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
same silly game

as a religious people you have the right to speak your mind and as a none religious person I have the right to disagree with you without your silly claims that my doing so somehow infringes on your rights.


to -- Re: Oh Please | 1:57 p.m.

["One of these days you'll have to step out of your perfect little bubble of life and defend your beliefs."]

no one is attacking your beliefs. you are free to believe anything you want. how your beliefs are being attacked?

re --- TO: Oh Please | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 2 | 2:01 p.m

["Both LDS and Catholics have been openly criticized and threatened for standing up for their beliefs. Some companies won't do business with anyone from Utah on the off chance that A Mormon might work there."]

that is called boycotting, and is perfectly legal. not an attack - it is a statement. you might not like it, but it's is in fact fair play. you started this - and now you complain because... why?

re --- to Oh Please | 2:03 p.m.

["things are getting worst. And our freedoms are being taken away little by little, and we say not big deal. Than anothor freedom is taken away."]

i'm confused... the gasys have had their freedoms taken away, yet i get the feeling you are talikng about religious freedoms being taken away. doesn't make sense.

RER Anonymous

The Manhattan statement, a Christian document(beleivers in the trinty) explains ,the Christain position on freedom of religion,pro life and on traditonal marriage. Mormons do share moral values with Christians.

to --- Abe Lncoln | 2:01 p.m

["try publicly denouncing abortion and gay marriage because of your faith and then tell me how you feel about how free you are to practice your religion. these issues are real."]

huh? no one is stopping you from doing that. you have full freedom to do exactly what you just said. now, will you suffer repercussions? possibly. if I know a nazi owns a store, I'm not going to buy from him, and many look at anti-gay people as just another bigot, so you certainly run that risk. but it's america. at least you got to have your say.

what you want is to be able to say anything you want, and have NO repercussions. well, sorry - it doesn't work that way. if you studied your namesake, you would see even back in his day you would suffer repercussions for things you say.

if I stand outside a bar full of afican-americans and yell racial slurs, I'm lucky all I get is boycotted. you are standing on the hilltop and denouncing an entire segment of the population (250 million strong) and you wonder why they come back at you?

you are really slow...

re -- Times Change | 2:01 p.m

["For now it seems like we have our religious freedom...but for how long? People want us to keep our mouths shut and let "anything go" Well...if we do then we are doomed. The more we stand up for our beliefs the more people try to make us out to be horrible untolerant haters.That is our religious feedom in danger to the core"]

let me put it this way....

if the reason you are against something is a religious reason, you have no firm ground to stand on. you MUST have a reason that is non-religious.

that's not to say you cannot speak your mind. but sane people will ignore you, and those slighted will come back at you.

so I suggest you come up with non-religious reasons to not want things (like gay mariage) and then people may listen. but everytime you say "it goes against my moral upbringing and my religion" we have to laugh, since that means you're not even thinking about it - you're simply regurgetating what you've been taight...


The LDS church and Catholics come to gether. There is a PR tour de force for ya.


Maybe, instead of unbelievers attacking those that believe. They should use that energy and help create jobs for the economy, rather than attacking what someone believes or how they want to worship.


If you don't want gay marriage, DON'T HAVE ONE.

If you don't want abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

But don't tell somebody else they can't based on your fairy tales.


The bottom line is this; Religious individuals are going to practice their religion as they see fit. They, reguardless of there sect, have a testimony of their belief which is sacred to them. Most Americans are this way. There is a few who have no moral obligation to behave to any standard of behavior,and regard sacred things as stupid or " getting in the way of their civil rights" want to take away our religious freedom in order for them to justify their secular progressive belief system. Maybe Glenn Beck is right!


"Does the name Carrie Prejean ring a bell? She got ridiculed because she stated her religious beliefs in a public venue."

First of all you need to substitute "ridiculed" with the word "criticized". She is welcome to her opinion, and I am welcome to criticize it. Ain't freedom grand!

Anyone in California that thinks their religious freedom was taken away because of prop 8 and protests, think again. NO ONE HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM YOU! If I choose to peacefully protest your temple while standing on PUBLIC property, THAT IS MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

If I choose boycott the Marriott hotel, or any Mormon owned business, THAT IS MY RIGHT.

We also have the right to assemble, so as long as we are doing it within the bounds of the law.

And before you blame any vandalism on the anti-prop 8 crowd, I would appreciate tangible evidence before accusations fly.

