fear) is that you will lose the majority and not be able to force your way onto others. and as your kind (anti-gays) get older, that is exactly what will happen.

    most young people outside of Utah are accustomed to gays, and don't even understand why you won't let them marry...

  • re -- Lynn | 2:09 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:26 p.m.

    [" think part of it is the government redefining what is moral, the government looking into foregoing tax exempt status for religious organizations, the government secular-ising religious organizations charity efforts when they receive public funds..."]

    the gov't isn't redefining what is "moral". you will not find the word "moral" or "immoral" in any law in the US (except maybe in Utah laws).

    and there is NO reason you churches should not pay taxes. everyone else does - you should too.

    the problem is you've always been treated as "special" and you are losing that "special" status in america. but it's your own doing. when you try to force your morals onto others, and use "God says" to define right and wrong to the populace, you are bound to suffer consequences.

    you want religious freedom? keep religion where is belongs. in your home, your church, and your mind.

    keep it out of our schools and our laws.

  • Grinning
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:28 p.m.

    I approve of this talk. Now, we all need to become Catholics.

  • L L Edmiston
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:31 p.m.

    Interesting how liberals tell us that we should not force our morals or beliefs over on others, yet that did not stop them from trying to force their morals over on the Boy Scouts, E-Harmony, or the Catholic Adoption agencies.
    Separation of Church and State does not mean, and never has meant, separation of religion from society or of faith from life.
    The people who complaim about Mormon power or influence in Utah would be cheering in the aisles, and singing the praises of "pluralism" and "diversity" if Utah had been settled in the 19th Century by gays and lesbians instead of Mormons.

  • to -- rkl | 2:06 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:31 p.m.

    ["The separation of Church and State is unilateral, meaning that it only applies to the State. The State has determined that it will have no influence on matters of religion, that it will not establish a state religion. It does not mean that the Church or any church cannot or should not have an influence on matters of State or public policy."]

    your last statement is ENTIRELY incorrect. a church should NOT have influence on public policy. if you do so, you risk losing your tax free status. and those laws were put in specifically so churches had to stay out of politics.

    you really need to take a step back and see just how big your britches are getting. you simply have TOO much influence. it is about time you were taken down a peg or two.

    and I mean that in a nice way, not in an "in your face" way like you do to everyone else.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:36 p.m.

    Religious freedom means the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. It means nothing else.

    Abortion is protected by Federal law.

    Catholics and Mormons need to realize that our forefathers intended to keep a very large separation between Church and State as States (countries) run by Churches have a pretty crappy track record.

    Individual members of said churches can support certain political issues anyway they choose.

    Churches can as well but if they choose so THEY LOSE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS AS IT SHOULD BE.

    lastly, get ready for war. I will give my life to ensure the continued separation of church and state and their are millions standing behind me.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:41 p.m.

    RE: Anonymous | 3:43 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010
    .
    You say that boycotting is not an attack.
    .
    I'll have to ponder that a while to understand how that assertion came to be formed.

  • Dave
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:45 p.m.

    Civil Rights are an invention of modern government. We are all endowed with natural and inalienable rights, which governments co-opt and divvy out like so many perquisites. You think that you need them and have to get them from somebody, because they are named by someone else, but you already have them. Governments have co-opted so many religious institutions and redistributed them as their own without regard to the original intent, or purpose. They have an appearance of truth, but deny its existence.

  • Shelama
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:47 p.m.

    Catholics and Mormons fighting together, all the while each waiting to triumph over the other (and all others). Nevertheless, religious liberty is a good thing. Who or what are they going to fight against? When same-sex marriage is eventually legalized and Constitutionally protected, those same-sex couples and their families will also fight to protect religious liberty. As they will also traditional marriage, which they will honor, respect and celebrate with their family, friends, and with society at large. Nothing threatens traditional marriage since EVERYBODY is for it. Even those who are also in favor of the same-sex marriage which is inevitably coming.

    The real fear for Mormons is that when same-sex marriage is finally legalized and Constitutionally protected, the legalization of polygamy will, quite rightly, also be legalized.

  • mark
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:48 p.m.

    We The People, want NOTHING of your Theocracy.
    LDS members should be even more afraid of a Theocracy than Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, gays, aethiests, or pro-CHOICE people. Should you suceed in a Theocragy, I guarantee the text the majority of Americans vote for, WON'T be the Book of Mormon...how's your LATIN?
    Catholic Bishops and LDS elders have been attempting to gut LGBT human rights, in state, after state, after state. You wrote the Healthcare bill in the House, with that foul Stupak amendment, and Catholics even attempted to blackmail DC to not care for homeless people.
    YOU KEEP SHOVING Americans, expect to get SHOVED BACK, and it's your tax exemptions and faith based funding we'll rip from your greedy paws first.

  • when
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:49 p.m.

    When you're on the side with the Catholics you know you're on the wrong side. Run!

    I left the Catholic religion many decades ago for all their corrupt practices and beliefs and now this?

    Anything the Catholic Church hurls at you, duck!

  • to -- Yep | 2:15 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:49 p.m.

    ["If a government is free to tax relgion, it is free to tax it out of existence"]

    you act like that is a bad thing.

    you're doing it to cigarettes. what is the difference?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:49 p.m.

    What about religions that condone gay marraige as of God? Why do I get the sense that religious freedom as talked about in this article seems to include the right to impinge on others religious freedoms? Perhaps we should just put it up to popular vote which religions are real religions and which aren't.

  • Grover
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:50 p.m.

    The Catholic church official positions are split between very conservative and very liberal stancess. At the same time they rail against gay marriage, they advocate for humane immigration policies and favor giving national health insurance benefits to illegals able to pay for them. The LDS church has not advocated for a liberal position on anything since the United order of Enoch.

  • re --- Finn McGowan | 2:29 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    ["In school we all learned that Freedom means everybody gets to do whatever they want, until they start hurting or taking freedom from others"]

    HEAR, HEAR!! unfortunately, religion doesn't understand that.

  • DC
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    There is no solution to this argument. The problem is religion and non-religion cannot exist side by side. One is going to prevail or the other.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:52 p.m.

    anonymous | 4:16 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010
    All it takes is for a homosexual couple to want to be married by an lds bishop or a catholic priest and that couple suing him for denying them that. And it creates innumerable problems when the laws declare that something is legal and valid, and protect a certain status but the religion says it should not be, and members that practice those things are not considered worthy, though the law says there is nothing wrong. If those laws do not exempt religious institutions from having to follow the same regulations, those laws threaten religious freedom.

    -----------

    Show me where a Catholic (who by law can be married) has sued the Mormon church for not marrying them in the temple? The church has the right to deny them entrance into the temple, let alone a marriage ceremony.

    It will be the same with gays and gay marriage. You are throwing up red herrings that will not occur any more than a Mormon marrying in a Cathedral. Religions are allowed to discriminate.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:55 p.m.

    This assault on religion is bogus.
    Just another dirty trick from the Right trying to divide and conquer the country.
    I know of no one who wants to destroy religion in America.
    You've been listening to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck too much.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:56 p.m.

    STOP
    You religious fanatics both Catholic Bishops and LDS elders.
    You keep saying your religious freedoms are at risk of being lost, they AREN'T, you use that garbage to weild your power against women and gays, and we won't allow you to roll back OUR RIGHTS.
    Christians have all 44 of this country's presidents, you have all but 2 seats in the combined Houses of Congress (530 seats.) You have 7 of 9 seats of the Supreme Court. LDS has 85% of Utah's legislature, and ALL your judges, and governor.
    NO ONE could discriminate against you...NO ONE.

  • All about gays...
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:56 p.m.

    Gays have lost nothing. Marriage was never recognized for the entire gay population...only select states and countries in the world. It's not discrimination to stand up for your beliefs. You chose to be gay and live that lifestyle. Just because the majority doesn't subscribe to your lifestyle doesn't mean you are being discriminated against.

    I have every right to discriminate against a smoker, drinker, or other action that I don't want to be around. The fight for right will continue.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    to --- re: mind your own business | 2:42 p.m

    ["However, we also have the right to believe whatever we want. And that includes sharing our beliefs with others."]

    you CERTAINLY have the right to believ whatever you want. it's when you take those beliefs and try to FORCE them onto the populace that you have a problem. and so... you have a problem now.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:58 p.m.

    Sorry... It is NOT!!! Your "religious freedom" to use state laws to dictate everyone to comply with your religious believes...

  • One Plus One Equals Three?
    Feb. 23, 2010 4:58 p.m.

    Okay, let me see if I have this straight. Catholics say Mormons aren't Christian. Mormons say Catholics are heretics (and much worse). But now they are defending each other?

  • manaen
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:00 p.m.

    I'd like to know how someone could *oppose* the concept of retaining the definition of marriage as solely for heterosexual partners without relying upon some form of religion.
    .
    In the debate about this issue, one side defends the institution of marriage as it has stood and the other attacks this definition. Each side claims moral rightness in their position.
    .
    The opponents of marriage say that this bars some from marrying who they choose and so is wrongly discriminatory.
    .
    The defenders of marriage say it draws a needed distinction but how do definitively say that it is wrong? ...and to have a government supposedly "of/by the people" sanction unions opposed by the majority as "marriages" and to confiscate property from, and imprison, whoever does not pay taxes to support this government that does so is wrong.
    .
    In a debate of irreconcilable views of morality and fairness among our citizenry, how would the opponents of marriage definitively determine -- as opposed to work the system to obtain the legal results they seek -- the right answer without appeal to some external, absolute standard?
    .
    By whatever euphemism you call that external, absolute standard, it will look a lot like a religion.

  • DC
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:01 p.m.

    Everyone knows this at gut level, but are afraid to admit it to themselves or say it out loud.

  • re -- Jmo | 2:43 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:01 p.m.

    ["Does the name Carrie Prejean ring a bell. She got ridiculed because she stated her religious beliefs in a public venue"]

    well that's the other side of the coin of free speech. no one took away her rights to free speech. but if you think you can say offensive things and have no repercussions, you are obviously wrong.

    look at tv and radio personalities that say something wrong, or Mel Gibson's tirade. they all suffered consequences.

    you people's problem is you want to insult and remove rights from a large group of people (250 million worldwide) and then want to have no backlash. well sorry - it doesn't work that way.

    how is it you don't get that? and how is that an "attack" on your religious freedoms?

  • mark
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:03 p.m.

    The alliance of LDS with Catholics seems to IGNORE, you folks detested one another for almost ALL of LDS History. The really putrid stuff you'd write about one another, is well documented. Trying to look all BFFs, I think is a laugh riot.
    When you two religions carve up all other American's Rights, in the end Catholics will turn on YOU. You seriously are no match for 1/3rd of American Catholics or the Vatican.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:05 p.m.

    TO ---- re; He is Confused | 2:02 p.m. | 2:45 p.m.

    ["Actually the use of tax codes to control speech is a perfect example of religous intolerance. The current prohibition of political speech was slipped into law by LBJ as part of an effort to silence non-profits who dared oppose him. Of course if MLK uses the pulpit for politcal speech - that will be overlooked and he will be honored with a holiday"]

    MLK did not preach eligion - he spoke of civil rights for everyone (including gays). and the tax codes were changed to simply reflect that if you take public money you have to serve the entire public. don't use tax money from gays and then not serve gays.

    i don't think there is ANY reason at all for churches to have a tax-exempt status.

    but you are right - taxes can be used to stifle "unwanted" activities. they (and you) are doing it to me all the time (I smoke). but it's ok for you to do it to me, because you don't approve of me - but it's not ok to do it to you?

    why are you special?

  • mark
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:07 p.m.

    @4:16
    Your argument is STUPID.
    NO gay or lesbian could sue a religion to marry them...NONE.
    So stop this nonsense scare tactic, no one believes it BUT YOU.
    Just as a Jehovah Witness or buddhist can't sue the LDS or Catholics to marry them, or vice versa, no religion is being forced anywhere in America to marry ANYONE they disagree with.

  • re --- Beth | 2:54 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:08 p.m.

    ["anyone demanding revoking tax-exempt status for that sole reason is indeed trying to strip away some rights. You don't have to like what I say, but I have a right to say it free of government sanctions"]

    agreed. but I for one see NO reason for churches to have a tax-exempt status. it has nothing to do with your "position" on things - I just don't see why you should have it. Country clubs and those types of organizations don't have it - why should you? (I see no difference between a religion and any other "club".)

  • nearly 70 million catholic in US
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:10 p.m.

    And for nearly 40 years abortion has been legal in the USA which goes to show many religious people are pro choice. Religions have a right to have opinion on abortion, but when it comes to putting a woman in jail for it, I don't know any religion that has said she should go to jail. So in my view abortion is wrong, but how do we punish for something that is a personal medical procedure. Having said that I do believe there are many subtle attacks on biblical virtues at university level as well as in world of science which makes corporations money so in many ways science is god of this world. On other hand, I oppose religious extremists who want to outlaw birth control and divorce if they can.

  • re --- JJ | 3:27 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:12 p.m.

    ["It is unfair for those without religion to dismiss religious individuals from their jobs (yes, this has happened) simply because of their political beliefs. The fact that their political beliefs are influenced by religion should not be an excuse for others to attack religion."]

    and yet you all have no problem firing or evicting gays, who don't even express anything. they just want to live their lives.

    seems hypocritical, no?

  • Wow!
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:15 p.m.

    I felt the spirit when he was talking. I think I am going to investigate the Catholic religion.

  • WhatAssault
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:15 p.m.

    Funny how the religious types are always looking for boogeymen - to rally the faithful and fill the tithing coffers. There is no assault against religion in the US. Laughable.

  • re -- GW | 4:02 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:20 p.m.

    ["There is a few who have no moral obligation to behave to any standard of behavior,and regard sacred things as stupid or " getting in the way of their civil rights" want to take away our religious freedom in order for them to justify their secular progressive belief system"]

    what? non-religious people have no standards of behavior?

    wow. therein lies the problem Religious people think they corner the market on "morality" and so all the heretics and apostates have to be forced to conform or God will come down and smite us all...

    (and don't act like that is not how you think. that is exactly how many of you look at this issue.)

  • re -- Anonymous | 3:58 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:23 p.m.

    ["Maybe, instead of unbelievers attacking those that believe. They should use that energy and help create jobs for the economy, rather than attacking what someone believes or how they want to worship."]

    yeah. and imagine how much good you all could have done witht he millions you spent trying to keep a minority from getting married...

    do you even think about what you are saying? both sides spent money and energy. one side was trying to preserve the rights of a minority and one side was trying to take rights away from a minority...

    gee - I wonder which one is right?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:23 p.m.

    "Some companies won't do business with anyone from Utah on the off chance that A Mormon might work there."

    Well, a lot of companies won't do business with Utah companies on the off-chance that they employ Utahns who were educated by the inferior school system in Utah.

  • Concerned Christian
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:24 p.m.

    I am happy to see the Catholic and LDS Church's lining up behind the original intent of the United States Constitution. We are under attack from the socialists, commies and secularists and we must recognize it and defeat them.

  • free?
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:25 p.m.

    If religious leaders sense that religion is under attack, what reason would there be to deny it? Are supposed to believe they make it up?

    I am not free to sing Christian music in publicly funded places. I am not free to pray out loud in publicly funded places. I am not free to teach my religious beliefs in publicly funded places. I am not free to decorate publicly funded places with religious artwork or religious inspiring words. I am not free to watch all the channels on my own TV set or to surf the internet without the most basic of my Christian values being assaulted. I am not free to financially support laws that coincide with my beliefs without worrying about repercussions. I am not free to run for office without my religion becoming an issue. I am not free to create laws in the pursuit of my own happiness without being accused of intolerance. I am not free to attend large religious assemblies without my beliefs being assaulted by protesters.

  • merich39
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:25 p.m.

    don't you just love the twisted logic of this author? "when they tell us we can't stop gays from marrying, they infringe on our religious freedom right to control the lives of others". "I know they're not trying to force me or anyone I know into a gay marriage or gay lifestyle. but still, what kind of a good Christian am I if I don't try to legislate my values onto others?".

  • to -- RE: Freedom | 4:06 p.m.
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:27 p.m.

    ["You would take away my freedom and use my tax dollars to pay for abortions against my will, thus taking away my freedom."]

    how is using your tax dollars (and mine) to pay for abortions "taking away your freedoms"?

    you all don't even understand the word "freedoms".

    and THAT is why you are so against gay marriage. because you have a strange view of "freedoms". you think if you don't like it or don't approve of it, and it is allowed, you are losing "freedoms".

    at this point, i'm at a loss for words. your definition of "freedoms" is too obscure for me to even relate to.

  • Mind your own business
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:29 p.m.

    If I want missionaries to visit my domicile, then I will request the visit.
    Otherwise I'll view the intrusion as pure, unadulterated proselytism and extremely rude behavior to boot.
    Learn some manners.

  • @L L Edmiston | 4:31 p.m.
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:29 p.m.

