We'll see how religious leaders react when faced with the first Islamic
candidate, or the first Hindu candidate. Would an atheist candidate be supported
in his attempt to express his own personal religious beliefs.
When Jesus walked the earth He organized a church. The Jews said it was a cult.
2,000 years later we still call it Christianity.If Jesus walked the
earth today many Christians would reject His message. And yes, Jesus would
agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding elective abortions.
Excellent, well reasoned editorial. All religions should be extended the
courtesy of tolerance, absent malicious actions and intents to harm others.
"...deep suspicion of religion and religiously motivated people."--- With very good reason!"To religious people,
religion matters."--- Why can't they just practice it then? By
forcing their views on others, they are really taking away the religious freedom
of those who believe differently."Americans have every right to
base their political choices on their religious views, and any suggestion
otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment guarantee of religious
freedom."--- Again, when your political choice puts your
beliefs over the beliefs of others, you are taking away the religious freedom of
others. What about the guarantee of religious freedom for them?
@Rifleman;Jesus NEVER established a church. Never."Christians" were simply another sect of Judaism - they attended
synagog not "church". It wasn't until many, many years
after Christs death, when Christians abandoned the dietary laws and other
religious requirements (circumcision, for example) that the Jews finally said
"beat it, you're not Jews"!Read up on it, there are some
very good (and well respected) books on the subject.
Rifleman | 5:53 a.m. Oct. 12, 2011 Salt Lake City, Utah If
Jesus walked the earth today many Christians would reject His message.================= Agreed.That's because He and his
entire message clearly prove he was a bleeding heart Liberal.
In summary, the mainstream (liberal) media is good because it defended the LDS
Church against a baseless attack, but it's bad because it has an
"aggressive posture toward religion in general." And Pastor Jeffress
is bad because he thinks Mormonism is a cult, but hes good to say and think its
a cult because this is "a genuine and deeply-held religious viewpoint"
which deserves deference for the mere fact that it is a religious viewpoint
rather than a secular one.Id suggest that Pastor Jeffress' bigotry
is rooted in his religious convictions--the genuineness, depth, and
religiousness of those convictions notwithstanding. That being the case, why
should the root of his bigotry deserve a pass merely because it is
@ RanchHand. How and where has religion been forced on you? Details please! Or
is it just your silly rebellion temper tantrum?
@RanchHand, Jesus did organize a church, it was after his resurrection, that he
sent his apostles into all the world. Peter saw in a vision (read Acts) that
the "gentiles" (read this as not Jews) were to be welcomed into the
church and was sent to preach the gospel to them. I hardly think that Peter was
"many years after Christ's death." and might I add, resurrection.
Why do you find it so surprising that the mainstream media defended the church
against being called a "cult." They've been very respectful of the
church for many years (btw, Slate isn't exactly a very popular mainstream
source). It seems every time a major show on Mormonism is going to be done
(like the interview with Hinkley, etc), Mormons are always "surprised"
it was respectful. The world is not out to get you.@Mountainman: I
think Ranchhand might be referencing the way religiously-motivated public policy
affects non-religious people (such as the liquor laws in Utah, the Hays
productions code for film that lasted much of the century, etc).@Counter Intelligence: Most oppressive regimes: Communists (atheists), Nazis
(professed Christians, protestant primarily), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban
(religious fundamentalist Islam), Milosevic (Orthodox Christian). Many others,
such as Rwanda, Sudan, etc. were carried out by religious people, though not for
religious reasons. In short, your characterization of "most"
oppressive regimes being atheist is patently false and absurd.
Let's use some deductive reasoning.....1. The U.S. Constitution
article VI states: "no religious Test shall ever be required as
Qualification for federal office"2. The Republicans are making
a huge religous test against Mitt Romney for his Mormonism.3.
Therefore, Republicans are trampling the U.S. Constitution.Boo the
umpire, but I call 'em as I sees 'em.I think for myself.
To RanchHand - I'm wondering, do you ever vote? I ask, because every time you
do, you are making a political choice that puts your beliefs over the beliefs of
others. And, I'm with Mountanman in calling you out about how
religion has been forced on you. Also, how would you correct any societal norms
that may be founded on a faith-based worldview of the majority, without
"forcing your beliefs" on the rest of us?Furthermore,
Jesus called and set apart 12 Apostles, as well as 70's that he sent out as
missionaries to spread his own religious construct based on the fulfillment of
the Mosaic Law and salvation through his teachings and atonement. He called
Peter to lead that group of believers after his resurrection. They were
certainly not called to spread the traditional and established Jewish
religion.Maybe you know better than the Apostle Paul, who clearly
believed Jesus established a religion when he taught to the Ephesians that Jesus
gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to perfect the
Saints and for the work of the ministry.I don't know - sounds like a
religion to me.
