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

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

["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

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.


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

["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.


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.


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

["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.


'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...


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.

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

re -- K | 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?"]

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

" 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

[""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?


To Pagan

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


["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?

"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

"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.


The religious are killing religion.


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.

to comment

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