    I don't know what you're talking about concerning E-Harmony, so I will not comment on it.

    As to the Boy Scouts and the Catholic adoption agencies -- nobody tried to make either change their policies or beliefs; the only issue was whether they could receive public money and still discriminate. If they wanted to, they could continue to discriminate all they wanted ... they just had to do so on their own dime. And that's the way it SHOULD be.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:29 p.m.

    re: Henry Drummond | 2:46 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010

    "When anyone wishes to step into politics and try to legislate their view of the world people are going to have their say."

    And thus Org Religions perceive the blowback as being attacked which allows them to play oppressee which they have made an artform 5 or so yrs.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:33 p.m.

    re: jeff | 4:26 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010

    Exactly. Life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
    So long as you don't impede the rights of another.

  • schmo
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:34 p.m.

    A Lot is two words. You'll look less stupid...

  • re --- Abe Lincoln | 4:25 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    ["spoken like a true anti-religious homosexual nazi."]

    hahaha - abe - you're funny. I'm a straight white guy in my 50s, who spent 4 years defending this country so you could say things like that. so cool - I hope you feel better.

    ["you know you are wrong but you have to take away others reasons in order to gain acceptance. what about you? aren't you just reapeting what you were taught? i doubt all your arguments are your own and that you didn't learn them from anyone."]

    I'm not even sure what you are talking about now - I'm still laughing at your first statement...

    but you can use whatever reasons you want to do whatever you want. if you use logic and provide us thinking people with reasonable reasons for something to be not allowed then you will get a reasonable response. but as soon as you say "it's against God" or any other such nonesense, you lose everyone. It's not that we don't believe in God - it's that you have no better idea of what God is against than we do. and God is logical - but you are not.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    re: One Plus One Equals Three

    Funny.

    Organized Religions i.e. Evangelicals & the LDS faith will occasionally form alliances when the purpose suits both sides. 98% of the time; its all about my God is better than yours.

  • re - Anonymous | 4:41 p.m
    Feb. 23, 2010 5:46 p.m.

    ["You say that boycotting is not an attack.
    I'll have to ponder that a while to understand how that assertion came to be formed."]

    "attack" to me means to do things which are not legal, or are violent in nature. Boycotting is neither.

  • re: concerned Christian
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:05 p.m.

    "We are under attack from the socialists, commies and secularists and we must recognize it and defeat them."

    For your penance look up PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER - then give a good act of contrition.

  • Northern Lights
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:07 p.m.

    re -- Lynn | 2:09 p.m wrote: [you want religious freedom? keep religion where is belongs. in your home, your church, and your mind.

    keep it out of our schools and our laws.]

    In my opinion, this is lies at the heart of the matter. These ideas are some of the very "attacks" that have and are resulting in restricting the freedom of worship for Americans - slowly and gradually.

    This is a war of ideas where I, too, will always advocate the separation of church and state - through continued guarantees of religious liberty and freedom.

  • Abuse of freedom of
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:27 p.m.

    religion:
    You don't believe in abortion: Don't have one
    You don't believe in Gay marrage: Marry somebody from the opposite sex
    Why do you feel attacked? Nobody wants to attack you.
    LDS love to play their paranoia and feel like their pioneer ancestors. Catholics love martirdom.
    Sorry guys, we don't want to hurt you. We just want for you to live your life and let other people live their lives. Is that too much to ask?
    Sorry, if you want for us to validate your religious life and help to go to heaven by attacking you. Is not going to happen.....But, we will not allow you to take our freedom as members of a secular society.

  • Tax them & they have more rights
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:30 p.m.

    Re:re --- Beth

    ["anyone demanding revoking tax-exempt status for that sole reason is indeed trying to strip away some rights. You don't have to like what I say, but I have a right to say it free of government sanctions"]

    "agreed. but I for one see NO reason for churches to have a tax-exempt status. it has nothing to do with your "position" on things - I just don't see why you should have it."

    If you don't see a reason why churches should not be tax exempt lease start with organizations like the ACLU and Human Rights Commission who are also tax exempt and who actively participate in the "No on 8" campaign.

    If your reasoning has nothing to do with a churches position being religious in nature then you should not feel a need to single out churches in your post and would be more educated about how almost all of the organizations and groups involved in the "No on 8" campaign were tax exempt.

    "(I see no difference between a religion and any other "club".)"

    I agree with you. If they are tax exempt then they can be as involved as taxed entities

  • wow
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:44 p.m.

    walk with me please...

    I am free to worship as I please provided I do not infringe on your freedom. I can swing my fist in the air in a circle as long as I do not strike you.

    Freedom of religion runs both ways. You can pray on the city's streets, but not block traffic and endanger people in the process of your actions. You can pray all you want, silently, anywhere you wish. You can even say AMEN any time and place you wish, unless you are interfering with medical emergencies, etc.

    The Catholics and the Mormons want to dominate and control. They only want the chance to tell us all what to do and when to do it. I prefer the way things are now: I am free to worship as I please provided I do not interfere with your rights to worship as you please.

    I learned that basic lesson from Jesse Nyle Washburn, one of the greatest teachers American FOrk High School and Utah ever had. He was precious, and he would be laughing out loud at all of this garbage by the two dominating Utah religions. JN, we miss you.

  • mark
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:54 p.m.

    The more Catholic Bishops and LDS elders try to push their religion's dogma down other American's throats, the more you'll receive an antagonistic response. I am 56 yo, and never in my life have churches tried to dominate politically like they have in the last decade. In a civil pluralistic society, the citizens don't want to know your beliefs, and don't care what you believe, as long as you don't force it on them.
    It was once thought the epitome of being rude and ill mannered to discuss religion or politics at social getherings...those were the days!

  • mark
    Feb. 23, 2010 6:56 p.m.

    gatherings...typo

  • Amazing
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:06 p.m.


    Reading all these posts saying "Hey, what all the fuss. There is no religious discrimination." reminds of a bunch of white guys sitting in the front of a bus in Alabama in the 1940's saying; "What's all the fuss..."

    The good Cardinal's words are worth a moment of consideration.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:12 p.m.

    These religions want their dogma and corporate structures protected. And Christianity not practicing Christianity is its biggest threat. I'm LDS and feel that churches are straying from what they should be, and to some extent that includes my own church.

  • Clueless Posters
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:12 p.m.

    I keep seeing people post garbage about the LDS church losing its tax exempt status for participating in the political process. I'm sorry, but you people have no clue about what you are talking about. Do you know how many tax exempt churches and other charitable organizations go so much further than the LDS church's activity in prop 8. It's one thing to encourage your membership to donate time and money or even push a specific bill using your media department, it's quite another to specifically endourse particular candidates and political parties and even encourage members to support specific campaigns. These are all things which occur frequently in our country by tax exempt entities. How many african american church leaders openly campaigned for Barack Obama? How many christian pastors openly campaigned for Huckabee? Isn't Jesse Jackson's organization given tax exempt status? I'm sorry, but the LDS church's involvement in Prop8 doesn't even approach the sort of activities that would bring its tax exemption into question. Anyone suggesting otherwise is extremely naive of the tax code.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:13 p.m.

    you guys need to stop blogging and get a life

  • Freedom of Religion
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:28 p.m.

    Many people on this board have apparently twisted the freedom of religion protected under the constitution to invalidate every religious individual's ability to vote consistent with his or her conscience. Passing laws using your moral compass if you are religious is somehow "jamming religion down everyone's throat." This train of thought is wrong and wholly inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Every law ever passed, including the U.S. Constitution, is based in part on some degree of morality or the general populace's concept of right and wrong. If my concept of right and wrong is very strongly influenced by my religion it doesn't make it any less valid than an aetheist's concept of right and wrong based on a particular philosophy. I know aetheists who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and mormons who strongly support it, but neither is "jamming" their philosophy or religion down my throat by voting based on what they believe is right and wrong, it's called government.

  • @Concerned Christian 5:24 p.m.
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:29 p.m.

    that is so christ like of you he must be so proud.

  • @free?
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:36 p.m.

    first off there is no law preventing you from singing or praying in public, you cannot force others to join you but you can pray and sing all you want.
    secondly you have the right to spend your money any way you want when it comes to politics and you can even express those beliefs as a candidate (which most candidates do) what you cannot do is take away my right to challenge your beliefs when you bring them into the public square and you cannot force me to join you in your singing and prayer if you choose to do so in a public square. You cannot force TV stations to only air things you do not find offensive just like I cannot stop them from airing religious programing. you have the right to express yourself and otter's have a right to express apposing points of view, its that simple.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 7:56 p.m.

    No one is assaulting your religious freedom. You just want a free pass to spout your bigotry. Times have changed. You can no longer hide behind your religion and at the same time promote your own brand of hatred.

  • Janet
    Feb. 23, 2010 8:15 p.m.

    Remember when art or literature could be outlawed as "obscene"? When a priest had some influence on his parishioners? When the Founding Fathers were the good guys? When most people went to church? When kids prayed in public schools? When powerful speakers like Dr. Martin Luther King used both biblical and patriotic allusions to effect change? When every town had a Nativity display in the square, and every school had a Christmas (not holiday)program? When divorce was rare? When not everyone knew someone with an addiction or an STD? When junior high kids knew more about Jesus than about sex? I do remember all of those things. Those times weren't perfect, but most people valued family, God, and country. In our media and academic environments of today, believers are curiosities, at best. Often, they are reviled and/or laughed to scorn. Saying something is a "sin" is considered intolerant, unrealistic, and arrogant. I read a lot of college-student writing, and I can tell you: Religion is only okay with most of Generations X and Y if it doesn't claim that anything is right or wrong. For that reason, religious leaders are concerned, and should be!

  • family and love surpass religion
    Feb. 23, 2010 8:19 p.m.

    but it is religion that keeps the family and love going; and this is has it has been for thousands of years; without genealogy and sense of purpose and identity and tribes and community, individuals wither away into oblivion- medical sciense proves married people and/or religious people live longer. People who control their anger live longer too I'm guessing. Forgiveness brings peace. We can't love or respect an enemy without help from above.

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 23, 2010 8:50 p.m.

    If we take a step back and look at the history of our ancestors (People of all nations) you will clearly see that the main thing remaining from their past are their sanctuaries of worship. You don't believe me, look at the ancient buildings in India, in Central and South America, in Egypt, throughout the Middle East, and in Asia.

    All of our ancestors sometime in the past believed in a God. Even the ancient Greeks built their buildings to Gods and yet so many of you say there is no God. Religion should be muffled. They shouldn't be able to enact moral values in society. That is just wrong you say.

    History proves that you are no different than the people that eventually destroyed the great civilizations of the past. You try to indoctrinate your godlessness on believers and over time they of faith apostate from true doctrine and societies and great nations collapse. Examples; Romans, Egyptians, and the great nations that once lived and breathed in the ancient Americas.

    One thing is for sure, no matter how hard you try, faith in Deity will live on. God lives on. Develop your faith. He awaits you.

  • Re; Janet
    Feb. 23, 2010 8:51 p.m.

    Amen!

  • Bravo
    Feb. 23, 2010 8:53 p.m.

    Well said Janet.

  • Torie
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:04 p.m.

    The devotional was beautiful and inspirational.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:08 p.m.

    You have the right to your religion. I have the right to happiness. While they are different, they do not have to interfere with each other unless invited....

    So stop inviting gay marriage into a religious debate when it is not a religious thing to begin with.

  • Kira
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:12 p.m.

    "Sorry, sir, but I don't see where religious liberty is in danger in this country. I feel perfectly free to go to church, contribute to church, speak in and out of church. Nobody anywhere is threatening these things."

    Amen. The problem we have is that some mistake "religious liberties" for the "right" to harm and oppress others. They also think they have the right to defend their "religious liberties" at the expense of everyone else's religious liberties.

  • Aw Laud Janet | 8:15 p.m:
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:25 p.m.

    Ward, June and the beaver were never reality.

    Father knows best, really didn't.

    The world is what it is. Get up tomorrow morning and really look around the city, is it really what you think it is? Look at your city and your neighbors who are struggling that is how things really are. “How are we going to make the house payment this month or….

    How is that view working out for you?

  • LDS
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:27 p.m.

    I believe many of the comments come in this article come from those who hate both Catholics and Mormons;.I am LDS and so happy to see the Cardinal join us in fighting against those that are trying to Destroy Christianity from this great Country The non believers are making a great effort to destroy the very thing that brings great happiness to families across this great land. The only way it can be stopped is if those who believe in what made this Country great band together to defeat these people that don’t have the wonderful families that many of us do

  • @ Janet
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:29 p.m.

    So, you remember a time when Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. had their religion subjugated to the religions of those who believe in Christ.

    You remember a time when religious might equaled right.

    And now that we have true religious freedom, you are complaining that you can no longer force your majority religious views on others.

    Interesting.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:34 p.m.

    Another story in the paper today mentions the sex-ed bill that got nowhere.

    The comments on that thread indicate that sex-education is something that is best left to the parents or, if done in the schools, should be done in accord with the parents religious/moral viewpoints.

    Then, on this thread, we have Janet - who seems to be advocating that schools should be teaching morals and religion.

    If children nowadays are lacking proper "morals" it is not because religion is under attack - it is because their parents are not teaching them.

    While I can support comprehensive sex education in the schools (based on the societal implications and effects of not having that education), I cannot support religious education in the schools.

    Your children should not be forced to pray to my God - and my children should not be forced to pray to your God.

  • Ghandi said it best
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:35 p.m.

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"

  • So much ignorance here
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:44 p.m.

    I see so much ignorance on both sides of this debate. The gentleman the article is about never claimed that religious freedom was being threatened because people don't believe what is taught by religious people. Lets use our brains for a second here and dispense with all the hateful nonsense. There is a movement in the country to impose limitations on what churches can or cannot legally say and do, with the threat of losing tax exempt status if you say or do the wrong thing. No that is not the current law, but there are many that would like it to be. That is in direct conflict with the concept of Religious freedom. If you are going to argue against something, argue against that, not some ill-informed nonsense about Mormons being gay bashers.

  • Deism for the win
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:54 p.m.

    re: So much ignorance here | 9:44 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010

    "The gentleman the article is about never claimed that religious freedom was being threatened because people don't believe what is taught by religious people. Lets use our brains for a second here and dispense with all the hateful nonsense."

    They don't believe the Religious people because they are using their brains... I love irony.

  • Get Real
    Feb. 23, 2010 9:57 p.m.

    Bigger governments make more rules. Rules limit freedom. When are we going to stop limiting freedoms?

    Every time progressive secular laws are put in place it limits other people's religion. Some progressive secular believers feel they have the right to harm and oppress others (eg. abortion). They think they have the right to defend their religious liberties at the expense of everyone else's religious liberties.

    Let us get real. Less government allows for more religious freedom. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Gay people are free to exercise their religion and get married.

    If progressive secular people or gay people do not like their taxing status they could fight for smaller government to get what they want. If gay people want more freedoms then it would be a good idea for them to band together with the rest of us and fight for a smaller safer government.

  • SLO Sapo
    Feb. 23, 2010 10:24 p.m.

    John pack Lambert said: "If you make people pay through taxes for something they object to on moral grounds you are deneying them religious freedom."

    Really? So if you make me pay taxes for a war in Iraq that I object to on moral grounds, then you are denying me religious freedom? Could you explain your reasoning here?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 23, 2010 10:33 p.m.

    "Marriage is a religious ceremony. Gay people are free to exercise their religion and get married."

    Yeah - they are just not free to get the civil, secular, governmental - e.g. non-religious - benefits to go with it.

  • DeepintheHeart
    Feb. 23, 2010 10:38 p.m.

    You might feel more acutely that religious freedom was under attack if you lived and worked in California and a gay rights group sought your firing for contributing to a political campaign defending marriage.

  • DeepintheHeart
    Feb. 23, 2010 10:44 p.m.

    Pagan: one man's discrimination is another man's reasoned judgment. We don't have to agree with one another, but we don't get to curtail the other's inalienable rights, either. You're free to be a pagan, I'm free not to be.

  • To DeepintheHeart::
    Feb. 23, 2010 11:12 p.m.

    I live in Newport Beach, California and your comment was amazing to me.

    Yes, I am married, legally to another man.

    Petitions are public record. Political feelings are deep. I understand that.

    But also understand that my taxes in California and my health insurance are involved.

    My husband and I fall in the group that was married in the window of same sex marriage. That makes a big different to us on taxes, health care etc.

    There are some 18,000 couples that are affected here in Ca.

    How is your marriage doing? Fighting to keep our rights? Darn sure!

  • Freedom From Religion
    Feb. 23, 2010 11:34 p.m.

    Nobody in this country is stopping anyone else from practicing their religion.

    However, others should not have the religious beliefs of others forced upon them. Not being allowed to force your religion on others is not an infringement on your freedom of religion. That is absolutely ridiculous.

  • F
    Feb. 23, 2010 11:36 p.m.

    For those of you who can't see, it is called spiritual blindness. If you can't see it, you will not understand it, so don't worry. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean that it isn't there.

