Comments about ‘LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 24 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

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

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.


'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?


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.


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.


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

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)


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

@ Janet

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.


@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.


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.


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

["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

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.


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

["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.


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.


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

@ Facts

"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

"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?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments