Deseret News | LDS told to ready for secularism fight

Reader comments
LDS told to ready for secularism fight

100 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
Next >

Darrell Thueson | 1:04 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

He seems like the kind of man I'd like to have as a friend!

Curtis Blanco | 2:39 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Mitt Romney attacked secularism? Does he think that religion has a monopoly on morality? It wasn't conservative religions that were at the forefront of the civil rights movement. It was the secularists and the liberal religions. Now that its popular, the conservative religions have come along. Just as Romney wouldn't attack another religion for their shortcomings, why is he attacking secularism as a whole?, which makes mistakes but is less tradition based and more reason based?

Collin | 3:56 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Fascinating. More power to him.

Comments continue below

Randall | 5:40 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Unfortunately, your friend confuses secularism with amorality. While secularists have some values that don't fit with fundamental religions, they are in no way amoral.

He posits that raping girls is a result of secularism. Quite the opposite is true. It is the secularists who have led the charge against child abuse and fought religions who would forcibly marry their daughters.

It is the secularists who defend women in violent marriages

It is the secularists who are attempting to save the world and her species from the heat of corporate greed.

It is the secularists who defend the world from the abuse and over-reaching power grab of religions.

In Darwin we trust!

Danny Chipman | 5:42 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

This is a truly wise man. Good looking, too! I wish there were more people like him in this world. I hope I can also gain the same sort of insight and intelligence he's mastered.

sb | 6:31 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Thank you Mr. Robinson. Merry Christmas.

Janet | 6:51 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Hmmmm. I thought the rape comment was figurative. I guess you could look at it as either one. But the figurative road is definitely more applicable if you think of the assault we as people of faith face in areas such as marriage, family, sexual identity or just regular identity. If I am not the same as you I don't deserve to exist because that makes me a bigot or racist or stupid. The forcing of values is a type of rape; the force of anything is a figurative rape.

JRM | 6:58 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

His counsel sounded much like Elder Ballard's counsel in his most recent conference address, "Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits". Elder Ballard challenged, "...there is a great need for clear, simple statements that present those who are curious with the basics about the Church as it is today. Let me share with you some of the things we have found to be helpful. You may want to prepare your own list of talking points that will assist you in explaining what we believe to your friends and acquaintances of other faiths. It may be helpful for you, as it is for me, to have on one page a few facts about the Church as it is today to give to them along with a copy of the Articles of Faith."

wjgramma | 6:59 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I agree with Danny Chipman. I would like to gain the insight of this well informed man, and I wish there were more people like him. He will have a positive influence on those who are teachable, and not set on being politically correct.

Kevin | 7:10 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I think Randall says it best. To be honest with you, I am eager for a fight. Hopefully this fight will be limited to words. Looking back at history, I don't see a lot of reason to have this hope. What's needed is an organized, concerted effort to proselytize against immoral religion. Religion thus far has had it easy.

Joseph | 7:14 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

We don't need this kind of incitement. Romney is over. Spirituality operates on a totally different level than the fight this guy advocates. The secularist argument is simple to understand when you take into account the truth of the apostasy. Religion has failed on so many levels. Why shouldn't they work to bring about a better world in the best and most reasonable way they know how? We Mormons call that urge to do good the light of Christ. If it is less clouded for them without the politics of religion mucking it up - If they are more prone to act out of it from the secular perspective, more power to them. Let's face it, all the flap about Romney's religion is perpetrated by professors of religion who don't know they have something MUCH better to do. As is often the case secularists end up doing much of our work for us. For this they have my admiration and respect. It seems to me a secularist who works for a better world is more righteous than a Mormon who doesn't.

California Man | 7:17 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

In response to Randall above

The secularists claim high moral ground of protection of children and women when in reality most of them want to separate them from the family and religion. They lead the charge to force our children to be educated with their dogma in public schools and encourage women to leave their children in the hands of "day-care" providers who could never love their children like a mother can.

