Quantcast
Utah

Commission finds increased religious intolerance, criticizes President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Comments

Return To Article
  • pat1
    Sept. 8, 2010 6:55 a.m.

    This is just semantics. I frankly think the far right has done more for intolerance than Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

  • ezfisher
    Sept. 7, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    I don't have an issue with "Freedom of worship" v/s "Freedom of religion". In the words of that great statesman, Stuart Little, "What's the dif'?"
    I do have issue with those like Pagan who blame all the worlds problems on religion. Most of the human abuse I have seen has been caused by trying to eliminate one religion or all religion. For example, the holocaust. I suppose you could blame the jews for that since it was a result of their religion. The Soviet Union gulags, China's laogai. All the result of a system that was trying to abolish religion and worship of any but the state. You could say more killing has been done in the name of atheism than has been done in the name of all religions put together. Just because someone says they are killing in the name of God doesn't make it so any more than saying they are killing in the name of Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan, or anybody else.

  • SLMG
    April 30, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    This Commission is playing games with words by pitting the words of "Freedom to Worship" against
    "Freedom of Religion." As a Christian and a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I only have to go to the 11th Article of Faith to find my answer to this game playing.

    11th Article of Faith: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    As far as I am concerned President Obama and Hillary Clinton are right to use the term "Freedom of Worship."

  • ex-mo joe
    April 30, 2010 1:38 p.m.

    to pete in texas

    good and true do not mean the same thing. a religion may be a good thing in the sense that it helps someone be a better person but does not mean that their particular belief in diety an method of worship are true. religion can help people just like therapy can. but organized religion as a whole is one of modern society's greatest travesties, in my humble opinion.

  • apache1
    April 30, 2010 1:31 p.m.

    The issue of religious intolerance for others is always wrong, every teacher of the great world religions has taught that Jesus, Buddah,Confusious, Mohamed all preached love and acceptance of others. The sad truth is that far too many countries persecute those who choose to believe a faith that may not be in line with what they perceive as truth. China and Saudi Arabia are two well known offenders in this area, I sadly don't see this changing any time soon. The majority rules and sometimes it rules unjustly and with an iron fist and will not tolerate any "non-believers" to live amoung them. The outside world knows what is going on and outside of condeming it and praying for an easing of the persecutions there is sadly really not much more that can be done. I would hope that leaders of nations would continue to keep pressure on the leaders of those nations that are clamping down on the free agency of their people.

  • HaHaHaHa
    April 30, 2010 1:29 p.m.

    @ 1:07 Kind of reminds ya of the religion of "man made" global warming beliefs. The reality of a conjured and theorized belief in a hoax collides with the reality of true evidence.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    April 30, 2010 1:07 p.m.

    When beliefs collide with reality then you have delusion.

  • Lane Myer
    April 30, 2010 10:15 a.m.

    Religion is a system/organization/doctrine of beliefs. Religion is beliefs organized or some may say true religion is a grouping of beliefs that happen to be true.

    -----------

    I belong to no organization. I have no doctrine. I live by my own sense of self worth and what will make me whole. I know what actions make me feels less than and try to avoid them.

    I do allow anyone to feel, worship, or preach whatever they want to. It is their right as a human being but I will not join any 'RELIGION."

  • John20000
    April 30, 2010 9:12 a.m.

    Freedom of belief. I believe there is a God. I believe there isn't a God. Believe whatever you want to believe and don't tell me what to believe. Believe, conclude, trust in, rely on, have faith in, have confidence in, and even swear by. Belief is a human right worth fighting for.

    Worship is belief in action. Worship God. Worship famous people. Worship idols. Worship cars. Worship flesh. Worship fantasy. Worship science. Worship, honor, glorify, idolize, revere, love, esteem, and even sing/chant praises to. The act of worshipping is not a carte blanche human right like belief. All actions (no matter what actions) should always be judged against the rights those impacted by those actions.

    Religion is a system/organization/doctrine of beliefs. Religion is beliefs organized or some may say true religion is a grouping of beliefs that happen to be true.

    Living your religion is once again an action. And once again, all actions (no matter what actions) should always be judged against the rights those impacted by those actions.

