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
re --- Janet | 9:04 p.m

["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."]

what "terrible social consequences"? please elaborate, as I don't see any.

All I see is a bunch of overzealous religious people trying to force their idea of morality onto the general public.

if they said "this is wrong because it harms xyz", then that would be fine. But instead, their rationale is that an old book says it is wrong, or they were brought up that way, even though there is no logical rationale behind it. Which again is fine, but when they try to make everyone comply with it, by flooding the general public with half-truths and scare tactics to pass laws, that is simply wrong.

["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!"]

unfortunately, we say the same to you - if you cannot see that it is wrong to force people to comply with your religious beliefs.

re -- John Pack Lambert | 11:18

["These comment boards would be more informative and positive if 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"]

so... you suggest banning words, and then you talk about the freedoms of the bill of rights.....

??? am I the only one that sees a problem with that? another example of "do as I say, not as I do".


re -- Religion is awesome | 11:23 p.m

["It's always those who say religious freedom is not under attack who are attacking religious freedom"]

ok. another zealot. fine. let's dance.

explain how you have lost ANY religious freedom. and lets discuss the removal of your right to marry. oh - you can still get married? well, aren't you special...

["Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion"]

actually, it does. it's called "pursuit of happiness" and if your excessive illogical moral code makes me unhappy, I don't have to follow it. that's "freedom from religion"..

["Go religion! Religion rocks! Viva religion! It makes good people better - voluntarily. No government mandate required, no judicial fiat requested."]

unfortunately, you religious folk continue to try to force your illogical morals onto everyone, so for you to say "no gov't mandate required" is ridiculous. you are spending millions to GET gov't mandates on rules you read in a book.

and religion makes good people better.... at what? and at what cost?

you live your sheepish life, and let the rest of us live ours as free agents.

re -- John Pack Lambert | 12:02

["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"]

and a guy flew a plane into IRS headquarters in Texas. so all tax protesters are now terrorists, right?

and some mormons killed a gay guy. so now all mormons are murderers, right?

use some logic. there are always some crazies in any movement or cult. that does not mean they all are, and yet the anti-gay crowd continually paints all gays as terrorists.

do gays go around saying that about mormons? no.


Marriage is not about raising children - it is about inheritance rights.

And even if marriage were about raising children, that is not a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage as same-sex couples are just as likely and capable of having children as opposite-sex couples.

You state, "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 are wrong. Every reason that exists for recognizing opposite-sex marriage exists for recognizing same-sex marriage. With every reason to recognize it, and no reason not to recognize it, it is an injustice for some families to be given legal protections that are denied to other families.


If marriage is about children, then why is the octo-mom, 16 kids and counting, not married?
Are your grandparents no longer married then? Since they cannot have children anymore?

to -- RexidaWyo | 12:16 a.m.

["Crazy how many people read articles from this newspaper company that dislike people of Mormon belief so badly."]

we don't dislike people of the mormon belief. we dislike people that try to force their morals onto others, when the action (gay marriage) harms NO ONE and is GOOD for families.

["Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals."]

not true. religions are going into disfavor because they continually attempt to force their IDEA of traditional morals onto everyone, even those of a different belief.

religions problem is that the "morals" you seek to enforce come from your religion!! they are NOT based on logic or impact to others. they are simply... "God says it is wrong" even though that is just your belief.

["It was not an election that banned gay marriage. NO! It was an election that established the traditional moral of marriage"]

traditional? yeah, for a little time in the 50s. did you know gay marriage was performed in ancient Egypt and Greece? did you know "marriage" was once the father selling his daughter?

you pick your definition because of your religion, your books, and your upbringing. but there is NO logical reason gays shouldn't marry.

re -- John Pack Lambert | 8:37

["The state recognizes marriage between a man and a woman to seek to place child rearing in this context."]

what? that is your OPINION. show me where it says that in prior law. you are inventing things.

["There is really no state interest in recognizing the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman"]

of course there is. happy people make better citizens. it is in the state's best interest to treat everyone equally and promote the family. and a gay family is as much a family as a non-gay family.

["You can disagree with it as public policy, but it has a good logic behind it"]

i don't see any logic in what you stated. all I see is opinion.

how does gay marriage HURT your family. I see where gay marriage helps gay families.

so you are not "injured" and gay families are better off. therefore there is no reason for the state to prevent it.

["it is a question of state endorsement"]

it is a question of treating all citizens equally. and yes, the state should endorse equal rights.

Serious Question

Some posters have commented on the Constitution protecting freedom "of" religion but not freedom "from" religion.

Now, keeping in mind that neither phrase actually appears any where in the Constitution, here is my question:

How can you have freedom "of" religion if you do not also have freedom "from" religion? In other words, if you are not free "from" my religion, how can you be free to practice your religion?

The LDS religion considers drinking alcohol a sin. The Catholic religion considers wine an integral part of its sacrament. If LDS individuals were able to ban the sale of wine, Catholic individuals could not fully practice their religion. Catholics must be free "from" the Mormon faith in order to practice their faith.

