Comments about ‘Rising hostility against religion worldwide’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Aug. 27 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Eugene, OR

A voice of Reason 12:17 p.m.

Choosing to disagree personally with gay marriage is one thing. Rewriting the law so that others are unable to make a choice at all is something else.

How would you like it if we took a vote and decided that your marriage was invalid? Would you just roll over and accept it?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Pew found that Christians were harassed in 130 countries, Muslims in 117 countries and Jews in 75 countries"

I wonder how many atheists are harrassed in since they're the demographic that US voters are least willing to vote for (even homosexuals have lower "unwilling to vote for" numbers).

South Jordan, UT

I, for instance, get harrassed in my native land (USA) for my religious preference (atheism).

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


"Rewriting the law so that others are unable to make a choice at all"

Freedom = private exercise and belief unmolested. However, what government promotes, endorses, or 'legitimizes' is up to the people.

No one is taking away the choice to get married. We're preserving our choice not to give it legal endorsement or validation. They can still get married privately, just like polygamists can. People can freely believe and practice according to their own dictates. If we stopped polygamists from even living under the same roof, etc. then yes, we would be forcing them. Why is it that liberals seem to think they are forced when others don't agree with them? I'm not forcing anyone when I say "I don't like it and I won't give them a legal certificate" because they can still do it all they want.

The 'gay religion' is currently exercising their freedom to worship/believe what they want and exercise/practice those beliefs. What the state endorses is an entirely separate issue. If the state doesn't give certificates recognizing baptisms for the dead, then the LDS Church's freedoms are not infringed. According to liberal logic, it would be. See the problem?

Eugene, OR

A voice of Reason 5:36 p.m.

You don't have to agree with gay marriage. You can dislike it all you want, but using the law to disenfrancise millions of people based on nothing more than "God thinks gay people are gross" is a huge injustice. Getting married "privately" (whatever that means) still deprives them of hundreds of legal rights that heterosexuals like us get to take for granted when we we enter into unions with the people that we love. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is a misnomer.

Again, I have to ask: What if the majority of people decided that YOUR marriage wasn't worth "legal endorsement or validation"? How would you react?


It isn't hard to understand the reasons behind hostility towards religion.

Religions condone blowing up innocent people in the name of "god".

Religions condone stripping individual liberty in the name of "religious liberty".

Religions condone bigotry and discrimination against other religions - the "my god is the only god" syndrome.

Religion is a corruption of spirituality.



Freedom is threatened when we VOTE to take away another citizen's rights.


A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


1- Benefits of marriage are a separate issue. Unions could be given the same benefits and that's if they even should exist or even should be given those benefits. We are equal in the vote, not in what government may dish out to people. Entitlement and right to be free are different. They are free to act, not to force my support.

2- "God condemns it" is not the only argument. In fact, it's not an argument I use. I'm arguing that because I don't support it, it shouldn't happen (religion being irrelevant). Basically 100% democratic. I believe that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't happen. WE form our government, we rule our government. The government does not rule us. So far, I don't believe you really disagree with this (or many others). Where I believe we disagree is more relating to the post from "Ranch".


How are we taking away rights? I don't support stopping gays from doing anything. 10 couples - 1 is gay - we vote no - they are still gay, nothing changed. - the ONLY thing "no" applies to is group recognition and support.

Freedom is a right, endorsement isn't. Please address that point.

Temple City, CA

There are some incorrect notions that have been thrown into this forum that I think ought to be pointed out.

1. "Thinking people don't believe in religion." Not true. Very many religious people have higher degrees, use logic in their lives, accept science as it shows what is true, and read/understand widely.

2. "Religion is responsible for most of the violence in the world." Not true. The most deaths by violence in the 20th Century were caused by governments that were officially atheist or anti-religious. While I agree that there are many deaths in the name of religion, most of those are actually a result of someone's NOT following the religion, but using the name of the religion for political ends. (The deaths, therefore, are political, not religious. There would be fewer deaths by violence if people actually followed the tenets of the world's religions.)

3. "Mormons are complainers who don't understand persecution." Learn the true history.

4. "Mormons don't know what it's like to have their marriages legislated against." Learn the history.

5. "Mormons are hiding something (especially about Prop 8)." Difficult to do when there is so much public documentation about this new religion.



9 wolves, 1 sheep.

Which one is dinner.

GLBT couples pay taxes just like heterosexual couples do. If GLBT couples aren't to be given the same legal protections, from government, that accrue through marriage, then neither should heterosexual couples.

Eugene, OR

A voice of Reason 8:06 p.m.

Most of the Southern population once believed that keeping other people as slaves was a perfectly fine thing to do. Does that mean that the government should have let them? The majority of the people living in the American colonies didn't even initially support the struggle for independence from England. Should we have voted on that?

And I notice that you still haven't answered my question. How would you react if the validity of your marriage could be decided by popular vote?

Salt Lake City, UT

A voice of Reason
Basically 100% democratic. I believe that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't happen.

Kinda like when people used their votes to have anti polygamy laws passed 150 years ago. Kinda like the Saudis not allowing Christians to build churches. The people dont want it so the Christians dont get to build. The people didnt want it, so it shouldnt happen...right? Do you REALLY want to hang your hat on that logic?

Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. It's great if you are a wolf and lousy if you are a sheep. We LDS were the sheep 150 years ago and now many LDS have forgotten about that and now want to be the wolves. VOR, you should move out of the Inter-Mountain West where we LDS are the sheep and see that the tyranny of the majority DOES exist.

Roy, UT

"Joe Blow & Dave", Being a CONVERT to the LDS Church, I understand where you are coming from. I am not from here, but moved here. The LDS "Culture" outside of Utah is much more accepting, as is preached by the prophets and apostles, to accept and love others for whom they are, not dislike and hate for what they are not. Here it is different because "Mowing the Lawn on Sunday" or other "Law Of Moses" type things are looked upon as "Should Not Do's", and the people here are Raised that way. They like the Pharasees and Sagisees that Jesus Condemned will be so condemned at the Judgement bar of Christ, for their lack of acceptance and understanding, and for their persecution of you and others. Even I & you for judging them if we know better. The thing to remember is, they may think they are better, but they are not, and they have been told so by a Prophet of God, any GOOD Latter-day Saint would smile and offer a salutation and be friendly. We don't believe in Child baptism, should I not have attended my cousin's newborn Christening in another Church? Well I did!!! God Bless!

Phoenix, AZ

%Blue 10:47

You have a talent, I wish you luck, and I hope you find a venue for it to help others find reason in life. Maybe a job with the DN, they can really use some insightful logical writers.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

Why do we send "aid" to countries without religious freedom? In Iran 6500 bibles were confiscated. Nice place.

Newport Beach, CA

"Choosing to disagree personally with gay marriage is one thing. Rewriting the law so that others are unable to make a choice at all is something else."

You mean "re-re-writing" the law. We didn't need to re-write the law, until your judges re-wrote it first.


Actually Duck, the laws said nothing at all about same-sex marriage. It wasn't against any constitutions or laws until religious nuts decided to encode discrimination into our legal system.

Until that time we could legally marry since there wasn't anything against it. It's just that most places wouldn't grant a license anyway. Then religions realized that they had overlooked something and you saw this plethora of constitutional amendments begin.

That is when religious bigots began to rewrite the laws.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Voice Of Reason: "How are we taking away rights? I don't support stopping gays from doing anything. 10 couples - 1 is gay - we vote no - they are still gay, nothing changed. - the ONLY thing "no" applies to is group recognition and support."


The best answer for this is in the constitution. The 14th amendment states: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States:..."

So, if you get any rights or privileges, so should all the other people who are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of this great nation.

You may not like them or what they do, but they are Americans. Their rights and privileges are not up for a vote.

Layton, UT

Seeing how many gay-advocates have come onto this thread to claim victimhood of persecution, and this article is about religious persecution, I think we can safely say that the gay-lifestyle is a religion.



If the gay-lifestyle is a religion, how do you explain all the gay Christians, Mormons, and those of other faiths?

Gay is an orientation, not a religion.

to comment

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