    I disagree with those who say, "My system of beliefs is not a religion." The possibility of having "no belief in anything" is zero.

  • Not_Scared
    April 30, 2010 8:30 a.m.

    Whose fighting to keep Prayer Day? This is another collection of whining conservatives.

  • Lane Myer
    April 30, 2010 8:03 a.m.

    think procuradorfiscal's point about non-religion being a religion is that believing in no religion requires a measure of faith, because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, just as you can't prove He does. Either way, you are living by your beliefs, not knowledge.

    ----------

    I do not understand your thinking. I am agnostic. I do not belong to any religion. They may be right and they may be wrong. It is impossible to prove either way.

    Tell me how that is faith of any kind...

  • Esquire
    April 30, 2010 6:59 a.m.

    I don't know the answer, but did Bush appoint a religion ambassador? Was any attention given to the near elimination of Christianity under the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq? How much control should the U.S. government try to exert over other countries, particularly those which are rogue states and even getting them to respect any human rights or responsible behavior in the international community is difficult? I fear that at least the headline was misleading and political in nature. And to Brother Chuck Schroeder, what in the world do your comments on Crist have to do with this article?

  • my screen name
    April 30, 2010 6:33 a.m.

    re: Pagan
    You are absolutely right, and that's why I love the 3rd commandment.
    "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."
    Those who have done those evil acts in God's name have not only committed the evil, but have violated that commandment. That's evil times two.
    Now wouldn't you admit that religious philosophy is even better than your lack of one?

  • Paul in MD
    April 30, 2010 6:07 a.m.

    To Thomas Jefferson @ 5:38PM 4/29:

    I think procuradorfiscal's point about non-religion being a religion is that believing in no religion requires a measure of faith, because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, just as you can't prove He does. Either way, you are living by your beliefs, not knowledge.

    You dismiss everyone who follows an organized religion as blind sheep. I would have to say that you have not bothered to get to know too many religious people. I don't just mean the ones who go to church every Sunday - I mean the ones who live their religion every day. Sure, there are some folks who hear from their leaders and follow blindly. But in my experience they are outnumbered by those who study what is taught, really think it through, and come to a personal commitment about its worth.

    I am LDS. Living my religion requires a great deal of sacrifice, in time and effort. It's not something that sheep do.

  • Suburbs of SLC
    April 30, 2010 12:22 a.m.

    Personally, I don't understand the criticism regarding "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion." Would someone care to explain it to me? In my mind, freedom of religion advocates protecting organized religion, while freedom of worship advocates protecting organized religion AND unorganized/personal/unorthodox religion; why wouldn't they support the broader (and in a sense, 'more free') wording? Although I don't know it matters one way or the other ... certainly not a strong reason to criticize Obama.

  • Vanka
    April 29, 2010 7:58 p.m.

    Obama's wording change is very appropriate. "Freedom of worship" rather than “freedom of religion” is not a narrowing, but a widening of the discussion! Worship, belief, and opinion are matters of individual conscience. When individuals get together to form an organizational entity based on their shared worship practices, beliefs, and opinions, then they are entering the realm of “organized religion.” In the US, individuals are protected in their individual rights and their right to peacefully assemble, by the 1st Amendment. There are corresponding “protections” in the resolutions adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights (2005). The idea that only those who are members of a formal organizational entity (a “religion”) deserve protections and “freedom,” or deserve some higher and better level of freedoms, is too narrow! In this regard, religions have a narrow view that strives to protect their “corporate” interests at the expense of individual worship and belief. They want to systematically discriminate against individual worship and belief, trying to force everyone into their formalized, politicized “nets” by scare tactics (“you are not protected if you are not a member”).

  • ssn
    April 29, 2010 6:32 p.m.

    One need look no further than his/her own mirror to find religious intolerance. Many of the people who claim to be living tenets of their religion (yes, I'm speaking of Christians) are those who also dislike/hate anyone who doesn't look, speak, dress, think like they do.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    April 29, 2010 5:38 p.m.

    "Does that include your anti-religious religion?"

    How is that possible? Is bald a hair color now?