I never thought I'd see the DN criticize someone for defending the LDS
church.As a member of the church, I'm grateful for MSNBC, CNN,
Slate, and other mainstream media outlets that criticize Jeffress for his
bigotry and defend the LDS church. I just wish Fox News would join in, but I
guess they're too worried about what much of their base (conservatives in the
South) would think of that.
To "LDS Liberal | 9:38 a.m." actually you are 100% wrong.Yes the constitution states that there cannot be a religious test for Federal
office.Some have interpreted what is going on in the GOP as a
religious test.The problem is that the GOP can impose whatever test
they want for their canidate because a canidate is NOT a Federal Office. Or was
there a change, and just being a canidate was a Federal Office?
"but we ask that this courtesy extend to all expressions of heartfelt
belief"Does that include defending Muslims when they want to
build a Mosque?Does that include Atheists when they want to live
their lives free of organized religion?Does that include gays and
lesbians when they want to marry the person they love?What the DNews
continually denies is that other people have "heartfelt beliefs" that
directly contradict their own heartfelt beliefs, but I have not seen the DNews
editorial board stand up for the heart-felt beliefs of those they disagree with.
Stand on principle at all times or you have nothing to stand on at
@CounterIntelligence: While I agree with your point that religion is too often
scapegoated, your original statement was clearly intended to give the impression
that there is some inherent link between atheism (not fundamentalist
atheism...that statement is nonsensical) and oppression. I also take exception
to your categorization of oppression. Number of dead does not indicate the
level of oppression. Stalin killed roughly 20 million people (though exact
numbers are impossible. That's almost 2% of the population. In Rwanda almost
20% were killed. Also note, Stalin didn't primarily kill for religious
purposes, but political. In fact, the Orthodox Church survived throughout his
reign with many priests openly practicing their religion. Stalin's hero was
Ivan Grozny...an Orthodox Saint. He even commissioned major movies from Sergei
Eisenstein glorifying both Ivan Grozny and Alexander Nevsky. Both are saints
and both movies openly portrayed religion. PS - It's
"opiate" not "opium."
To Timj - I've seen the media, including Fox News, defend and allow mockery of
Mormons. On Fox, Ann Coulter said how "lovely" Mormons are, then
listed several out-of-context and blatantly untrue beliefs we supposedly have,
clearly attempting to make our belief system look lunatic. We're apparently
lovely, just like mindless Stepford wives. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow allowed Bill
Maher to rant at length in the most despicable manner about things we hold most
sacred, as well as half-truths and outright lies about us.The
overall tone seems to be "Sure, LDS beliefs are laughably ridiculous to any
rational person, but they have every constitutional right to believe them, so
don't let their foolishness influence your vote!" Thanks, I guess. Their
defense of us often seems more like passive-aggressive marginalization. For example, as an LDS member for over 50 years, holding various
teaching and leadership positions in the church, this campaign season is the
very first time in my life that I heard "Mormons get their own planet when
they die." I suppose it's better entertainment for Maher and Coulter to
offer up this misleading caricature, rather than engage in an honest discussion
of eternal progression.
Nevertheless, at his famous talk at BYU, Ezra Taft Benson stated full out that
the Church can tell members how to think politically. Is this the general view
in this culture, and if so how should it affect voters considering Romney's (and
to a lesser extent) Huntsman's candidacy?
@Mountainman & DSB;Examples.(1) Utah's liquor
laws.(2) Utah's Amendment 3.(3) DOMA(4) California's
Prop-8.(5) North Dakotas new Anti-abortion laws.(6) Utah's new
ultrasound pre-abortion laws.(7) Was it Alabama trying to pass
anti-Sharia/Muslim just laws this last year?Just to name a few.@DSB;I do vote, but I NEVER vote to disenfranchise anyone.
My beliefs do not include forcing others to live the way I want them to.@CounterIntelligence;The Jews wiped out an entire nation if
you believe the bible to be true, and at God's command. They were obviously not
athiests. How many do you think the "body count" was for that
To RanchHand - many, many areas of the country have bizarre liquor laws, many
more perplexing than our own. The repetitive citation of this in our culture,
as if we are somehow unique in having idiosyncratic liquor laws, speaks much
more to your own provincialism than it does to the culture of our peculiar
laws.Regarding your votes, if you vote to uphold abortion rights, or
to give homosexuals the right to marriage, you are in fact voting to impose your
values over those who don't want their society to legalize such things. I
didn't say anything about anyone being disenfranchised, because everyone has a
vote. We just don't all get our way, but every vote you or I cast is a vote to
impose our beliefs on people who vote otherwise.