    That is exactly what Satan intends, to keep you in that ignorance.

    The blind leading the blind, they will both end up falling in the ditch.

  • Re: Freedom From Religion
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:34 a.m.

    "However, others should not have the religious beliefs of others forced upon them. Not being allowed to force your religion on others is not an infringement on your freedom of religion. That is absolutely ridiculous."

    You know, this whole "forcing your beliefs down my throat" gets bantered about so much, it's almost believable. I would like you - or someone - to please tell me an exact instance of when ANYONE had beliefs forced on them. Really, I'm interested to know.

    Missionaries come to your door? That's not forcing. Politely say no and shut the door.

    And please don't bring up Prop 8. Religion was here WAY before gay marriage. Politics entered religion, not the other way around.

    You remind me of a kid I knew in school who was always ranting about people "leaving him alone." Then all he did was cry out for attention.

    No one is forcing anything down your throat. If anything, the anti-religious are challenging age old laws and values. If anything, it's you and your type that are trying to force your changes down our throats.

  • Re one plus one equals three?
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:55 a.m.

    Ever heard the saying: the enemy of my enemy is a friend

    - captain price

  • Reality
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:55 a.m.

    What I find so ironic is that the lefties on here who preach tolerance for their societal beliefs are the MOST INTOLERANT people I have ever heard. Typical liberal. Get a grip...and do something productive with your time rather than rant on a internet board. Sheesh!

  • comment
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:18 a.m.

    I'm trying to ellucidate on the issue here, but the remarks that religious liberty is at stake is so far fetched I'm at a loss for words.

    How do you counter with logic something that is unbelievably inane?

    I suppose if someone wants to believe that his/her religious liberties are at stake they will do just that, believe.

    With zero evidence.

    When everything else fails, try to go for intangible trial balloon and see if people fall for it. It sounds good and has the essence of nicey.

    It's false though.

  • mark
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:22 a.m.

    In the 4 states LDS was persecuted in and chased out of....how much of that was due to Catholics?

    If LDS wants to continually play the long suffering martyr from stuff back 2 Centuries, don't hide the cast of characters...NOW.

  • Joseph
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:11 a.m.

    Mormons think that politicians can legislate their pleas for help against an impending crush of immoral values and corrupt laws. How many gay Repblicans are there? How many abortionists are Democrat? Church leaders still do not comprehend that this tide facing the "church" cannot be held back by political parties. The Book of Mormon has shown us that. If we cannot educate our population with moral right, I certainly wouldnt expect Legislation to change much.Its the blind leading the blind

  • Agree w/"comment"
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:20 a.m.

    What is the "attack" on churches and religious liberties?

    I'm not seeing it either.

  • TheEndisNeigh
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:27 a.m.

    "Religious Freedom" "Brutal Attacks" "Warriors"

    Protesters in front of your church condemning you for your actions of hatred & oppression toward the Gay community isn't a "brutal attack". Getting your face beat in and being dragged behind a truck because you dared to put your arm around & kiss your same-sex partner is a "brutal attack"

    Mormons/LDS getting in bed with the Vatican. Oh that's rich. The same Catholics that looked the other way during & profited from the Holocaust,burned our greatest scientific minds at the stake and drowned thousands of women as witches nice. It's good to see the LDS are looking for professional instruction when it comes to their oppression.


  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:41 a.m.

    You people (most of those who have commented) are an angry, vitriolic bunch. You are intent on destroying anything that disagrees with your own opinions.

  • bartonjabber
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:53 a.m.

    Such hate from BOTH sides.
    You are ALL wrong.

  • Questions
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:14 a.m.

    How, exactly, is religion under attack today? How are my beliefs threatened? How is my going to church every week and worhipping how I want to worship affected in the public sphere? I'm not being pugnacious here, I just want some honest answers.

  • What freedoms?
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:19 a.m.

    Some posters have asked what freedoms have ben lost.
    What about the ability for a christian community to have a nativity scene or signs that say "Merry Christmas" during the Christmas season?
    What about the ability of a school in a christian community to have prayers before events?
    What about the gay movement trying to keep church leaders from practicing their freedom of speech as they oppose what they consider to be immoral activities?
    I guess freedom of speech only applies if you are a minority.

  • Good For Them!
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:26 a.m.

    Catholic charities have been directly affected by the gay political agenda of inserting their influence on how those charities must be run.

    Public education continues to be a flashpoint for many non-religious groups attempting to redefine curriculum and policies to denigrate religious beliefs.

    Other political attacks have come at all religious bodies, as anti-religious sentiments in given states have garnered the creation of legislation that would strip churches of tax-free and charitable status, unless they follow stringent populist guidelines... thus further marginalizings and dictating terms to religious organizations.

    It is heartening to see such cooperation between two such different religious groups. I agree that we should focus our hearts and minds upon finding common moral solutions. By seeking cooperation, we foster freedoms--and make more progress possible.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:43 a.m.

    If you don't agree with me, its bigotry. If I don't agree with you then its freedom of speech. Why can't people figure that out?

  • K
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:44 a.m.

    They aren't complaining about the churches that let President Obama speak at during the election or the gay church organizations that voiced the other side.

    Canada is an example of why religious liberty once held sacred is now in danger.

  • Florien Wineriter
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:04 a.m.

    We must be diligent to be certain Freedom to Express does not become Power to Repress

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:14 a.m.

    every year morality and decency decline. it needs to be reversed. we need all the people we can get to stand up for some values that make people strong and people that care.

  • Persecution complexes galore
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:15 a.m.

    I've _never_ taken a job action for or against an employee because they were religious.

    However, as an employee myself, I've experienced first hand plenty of negative job actions because I wasn't LDS.

    Facts are facts.

  • @ What freedoms? (7:19)
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:19 a.m.

    You are more then welcome to have a Nativity Scene and say or have signs that say "Merry Christmas" - but if you are going to do it on government property, than government must show equal respect for other religions by displaying their symbols also.

    Even in a community where 100% of the population is Christian (keeping in mind there are no such communities here in the US), not all Christians pray in the same way. Why should your children be forced to pray in a manner they believe is wrong?

    If a society were predominately Jewish or Muslim, would you think it okay for your Christian child to be forced to worship according to the Muslim or Jewish faith?

    And contrary to popular belief, no one is trying to prevent anyone from saying what they believe. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you want to preach against gays or blacks or women or anyone else, you can do that. But those people have the right to disagree with you and say so.

    You cannot have your freedoms at the expense of others sacrificing theirs. That is not an attack - that is a democratic republic.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:19 a.m.

    What freedoms, the gay community has never advocated against:

    Nativity scenes
    Prayers in school

    That is everyone else.

    The gay community has only advocated the ability to marry the person of their choice. Not your choice.
    Your right to freedom of speech is not limited but do not be under the impression that everyone will agree with what you say.

    Bill, morality is not required by law. Rather simply to follow the laws. As laws are clear and morality is subjective from person to person.

    My example?

    Gov. Sanford cheated on his wife. She divorced him and he still keeps his very public job.

    While others in this country cannot even marry to begin with.

    Some would say this is a personal matter. And yet the logic is that because he did not follow traditional marriage, this somehow affected your marriage. (If you are)

    And yet no outcry has been made in support of making divorce against the law.

    So, to review, some work to deny marriage to others.

    While they can divorce and re-marry without end.

  • interesting
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:24 a.m.

    how many critics of the Cardinal merely prove his point. For example: some have said that it was OK for MLK to use the pulpit because he adovated civil rights but its not ok for others to prevent civil rights by opposing abortion; yet one could easily argue that the right to life is the most fundamental civil right of all and statemens such as "if you dont approve of abortion - dont have one" are as idiotic as saying if you dont approve of slavery, dont buy one.

    The fact is: many left wing activist groups not only enjoy tax exempt status - they also get government funding - while they simultaneously seek to punish politically incorrect religous groups by trying to eliminate their tax exempt status

    My experience is that secular fundamentaists are even worse than religous ones because they are far more oblivious.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:26 a.m.

    No one is inserting themselves into how Catholic Charities must be run.

    Catholic Charities can do whatever they want.

    Government organizations, however, are limited by anti-discrimination laws and must treat all citizens equally. (Remember that pesky little 14th Amendment?)

    If a charitable organization chooses to act as an arm of the government, they are bound by the same regulations as the government and all other charitable organizations that are acting as governmental agents.

    This is not an attack on religion - this is maintaining equal protection under the laws.

    Catholic Charities can still do adoptions - they just have to do them as a private agency instead of a government organization.

  • @ K
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:29 a.m.

    "Canada is an example of why religious liberty once held sacred is now in danger."

    Got any facts to back that up?

  • Waaaaaambulance!
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:35 a.m.

    I love how these special interests groups, anti-anything with rules and the rest of you that need a club to belong to, complain anytime that something is printed with LDS, Mormon, religion, God, Jesus or anything else that has a religous context to it. You act like children that don't want any rules in life. You complain that others are making you do something and when you finally get your way, you complain that the outcome of getting your way is someone else's fault. Homosexuality is a sexual choice not . Whether you believe in God or not, that is the fact. The homosexual community is and always has been unstable and largely promiscuous. It was no wonder that AIDS was able to do so much damage to the gay community so quickly. The combining of same genders causes innumerable issues on relationship levels, not to mention societal. Abortion is our next subject. The majority of abortions are not because of rape, they are because two irresponsible people had sex unprotected and didn't want the consequence of that.

  • Janet
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:45 a.m.

    Of course I remember the negatives of the 50's and 60's, but that doesn't change the fact that as commandments became suggestions, and any statement of right or wrong became intolerance, the social trends of rampant divorce, child abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, school violence, drug dependency, depression, addiction to pornography, and more than a million abortions a year became our new realities. A mild pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow and purchased for the Super Bowl was assailed. I read the following in this morning's "Chronicle of Higher Education," regarding an ad on the NCAA website: "The promotion for the group, Focus on the Family, features a smiling father holding his young son, next to the words 'Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life.' Beneath the photo appears the message: 'All I want for my son is for him to grow up knowing how to do the right thing.'" Those who want moral anarchy want the dogma muzzled and locked in the closet. How in the world can anyone say that religion isn't under attack?

  • @ 8:14
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:53 a.m.

    If morality and decency are declining, then I suggest parents start teaching those values to their children.

    People whine and whine and whine about the "nanny" state and then turn around and cry that the state isn't nannying then enough.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:03 a.m.

    Fighting for morality and decency does not include discrimination. It does not include evicting a person, denying them a happy marriage, or firing them from a job because of who they date. It makes me truly sad to see some use religion as a defense for hatred.

    If these are the values of your religion, I will have none of it. As discrimination has no value.

  • Justin
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    It's nice that two religions can come together to learn from each others' differences and can work together to make this state and the world a better place for ALL to live, and not just those of their respective churches.

    I'm happy that the LDS and Catholics find mutual respect and appreciation, we should all learn from their example.

  • Leven
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:08 a.m.

    Any student of church and religious history can readily learn what a cruel and stupid master they are.

  • K
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    That's true, already in many states Catholic Charities no longer work in adoption because they can't place with same sex couples.

    imagine if LDS family services were required to place children with homosexual couples not holding a Temple Recommend?

    Than no group has to the right to speak against or for a measure on the ballot, period. Including nonreligous groups. Their freedom to express became power to regress with the vandalism, threats to the K of C, disruption of mass and mob at the Temple, some were encouraged to fire employees that supported the measure. Is it up to the people or not?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    As one "progressive" I think I can state with conviction that we do not want to circumscribe anyone's right to practice their religion or even to fight for your moral beliefs and practices in the public arena, but we do want to uphold the constitution so as to not have our goverment "respect an (particular) establishment of religion". In terms of public policy, this means that the moral and political views of the Catholic and Mormon Churches as well as other religious and philosophical viewpoints, should be heard and considered, but never to the ultimate exclusion of non religious ideas and objectives.

    I am glad to see that the Catholic and Mormon churches have found they have common values. Who would have thought that possible that even 20 years ago?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    I have had 2 jobs where I was ridiculed because I was LDS. Or at lease because I held to my values. This was in Salt Lake. It happens. I just kept to my values and loved others. Thats important. I have many friends from those 2 jobs.

  • re: Persecution complexes galore
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:11 a.m.

    "as an employee myself, I've experienced first hand plenty of negative job actions because I wasn't LDS."

    Really

    How?

    I am not LDS either but my experience is exactly the opposite
    most of those who discriminate againt Mormons remian quite oblivious to their own actions For example: Rocky Anderson was quite infamous for passing over qualified Mormons (or white people or men or any so-called priviledged class)for any job, and it was all done in the name of "diversity"
    he thought he was tolerant because he was intolerant

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:12 a.m.

    A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races.

    In general, the more devout the community, the greater the racism, according to the authors of the analysis, led by Wendy Wood, Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at USC College and the USC Marshall School of Business. The study appears in the February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review.

    “Religious groups distinguish between believers and non-believers and moral people and immoral ones,” Wood said. “So perhaps it’s no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them – blacks and minorities.”

  • You're so gay...
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:17 a.m.

    When was the last time you heard someone say, "You're so gay." "That'ss so gay." It's such a part of our culture to bash gays that we don't even think about the hidden and not-so-hidden prejudices. It is so obvious that those being persecuted and treated as second-class citizens are gays -- not the "religious." Wake up! As an active LDS woman, I find our persecution complex embarassing.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    True religious freedom means not just freedom to worship or "individual conscience rights as long as you don't make anyone unhappy," but the right to "influence the public square," he added.

    The right to influence the public square, that's what we're talking about here, not the right to believe something.

    And the right to influence is what IS ABSOLUTELY being threatened today, some of you need to pay more attention.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:21 a.m.

    re: F | 11:36 p.m. Feb. 23, 2010

    Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Satan also about Blind complicity and lack of choice.

    If (any) Organized Religion had their way we'd all herded about like the sheep some people already behave like. Then, Voltaire said, "Its hard to free fools from the chains they revere."


    re: Persecution complexes galore | 8:15 a.m. Feb. 24, 2010
    "I've _never_ taken a job action for or against an employee because they were religious.

    However, as an employee myself, I've experienced first hand plenty of negative job actions because I wasn't LDS."

    I can't disagree. Its because Mormons have been the overwhleming & dominant majority in this state for so long. Now, that the demographics are slowly moderating, they can't cope so they get defensive.

  • LOL!
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:22 a.m.

    Buzzards all need to spend quality time together.

  • @reality
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:25 a.m.

    and calling eb names like lefties is what? maybe you should take your own advice and "Get a grip...and do something productive with your time rather than rant on a internet board. Sheesh!"

  • @Good for Them
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    Catholic adoption services essentially operated as a State agency, receiving govt. money. They even placed children with same-sex couples. But when a reporter from the Boston Globe reported what was happening the Vatican ordered the adoption services in MA to stop. Catholic adoption services could've continued to operate as LDS adoption services does--without govt. money. And the Catholic church chose not to test the limits of the law and fight in court.

    The bottom line is, if a church receives govt. money it then cannot practice discrimination when it provides a service to the public.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:34 a.m.

    'How in the world can anyone say that religion isn't under attack?' - 8:45 a.m.

    Janet, you proved this question is less than what you imply by this, your own writting before it:

    'A mild pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow and purchased for the Super Bowl was assailed.'


    So, a pro-life ad was featured in the super bowl, but religion is under attack? Wouldn't that mean the ad would NOT have been allowed to be shown?

    Or do you feel that your religion is under attack because not everyone agreed with it?

  • Facts
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:36 a.m.

    The BSA did not receive public funds when they were being sued for discrimination. They almost lost their case 5-4 to have the state tell them how to run their private organization.

    Read the Supreme Court decision Dale vs. The Boy Scouts of America - 2000 if you want to know the potential encroachment the secular state onto private organizations and religion.

  • mark
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:37 a.m.

    If churches think MY taxes are going to cover your religions FREE RIDE when you take Millions and MILLIONS to attack the Civil Rights of LGBT families, then you are sadly mistaken.
    You have the freedom to attack our families, but the ante for that game is your tax exemptions.
    Don't act liker you get to play for FREE.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:37 a.m.

    re: @ 8:14 | 8:53 a.m. Feb. 24, 2010

    {People whine and whine and whine about the "nanny" state and then turn around and cry that the state isn't nannying then enough.}

    Its these same people who live for Sunday & love the AM talk radio that love to label every thing the current administration does as socialist or Marxist.

    My suggestion read American Fascists by Chris Hedges.

  • watch out everyone
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:40 a.m.

    its the evil "they", "those people," "others" (also known as the anyone thts not us) Their all out to get us. (yes this is sarcasm and applies equally to both sides of this silly folly)

  • dean
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:41 a.m.

    Oh hey, I know how to protect your freedom, just start another inquisition. It really worked the last time.

  • @ Janet
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    The biggest controversy over the Tebow ad was the fact that the channel changed the rules (not allowing advocacy ads) halfway through the game and didn't tell anyone else.