If someone was fired because they are Mormon, instead of whining about you being a poor picked on individual, why don't you take them to court and sue him out of business as he cannot legally be fired for being Mormon.

making a mess

Proselytism is practiced by Christians and Muslims and is making a mess of the world each thinking they have "THE WAY."
The only formal religions that do NOT proselytize are Jews and Muslims.
Good for them.

RE: Freedom

This intellectual honesty or lack thereof is a two way street. You would take away my freedom and use my tax dollars to pay for abortions against my will, thus taking away my freedom.

re -- rkl | 2:06 p.m

["If we understand that Church (any Church) and State(law and politics)must be separated. If we understand that Church should not have any direct influence on matters of state, then we have misunderstood the concept."]

you can have any influence you want - just expect backlash. the problem is - you want your cake and eat it too. doesn't work like that. 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?

re --- to Oh Please | 2:08 p.m

["You must not live in California"]

i live in california and I agree with Oh Please. you can still do all your religious things and you have lost no freedoms. gays, on the other hand, have lost freedoms.

so i don't get what you are trying to say.


re --- Freedom from religion... | 2:08 p.m.

["Perhaps a good way to look at this issue is that the Constitution guarantees the "freedom of religion." Yet, does it not also guarantee the 'freedom from religion,' which is at the heart of gay rights issues"]

you need to gain an understanding of what "freedom from religion" means. it means you cannot force anyone to adhere to your religion or your moral code based on religious reasons. if it makes sense and you can make an argument without using religion, then fine. but if you oppose something on religious grounds, and try to force that onto others, it will not fly.

and I'm sure you will disagree. because you feel you are the majority and so the minority must bow to your demands.... fortunately, that's why we have a 3rd branch of gov't.

so good luck with that.

re -- Freedom | 2:08 p.m.

["The Catholics and LDS have been attacked by others for thier beliefs. Where is our freedom to worship and believe what we do? When others seek to destroy our beliefs and religion, our freedom to believe and worship is taken away."]

define "attacked". because other than a few bad apples doing graffitti or such, I have heard of no "attacks".

your problem is you want to be able to say anything you want and have NO repercussions (probably because you actually believe you are in the right).

but you have succeeded in irritating (to say the least) about 250 million people....

did you really think you could do that without repercussions? if a nazi group goes on TV and says things about blacks, do you think they would have no repercussions? after all, they also believe they are right...

your problem (and your greatest fear) is that you will lose the majority and not be able to force your way onto others. and as your kind (anti-gays) get older, that is exactly what will happen.

most young people outside of Utah are accustomed to gays, and don't even understand why you won't let them marry...

re -- Lynn | 2:09 p.m

[" think part of it is the government redefining what is moral, the government looking into foregoing tax exempt status for religious organizations, the government secular-ising religious organizations charity efforts when they receive public funds..."]

the gov't isn't redefining what is "moral". you will not find the word "moral" or "immoral" in any law in the US (except maybe in Utah laws).

and there is NO reason you churches should not pay taxes. everyone else does - you should too.

the problem is you've always been treated as "special" and you are losing that "special" status in america. but it's your own doing. when you try to force your morals onto others, and use "God says" to define right and wrong to the populace, you are bound to suffer consequences.

you want religious freedom? keep religion where is belongs. in your home, your church, and your mind.

keep it out of our schools and our laws.


I approve of this talk. Now, we all need to become Catholics.

L L Edmiston

Interesting how liberals tell us that we should not force our morals or beliefs over on others, yet that did not stop them from trying to force their morals over on the Boy Scouts, E-Harmony, or the Catholic Adoption agencies.
Separation of Church and State does not mean, and never has meant, separation of religion from society or of faith from life.
The people who complaim about Mormon power or influence in Utah would be cheering in the aisles, and singing the praises of "pluralism" and "diversity" if Utah had been settled in the 19th Century by gays and lesbians instead of Mormons.

to -- rkl | 2:06 p.m

["The separation of Church and State is unilateral, meaning that it only applies to the State. The State has determined that it will have no influence on matters of religion, that it will not establish a state religion. It does not mean that the Church or any church cannot or should not have an influence on matters of State or public policy."]

your last statement is ENTIRELY incorrect. a church should NOT have influence on public policy. if you do so, you risk losing your tax free status. and those laws were put in specifically so churches had to stay out of politics.

you really need to take a step back and see just how big your britches are getting. you simply have TOO much influence. it is about time you were taken down a peg or two.

and I mean that in a nice way, not in an "in your face" way like you do to everyone else.

to comment

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