The secularists of Hollywood even in commercials and cartoons consistently portray men as stupid and childish and women as intelligent and super individuals who can have a high paying career and family and juggle it all swimmingly.

The homosexual agenda is to kill the nuclear family and supplant it with surrogate mothers for gay couples and sperm donors for lesbians. Most gay men aren't interested in fidelity or marriage they are just interested in legitimizing their depravity and in the process the institutions of marriage and family are in serious danger.

KK | 7:48 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Secularists fight the good fight. Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Embrace knowledge and let go of the antiquated mystical teachings of the dark ages (and the 19th century for you of the LDS persuasion).

Anonymous | 7:52 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

All Romney is doing is insuring that the American public views politics is at its all time skankiest.

winner | 8:45 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

It is such a shame that we must put labels on ourselves and each other. Every person I know of another religion are good people seeking to do the best they can. Those who claim no religion are the same. They are not demons but good people searching their way through life. Isn't it a shame that we can't cast off labels and come together as the good honest people we are and in unity search for truth? As the song says, "What the world needs now is love!" To find truth we must go forth together, leaving our hostility, bigotry, racism, and all other isms behind. We must go with open minds, respect for all humanity, and a desire to discover ideas and concepts, solutions to problems, all for the benefit of all. If a small group could start this, composed perhaps of several people from many religious and non-religious groups, maybe we could set an example for all. May there be pece on earth and goodwill toward all men!

NoMo | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I love the part about "a world in which children are educated, not raped." Since when has religion kept a child from being raped? It seems to me religion and rape have a long history together.

That bugbear of fundamentalists everywhere, "the separation of church and state" seems to go hand-in-glove with ol' Joe Smith's 11th Article of Faith, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." It seems the best way to respect the 11th is to make good and sure that no one single faith runs the country.

What?! | 8:53 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

"Filtered wisdom?!" Filtered wisdom?! What?! Filtered by whom, exactly? Filtered wisdom smacks of fascism.

Franz | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I like this guy. I completely agree that there should not be a rift between science and religion. The goal of both should be a pursuit of the truth. Just as there are erroneous religious views there are erroneous scientific views. We do the best we can in the pursuit of what truly is.

Mike | 9:19 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Re: What?!

I don't think he meant censorsed wisdom. I took what he said to mean "purified." Ideas and "knowledge" are like water seeping through granite in the mountains. They start off with impurities, inaccuracies. Over time they are filtered through experience and application, testing an refining and molding them until they come through the filter as wisdom. Wisdom that can stand the test of time. That is what he asked the students to seek out.

Sunshine | 9:22 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

More sound advice may be to "take care of your own" before waging an all out war upon secularism. Incest, mental, emotional, and physical abuse in patriarchal and religious environments is a disturbing dilemma when teachings are counter to commonplace practice, and forgiveness with out appropriate treatment (and I use that term carefully) is granted while wives take prozac and little children suffer and grow up to continue the cycle. Educate youth to take charge of their own lives, to think for themselves, to expand their knowledge, to be their own warriors and stop the blind sheep syndrome!

Thank you Joseph | 9:28 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

What a wonderful contribution. You are correct, of course, and the Secularists do fight a good fight. As one, I appreciate yours and many of the insights above.
I am encouraged!

So, What? | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

What would you think "unfiltered wisdom" might be? What would be the raw, unrefined resource?

All wisdom is filtered through the greatest minds, and even the lesser ones. It does not exist in some independent, platonic realm.

Try to think more carefully about what wisdom is, and you will understand that wisdom without filters (great minds) is no wisdom at all.