    "Sadly, the most rabid, inflexible, Taliban-like true-believers are those faithful anti-believers that make unfounded vitriolic attacks on faith -- based solely on faith."

    Whaaaa?

    "No proof. No study. No evidence. Just blind, unyeilding, unquestioning faith."

    There you have my argument against any current religion.

    "You act as though you are all-knowledgeable by your expression as though those who have religion aren't smart enough to understand it is a lie"

    I am positive you are smart enough. Yet you still believe in fairy tales written by goat herders from 4000 years ago.

    "If one has NO religion, what would that person be living for outside of themselves?"

    That is a good question. I try to be a good person because it feels good. Wait, in a way that would be for myself.

    Nevermind, just be good (according to the 4000 year old goat herder book) or the angry magician in the sky will smite you.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder
    April 29, 2010 5:31 p.m.

    It's Obama's fault. Gov. Charlie Crist defected from the Republican Party on to run as an independent for U.S. Senate after months of being ripped by conservatives as too supportive of President Barack Obama. He said "I don't have either party helping me. But I need you." Crist said after the announcement in his hometown of St. Petersburg that he will change his voter registration from Republican to "no party affiliation." He claimed the middle ground during his short speech, saying politics had become too divisive. Crist's fall from the GOP's favor has been dramatic. Once considered a shoo-in for the seat, the prized recruit of the National Republican Senatorial Committee now trails by more than 20 points to an upstart former House speaker. Crist, strategists say, failed to take Republican challenger Marco Rubio seriously. His decline is also one of a handful of examples of GOP races across the country in which the Republican Party’s internal ideological battle a tug of war between the pragmatists and the purists has been on full display. The GOP's ideological fight has raged since President Barack Obama was elected in November of 2008.

  • Screwdriver
    April 29, 2010 5:06 p.m.

    It's all Obama's fault. Kind of makes Bush seems less picked on every day. I don't remember anyone questioning his stance on religious tolerance for mixing the words worship and religion.

    Is there a book of rules for every subtle thing you have to say and how to say it as president? I'm sure Obama would like a copy.

  • Pete in Texas
    April 29, 2010 4:43 p.m.

    Re: Pagan @ 4:11

    True. Terrible acts are performed in the name of "religion". That is regrettable. However, simply because one does something terrible in the name of religion doesn't necessarily negate the importance of religion in society. I am not sure what your personal beliefs are, but I strongly believe every individual benefits personally from having a belief in a religion in one way or another. If one has NO religion, what would that person be living for outside of themselves? I think most religions, and I guess I'm focusing on Christian religions here, make the individual, and thus the total society, better as a whole.

  • Pete in Texas
    April 29, 2010 4:32 p.m.

    Re: IakoSan @ 3:59

    I cannot believe that the majority of religions are a "lie" as you so bluntly put it. Whether or not you believe in organized religion, I would say that the greater majority of religions are only interested in the betterment of mankind. I wince when I think of someone WITHOUT religion simply because I am fully aware of the role that religion is supposed to play in an individuals life. I am astounded at the lack of humility your comment displays toward the greater part of mankind. You act as though you are all-knowledgeable by your expression as though those who have religion aren't smart enough to understand it is a lie. Your belief, to society, holds as much water as my belief that religion is true and a good thing to have in ones life. One thing is for sure.... at the end of this life, one of us will be surprised. I hope, for your sake, it isn't you.

  • procuradorfiscal
    April 29, 2010 4:29 p.m.

    To IakoSan:
    Re: "Religion is a ruse, a lie."

    Does that include your anti-religious religion? Or maybe you have some new scientific evidence supporting your stated hypothesis?

    Sadly, the most rabid, inflexible, Taliban-like true-believers are those faithful anti-believers that make unfounded vitriolic attacks on faith -- based solely on faith.

    No proof. No study. No evidence. Just blind, unyeilding, unquestioning faith.

  • Pagan
    April 29, 2010 4:11 p.m.

    Inquisition
    Crusades
    Child sex abuse
    9/11

    While personal religion is fine, many use it as an excuse for much violence.

  • IakoSan
    April 29, 2010 3:59 p.m.

    Good for Obama and Ms. Clinton. Religion is a ruse, a lie.