    If Focus on the Family were content to just educate others - allowing parents to teach their children their version of the "right thing to do" - no one would have a problem with them. Focus on the Family, however, is not content with education; they want legislation. They want their values legislated. They don't want your children to know what is right - they want your children to be forced to do what is right. I already voted against that plan once - I intend to keep voting against it.

  • mark
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    @what freedoms
    There aren't Christian communities, if you are somehow refusing renting to non-Christians, or hiring ONLY Christians YOU are breaking the LAW.
    We have American communities, which Christians may participate in, but you don't RUN the community, and neither does any other sect of believers.
    Courts have ruled on FORCED school prayers directed by administrators, and on public displays of ANY religious symbols on government land.
    It's not JUST a nativity scene, it's all symbols.
    Build your nativity on your temple's property, have it as big and as elaborate as you want. WHY do you try to force your symbols where they clearly DON'T BELONG. As for prayers, you can pray anywhere anytime...silently. You may recall one of the admonishments of Jesus was AGAINST making a BIG PUBLIC DISPLAY of praying.

  • Cats
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:51 a.m.

    I am so dismayed and saddened by the hate and viciousness of the anti-religious element on these blogs. "Evil will be thought good and good will be thought evil." I wonder how much time there is left for us.

  • Jane
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:51 a.m.

    When was the last time you heard someone use the phrase, "That's so gay." "You're so gay." These hidden and not-so-hidden prejudices are everywhere. The scary thing is that many believe it's okay to gay bash in the name of righteousness! As an active LDS Mormon, I find the "religion under attack" idea a little baffling.

  • re --- Janet | 8:15 p.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:55 a.m.

    ["Remember when art or literature could be outlawed as "obscene"?"]

    yes - and it was wrong and a violation of our rights.

    ["When most people went to church? When kids prayed in public schools?"]

    yes, and it should have been called "indoctrination".

    ["When every town had a Nativity display in the square, and every school had a Christmas (not holiday)program?"]

    yes, but no other religions could have one so everyone had to be christian or they were left out. but it was achieving your goal of having everyone join your religion.

    ["When divorce was rare?"]

    yes - so lots of married but unhappy people. how grand. people haven't changed - they've simply gotten more assurtive.

    ["When not everyone knew someone with an addiction or an STD? When junior high kids knew more about Jesus than about sex?"]

    just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it wasn't going on out there.

    ["Saying something is a "sin" is considered intolerant, unrealistic, and arrogant."]

    "sin" is a religious term meaning "against God". use secular terms (like "it's wrong") instead of "sin" and you'll get more respect.

    you just want everyone to be "religious". why?

  • Opened Eyes
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:59 a.m.

    Leave Janet alone. She lived in a different time where things were hidden and people kept evil hidden underneath their carpets. There was not much TV back in the good old days, and no internet around to spill the beans on reality.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:00 a.m.

    I once attended a debate on ethics. The debaters were a humanist and a religious leader (he was not LDS or Catholic but one of the other Christian religions).

    The religious individual stated that without God you cannot be ethical because ethics come from God. When asked to define ethics, his response was following God's teachings - if you don't believe in God, you cannot follow his teachings, and therefore you cannot be ethical.

    Even if you do not lie or cheat or steal and you treat others with dignity and respect, no matter what you do and how you behave, you cannot be ethical if you do not believe in God.

    And you could not believe in just any God - you had to believe in his God. According to him, there are many people who think they are ethical, but since they do not worship the correct God or worship in the correct manner, they are not really ethical.

    This embodies the greatest attack on religion. The greatest enemy of religion is not the lack of religion - it is the forcing of one religion onto others - the idea that you are less because you worship differently.

  • re -- RexidaWyo | 8:50 p.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:04 a.m.

    ["All of our ancestors sometime in the past believed in a God. Even the ancient Greeks built their buildings to Gods and yet so many of you say there is no God. Religion should be muffled."]

    you are confusing a belief in science and logic with a disbelief in God. Just because people do not believe all the stories in the bible and think the BoM was written by a guy and his friends and is not God's words, you think we don't believe in God. That's just wrong.

    the problem is you all would force your specific beliefs onto people that don't share your beliefs. that doesn't mean those people don't believe in God, or karma, or a higher power. that simply means they don't think two people were created in the garden of eden (and certainly not in Jackson County Missouri) with a talking snake, a guy didn't build a boat and save all the animals, etc. Your books were written by men, not God. etc etc.

    Religion proports to KNOW what God wants of us, but God and religion are two different things. try to understand that.

  • mark
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:05 a.m.

    @Facts
    You deny Boy Scout organizations had tax free or tax reduced lands available to them for camp outs, or used PUBLIC Schools as meeting places?
    It was public accomadations which made Boy Scouts subject to lawsuits. If they don't want to use government financed meeting places, or government payed for lands, they wouldn't be subject to ANY lawsuits. Go discriminate against anyone you choose.
    As a man who's brother and father were Eagle Scouts, and I remained in scouting to Life level, I find their discrimination UGLY and Hateful, but they are free to do what any PRIVATE club may do, just do it PRIVATELY.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:06 a.m.

    So, if I don't rent my apartment to a catholic, is that protected under my religious freedoms?

  • @ Facts
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:09 a.m.

    "Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades.

    The Boy Scouts won. They have freedom of association.

    And if this holds for the Boy Scouts, why wouldn't it hold for religions which have an even more compelling reason (namely Constitutional guarantees) to have their viewpoints protected?

  • @ Cats
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    "I am so dismayed and saddened by the hate and viciousness of the anti-religious element on these blogs. "Evil will be thought good and good will be thought evil." I wonder how much time there is left for us."

    How do you know you are not the ones calling evil good and good evil?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:20 a.m.

    I wonder how much time there is left for us.


    Cat, please do not use fear to support your religion. Don't you have anything else?

  • re -- What freedoms? | 7:19 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:24 a.m.

    ["What about the ability for a christian community to have a nativity scene or signs that say "Merry Christmas" during the Christmas season?"]

    do you really think there is such a thing as a "christian community"? are you sure everyone in the community is christian?

    and a "christian community" is free to put up nativity scenes any time they want - just not on public property. (why should my taxes pay for your religious endevours?)

    and you can put up all the "merry christmas" signs you want. no one will stop you - just don't do it on public property.

    you all want to be able to use public property for your religion. and you think you should be able to since you are the "majority". but it doesn't work like that.

    you all aren't losing religious freedom - you are losing power. and that's your biggest fear. that's what all the hubbub is about.

  • to re-rkl
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    re-rkl said:
    "you make 250 million people mad at you, you are bound to catch some grief for it. why is that so hard for you all to understand? do you even get that you are totally outnumbered?"

    Are you seriously that out of touch? Amidst all the anger flung at the Mormons for Prop 8, people seem to forget that in the end, it was a vote, and more Californians voted in favor of it. It is the gay community that can't seem to get it through their heads that they are the ones outnumbered in defending marriage. And before you go calling me a sheltered Mormon or Utahn, know that I have lived all over the country with the majority of it in the northeast, so I'm definitely in touch.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    to: @ What freedoms? (7:19) | 8:19 a.m. Feb. 24, 2010

    actually, that's not true. thesupreme court has already stated that even favoring all religions is illegal. it used to be just as you say, if all religons wanting it are accomadated, then there is no problem. that all changed with the supreme court decision of everson vs. board of education. so yes, religion in genral is supressed, not just the minor ones, ALL of them!


    to: Jane
    if your definition of gay bashing is marriage is one man and one women, then yes, it is ok to gay bash. i really don't know what you're talking about. the LDS has been the one under attack by the homosexuals. where have you been the past couple of years when they were vandalizing churches and mocking the church on temple square? it seems to me you've been living in a hole.

  • re - Good For Them! | 7:26 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:30 a.m.

    ["Catholic charities have been directly affected by the gay political agenda of inserting their influence on how those charities must be run."]

    not true at all. but don't take public monies and taxes paid by gays and then exclude them.

    ["Public education continues to be a flashpoint for many non-religious groups attempting to redefine curriculum and policies to denigrate religious beliefs"]

    again not true. if by "denigrate" you mean we don't want your religious beliefs corrupting our children, well that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

    ["I agree that we should focus our hearts and minds upon finding common moral solutions. By seeking cooperation, we foster freedoms--and make more progress possible."]

    first, "moral" is not a religious concept, although the way you use it you obviously think it is, and that you have a corner on the market.. and to end your post with "foster freedom" when the gist of your post is to make everyone conform to your ideas on "morality" is simply ludicrius.

  • @Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:33 a.m.

    Bottom line, blacks and whites never had the freedom of intermarriage so how can a religion take away something that was never available in the first place.

    Bottom line, blacks never had freedom so how can a religion take away something that was never available in the first place.

    Bottom line, blacks never had the Priesthood so how can a religion take away something that was never available in the first place.

  • BobP
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    Here is the First Ammendmendt

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Notice two things:

    1. Religious freedom comes BEFORE freedom of speach.

    2. It states that Congress shall not establish religion. It DOES NOT say one word about separation.

    As someone else said: If Mormon missionaries goes to your front door and knocks you can listen or tell them, no!

    I add, that if you wish to be a boor about it, that is your choice. It makes you and no one else a lesser person.

  • re -- Janet | 8:45 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    ["but that doesn't change the fact that as commandments became suggestions"]

    commandments? whose commandments? yours? from your books?

    your problem is obvious. you would have everyone follow your religious edicts because they are in a book you read.

    we know the difference between right and wrong. if it harms others, it is wrong. if it doesn't, you better have a really good reason to not allow it.

    there is but one rule, and it is golden. all the rest are simply something you read in an old book.

    ["Those who want moral anarchy want the dogma muzzled and locked in the closet. How in the world can anyone say that religion isn't under attack?"]

    again, you confuse "morality" with religion and religious dogma. they are NOT one and the same. not being religious does not equal "moral anarchy" other than it violates YOUR ideas of right and wrong.

    how many of your "rules" in your books actually deal with harm to others versus your idea of right and wrong.

    if your "rule" deals with harm to others, then it is probably already law. if it is a "sin" type rule then it is irrelevant.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    'I can't stand the constant ignorant, bigoted speach coming from the homosexual crowd.' - 10:04 a.m.

    Ah, so it's ok for people to call the gay community bigots but NOT for the gay community to call anyone else bigots.

    Well done.

    'Don't they want to force us to recognized their marriage?'

    Legally, not spiritually. Don't we do the same for you? Or are you trying to say your marrige is not recognized by others?

    'Don't they want to impose a belief on the rest of us that they have no choice?'

    You don't have a choice...to marry a person you are in no, way attracted too?
    Welcome to the 'same rights' of marriage a gay person has!

    'Again, nobody is taking away a right, because no right exists...'

    Wrong. Legal in MA since '04. I'm assuming you mean nationally, which you, more than likely have.

    '... they are the ones forcing a religion down our throats.'

    Now, let's all just calm down, buy a copy of the swim suit edition, go to Hooters in midvale and watch a nice episode of 'Sex in the City' and talk about this...

  • @cats
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    the fact that you think that it is only people you deem as "anti-religious" as spreading hate on these forums and you see what the "religious” folks as doing as being fine I would guess not long.

  • @10:14 a.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:43 a.m.

    well because their riight......right?....maybe not?

  • re -- K | 9:10 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:45 a.m.

    ["That's true, already in many states Catholic Charities no longer work in adoption because they can't place with same sex couples.

    imagine if LDS family services were required to place children with homosexual couples not holding a Temple Recommend?"]

    don't take public funds and you can do what you want. why is that so hard for you all to understand?

    your post is a perfect example of speaking a half-truth, which you all did throughout the prop 8 campaign. and that is why you are being badgered.

    if you all spoke the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, you would be far better off (and california would have legal same sex marriage).

    it's too bad your religion doesn't prohibit you speaking half-truths. I guess that's your "grey area", huh.

  • dear jane
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:52 a.m.

    " As an active LDS Mormon, I find the "religion under attack" idea a little baffling."

    As a person who does not belong to any church, I do not find the religion under attack concept baffling - I find it commonplace. But those who do it gerenally think of themselves as "tolerant" and their attacks are every bit as systemic as saying thngs like "you're so gay", but they are ususally far more more insideous (like saying the "separation of church and state" [which does not appear in the constitution] requires "freedom from religion" [which is just censorship])

  • re -- Cats | 9:51 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:53 a.m.

    [""Evil will be thought good and good will be thought evil." I wonder how much time there is left for us."]

    yes - the end is nigh!! (and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years...)

    your problem is you think if it's not religious, it's evil.

    how do you know it isn't organized religion that is evil?

  • mc
    Feb. 24, 2010 10:54 a.m.

    To Pagan

    If your religion encourages you to discriminate at: work, home, in life, you may want to re-consider that religion.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:04 a.m.

    ["Homosexuals still have the freedom to marry someone from the opposite sex just like everyone else."]

    so you won't mind if we say you can be religious, but we get to pick your religion, right? you want to pick the sex of the mate of a gay person, they should be able to dictate what type of religion you must follow.

    seems fair. although i'm sure you would disagree.

    but fair is fair. you want gays to follow the majority. therefore you must also. you can belong to a religion, but it must be Roman Catholic, since it's the majority religion.

    so is that ok with you? you dictate the lives of gays so gays get to dictate a portion of your life?

    or do you feel like only you have the right to dictate the lifestyle of others?

  • Huh? gay marriage?
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:05 a.m.

    "gays never had the freedom of same sex marriage in the first place,"

    How about Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

    DC will be next.

    Has any church been forced to perform same sex marriages? No! Have there been temple marriages for same sex folks? No!

  • To 10:04 Anon Y Mouse
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:06 a.m.

    "To say that religions are forcing something upon someone else is simply emotional rhetoric designed to take advantage of gullible people and their sense of fairness and equality."

    Just like creating television ads that say gay people will try to convert your children to homosexuality, and that all gays are pedophiles, and my end gola is to be married in your temples, synogogs, chapels etc.?

    That isn't trying to take advantage of a guilible people?

    Fact of the matter is, 5 states DO allow homosexual marriage. California DID allow homosexual marriage until Prop 8 passed. There were 18,000 of them.

    So to say "the gays never had the freedom of same sex marriage in the first place" is incorrect. Also remember there are at least 4 other countries in the world that allowed same sex marriage before MA.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:08 a.m.

    The religious are killing religion.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:09 a.m.

    re: BobP | 10:41 a.m. Feb. 24, 2010

    //2. It states that Congress shall not establish religion. It DOES NOT say one word about separation. //

    Here is where the greatness of Thomas Jefferson comes in... Check out his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

    As for sepreration, check out Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:12 a.m.

    The 3rd Reich also thought they were the holiest of holies.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:12 a.m.

    re: @cats | 10:41 a.m. Feb. 24, 2010

    Here is where the erroneous mantra of "Perception is reality" comes into play.

    As Einstein said, "Man should look for what is, not what he thinks should be."

  • @ BobP
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:14 a.m.

    The Bill of Rights is not a hierarchal document - just because something is listed before something else does not mean it is more protected.

    The fact that you would use that as an argument shows you have a very poor understanding of our Constitution and the way our government works.

  • Jon
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:18 a.m.

    The ones who accuse others of evil are probably evil themselves. Evil knows evil.

  • Great Plains Saint
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:19 a.m.

    It is nice to know that we have embraced the religion that brought you some 54 million murders during the inquisition and did not condemn Hitler in his murder of six million Jews till it was exposed that the pope blessed Hitler during the war. Is this the religion the book of Mormon warned us against.

  • Talo
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:21 a.m.

    Do we have the freedom to worship where we want? Yes

    Do we have the freedom to believe what we want? Yes

    Do we have the freedom to preach what we want? Yes

    Do we have the freedom to build our places of worship? Yes

    Do we have the freedom to speak out about our beliefs without physical and emotional abuse? Yes

    Antyime these freedoms are being infringed on, freedom of religion is being taken away.

    The threat being talked about is placing conditions on these freedoms, such as "you can preach what you want, as long as you don't preach about this" or "if you do preach about this, you no longer have this."

  • @dear Jane
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:24 a.m.

    how does my right to be from being required to engage in your religious beliefs restrict your right to practice your religion? As has been pointed out many, many times already on this thread you have the right to practice your religion how ever you want you do not have the right to force me to join in or have your religion sanctioned above all others by the government. I fully support your right to religious belief and would defend to the death your right to do so if someone showed up at your church doors and tries to shut you down, tried to fire you simply for your beliefs, refuse to serve you at a restaurant, and so on but your rights do not supersede mine or anyone else’s right.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:28 a.m.

    'To Pagan,
    If your religion encourages you to discriminate at: work, home, in life, you may want to re-consider that religion.' - 10:54 a.m.

    Mc, I hope you are not so foolish as to assume my name is my religion. You would do far better at these assumptions by first asking questions instead of leaping to conclusions.