About intolerance:I don't care what the religious believe or
disbelieve. It doesn't matter and is none of my business - until you push your
views onto me. If you want to worship Ra, Jesus, Odin, Hecate or any other
fine.When you start to enact laws that dictate how I am to live (as
long as I don't harm others), then you go too far. Live and let
live. You worship as you see fit - allow me the same. If you don't like
alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like gays/gay-marriage, don't get involved
in a gay relationship or marry someone of your own sex. You don't believe in
abortion, don't get one. It really IS that simple - live and let
live. But you won't do that. You insist that your views are the only valid
views and that everyone else must abide by your rules. This is where we have a
problem and where we become intolerant of your actions. But, legislating your
beliefs/views is a form of intolerance itself - you demonstrate your intolerance
of the lifestyles of others.Live your own life and allow others to
@CounterIntelligence;Re: abortion. A fetus is not a person and what
gives that group of cells (parasitic cells at that) the right to use a woman's
body if she doesn't want to host them?Re: drunk driving. Are you
also willing to make certain of your own vices illegal that are equally
dangerous? Talking on the cell phone/texting while driving - studies have shown
these users are every bit as dangerous as drunk drivers; perhaps more so. At
least the drunks are trying to watch the road.It could also be said
that religion has "social consequences". Hate is a very religious
value; honest, just look around and you can see that (the cause of this article
To Ranch - you are Exhibit #1 in the concept that your votes seek to impose your
beliefs on everyone else, just as you accuse the religious of doing. You just
feel that your beliefs are more enlightened and valid than those of a more
religious bent. EVERY vote cast is from someone who seeks to impose their
belief system on the machinations of our society. You believe the unborn should
not be considered humans. I believe otherwise. We engage in the debate, cast
our votes, and one of us wins and the other loses. Sometimes the loser engages
the court system to impose their beliefs on everyone else, because they can't
win at the polls.You're no better than me, just because your belief
system includes negating the consequences of sexual promiscuity through
legalized abortions of convenience. And, you've already won that battle by and
large, because abortions are indeed legal. I'm not crying about being
disenfranchised because people like you voted to impose their beliefs on the
society in which I live. I wasn't disenfranchised - I had my vote, and I
lost.But, I suspect that debating someone who defends drunk drivers
is probably rather pointless.
DSB: But, I suspect that debating someone who defends drunk drivers is probably
rather pointless.So if a person through negligent behavior, kills
someone while making the decision to txt, or talk on a cell phone while driving,
that's OK with you, because they weren't being negligent by drinking?Someone who doesn't understand that the victim is no less dead by the drinker
then the cell phone user, cannot understand the point ranch is making, and can't
because Religion tells them the drinker is guilty before he got in the car. DSB: just because your belief system includes negating the
consequences of sexual promiscuity through legalized abortions of
convenience.More right wing nonsence, when you say "sexual
promiscuity" does it include married couples or just dirty, nasty people
with whom you would never associate? You might be surprised.
In the middle ages the Jefferies-mentality would be gathering bundles of wood to
place around heretics feet.
Can't I just practice my religion without having to compare my church's level of
persecution to everyone else's?
Mitt is a big boy and all this railing on his (and my) religion will not
diminish his leadership abilities, his zeal for helping this nation, nor his
patriotism. Campaigns are usually ugly, mudslinging times, and if people really
want the truth they need to go to the right sources for it. Look to the
candidate's political record, not their pearly whites.Bill Maher is
a self-promoting-by-belittling-others disgrace. Who listens to him? If The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were a cult, I submit there would be
many millions less members. Cults, historically, are less successful.
DSB says:"Regarding your votes, if you vote to uphold abortion
rights, or to give homosexuals the right to marriage, you are in fact voting to
impose your values over those who don't want their society to legalize such
things."---You are incorrect, DSB. I
am not voting to force my values on you. If that were the case, you would be
required to have a GLBT marriage or denied a heterosexual one. THAT would be
imposing my values on you. When GLBT marriage is legal, you will be able to
enter into a heterosexual marriage. Nothing imposed on you. You aren't
required to like it, but as I said, no imposition occurs. On the
other hand, voting to deny us marriage imposes your ideals upon us. That IS an
imposition.This country is based on freedom and equal treatment by
the government of all American Citizens. You do not have the right to
"don't want their society to legalize such things" when those things
discrminate against us. You see, it is OUR society every bit as much as it is
yours. Equally. We DESERVE to be treated equally by our government - even if
you don't like it.