Interesting | 9:53 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

What I find funny is that we all see value in supporting secular middle-eastern countries, which are increasingly become an anommily. But when it comes to our country, SOME of us want to insist that we are not a secular nation, and that we are one nation under god. We cringe at these middle eastern countries with Muslim theocracies, yet we vote in a guy who's done everything in his power to create his own theocracy in America, and evangelical Christian one at that (you know, the same guys who are constantly attacking Mormons by saying they are not Christians). I don't get it. And then there is this revisionist history that says "our founding forefathers intended this to be a Christian Nation!" BS! Nothing is further from the truth, many of our founding forefathers wanted nothing to do with organized religion, and would be rolling in their graves if they knew these idiots running for the highest office in the land we're twisting their words and their meanings! A theocracy is great until it no longer represents YOUR religion. Think about that, Christianity is NOT the fastest growing religion in the world. All praise Alla or Buddha

jtm | 10:10 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Yes he's right, we should focus on abortion and gay marriage as the two most important issues. Look how well it's worked so far- who cares about health care, education, the fact that we're all choking on our pollution, a war that no one is sure what its purpose is... at least we eliminated abortions, right? What, the repubs haven't donme anything about it? Oh, we at least the gay movement has gone away. What's that? They're not? Hmmm. well we should still only focus on those 2 irrelevant issues anyways. It makes us feel good

Awesome! | 10:35 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I loved the way these professors described things and I love that they are on the same page, morally, as the LDS population. We need more people like them to stand up with us in the fight against the adversary.

Dude | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I agree with Randall way at the top of this thread -- we shouldn't confuse secularists with amoralists. I've known many secular people, especially when I lived in California, who were quite moral.

But there are those in the secular community, typified by Hollywood and other elites, who are immoral and want to influence more Americans, especially young people to adopt their immoral views. We need to deal with the shades of gray here and not just label things as black and white.

But there is a fight to be fought, and we're losing ground (we religious moralists) in the popular media which is influencing so many minds.

We also lose when the weak among us violate the morals they profess, as others have mentioned above. These are people without integrity who profess religion, because it's popular or expected of them or gives them some social advantage, but "inwardly are ravening wolves," to quote Jesus. But please, secularists, don't judge the rest of us religious folk badly because of the few wolves out there.

Let's get on with it! | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I'm all in favor of a robust, honest and searching debate about the value of secular thought in a modern society.

An intellectually honest look at what the Bible actually says, contrasted with what the sciences of genetics, biology, archeology and geology have to say about our world and how we came to be here, should be enlightening.

Anonymous | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

There will never be anything less than a separation between church and state in America.
And mormons best leave their brand of theocracy behind the walls of their wards. Doing this will keep them from being frustrated and freaking out.

Joy | 11:01 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Addressing the comments of "Interesting". You have only read revisionist history. My husband studied in law school, and both he and I in other classes and on our own, the original writings of the founding fathers. If you had, you would realize how religious they were. Some were in organized religions, some were not, but they were all deeply religious. Jefferson and Madison spent many years evaluating ancient political systems and comparing them to the Bible, especially the ten commandments. They then put together a system based on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is irrefutable when you read their works and not the rehashed version of the revisionists.

Honestly | 11:05 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Religion doesn't fail. People fail. God lives and he loves us all. This man is merely saying for those of us of all creeds and religions who follow gods counsels, (not because we are blind, but because we see), that we need to be prepared for the onslaught of opposition from those who don't see or understand truth and wisdom.
One day we all will see God and know that he is, and we will admit that his commandments are kind. Truly living them sets one free from the pain and ugliness of this world. By living God's commandments we have peace. Not that it is easy. It isn't. But worth it.
Anyone who hasn't found this to be true is good at rationalization. Don't buy into lies and crafty words of people who think they know. This man speaks truth and wisdom. Filtered or not.