    I am christian. I hope that dosen't offend you. And 'yes' I do think that if your religion encourages you to fire someone on someting BESIDES merit (i.e. their not 'X' religion, not 'X' orientation) you really do need to take a closer look at if you want to support 'X' religion....and the discrimination it supports.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:31 a.m.

    You have the right to practice your religion in any way you see fit...until that way infringes on the lives of others.

    If your religion does not support gay marriage, please, don't have one.

  • Yup, it's for real
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:32 a.m.

    I see lots of accusations of one side to the other, allegations of half-truths, paranoia, persecution complexes,et al. I beleive the article was about how a the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have found common ground and decided to act on it. I didn't see anything in the article of past persecutions of the LDS Church, so I dismiss those references. Nothing in the article about "freedom from religion", so that's out. I have seen posts arguing for paganism, aetheism, secularism, and homosexual marriage. I guess the article hit a sore spot and the complaints came out. Continual references to 250 million people wanting this or that, where do those numbers come from?

    Bottom line, both churches feel that religious freedom is under attack, and having read articles on it, I must agree. It's for real, it needs to be addressed, and from this article I can assure all here that neither church is going away on this.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:38 a.m.

    ...did not condemn Hitler in his murder of six million Jews till it was exposed that the pope blessed Hitler during the war.


    Don't forget the LDS churchs' 'proxy' baptisim of Hiler. Done on 12/10/93 in LA california. This offer of 'forgiveness' was done in spite of the estimated 35 million people (including the 6 million jewish) who died during World War II.

    Salt Lake Tribune 06/09/09.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:39 a.m.

    Just because others do not agree with your religion, does not mean it is being oppressed.

  • Re: Great Plains Saint
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    I agree with you, double standards are double standards. I'm pretty much done with Mormonism. It makes no sense and the history stinks. I am done with all the ridiculous confusion. The rest of you do as you please, but for me I'm done. I hope and pray somehow god will intervene and comes to save us all. I believe in Jesus Christ and God the father and will say no more.

  • BobP
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:49 a.m.

    @BobP

    Anyhting with numbers is heirarcal.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:49 a.m.

    And the hatred for anyone outside their group continues to grow.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    Religion is true to the common people, false to the wise and useful to politicians.

  • to ---- Abe Lincoln | 10:32 a.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    ["to: re --- Janet | 8:15 p.m

    it seems to me that you just hate religion. why?"]

    i don't use the word hate - that seems to be a religious term lately.

    i do not like organized religion because their main goal is to have everyone conform to their idea of right and wrong, regardless of whether the action harms others.

    you don't use logic and reasoning to determine right or wrong - you use old books written by men. you claim they are "God's words" but you don't really know. all of which is fine - but you go beyond that and try to make everyone conform to your ideas.

    the goal of religion is to have everyone conform. and that's not at all what God wants. and yet you claim it is.

  • @yup, it's for real
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:53 a.m.

    so once again how is religion under attack exactly? the bottom line is you spot off a lot but dont really say much.

  • @ Yup, it's for real
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:53 a.m.

    So, because the article does not mention a defense against its claims (freedom from religion) you are dismissing any such defense.

    You then base your conclusions on feelings.

    How about you back up your feelings with some facts - provide some solid data on this supposed attack on freedom of religion. And since the only way you will credit any defenses to those claims is if you provide them yourself, why don't you do that as well?

  • re - Yup, it's for real | 11:32
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:55 a.m.

    ["Bottom line, both churches feel that religious freedom is under attack, and having read articles on it, I must agree. It's for real, it needs to be addressed, and from this article I can assure all here that neither church is going away on this. "]

    easy to say... but explaining is more difficult. so... how are your religious freedoms being taken away? i haven't seen a legitimate response to the question yet.

  • @ BobP
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:15 p.m.

    "Anyhting with numbers is heirarcal."

    Again, you really don't understand our system of government, do you?

  • evidence please
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:19 p.m.

    Please furnish support that your religion is being taken from you.
    Thank you.

  • to: re --- Janet | 8:15 p.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 12:26 p.m.

    ""sin" is a religious term meaning "against God". use secular terms (like "it's wrong") instead of "sin" and you'll get more respect."

    secularaism itslef is religious. and what do you mean, more respect? are you admitting that you don't respect religion? it sure sounds like it.

  • nazis also believed
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:00 p.m.

    The 3rd Reich with its emphasis on ultra-nationalism also believed it had the right to dictate its religion to all.

    I see this is happening in this country under the guise of the modern American conservative movement.

  • @12:26 p.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:08 p.m.

    ho9w is secularaism religious? How do you define religion?

  • doodleberry
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:15 p.m.

    "secularaism itslef is religious...”

    If secularism is a religion then "Bald" is a hairstyle...

    If secularism is a religion then “Health” is a disease...

    If secularism is a religion then “unemployed” is a job...

    If secularism is a religion then “starvation” is a meal...

    If secularism is a religion then “clear” is a color...

  • @ @-Yup.....
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:20 p.m.

    The facts are staring you in the face, but if you chose not to look, I can't help you and no matter how many references I produce, you won't believe them. So...

    Fire up your favorite search engine, and do a search on religious discrimination. I am certain you will be rewarded with thousands of references much too numerous to be quoted here in 200 hundred words or less. When I am presented with a question or an assertion which I want more info on, that's what I do.......I DO MY OWN RESEARCH! Try it, you might like it.

  • Re: @ Cats | 10:14 a.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:23 p.m.

    "How do you know you are not the ones calling evil good and good evil?"

    Because I have more than two brain cells to rub together.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 1:52 p.m.

    " I suspect some criticism could be found somewhere from the Gay community, but it would be miniscule compared to the criticism Catholics and Mormons have received."

    If the black churches had it members donate 20 million dollars towards promoting Prop 8 and had it members donate over 80% of the manpower to organize and canvas all of California like the Mormons did, they would be just as criticized.

    Face it. Mormons WERE the face of Prop 8. They paid for it and promoted it with thousands of volunteer hours in spite of being only 2% of the population.

    That is why you are being targeted. Either be proud of your efforts and accept the criticism, or deny that the church members were so involved with the effort and fund raising. You know what the truth is.

  • re: @dear Jane | 11:24 a.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:00 p.m.

    "how does my right to be from being required to engage in your religious beliefs restrict your right to practice your religion? As has been pointed out many, many times already on this thread you have the right to practice your religion how ever you want you do not have the right to force me to join in or have your religion sanctioned above all others by the government."

    Better question is: how did you get any of that from what I said? I agree that the government does not have the right to establish religion or to force religion onto others BUT no one has the right to silence religion simply because they dont like it either. Unfotuntely that happens all the time in the zealotry to enforce the former. And those zealots are generally as oblivious as the religous ones (if not worse)

  • @ 1:20
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:08 p.m.

    "Fire up your favorite search engine, and do a search on religious discrimination. I am certain you will be rewarded with thousands of references...."

    So, I did that. Yeah - there are a lot of references. Most of them are descriptions of what religious discrimination is.

    Then, you get the ones where Muslims want time off to pray (which Christian employers oppose). And the ones where Jews want off early on Friday so they can be home before the Sabbath begins.

    If the employer would have to hire a whole new person, then the religious individual loses - otherwise, religion seems to win.

    I also found this headline: "Oregon Legislature repeals ban on religious dress in public schools."

    So, the results I am finding indicate that religion is being upheld quite nicely.

    I don't think you have any proof that religion is under attack and losing - but thanks for playing victim.

  • @ 12:26
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    "secularaism itslef is religious"

    secular |ˈsekyələr|
    adjective
    denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

    religious |riˈlijəs|
    adjective
    believing in and worshiping a superhuman controlling power or powers, esp. a personal God or gods

    The two are opposites. If you don't even have that basic understanding of the issue, how can you effectively participate in the discussion?

    Actually though, if you consider secularism to be religious, it certainly would explain the idea that religion is under attack....

  • re: Anonymous | 1:52 p.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:33 p.m.


    You said "You know what the truth is."


    As a gay man I also know what the truth is: Gay activists could not politically survive blaming Jews without being labled anti-semitic, Blacks or Latinos wihout being labeled racist, Muslims without being labled intolerant or Catholics or evangelicals because it would simply be inefficient - so the truth is: Mormosm WERE involved and notcably so; all to the convienence of gay fundamentaists who also found them to be the perfect scapegoat for their own failure and intolerance - which is why gay activists do not represent me as a gay man any more than the KKK respresents me as a white man - they merely embarrass me

  • bottom line
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:35 p.m.

    secular fundamentaism is no better than religous fundamentalism

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:40 p.m.

    TO --- re: @dear Jane | 11:24 a.m. | 2:00 p.m

    ["BUT no one has the right to silence religion simply because they dont like it either. Unfotuntely that happens all the time in the zealotry to enforce"]

    haven't seen anyone silencing religion yet. when did it happen? give an example.

  • religious freedom
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:43 p.m.

    The Puritans really escaped religious persecution, then they turned right around and attacked anyone who didn't agree with them.

    Hmmmm. Let me see, is there a lesson to be learned from history?

  • @ 1:20 (from 2:08)
    Feb. 24, 2010 2:57 p.m.

    Found another one for you:

    "Federal judge in Del. throws out suit challenging prayer at school board meetings"

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:00 p.m.

    'Those of you who defend your immoral lifestyle and criticise the Mormons and Catholics with words like 'civil liberty', think: If I have a pedophile that lives next door to me...' - 1:50 p.m.

    'The Gay community does not have the courage to...' - 1:28 p.m.

    'I can't stand the constant ignorant, bigoted speach coming from the homosexual crowd.' - 10:04 a.m.

    Moderator, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why homosexauls can be called cowards, ignorant, bigoted & comparable to pedophiles is somehow acceptable and not abusive and offensive.

    Still waiting for that 'respectable dialogue' many conservatives ask for

    but seem unable to give the gay community.

  • BoM believer from Michigan
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:02 p.m.

    Appeasment.

  • Bruce
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:12 p.m.

    The most recent case on prayer in public school is Santa Fe ISD v. Doe. The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD) is a school district in Texas between cities Houston and Galveston, allowed students to offer Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were given by an elected student chaplain.

    Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers–one Mormon, the other Catholic–objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause. They felt ostracized because they did not share the same beliefs as the majority which were evangelical Christian.

  • poor 1:20
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:12 p.m.

    so people that tell others to do the research for them selves should take their own advice. I did a search and low and behold there are many references about discrimination against Muslims and Jewish people but the most interesting one was a letter to the Obama administration and congress urging them to vote against an amendment to the employment nondiscrimination act that would have allowed headstart programs that the state pays for and are run by religious organizations to fire someone because they are not of the right religion. The amendment was brought when a state funded headstart program run by the catholics wanted to be able to fire someone that was muslim and was told that it violated her rights. So the catholics seem fine with discriminating against others religions and cry foul when not allowed to.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:15 p.m.

    Mormosm WERE involved...


    and now they don't want to be responsible for their actions.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:45 p.m.

    ' In the 1840s, about the time of the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, there were anti-Catholic riots in Boston and Philadelphia...' - 3:24 p.m.

    So, the evidence of religious discrimination in 2010 are examples from...the 1840's?

    While I admit there have been religious discrimination in the past, the constant requests for examples are from before the 1900's.

    If your examples of religious discrimination are from 170 years ago, then I don't see how that applies today.

  • @ JPL 3:38 -
    Feb. 24, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    You mention the fight that many religions have to go through when building new buildings or changing existing buildings.

    Often this is because religions are building contrary to existing zoning regulations.

    This is not an attack on religion - it is an effort to protect the environment in which individuals live.

  • K
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    The constution allows for the church to be a separate entity and allows it's faithful to practice their faith. And that means that it's influence will be felt on things voted on by the people.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    "However when people in rallies, with government positions in some cases, say "people should bomb the Mormon Temples in California", what is that other than an attack?"

    Please Jack, citation? You have stated this is a direct quote, yet I cannot find it anywhere. Source.

  • re: Anonymous | 3:15 p.m.
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:20 p.m.


    "Mormosm WERE involved...
    and now they don't want to be responsible for their actions."

    I assume you mean prop 8: I am not LDS but I dont think Mormons mind being responsible for their actions - they just mind being vilified and harrassed for daring to display political opposition to a cause; just like gays dont like being harrassed for their political views (arguments that Mormons deserve retaliation merely highlights the weak character of their critics and only serves to undermine the credibility of the cause - how can you believe in tolerance when you cant display it?)

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 3:57
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:50 p.m.

    ["On the issue of E-Harmony, which is a clear case of religious persecution. Since its founders were Christians seeking a way to facilitate committed marriages between men and women that would not end in divorce"]

    e-harmony was a public company discriminating against a group of people. you cannot do that, regardless of your religious beliefs. you should know that.

    ["they were no more violating any civil rights than does a kosher butcher that refuses to sell pork."]

    your example only works if the butcher refused to sell meat to gays but would sell it to everyone else.

    if you want to "serve the public" then you have to serve the whole public, not just those you "approve of".

  • Bill
    Feb. 24, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    The words that Jack Lambert has stated were made after Proposition 8 passed in California. The many incidents cited about LDS being attacked, bullied, pressured to resign positions simply based entirely on their religion are noted in every newpaper, news channel in the United States. These events happened all because they were LDS. Some even supported the NO on Proposition 8 and were villified. Does this make the gays more tolerant of us or less? Fact is they are quite a bit less tolerant of us than we are of them.

  • @ Bill
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    You said: "Fact is they [gays] are quite a bit less tolerant of us [Mormons] than we are of them."

    I do not recall gays and lesbians passing laws to take away the rights of Mormons to marry. The few incidents you refer to are nothing compared to what Mormons (not ALL Mormons, including me) did to gays and lesbians.

  • @ JPL - 3:57
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    E-Harmony is actually a very interesting case.

    The founder of E-Harmony never claimed religious reasons for not offering his service to homosexuals. His defense was that since his product had been developed based on observed heterosexual marriages, he could not guarantee the results for homosexual couples.

    People can claim all they want that his religious freedom was violated. It wasn't. The issue had nothing at all to do with his religious beliefs.

  • to Bill | 4:51 p.m
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    well hopefully that will teach your church to not invest millions and hundreds of hours trying to remove the rights from a group of people that were doing nothing to harm your church or your lifestyle.

    you can't bully an entire segment of the population (250 million worldwide) and not expect backlash. you realize you are outnumbered, right?

  • @to bill 4:51
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:54 p.m.

    only 250 million gays? and how many straights? somewhere around six billion i think. the only ones outnumbered here are you. pose no threat? just look at what is happening to people for speaking out against homosexuality. no rights were removed by the passage of proposition 8. it was not about rights, it was about defining a right. the same way we define the freedom of religion to not include suicidal bombing, marriage has been defined to not include two men or two women. this is not the first time marriage has been limited to certain types of relationships. it has been done before in cases like incest and polygamy. oh, by the way, what the church members combined spent on prop 8 the HRC, the world's largest gay lobbying group, spends that much on a yearly basis and they are tax-exempt as well and file their taxes just like the church. if it wrong for them to oppose prop 8, it should be ok for the church to support it. and the HRC publishes an endorsement list evrey election. if anyone deserves backlash for being political and tax exempt, it's them

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    anyone but me notice how old and out of touch these guys in the picture are?

    y'all need some new blood. but I just don't see that happening given your actions of late.

  • kenny
    Feb. 24, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    The constitution of the United States does protect the rights of all to practice a religion or choose not to.The constitution of the United States also protects the rights of an elected official to enact laws based on his/her religious beliefs.So laws will be passed/not passed based on those beliefs.If a Latter Day Saint in public office supports an issue based on his religion and the voters do not support that viewpoint then the only correct thing to do is to vote that Latter Day Saint out of office.Sounds simple enough.Here in this country we have the right to vote out any official who we do not aggree with. We try to complicate when the fact is its rather simple.

  • kenny
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    Those who feel religious freedom is at stake in this country are those who practice religion............which is not to say that all who practice religion feel it.Those who don't feel that freedoms are being denied are those who do not practice religion..........which is to say not all people who do not practice religion feel this way.
    We live in a win/lose society and at times we will strike out and win at all costs no matter what.

    Personally I think we are losing our religious freedoms.

  • @ kenny
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:07 p.m.

    "Here in this country we have the right to vote out any official who we do not aggree with."

    But then people will accuse you of violating their religious freedom...

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:25 p.m.

    re --- @to bill 4:51 | 5:54 p.m.

    ["only 250 million gays? and how many straights? somewhere around six billion i think."]

    yeah, but how many of them are bigots? not enough to keep the gays in the closet, obviously.

    ["no rights were removed by the passage of proposition 8"]

    gays could marry. prop 8 passed and then they couldn't. if that isn't removing rights, i don't know what is.

    ["marriage has been defined to not include two men or two women"]

    guess you don't get out much anymore - seems like it's got a different definition in several states.

    and then your post goes on and on about HRC, a group attempting to stop bigotry, while you praise your church which is promoting bigotry.

    can't argue with a religious person. i should know better.

