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
poor 1:20

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.


Mormosm WERE involved...

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


' 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 -

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.


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.


"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.

"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

["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".


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

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

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

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

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


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.


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.


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

"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...


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...


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...

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 comment

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