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

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 24 2010 12:15 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
@@To Bill

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

wow gee thats great reasoning, I guess you got us there, thanks cats

@JohnPackLambert 3:52

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

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

Do you want churches involved in affairs of state or not?

You can't have it both ways.

Janet

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

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

John Pack Lambert

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

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

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

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

'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

Cardinal touts religious freedom...




while at the same time working to remove rights from minoirties.

John Pack Lambert

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

To- JPL, Than old buddy, QUIT WHINNING!!!!

People need to learn how to ask for forgiveness of others they have offended.

to John PL

"World Net Daily"

You seriously need to screen your sources more carefully.

What is your next source? Something from the onion?

Pagan

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

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

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

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.

to comment

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