    ["the only ones outnumbered here are you"]

    i know that. i'm a white heterosexual 50 yr old male, and i'm losing my majority status.

    fortunately i'm ok with that. it's too bad you religious folks are having such a hard time accepting it for yourselves...

  • @bill
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:34 p.m.

    Nice try. I asked for a QUOTE. John QUOTED someone saying that people should bomb mormon temples, and inferred that politicians in california said that as well.

    I don't want some "well it was a popular notion," or "it was well documented" I want the person who said it.

    Quit trying to pass something as fact that is clearly not.

  • @1:20 response...
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:42 p.m.

    I never claimed to be a victim, you told me that I was. Sorry, but no. At worst, I have seen distortions, half-truths and outright lies told in the name of the pro-Prop 8 crowd. Try looking at the issues with an eye toward the facts, and not the emotions that seem to dominate the discussion.

  • @@To Bill
    Feb. 24, 2010 6:59 p.m.

    I am confused. So you are saying the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) deserves backlash, but not the Mormon church. Why? Please provide one example of the HRC trying to take away the legal rights of any religion.

    The sad reality is that many Mormons have spent millions of dollars to attack gays and lesbians, and it goes far beyond Proposition 8. I remember when anti-gay Proposition 22 came around and we were asked to give money in church (for you LDS members in California, you know I am telling the truth). This has been going on a long time in many states.

    I was as homophobic as other members of the church until my brother came out. He and his partner of 10 years should have just as much of a right to marry as my wife and I. It is very unfortunate that the church has had a role in his suffering, not just the suffering caused by being denied marriage, but the suffering he endured while he attended church.

  • @cats 1:23 pm
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:02 p.m.

    wow gee thats great reasoning, I guess you got us there, thanks cats

  • @JohnPackLambert 3:52
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:39 p.m.

    WRONG

    You insinuated the CT issue was related to same-sex marriage.

    Reported in the NH register:

    "The change in governance was put forward by a group of Catholics in Fairfield County who were seeking greater lay involvement in the finances of the church in light of several recent embezzlement schemes in parishes there."

    So there. Apparently it was Catholics vs Catholics.

  • History man
    Feb. 24, 2010 7:47 p.m.

    So hold on here--where was the Catholic Church when Hitler was sending jewish families to concentration camps? Silent.. How's that for strong support of family values?

    Where was the LDS Church when the US Government sent all the japanese americans to places like Topaz to internment camps?

    The problem here--the Catholic Church and the Mormon church only support their own version of what a family is or isn't. And evidently, in the past, Jews and japanese folks didn't qualify for their verbal support.

    Instead--tacit complicity.

  • RE: History man
    Feb. 24, 2010 8:19 p.m.

    Do you want churches involved in affairs of state or not?

    You can't have it both ways.

  • Janet
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:04 p.m.

    I can't believe I'm doing this again. I have sworn off DN comments several times and will again, no doubt. I am over 60, come from a Protestant family, converted to LDS, and grew up in a predominantly Catholic town. In my teens, I got interested in Judaism. As a college professor, I have gotten to know quite well some Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist students. I am bilingual and politically moderate. I have a couple of gay friends and have had a few gay students. I listen to NPR, get my news mostly from CNN, and have listened to most of the talk-radio hosts. I support some liberal causes and some conservative causes. I consider myself an independent thinker. All I have said is that any religion that proclaims rights and wrongs is currently unpopular in our culture, and with that trend have come some terrible social consequences. If you can't see that and/or don't want to accept it, you will never understand why religious people have the concerns they do, and I'm an idiot for trying to explain it!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 24, 2010 9:46 p.m.

    Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:18 p.m.

    These comment boards would be more informative and positive is the word whine was banned. It never serves any purpose but to insult those who actually believe that the freedoms gauranteed by the Bill of Rights should exist.

  • Religion is awesome
    Feb. 24, 2010 11:23 p.m.

    It's always those who say religious freedom is not under attack who are attacking religious freedom.

    Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

    Go religion! Religion rocks! Viva religion! It makes good people better - voluntarily. No government mandate required, no judicial fiat requested.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 12:02 a.m.

    Actually, I guess the people only called for burning LDS temples, not bombing them. That is so much less drastic. I am being sarcastic with that last line.
    World Net Daily of November 5th, 2008 is the source on this issue. The Bevan source is a clear threat from a person with a government position.
    All the threats contined in that article were posted online in ways that their origin can not be traced. That such invective exists is disturbing.

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 25, 2010 12:16 a.m.

    Crazy how many people read articles from this newspaper company that dislike people of Mormon belief so badly. Way to go DN. Keep up the good work.

    Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals. Maybe private property rights are a thing of the past. Or maybe it’s okay to steal from that store because they're capitalists and make a lot of money.

    No! Sorry, it is not okay, and we must defend property rights, but what about the freedom of speech. Pornography is considered free speech, but I suppose they do pay taxes.

    I called people during the Proposition 8 campaign to encourage people to be informed of the magnitude of the election. It was not an election that banned gay marriage. NO! It was an election that established the traditional moral of marriage. It expressed the desire of the majority to hold up that most holly of unions between a man and a woman.

    It discouraged me to see the upheaval around my faith's sacred temples in response to that election, but it was within their rights and showed the madness of their movement.

    Would I support it again? Yes! Yes! And Yes!!!

  • Pagan
    Feb. 25, 2010 6:41 a.m.

    'The many incidents cited about LDS being attacked, bullied, pressured to resign positions simply based entirely on their religion are noted in every newpaper, news channel in the United States.' - 4:51 p.m.

    And yet only one has been sited on these threads. With, what, 3 requested for examples given?

    Oh, and that source, from John Pack Lambert cannot be verified as from the gay community. Just from some people who's origins cannot be traced.

    Do not think you are oppressed for trying to remove rights from a minority.

    'Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals.' - 12:16 a.m.

    No.

    RexidaWyo, religion is being called into question when they very much TAKE AWAY someone else's right to marry. A person who never claimed to subscribe to your morality.

    'It was not an election that banned gay marriage. NO!'

    YES! Yes it was. In CA, before Prop 8, you could very well have a gay marriage. This is a fact. 18,000 gay marriages support this claim. Legal before Prop 8. Not legal after Prop 8.

    Your claim is a lie.

    Will I protest again when more of my rights are removed?

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 7:02 a.m.

    Cardinal touts religious freedom...




    while at the same time working to remove rights from minoirties.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 8:37 a.m.

    To Pagan,
    To began with, you ignore the fact that many people look to Prop 8 as restoring the law brought about by Prop 22 and see the actions of the California Supreme Court as the most egregious form of judicial activism.
    Secondly, the whole rheotic of legality in the same-gender marriage issue is a smoke-in-mirrors tactic.
    It is not a question of legality, it is a question of state endorsement. The state recognizes marriage between a man and a woman to seek to place child rearing in this context. There is really no state interest in recognizing the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It is not a question of does the state have a good reason to not recognize it, it is, does the state have a reason to recognize it. Since there is no true benefit to the state from recognizing it, not granting it the appelation of marriage is totally reasonable.
    You can disagree with it as public policy, but it has a good logic behind it so to claim it violates some principal of the US constitution is false.

  • Laramie
    Feb. 25, 2010 8:52 a.m.

    To- JPL, Than old buddy, QUIT WHINNING!!!!

    People need to learn how to ask for forgiveness of others they have offended.

  • to John PL
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    "World Net Daily"

    You seriously need to screen your sources more carefully.

    What is your next source? Something from the onion?

  • Pagan
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    John,

    Whether you disagree with the CA supreme court or not, gay marriage was legal in CA. This is not opinion but fact.

    As such, Prop 8 removed a law, correct? It was legal before and not it is not.

    The issue of man and woman marriage to support child rearing is a dream. As 50% of traditional marriage ends in divorce and the CDC reported that 40% of all children raised in the US are in a single-parent household.

    Also, children is not a requirement for marriage to begin with. If that is so, please show me.

    If you choose to ignore the benefits of gay marriage, I cannot force you.

    However, you ignore the economic benefits Iowa enjoys. Or the funds from the 18k marriages CA desperately needs.

    18,000 x $75 marriage certificate (estimate) = $1,350,000

    Not to mention the long-term benefits of gay marriage to the gay American citizens in question.

    Also the premise of 'right to pursuit of happiness' in this country comes into play. As any straight person in America can choose their partner. However Prop 8 has denied that to gay Americans. As gay marriage, very much existed before it.

  • to John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:17 a.m.

    The fact of the matter is, the Yes on 8 campaign DID remove a legal right from a particular class of people, and did so with animus towards that group, as their campaign obviously demonstrated, for example "The Gathering Storm" commercial, among others.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:29 a.m.

    I always wonder how people can tout the benifits of marriage, emotional, financial, physical support, etc. And yet, in the same breath say that those benifits do not EXIST towards gay marriage.
    It simply is not true. If the benifits of marriage exist for one, it would exist for the other. As both are based on the same model. Two people, commited to each other.
    Not anyone else.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:40 a.m.

    In the Prop 8 trail it has been pointed out the gay community is a 'politically vulnerable minority'. And as such are at the mercy of the majority. As the poster at 9:17 points out.
    This is why we live in America. So everyone's rights are protected. Not just the majority.
    I would instead call a majority who wishes to impose it's will on those fewer in numbers a tyranny.

  • re --- Janet | 9:04 p.m
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    ["All I have said is that any religion that proclaims rights and wrongs is currently unpopular in our culture, and with that trend have come some terrible social consequences."]

    what "terrible social consequences"? please elaborate, as I don't see any.

    All I see is a bunch of overzealous religious people trying to force their idea of morality onto the general public.

    if they said "this is wrong because it harms xyz", then that would be fine. But instead, their rationale is that an old book says it is wrong, or they were brought up that way, even though there is no logical rationale behind it. Which again is fine, but when they try to make everyone comply with it, by flooding the general public with half-truths and scare tactics to pass laws, that is simply wrong.

    ["If you can't see that and/or don't want to accept it, you will never understand why religious people have the concerns they do, and I'm an idiot for trying to explain it!"]

    unfortunately, we say the same to you - if you cannot see that it is wrong to force people to comply with your religious beliefs.

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 11:18
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:54 a.m.

    ["These comment boards would be more informative and positive if the word whine was banned. It never serves any purpose but to insult those who actually believe that the freedoms gauranteed by the Bill of Rights should exist"]

    so... you suggest banning words, and then you talk about the freedoms of the bill of rights.....

    ??? am I the only one that sees a problem with that? another example of "do as I say, not as I do".

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:02 a.m.

    re -- Religion is awesome | 11:23 p.m

    ["It's always those who say religious freedom is not under attack who are attacking religious freedom"]

    ok. another zealot. fine. let's dance.

    explain how you have lost ANY religious freedom. and lets discuss the removal of your right to marry. oh - you can still get married? well, aren't you special...

    ["Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion"]

    actually, it does. it's called "pursuit of happiness" and if your excessive illogical moral code makes me unhappy, I don't have to follow it. that's "freedom from religion"..

    ["Go religion! Religion rocks! Viva religion! It makes good people better - voluntarily. No government mandate required, no judicial fiat requested."]

    unfortunately, you religious folk continue to try to force your illogical morals onto everyone, so for you to say "no gov't mandate required" is ridiculous. you are spending millions to GET gov't mandates on rules you read in a book.

    and religion makes good people better.... at what? and at what cost?

    you live your sheepish life, and let the rest of us live ours as free agents.

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 12:02
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:06 a.m.

    ["All the threats contined in that article were posted online in ways that their origin can not be traced. That such invective exists is disturbing"]

    and a guy flew a plane into IRS headquarters in Texas. so all tax protesters are now terrorists, right?

    and some mormons killed a gay guy. so now all mormons are murderers, right?

    use some logic. there are always some crazies in any movement or cult. that does not mean they all are, and yet the anti-gay crowd continually paints all gays as terrorists.

    do gays go around saying that about mormons? no.

  • @ JPL
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:06 a.m.

    Marriage is not about raising children - it is about inheritance rights.

    And even if marriage were about raising children, that is not a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage as same-sex couples are just as likely and capable of having children as opposite-sex couples.

    You state, "There is really no state interest in recognizing the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It is not a question of does the state have a good reason to not recognize it, it is, does the state have a reason to recognize it. Since there is no true benefit to the state from recognizing it, not granting it the appelation of marriage is totally reasonable."

    You are wrong. Every reason that exists for recognizing opposite-sex marriage exists for recognizing same-sex marriage. With every reason to recognize it, and no reason not to recognize it, it is an injustice for some families to be given legal protections that are denied to other families.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    If marriage is about children, then why is the octo-mom, 16 kids and counting, not married?
    Are your grandparents no longer married then? Since they cannot have children anymore?

  • to -- RexidaWyo | 12:16 a.m.
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    ["Crazy how many people read articles from this newspaper company that dislike people of Mormon belief so badly."]

    we don't dislike people of the mormon belief. we dislike people that try to force their morals onto others, when the action (gay marriage) harms NO ONE and is GOOD for families.

    ["Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals."]

    not true. religions are going into disfavor because they continually attempt to force their IDEA of traditional morals onto everyone, even those of a different belief.

    religions problem is that the "morals" you seek to enforce come from your religion!! they are NOT based on logic or impact to others. they are simply... "God says it is wrong" even though that is just your belief.

    ["It was not an election that banned gay marriage. NO! It was an election that established the traditional moral of marriage"]

    traditional? yeah, for a little time in the 50s. did you know gay marriage was performed in ancient Egypt and Greece? did you know "marriage" was once the father selling his daughter?

    you pick your definition because of your religion, your books, and your upbringing. but there is NO logical reason gays shouldn't marry.

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 8:37
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:21 a.m.

    ["The state recognizes marriage between a man and a woman to seek to place child rearing in this context."]

    what? that is your OPINION. show me where it says that in prior law. you are inventing things.

    ["There is really no state interest in recognizing the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman"]

    of course there is. happy people make better citizens. it is in the state's best interest to treat everyone equally and promote the family. and a gay family is as much a family as a non-gay family.

    ["You can disagree with it as public policy, but it has a good logic behind it"]

    i don't see any logic in what you stated. all I see is opinion.

    how does gay marriage HURT your family. I see where gay marriage helps gay families.

    so you are not "injured" and gay families are better off. therefore there is no reason for the state to prevent it.

    ["it is a question of state endorsement"]

    it is a question of treating all citizens equally. and yes, the state should endorse equal rights.

  • Serious Question
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    Some posters have commented on the Constitution protecting freedom "of" religion but not freedom "from" religion.

    Now, keeping in mind that neither phrase actually appears any where in the Constitution, here is my question:

    How can you have freedom "of" religion if you do not also have freedom "from" religion? In other words, if you are not free "from" my religion, how can you be free to practice your religion?

    The LDS religion considers drinking alcohol a sin. The Catholic religion considers wine an integral part of its sacrament. If LDS individuals were able to ban the sale of wine, Catholic individuals could not fully practice their religion. Catholics must be free "from" the Mormon faith in order to practice their faith.

    Some religions support same-sex marriage, without freedom "from" those who are opposed, they cannot do this. Likewise, freedom "from" religion protects those who do not believe in same-sex marriage from those who do.

    If you do not believe that religious freedom includes freedom "from" religion, please explain to me how you can fully practice your religion if you are not free "from" other religions.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:32 a.m.

    How is denying gay marriage but eating shell fish moral?

  • @JohnPackLambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:44 a.m.

    I'm surprised you would use such a dubious source as WND. WND has a poor record of truth and accuracy. It has been sued and found at fault by Clark Jones, a Gore supporter. There are numerous examples of its shoddy record. Perhaps what they reported regarding burning the temple is accurate, but at a minimum WND should not be relied on as a sole or primary source, unless you believe The Enquirer is a worthy source.

    Gay couples are having and adopting children in many states. I would argue that States do have an interest in allowing these parents a right to marry.

  • Okay -
    Feb. 25, 2010 10:52 a.m.

    RexidaWyo says, "Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals."

    Sharia law holds that it is a sin for a woman to have sex outside of marriage. That is a nice traditional moral value, right?

    Well, the law goes on to state that the punishment for this sin is being stoned to death.

    This is a traditional moral law based on religious teachings.

    Do you support this?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 11:12 a.m.

    Picking and choosing what is traditional does not mean you have some vauge ability to judge others.

    Eat shellfish? You shouldn't quote the bible then.
    Had sex outside of marriage? You shouldn't quote the bible.
    Don't own a slave? You shouldn't quote the bible.

    The bible has stances on all this, yet many choose to ignore those words and only choose what to accept as its words.

    Picking and choosing from the bible means you only want to hear what sounds good to YOU from the bible.

    I do not think a 2,000 year old book should dictate my life in 2010.

    Especially if I never made claim to follow the teachings of said book.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 11:19 a.m.