To "Ranch | 10:07 p.m." but by voting for gay marriage, you are
forcing your values on others. Granted you are not imposing all of your values,
but you are imposing some.So, how do you resolve the issue when
people have opposing values so that you do not impose one person's values on the
other?FYI gays are granted equal treatment. There is nothing
preventing a gay man from marrying a woman, or a gay woman marrying a man. It
is equal. Any unmaried woman may marry any unmarried man, there is no
discrimination and it is 100% equal.
@Redshirt;When GLBT couples can marry and have their marriages
recognized by the government, THEN we will be treated equally. You will be able
to marry a GLBT person yourself.Your analogy is like saying that The
ONLY religion you can worship is Catholic, but since EVERYONE gets to worship as
a Catholic, you're all treated equally.I'm sure you don't see the
false criteria of your analogy, but it is an epic fail.
To "Ranch | 8:21 a.m" again, you are wrong. Until GLBT people behave
equally with the rest of society, they can never be treated equally.
'FYI gays are granted equal treatment.' - Redshirt1701 | 8:13 a.m. Oct. 13, 2011
Reply fact: *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By
TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared
for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and
power-of-attorney documents.' And yet, even with Living Will,
Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa
Pond. They were together for 18 years. *Study: Gay Men
Offered Fewer Job Interviews By Winston Gieseke The Advocate 10/04/11 According to a study published today in the American Journal of
Sociology, men whose resumes indicate that theyre gay are 40% less likely to be
called in for job interviews, especially in the south or Midwest.
And last: 14,000 men & women discharged from the US military
over 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Source? Service Memebers Legal
Defense. Redshirt, you are also the person that continually makes
the claim that Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. It's 2011. Well? Where are they?
@ Redshirt: How are gays not acting equally with the rest of society?
To "Pagan | 12:39 p.m." What you say about hospitals denying access to
a "partner" is wrong. Hospitals deny girlfriends access to dying
boyfriends all the time. There are even cases where a spouse has been denied
access. So apparently Gays are being treated equally in this regard.So, unfortunately for you, unmarried couples, regardless of sexual preferences
are treated the same.That study actually doesn't really say anything
about descrimination. In actuality it shows that there is no descrimination.
Most studies conclude that 10% of the population is gay. So, if you are getting
close to 10% of the time getting an interview, that is to be expected.Lets see, prior to earlier this year Homosexuality was considered a mental
disorder by the DOD. Every year 1% to 2% of the people who apply to the US
military are disqualified for mental disorders. With 2 million active military
people that means that there are 20,000 to 40,000 people that have been
disqualified for revealing any mental disorders. So, the Gay population was
given a privelage under DADT because as long as they didn't tell they could
serve with their "mental disorder".
To "Pagan | 12:39 p.m." here are 10 sources that show that WMD's were
in fact found in Iraq:Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid' July 2,
2004US did find Iraq WMD NY Post October 25, 2004Iraqi Nerve Gas,
WMD Find Blows Away Pundits NewsMax, May 17, 2004WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt
Continued in Iraq With Surprising Results Wired October 23, 2010Iraq
mortar shells contain blister agent USA Today January 11, 2004Bomb said to
hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq MSNBC May 17, 2004Sarin, Mustard
Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq Fox New May 17, 2004Warheads with
mustard, sarin gas found by Polish troops in Iraq: Rumsfeld Spacewar July 1,
2004Deadly Nerve Agent Sarin Is Found in Roadside Bomb May 18, 2004Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq WorldNetDaily June 21, 2006Apparently WMDs were in Iraq, and were found, and had it reported on.
'Apparently WMDs were in Iraq, and were found, and had it reported on.' -
RedShirt | 4:09 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011 From the article you cited. - US did find Iraq WMD NY Post October 25, 2004 "Israeli
warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors
documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums
and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence
of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
And if there were weapons Redshirt, why can't you find any articles...today? No Biological, No Chemical, No Nuclear Weapons found in Iraq. And Osama Bin Laden was found in... Pakistan.
Redshirt, *'U.S. Military deaths in Iraq war at 4,473 - AP -
Published by the DSNews - 08/02/2011 You spit on the memory of every
American who has served this country.
@RedShirt;We ARE behaving equally to the rest of society. We are
falling in love and joining together with the person we love. How is that any
different? It isn't. The only thing you don't like is that the
person we love happens to be of our own sex - which, by the way is none of your
As a non-Mormon who has lived happily here in lovely Cedar City for the last six
years, I am comfortable in saying that the Mormons are NOT a cult.