Anonymous | 11:12 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Just for the record, it is certainly not impossible to be a spiritually inclined person who wants religion kept out of government, and vice versa, although some people (witness the Ten Commandments display controversy in Alabama, or the Pledge of Allegiance controversy in California) undoubtedly take things too far. And that's the *real* problem: People who are extremist ideologues taking things too far. The Ten Commandments are simply part of the Western legal tradition, not an attack on the separation of church and state; by the same token, two cells rubbing together in a womb are simply not the same as an eight-week-old fetus. Unfortunately, we cannot reach sensible compromises on any hot-button issue until the extremist ideologues on both right and left grow up and lighten up. Dr. Robinson makes an excellent point in criticizing moral relativism, but let's be clear here: Moral absolutism is just as dangerous, perhaps even more so, and religiously inspired moral absolutism is the most dangerous form of all. Think about it: the psychopaths who flew planes into the World Trade Center certainly didn't do it in the name of Darwin!

Anonymous | 11:29 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Uh- I am a secularist and this kind of narrow minded talk scares me. I'm sure most secularists would agree that we:
1) Also find "rape" of a child apalling.
2) Do not think pornography should be viewed by children.
Please do not make assumptions about us Mr. Robinson. I'm sure statistics would probably find that since most Americans are Christian, most American children are sexually abused by God fearing Christians, and most pornography is downloaded by the same.

Sensible Sam | 11:55 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

The source of the violence and corruption secularists are fond of citing is not religion, but individuals seeking power. Similarly, secularism has only a fluid foundation for morality that could rationalize both Al Qaeda and the most conservative American movements, but that does not mean all secularists are amoral. Stereotyping works both directions. But secularism has no firm basis for moral judgement aside from individual preference, and so any society based on secularism is doomed to anarchy and failure.

Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Secularist? Do you guys know that the term means? Secularism is not the opposite of religion. We shouldn't let secularism be equated with atheism. They are not the same thing and their differences are of critical importance.

Bill | 12:03 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Really a lot of unjustified assumptions in the arguments above, such as the assumption that all secularists may be rapists or pornographers, or the assumption that all religions advocate polygamous subjection of women or rape, or that secularists are the only ones who protect children from abuse. Whew!
From my perspective, there are good, bad, and dubious advocates on both sides. Please try to understand this.
Not all secularists are pornographers, though most pornographers are secularists. Not all religionists are Islamic women-subjugators, though most Islamic women-subjugators are religionists.

What is a secularist? | 12:13 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

What is a "secularist" anyway? Is it someone who wants freedom and equality for everyone, and does not want to be forced to worship a particular religion, or be forced to live by the rules of a particular religion? If so, that sounds like America to me. Sign me up!!

These "secularists" don't want to tell religious people how to live their lives. They just don't want religious people to tell them how to live their lives. We not only have freedom of religion in America, we also have freedom from religion in America. The religious extremists in our country are the aggressors and the persecutors. The "secularists" are being persecuted and are just defending themselves.

The best thing about right winger religious extremist labeling such as this is it tells the fellow religious extremists who to bash and which side to take without wasting time actually educating themselves about the issues.

Slugger | 12:14 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Why is religion continuously referred to by secularists as "narrow-minded"? Plese explain, secularists....

Rick | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

OK, We speak of Moral Secularists and Amoral Christian (LDS Included). Tell me, what does a Moral Secularist base his Morality on? At least the Religious person has a tenet to which that morality is based. The destruction of the religious morality by secularism is what is disturbing, along with the disregard to one's faith in their religion.

A question: | 12:30 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

If another scholar of religion similarly argued of the dangers of secular society and urged us to return to the traditional religious values associated with Zeus, Odin, Shiva or Ra, would you folks be harrumphing your approval, too?

Anonymous | 12:32 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Think layman and you might understand secularism.

Mark | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Once again we have someone promoting fear to drive a wedge between people. How many people do you know that really identify themselves as "secularist"? It's only a movement in the minds of radical conservatives... Give me a break!

Jerry | 12:45 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

The bearded man Robinson has some valid points. I cannot support him however as he is not of my faith. It is a shame BYU let someone not of their own give this speech.