    Your faith is fine, when you keep in mind it is yours. When you try to dictate another person's life, based on very much YOUR faith, you start to change another persons life based on what you FEEL.

    Not what is.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 12:13 p.m.

    re: Serious Question | 10:22 a.m. Feb. 25, 2010

    //How can you have freedom "of" religion if you do not also have freedom "from" religion? In other words, if you are not free "from" my religion, how can you be free to practice your religion?//

    That is a very good point. It seems some want to dictate/enforce their morality but can't handle a simple concept like tolerance... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Re to OKay- RexidaWyo
    Feb. 25, 2010 1:20 p.m.

    Okay - | 10:52 a.m.

    Of course I object to such a practice. I posted traditional morals, not theocratic law. You may be forgetting that our ancestor left the old world to escape theocratic persecution because as is stated by many bloggers it is forced on those who don't share the same belief.

    However, our election process must be offensive to you because as you have noticed "Mormons" are a very small group compared to the overall populace. Voters were encouraged to vote their will and they did.

    There were no guns. There were no great rallies. There was only an organized effective process that encouraged voters to get out and vote. Yes there was additional information, but no one was forced to vote against their moral belief. Contrary to the mob like rallies that occurred after the results were counted.

    I do not object to "homosexuals" having the same hospital, insurance, and other rights or "privileges" that "heterosexual" couples have. I do however object to changing the definition of marriage to accept your union.

    Call it whatever you may but don't call it marriage and don't force its unnatural existence on my children.

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 25, 2010 1:48 p.m.

    to -- RexidaWyo | 12:16 a.m.

    And "religions problem is that the "morals" you seek to enforce come from your religion!! they are NOT based on logic."

    Explain this logic "(gay marriage)... is GOOD for families?"

    Children are for the most part products of their environment. Whether you believe in the creation as described in scripture or not you must admit that none of us would be here if it weren't for a Man and a Woman.

    Science with its great advancements and discoveries is the only power besides that of our original creation that spurs human life. Same sex couples can't do it within their sexual orientation therefore nature itself makes you unequal.

    I do not condemn any who are by choice "same sex" in sexual orientation. We as people condemn ourselves. According to my beliefs, my thoughts, words, and deeds will eventually condemn me. I do believe in a Savior who wants me to become better. Not better than my neighbor, but better than the carnal, sensual, and devilish part of me that naturally exists.

    In my writing of these blogs I hope that I have not offended others. If I have, I apologize.

  • to serious question
    Feb. 25, 2010 2:40 p.m.

    Excellent point. Utah's policy concerning alcohol consumption and the sale thereof, including recent modifications to it, often has an economical implication, not a moral one.

  • to: anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 2:52 p.m.

    You cannot have it both ways. You claim some knowledge of the Bible, yet you claim not to beleive in it. You want to use passages of it, yet you refuse to use the rest of it to understand what, when, and why. You make an attempt to use what you want to justify your lack of use of it... no logic here.

    In baseball parlance: A swing and a miss.

  • Jeff
    Feb. 25, 2010 4:35 p.m.

    I have argued before, and I still believe it, that my religion makes me more tolerant of others, including homosexuals. Because of my religion, I know and understand other peoples' thinking better; I am more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt; I understand better the place of religion in culture and vice versa.

    My religion teaches me to be intolerant of certain behaviors, that is true, but it tries very hard to get me to understand others and forgive them if necessary while recognizing that their actions may be bad.

    As a supporter of Proposition 8, I have been urged to give up my religion; I've seen my religion mocked in television commercials; I've been called a liar and a hater (usually spelled "h8er"); I've seen my sacred temples desecrated; I've had friends fired from their jobs or forced into resignation; I've recieved hate mail; I've had my name posted on a web site that urged people to put pressure on me to change; I've seen a public school curriculum that openly endorses homosexuality.

    Should I give up my religion so that I can be like those others?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 4:47 p.m.

    to -- Re to OKay- RexidaWyo | 1:20 p.m

    ["Call it whatever you may but don't call it marriage and don't force its unnatural existence on my children"]

    no one is forcing anything on your children. either you bring them up to adhere to your moral code or you don't

    and since you like to pray, I suggest you do so, just in case one of your children is one of the 4% of people that ARE gay. because gay marriage won't make your child gay. your God does that. and has done so since the beginning of time...

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 25, 2010 4:48 p.m.

    to -- Re to OKay- RexidaWyo | 1:20 p.m

    ["Call it whatever you may but don't call it marriage and don't force its unnatural existence on my children"]

    no one is forcing anything on your children. either you bring them up to adhere to your moral code or you don't

    and since you like to pray, I suggest you do so, just in case one of your children is one of the 4% of people that ARE gay. because gay marriage won't make your child gay. God does that. and has done so since the beginning of time...

  • realitycheck
    Feb. 25, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    to "Jeff | 4:35 p.m"

    you cannot take away the rights of an entire segment of the population, and continually demean them, and expect no backlash.

    so some of your friends got fired. and you got hate mail... wow. big deal.

    what if they made it so you couldn't ever get married? isn't that worse?

    you can have any religious beliefs you want. that does not give you the right to legislate your brand of morality onto people that do not share your faith or beliefs.

    but that is exactly what you did. and now you complain about the consequences?

  • Vince
    Feb. 25, 2010 5:39 p.m.


    Children do not become gay by exposure to the talk of gay/same sex marriage anymore than gay children become straight by exposure to heterosexual marriage.

  • RE: realitycheck
    Feb. 25, 2010 6:05 p.m.

    Actually if I can convince majority to go along with me, I can legislate morality.

    That's how this system, this constitutional republic works.

    EVERY LAW has an underpining of morality.


    the gays have FAILED, over and over again to convince the majority to vote there way,

    religious have the right to vote for laws they want,

    so long they are not unconstitutioninal.


  • pragmatist
    Feb. 25, 2010 7:50 p.m.

    I have read more than enough comments here to last a long long time. What marriage law should be about is to protect children born of a union. Whether born in or out of marriage every child deserves the right to know who both their parents are, and to demand support from both parents. Laws concerning this should be what are important and with DNA testing this should be possible. If we need more laws concerning marriage, we need laws about the rights of children rather than worrying about same sex marriage, etc.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 8:13 p.m.

    The hate for sources that dare to report what actually goes on is quite disturbing. Next will people question that Bash Back issued the threat of violence in which they said the LDS Church could either disolve wilfully or be destroyed?
    All people have equal rights to marry in California and the other 30 states that have pro-man/woman marriage provisions in the state constitution. The measure allows me to marry the EXACT SAME set of people as any homosexual male can. The laws do not distinguish based on sexual orientation, so the alnalogy to inter-racial marriage is FALSE.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 8:17 p.m.

    To the 9:40 commentator,
    The "gay community" is SO politically vulnerable that both the governor and the attorney general of California have REFUSED to fulfill their legal duty to uphold the law, and a coalition of private individuals had to form to protect the state constitution.
    If the ability to have politicians not perform their regular duties and protect the law is an eample of "political powerlessness" than NO group has political power.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 8:56 p.m.

    To the 9:54 commentator,
    Discussion boards are privately owned entites. The owner of the board has the right to impose whatever rules they want, as we have seen at times when all comments have been shut down when too high a number of the recieved comments were threats of violence.
    The First Admendment only regulates the actions of the government. In fact, since it also includes the freedom of the press, it clearly and explicitly states that news organizations (which includes discussion boards operated by newspapers like this one) can impose ANY rules they want on discussion.
    Lastly, there are already banned words. That is the only way to explain that certain words never appear in any post.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:02 p.m.

    To the 12:02 commentor,
    What Mormons where killed a "gay" guy? Until you site what specific incident you speak of that has little meaning.
    Beyound this, you are putting words into my mouth. I posted the quote from Bevan, and it is clearly threatening.
    I said that such hate exists is disturbing. I also think it is not a good think that people attack the IRS, abortion clinics, pro-life marchers and many other things.
    It is true that the Anit-Defamation League which totally opposed Prop 8 did denounce this behavior of anti-8 elements.
    However, it is also true that when Francis Cardinal George calls this behavior what it truly is, or when Elder Dallin H. Oaks calls it out for the attempt to intimadate people out of exercising their civil right to contribute to campaigns, they are denounced with unrestrained vitriol. People should no more fear they are going to have their property damaged for donating money to a political campaign than they should fear that they will have their property damaged for voting a certain way in an election.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:16 p.m.

    For the hundredth time, how is ANYONE trying to dictate another person's life.
    Can a homosexual person in California or anyone other state legally live in the same residence as their same gender partner, and so on? Yes. Can I marry a gay man? No. Can a gay man marry a gay man? No. On the other hand under the old Virginia law, it would be, can I marry a white woman? Yes (since I am less than 1/16th Native American, possibly as high as 1/64th though), could my friend Bruce from Curacao have married a white women (as he actually did, but in the 21st century) if he had lived in Virginia in 1960, No.
    So in one case, the people who claim discrimination can marry the same set of people as those who they claim are recipients of "different" treatment, while in the other case the two groups can marry different people.

  • @JohnPackLambert
    Feb. 25, 2010 9:19 p.m.

    What are you talking about? Gov. and Attorney General refusing to fulfill their legal duty?

    The CA Supreme Court, considered to be a Conservative court, overturned Prop 22. Then Prop 8 was put on the ballot to change the State Constitution.

    DN does censor posts. I've had many posts censored which were not in anyway abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative or vulgar.

  • Plain as day
    Feb. 26, 2010 3:18 a.m.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    People read more into this than what is written. There is no mention of a separation of Church and State. Quite the contrary, the government is obligated to protect religious freedom and to refrain from officially (be decree of law), recognizing any particular religion. Separation of Church and state is a myth invented by progressives. It is certainly not in the language of the first Amendment.

    Religons have the right to participate in public debates and the goverment has not right to exclude them.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 26, 2010 7:07 a.m.

    'I've seen my sacred temples desecrated; I've had friends fired from their jobs or forced into resignation; I've recieved hate mail; I've had my name posted on a web site that urged people to put pressure on me to change; I've seen a public school curriculum that openly endorses homosexuality.' - 4:35 p.m.

    Jeff, that's a long list. Can you prove any of these happened? Or should we take your word for it?

    I have been discharged from the Army. March, 3 1999.
    I have been evicted from my home. 02/03/01
    I've had my friends eye socket cracked because of who he dates. David Bell and Dan Fair. 06/03/08
    I've been compared to a pedophile on these threads. Almost daily.
    And I take no issue with future generations knowing that heterosexuals exist. Daily.

    I'm not trying to play the 'bigger victim' game, like some do but I think your comparisons are weak.

    The last factual example of religious discrimination on this thread given was in 1840. 170 years ago.

    Get off that cross, someone needs the wood.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 8:47 a.m.

    JPL, you are ignoring a accurate comparison.

    If your a straight male, can you marry a woman?
    Yes.
    Your statement of the facts ignores a person's ability to choose a spouse.
    If you are a gay man, thereby acknowledging that you would not WANT to be sexually active with a woman, can you marry said straight woman you are not attracted to?
    Yes.
    Now, same logic, not plain statement of fact, applied to you.
    If you are a straight man, thereby acknowledging that you would not WANT to be sexually active with a man, can you marry said gay man that you are not attracted to?
    No.

    It's not 'a gay man can marry a woman'. That is foolish as a gay man would not want to ruin her life. (And neither, should you encourage.) But rather does a gay person have the option to marry a person they would like to?
    No.

    While a straight man, JPL, I'm guessing, can.

    So, one person can marry a person of their choice, but the other cannot.

    And you call this fair?

  • To Pagan
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:00 a.m.

    Please know that there are many (including active LDS) who completely support you. It's going to be a long, difficult battle, but eventually you will be accepted as the human being you are, with the civil rights you deserve! God Speed.

  • Jeff
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:18 a.m.

    @ Pagan:

    "sacred temples desecrated": Los Angeles, four times in November 2008, including an apparent anthrax attack

    "I've had friends fired from their jobs or forced into resignation": Scott Eckern, famously in 2008 from California Music Theater

    I've recieved hate mail: autumn 2008, addressed anonymously from the San Francisco Bay area

    I've had my name posted on a web site that urged people to put pressure on me to change: You'll have to look me up on your own; I won't reveal my identity

    I've seen a public school curriculum that openly endorses homosexuality: Los Angeles Unified School District has had a curriculum endorsing homosexuality since at least 1992. In an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times this week, there was a call for more pointed teaching of the biological compulsion of homosexuality in order to prepare school children to accept it.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:29 a.m.

    'Please know that there are many (including active LDS) who completely support you.' - 9:00 a.m.

    The back of the bus is not good enough for any of us.

    Thank you.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:36 a.m.

    What Mormons where killed a "gay" guy?


    John, Russell Arthur Henderson. He killed a homosexual in Laramie, Wyoming. October 7, 1998. You might have heard of him, Mathew Sheppard.
    Russell Henderson was LDS at the time. He has since been excemunicated. I do not say this to encourage violence against the LDS church. Violence is not the answer to violence. Sheppard's mother is evidence of that trying to get hate crime to cover orientation.
    I use this as an example that sometimes hate is still encouraged in some places.
    Let's work together to makes sure it is not encouraged here.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:54 a.m.

    Jeff,

    Thanks for providing date and time. Now, since most of these are from 2 years ago, can you give any idea as to why it happened?

    While I agree, everyone should have the right to express their opinions, do you honestly think that everyone should simply agree to them because they are from any particular type of religion?

    Also, I have heard of the 'apparent anthrax attack'. Wasn't that flour?

    So, we both have examples of job discrimination.
    I think being compared to a pedophile counts as hate mail.
    BYU did aversion therapy studies to attempt a change people's orientation. Or 'change'.
    The gay community has no temples to speak of. Just marriage rights to revoke.
    Also, some public schools teach sex ed. Which means they teach out heterosexuals, correct?

    When was a friend of yours attacked? Did they require hospitalization? Were any charges pressed?

    David Bell and Dan fair did. And no charges to date.

    Your comparisons are better but there is still a gap of 168 years you ignore.

    Also, I do not get mad at learning about heterosexuals like you do about homosexuals.

  • mark
    Feb. 26, 2010 10:31 a.m.

    Hey Utah how's that tourism going?
    How's your deficit going?
    How's your foreclosures and unemployment going?
    How's the scaled down "purer" Sundance Festival going?

    The concerned Gays and Lesbians of America ask, because we care and love you....mean it.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 10:48 a.m.

    I find it sad when people tout the 'traditional' marriage and yet the Octo-mom can have 16 kids and no husband.
    Heck, she's so non-conformive, she dosen't even need to have a job.

  • Jeff
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:20 a.m.

    @ Pagan: Is this a contest to see who was the most persecuted? I concede that homosexuals have been terribly treated throughout history. You could equally concede that Mormons have been terribly treated.

    The issue of the article is that religion is under particular attack right now. I agree that that is so. If the article had been about violent attacks on homosexuals (Laramie has been referenced above), then I would agree that the attackers should be punished.

    A side issue that has arisen is the question of whether or not religions deserve to be attacked because of their support for Proposition 8 in California. While I concede that the political arena involves figurative battles, I do not think that political disagreements should allow attacks on individuals or property.

    Homosexuals who support same-gender marriage insist that they will eventually win the political battle, and they cite the progress they are making propagandizing the young as evidence that that will happen. While I will fight it with all legal and political means I possess; if it ever happened, I would oppose attacking people, desecrating their homes, and terrorizing them.

  • hello (knock, knock)
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:21 a.m.

    Is Religion Oppressed??? YES!!! IT IS!!! I have no problem saying so, and I thank God every day that it is!


    Fact is, Religion is one of those entities (much like government) that have to be on very short leash... Can you imagine where we would be if the bible-thumpers had control of this country??? Can you say Iran?

  • Re:Mark
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:23 a.m.

    "Hey Utah how's that tourism going?
    How's your deficit going?
    How's your foreclosures and unemployment going?
    How's the scaled down "purer" Sundance Festival going?

    The concerned Gays and Lesbians of America ask, because we care and love you....mean it. "


    Actually they are doing pretty well they have an unemployment rate of 6.3% as compared to a National average of 10.%: UTAH’S EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: NOVEMBER 2009. But thanks for asking.

  • Pagan
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:32 a.m.

    '...I would oppose attacking people, desecrating their homes, and terrorizing them.' - 11:20 a.m.

    Jeff, I am glad that we can agree on this.

    I also, would never advocate violence to get a message across. We have examples of human history to the contrary.

    Let us agree to disagree on this topic then.

    You can agree to dislike gay marriage and fight with with legal and politcal means. And I will agree to fight in support of it with any and all legal and political means.

    But let us never resort to violence.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:35 a.m.

    to --- RE: realitycheck | 6:05 p.m

    ["Actually if I can convince majority to go along with me, I can legislate morality. That's how this system, this constitutional republic works."]

    not true. the majority cannot make unconstitutional laws - ie - laws that teat different segments of the population differently than any other segment. The majority cannot force the minority. Othewise we might still have slavery.