Some religions support same-sex marriage, without freedom "from" those who are opposed, they cannot do this. Likewise, freedom "from" religion protects those who do not believe in same-sex marriage from those who do.

If you do not believe that religious freedom includes freedom "from" religion, please explain to me how you can fully practice your religion if you are not free "from" other religions.


How is denying gay marriage but eating shell fish moral?


I'm surprised you would use such a dubious source as WND. WND has a poor record of truth and accuracy. It has been sued and found at fault by Clark Jones, a Gore supporter. There are numerous examples of its shoddy record. Perhaps what they reported regarding burning the temple is accurate, but at a minimum WND should not be relied on as a sole or primary source, unless you believe The Enquirer is a worthy source.

Gay couples are having and adopting children in many states. I would argue that States do have an interest in allowing these parents a right to marry.

Okay -

RexidaWyo says, "Religion is being persecuted for defending traditional morals."

Sharia law holds that it is a sin for a woman to have sex outside of marriage. That is a nice traditional moral value, right?

Well, the law goes on to state that the punishment for this sin is being stoned to death.

This is a traditional moral law based on religious teachings.

Do you support this?


Picking and choosing what is traditional does not mean you have some vauge ability to judge others.

Eat shellfish? You shouldn't quote the bible then.
Had sex outside of marriage? You shouldn't quote the bible.
Don't own a slave? You shouldn't quote the bible.

The bible has stances on all this, yet many choose to ignore those words and only choose what to accept as its words.

Picking and choosing from the bible means you only want to hear what sounds good to YOU from the bible.

I do not think a 2,000 year old book should dictate my life in 2010.

Especially if I never made claim to follow the teachings of said book.


Your faith is fine, when you keep in mind it is yours. When you try to dictate another person's life, based on very much YOUR faith, you start to change another persons life based on what you FEEL.

Not what is.


re: Serious Question | 10:22 a.m. Feb. 25, 2010

//How can you have freedom "of" religion if you do not also have freedom "from" religion? In other words, if you are not free "from" my religion, how can you be free to practice your religion?//

That is a very good point. It seems some want to dictate/enforce their morality but can't handle a simple concept like tolerance... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re to OKay- RexidaWyo

Okay - | 10:52 a.m.

Of course I object to such a practice. I posted traditional morals, not theocratic law. You may be forgetting that our ancestor left the old world to escape theocratic persecution because as is stated by many bloggers it is forced on those who don't share the same belief.

However, our election process must be offensive to you because as you have noticed "Mormons" are a very small group compared to the overall populace. Voters were encouraged to vote their will and they did.

There were no guns. There were no great rallies. There was only an organized effective process that encouraged voters to get out and vote. Yes there was additional information, but no one was forced to vote against their moral belief. Contrary to the mob like rallies that occurred after the results were counted.

I do not object to "homosexuals" having the same hospital, insurance, and other rights or "privileges" that "heterosexual" couples have. I do however object to changing the definition of marriage to accept your union.

Call it whatever you may but don't call it marriage and don't force its unnatural existence on my children.


to -- RexidaWyo | 12:16 a.m.

And "religions problem is that the "morals" you seek to enforce come from your religion!! they are NOT based on logic."

Explain this logic "(gay marriage)... is GOOD for families?"

Children are for the most part products of their environment. Whether you believe in the creation as described in scripture or not you must admit that none of us would be here if it weren't for a Man and a Woman.

Science with its great advancements and discoveries is the only power besides that of our original creation that spurs human life. Same sex couples can't do it within their sexual orientation therefore nature itself makes you unequal.

I do not condemn any who are by choice "same sex" in sexual orientation. We as people condemn ourselves. According to my beliefs, my thoughts, words, and deeds will eventually condemn me. I do believe in a Savior who wants me to become better. Not better than my neighbor, but better than the carnal, sensual, and devilish part of me that naturally exists.

In my writing of these blogs I hope that I have not offended others. If I have, I apologize.

to serious question

Excellent point. Utah's policy concerning alcohol consumption and the sale thereof, including recent modifications to it, often has an economical implication, not a moral one.

to: anonymous

You cannot have it both ways. You claim some knowledge of the Bible, yet you claim not to beleive in it. You want to use passages of it, yet you refuse to use the rest of it to understand what, when, and why. You make an attempt to use what you want to justify your lack of use of it... no logic here.

In baseball parlance: A swing and a miss.


I have argued before, and I still believe it, that my religion makes me more tolerant of others, including homosexuals. Because of my religion, I know and understand other peoples' thinking better; I am more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt; I understand better the place of religion in culture and vice versa.

My religion teaches me to be intolerant of certain behaviors, that is true, but it tries very hard to get me to understand others and forgive them if necessary while recognizing that their actions may be bad.

As a supporter of Proposition 8, I have been urged to give up my religion; I've seen my religion mocked in television commercials; I've been called a liar and a hater (usually spelled "h8er"); I've seen my sacred temples desecrated; I've had friends fired from their jobs or forced into resignation; I've recieved hate mail; I've had my name posted on a web site that urged people to put pressure on me to change; I've seen a public school curriculum that openly endorses homosexuality.

Should I give up my religion so that I can be like those others?

to comment

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