Peacemakers | 12:49 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I am not sure I understand what this article is encouraging people to do. As far as I understand, as LDS people, it is great to explain our beliefs, kindly, to those who wish to hear...and yes be educated on current issues and know where we stand. But, having a mindset of arguing seems to suggest that one person must win and the other lose. In such a psychological environment, neither person wins. My LDS friends, love thy neighbor. Speak to them kindly--you know this. Have courage, but let it be born of charity. Don't engage in a battle which will tear someone down. Let the way you live demonstrate to message you are trying to send. It is much easier for others to understand something if they see it in action, rather than debated with them. Remember that God loves all of his children. Peace on earth, good will toward men, let earth receive her King!

repsonse to KK | 12:51 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

HA, man you are so lost! What "knowledge" are you talking about? The knowlege of the world isn't exactly something a guy can depend on because it is continually changing. A few hundred years ago the knowlege of the world said the earth was flat but that so called "knowlege" soon gave way to NASA which "showed us" that the world was indeed oval. So much for relying on the knowlege of the world! Absolute truth ONLY comes from God sent revelation -that is the truth that is the same yesterday , today and forever. Man has a finite view of the universe and attempts to describe what he sees from his limited view point. God created the universe as well as all of the laws that govern it.

Faithful Mormons must stand up | 1:14 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Securalism and true Mormonism go hand and hand. One has merely to read our scriptures to recognize that comments by people like Romney don't represent the teachings of the gospel and of the Church. Romney is a narrow-minded bigot and they can be found in any Church but we should never let people speak ill of Mormonism because of men like him. It is the duty of faithful Mormons to stand up against the false teachings of men like Robinson and what he advocates. It is our duty to defend our faith from being twisted into a right-wing religion instead of the restored Church of Jesus Christ whom we follow. May God protect us from those who would see our Church apostasize like the primitive Church did because men like Romney wouldn't have a problem with that.

If we do nothing we will lose the fight and the Church will become apostate and agree with the religious right. Forunately for us this hasn't happened yet and this is why there is such anti-Mormon attitude on the part of the religious right while those who adhere closing to the New Testament teachings of Christ don't attack us.

hey joy ! | 1:34 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I have to agree somewhat but diagree too, being a law student myself and a member of the Iroquois nation ..it has been irrefutable that the so called founding fathers did not take note of a people and the empire which they governed at the time called the iroqouis. Conference after conference has verified this and why not when looks at their system of justice of a very complex people. But once again the old boat people syndrome wins out further enhancing the so called conquerors approach from the western-ero point of view such as landing inside of someone's backyard and then making the claim "hey, I discovered you".But to give credit where credit is due goes against any acknowledgement of such a concept being possible.Also if the BOM be of such truth then why is it so hard for members to at least my people the Iroquios involvement in this great document for surely my people were of great knowledge when it came to governing principle. I would advise that if you really want to know the truth there has even been the claim of this document being plagarized from these great people.Contact the Iroquis Nation.

I agree with "Faithful Mormons" | 1:41 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Here here!

One of the 14 points of fascism | 1:45 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

8)Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

I really don't think intelligent people want the above to come to pass.

Don | 1:49 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Re Slugger:

It's really quite simple. Secularists refer to those who follow the tenets of religion as narrow-minded because when your argument is flawed, the only power you have left is name calling.

That is why those who have a moral foundation based in religion are "backwards", "bigoted", "repressed", and "narrow-minded" and those who do whatever "feels good" at the moment are "open-minded", "tolerant", and "progressive".

Like I said, it's really quite simple. Those who do the name calling get to make up the names!

Dane | 2:09 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

In response to "KK" above:
The secularists were exactly the ones who brought on the Dark Ages. Maybe you haven't EVER had a history class! The Dark Ages were a time of securlarism much like we see in many groups modern day society. True intelligence comes from God, like anything else. If you believe otherwise, I pity you, and hope you can overcome your own disbelief and take responsibility for your life.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.