    ["EVERY LAW has an underpining of morality."]

    what is the morality or a speed limit? your statement is blatantly false.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:37 a.m.

    @Re:Mark

    Don't forget you are number one in housing foreclosures, having a job and living under a bridge...pity.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:38 a.m.

    Actually they are doing pretty well they have an unemployment rate of 6.3% as compared to a National average of 10.%: UTAH’S EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: NOVEMBER 2009. But thanks for asking.

    That's all well and good. However, after Prop 8 I will never give Utah my money now.
    And that's my legal right. Not my opression Utah's faith.

  • re -- pragmatist | 7:50 p.m
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:39 a.m.

    ["What marriage law should be about is to protect children born of a union."]

    nice (but unreasonable) thought, but you leave out huge segments of the population - older people, sterile people, etc.

    ["Whether born in or out of marriage every child deserves the right to know who both their parents are, and to demand support from both parents."]

    and if the parents are deceased? and are you now banning invitro fertilisation?

    ["If we need more laws concerning marriage, we need laws about the rights of children "]

    there ae TONS of laws concerniong the rights of children. and gay marriage preserves the rights of the children being raised by gay couples. so that is where laws are needed.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:43 a.m.

    "Actually if I can convince majority to go along with me, I can legislate morality. That's how this system, this constitutional republic works."


    It's also called Tyranny.

  • re -- Jeff | 11:20 a.m
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    ["Homosexuals who support same-gender marriage insist that they will eventually win the political battle, and they cite the progress they are making propagandizing the young as evidence that that will happen."]

    "propagandizing"? Jeff - you need to get out more. It's not that the youth are being propogandized. It is that gay people are no longer hiding. So every teenager and young adult knows gay people, and understands they are just like you and me.

    the reason you will not win your war on gays is that all the youth of america now has gay friends and cannot understand what the big deal is.

    they also know that it is not contagious and will not rub off on them! if they are straight, they will not suddenly become gay by having gay friends.

    do you have ANY idea how many teenagers know or have friends that are gay, and their parents say gays are bad, but the teenagers can plainly see that they are not?

    more and more people cannot even understand what you are making such a big deal about. inevitably gays will have full rights to marry, DADT will go away, etc. they are just regular people.

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 9:16
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:54 a.m.

    ["For the hundredth time, how is ANYONE trying to dictate another person's life."]

    you are trying to force gay people to either be single forever or to marry someone they don't want to marry, and you are denying ta family to those children being raised by gay couples.

    if you STILL don't see that, after all these posts, then we cannot help you. You'll just have to continue living in your little world of denial.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 26, 2010 1:41 p.m.

    Cutting out your twelfth grade, means your youths will flee your state a year EARLIER.

  • RexidaWyo-ME
    Feb. 26, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    People look at the years when States actually enacted laws and/or constitutional amendments that established marriage between a man and a woman. You will notice that it was when the gay activist movement began. Before this time it was to end plural marriage.

    Government enacted a law to end plural marriage because it harmed who? I am glad that there are laws that prohibit such a practice. Now states need to enforce those laws.

    Back to the gay movement. Religion began to speak up in order to protect children. From what? You say. From what nature itself prohibits.

    You claim to be gay because you were born that way. Then by nature you are unequal and as in all diseases that prohibit conception your genes are removed from the pool which there by removes you from not only genetic transfer but by nature likewise influence.

    You want what nature thus prohibits. Thus we are in our current dilemma.

    Well, God made me this way. Then Jesus is not your Savior/God because his Apostles (Paul NT) condemns it with a number of other condemnable sins.

    Christ said "go thy way and sin no more."

    Choice! What say ye?

  • Vince
    Feb. 26, 2010 6:36 p.m.

    Re: Rexida

    I don't believe you have read the LDS literature on the topic of gays.

    No disrespect, but if you had, you would know that the literature teaches that indeed being gay is not a choice.

    Moreover, the Church has come out plainly speaking and made remarks to the effect that the Church does not take a stand as to what causes people to be gay.

    But say you, yes, the behavior is a different matter, granted.

    The argument that you are making that "nature prohibits" I suppose gays from procreating. I make the following argument - adoption has existed ever since forever. The role of non bio parents has been set in different societies at different times for the very purpose of raising children, to those who want to raise them.

    The counter argument to not being gay is that gay people were what, born straight and somehow they chose to go against their nature and experiment?

    Gay people do not, trust me, wake up one day, and think, hmmmm - I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I am really quite bored, I think I will be go against my nature and be gay.

  • Vince
    Feb. 26, 2010 6:44 p.m.

    Rexida (continue)

    I would also find issue with the comment "Religion begain to speak up in order to protect children."

    There are a lot more children in needs of adoption than the system is able to deliver to two heterosexual parents. Moreover, it bypasses the question that gay parents are somewhat incompetent.

    Gay parents are no more competent or incompetent than heterosexual parents and children do not need to be saved from them.

    Good parents are good parents because they are just that - good parents.

    Need proof? I bet when people make the allegation that "children need to be protected" they do not know gay functional households with children. If they did, they would speak with a degree of background and certainty. Otherwise, they are being phobic, irrational, and making believe they want to protect their own children from a ghost of their own imagination.

    The gay parents are raising children and are doing just fine or just as fine and anyone else's children are intact.

    Scripturally, the quote you read attributed to Christ "to thy way and sin no more" is speaking to someone caught in adultery. The Savior was not chastising an "unrepentant gay sinner."

  • RE: Anonymous | 9:36 a.m
    Feb. 26, 2010 6:47 p.m.

    Clearly you do NOT know the sheppard case,

    if did you would not use it,

    sheppard was NOT murdered because he was gay.

  • RE: Anonymous | 11:43 a.m.
    Feb. 26, 2010 6:52 p.m.

    NO, it is not tyranny.


    If the minority had NO oppottunity to speak up an try to convince others to vote their way, and ameliorate or change the majorty postion, then it would be tyranmy,

    but that is not the case.


    but communites and states are allowed yo make the laws they want, as long they do not violate the federal constitution,

    and you are free live where you want,

    in communites that share your values and morals,

    and so do conservative and religous people,

    and others.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 8:28 p.m.

    To the 9:19 commenator,
    What I am talking about in the "governor and attorney general not fulfilling their legal duty" is that in the case of Perry v Schwarzenegger the lead attorney for the defense should be the Attorney General of California, since it is an admendment to the California Constitution that is being challenged, and officially it is the governor of California who is the lead figure in the defense.
    In actually practice the main lawyers have been Andrew Pugno who was previosly the counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, with various lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund also aiding. So the question is, why is Brown shirking his legal duty to defend the California State Constitution.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 8:41 p.m.

    To the 9:36 commentor,
    Mr. Henderson's name may have been on the Church records, but he and his accomplice were both drug dealers AND users, so they were clearly not even close to living by the standards of the Church.
    Anyway, the death of Shepherd was very closely connected to issues of drugs, Shepherd had appearently purchased drugs from one of his killers, who was coming down off meth, and it is alleged by some that one of the killers was a bi-sexual who had previously had sexual relations with men. So the claim that this was a "hate crime" is not supported by the actual evidence, and the attempt to connect the perpetrators to the LDS faith is total hogwash.
    Do you also go around accusing Jews of crimes as a whole because Madoff is a Jew?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 8:50 p.m.

    In late 2004 20/20 did a piece on the Shepherd murder. This is probably the most thorough and respectable reassesment of the question of whether the killing was actually a "hate crime", but it is not the only one.

  • mark
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:10 p.m.

    20/20 piece was a rotten lying piece of rivisionist History.
    The facts are clear Matthew was driven to a remote location pistol whipped, beaten, and kicked, and left to die of exposure on a Laramie fence. THIS was no drug deal, this was no consensual sex, this was a brutal HATE CRIME. The level of over the top violence and cruelty is one hallmark of a Hate Crime.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:18 p.m.

    Utah is NOT number one in housing foreclosures. That is a position held by Nevada. Also, the number of foreclosed houses in Detroit probably rivals the number in the entire state of Utah.
    Anyway, considering the number of people who have walker away from their home, getting a new mortgage on a much cheaper house before their credit score tanked, whatever the rate is of foreclosures anywhere in the US is not related to people having a house to live in in the 1 to 1 sense some people claim.
    I mean, how many houses in foreclosure have been second homes or rental property?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:24 p.m.

    To the 11:54 commentator,
    "Single forever"? If we mean by single, not having a legal spouse, than it is true this is the choice, but it is the same choice ALL citizens have. The fact that people do not want to marry those they are as allowed to marry as anyone else, is not a case that creates a violation of the 14th Admendment.
    However, "single" in your line is meant to imply living alone. However, as you do know, Two men can live together in every sense of the word in California or any other state and not fear any legal suffering for it.
    Beyound this, in California they have a domestic partnership law where the state conveys EVERY benefit that it gives with marriage in these domestic partnerships.
    While it would be a better world if people felt they could not cohabitate outside of marriage, people actually do, so not providing state recognition of a relationship in no way alters what how people can actually behave. With the actual context of Prop 8 it is even less an issue of "forcing" anyone to do anything.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Feb. 26, 2010 9:26 p.m.

    To the 1:41 commentator,
    Yet Utah has the HIGHEST rate of high school graduates going to college in state. So in fact your statement has no connection with reality.

  • Re: Shephard
    Feb. 26, 2010 10:59 p.m.

    It's been pretty well documented that Henderson was born LDS but certainly not practicing (keep in mind, McKinney, Henderson and Shepard met in a bar - hardly a hangout for active LDS kids). It is also a fact that Henderson attempted to stop McKinney but was attacked himself.

  • I don't get it
    Feb. 26, 2010 11:11 p.m.

    Let me get this straight (no pun intended) ...

    The LDS Church has had a policy on homosexuality for decades (based on the Bible).

    More recently, along comes gay marriage.

    The LDS Church does not change its policy (did you expect them to?).

    Somehow, this makes the LDS Church the source of all of the problems in the gay community? Never mind all of the elections in all of the states that said "no thanks" to gay marriage - most of which have hardly any Mormons living in them.

    ????

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 27, 2010 12:44 a.m.

    To Vince | 6:36 p.m.

    "Moreover, the Church has come out plainly speaking and made remarks to the effect that the Church does not take a stand as to what causes people to be gay." I agree.

    "ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on."
    Newsroom "Same-Gender Attraction"

    As you well know Vince the position of the Church on homosexual activity is that it is a grievous sin. As described by Paul in Romans 1:26-27 and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

    Do you think Vince that an individual wakes up and says that I'm going to be a porn addict today? That is crazy. It is a process of giving in here a little and there a little until the addict finds him/herself chained to the addiction.

    It all leads to choices. There may be an attraction but there should never be an action. Marriage is action.

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 27, 2010 1:07 a.m.

    To Vince | 6:36 p.m.

    "The counter argument to not being gay is that gay people were what, born straight and somehow they chose to go against their nature and experiment?"

    First off Vince babies are born male or female. There is no sexual tendency at birth. What delirious science can prove that?

    To Vince | 6:44 p.m.

    "Scripturally, the quote you read attributed to Christ "to thy way and sin no more" is speaking to someone caught in adultery. The Savior was not chastising an "unrepentant gay sinner.""


    Yea! Vince I know that. Don't you think that comment can and should apply to all sinful actions?
    After all Paul an Apostle stated "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

    I am not perfect nor am I declaring that I am saved. I am expressing that choice leads us down the road of sin. Religion, especially one that declares that it was divinely restored by God and his servants must than reaffirm the correct path and not the concoction of secular belief.

  • RexidaWyo
    Feb. 27, 2010 1:25 a.m.

    To Vince | 6:44 p.m.

    I agree that people of the same sexual orientation that seek to raise children are not by default incompetent. That would be a silly assumption on my part if it were true.

    However, based upon morals, yes established by revealed truth, (Many will not except that statement) the union of such a couple stands as open rebellion before there Maker. The giver of the revealed truth.

    I am not judging the individual just the action or behavior. I believe there are many great and exceptional people who declare themselves to be homosexual. That does not take away from that person the knowledge, success, and accomplishments of their lives works. They should be recognized just the same as anyone else for their good works and efforts to lift and benefit society.

  • PMHill
    Feb. 27, 2010 2:53 p.m.

    I laugh at the people that insist I have to have a "non-religious" reason to say something is wrong and to speak out about it. LACK of a moral center is the problem. Whether you believe in God or you don't, I could care less. I do care about my country and the state it is getting into. I care about the growing problems in our communities, the gangs, the drugs the selfishness that is destroying the fabric of our country. I care that children are being taught that there is nothing wrong with anything. "If it feels good, do it" seems to be the motto most of you aspire too. Well, I won't sit back and allow you the "freedom" to destroy the country my ancestors toiled to create. Freedom doesn't mean you are "free" to do anything you want, it means you can do what you want until you interfere with someone else. Your allowing Satan to have power in my country interferes with my desire to keep him out. So, I will oppose you in order to remove him and all those actions/beliefs that bring him in.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 27, 2010 3:30 p.m.

    "I laugh at the people that insist I have to have a "non-religious" reason to say something is wrong and to speak out about it. "

    I never said that you have to have a non-religious reason to say something is wrong. But I never said I have to listen. I think religion is a good thing for society up to a point. That point is when they tell non-believers that they are sinners and living in the wrong.

    "Freedom doesn't mean you are "free" to do anything you want, it means you can do what you want until you interfere with someone else."

    Well said, so what do you have against Gay Marriage? How does that interfere with you? I have never heard an honest answer. Just a lot of poor speculation and half truths.

  • mark
    Feb. 27, 2010 6:08 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert
    Utah is NEITHER the highest High Scool graduations, nor the most high school graduates going in state to college.
    "The Beehive State ranked 26th in the nation for its high school graduation rate in 2006, according to Diplomas Count 2009, an annual report released by the magazine and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Utah's 2006 graduation rate of 72.2 percent still hovered above the national average of 69.2 percent, but the state's overall ranking plummeted, according to the report.

    Utah ranked eighth in the nation for its 2005 graduation rates, and the year before that it ranked first. The state's graduation rate also dipped

    from 78.6 percent in 2005"
    from SLC tribune

  • Vince
    Feb. 28, 2010 7:59 a.m.

    RexidaWyo | 1:07 a.m. Feb. 27, 2010

    Regarding sexual identity at birth.

    True, sexual identity at birth is misconception (with an explanation).

    I believe that when gays say that they were born gay they meant that they assumed a gay identity at the same time that heterosexuals assumed and knew that they were heterosexuals.

    When does that happen?

    When do people know that they are in fact, thinking rational beings able to communicate, interact, and otherwise have a sense of the world around them, and have a sense of memory of that identity later in life? Five? Six? Seven?

    I believe this is what many gays mean when they say they were born "gay," no different than a heterosexual saying they were born heterosexual.

    The superimposed heterosexual behavior is a layer added because of social implications and the environment. However, I do believe there is a certain hard wireredness as to how gays and homosexuals believe about themselves and their attraction towards the opposite gender.

  • Vince
    Feb. 28, 2010 8:13 a.m.

    RexidaWyo | 12:44 a.m. Feb. 27, 2010

    The quote you quoted from Elder Oaks and other quotes from the Ensign or other Church materials speak that we understand the issue.

    As you quoted, therein lies the crux of the matter and sometimes where misinterpretation from and mis-characterization of gays come in.

    I believe you have clarified your stance and we agree.

    It is not a choice to be born gay, or to put it on other terms that you may agree with, to have same-sex attraction.

    It is "the fix" that is at issue.

    I, for one, looking at the all the past ways of dealing with gays/homosexuality/same-gender attraction (whatever laber you want to call it) within or outside of the Church, have found the ways to shortchange gays.

    In the writings of Paul, you are correct, though absent in the Four Gospels, Paul was more definitive about what constituted "grievous sin." To add to that layer, LDS adds the further layer of revelation and interpretation.

    The Church policy is church policy.

    My primary focus, has been to separate the distinction between a scriptural interpretation and a political one.

  • Do unto others
    Feb. 28, 2010 7:29 p.m.

    Live and let live.

    To each their own.

    Live by the morals you see best for yourself, but don't expect the rest ofthe world to see it your way. This goes for the religious and the non-religious.

    Amen.

  • The Rocker Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 12, 2010 10:20 a.m.

    Rock on to the Cardinal and President Packer. You dudes totally rock! It makes me sad when people do not follow their own faith and mock their great religious leaders and still call themselves faithful in their own self-rightousness. I am truely a sinner and do not consider myself faithful. But I do not mock my LDS church leaders and respect all who fight against evil. I have so much respect for the LDS Prophets and the Catholic Cardinal and the Pope who have stood up against evil again and again with consistancy. We have been so blessed. If what happened at general conference, prop 8,and even that hypocrite Christian church that burned Muslim Korans was not religion under attack I dont know what is. We need to defend the Muslims also who are under attack as well and some of the most kind people I have ever met in my life.