I went to and attended Church yesterday. No one even tried to prevent that.
This morning I prayed with my family, no one even tried to prevent that. The
Freedom of Religion is not under attack. What is under attack is people using
their religion to enforce public policy on all. I am LDS, and as
such I believe certain things are right and wrong. That is my choice. I
believe Same Sex Marriage is wrong, therefore, I do not seek one. I believe
consumption of certain beverages to be wrong, therefore, I do not consume them.
Those are my choices.If my sole argument is "My God doesn't
like this" to make public policy, what is to stop someone from making a
religion that says "Only same sex marriage is acceptable to God" If I
am equally convinced I am right, and he is equally convinced he is right, how is
the outcome to be decided without trampling on the rights of the loser?My freedom to worship is not under attack, only my freedom to use God to limit
the rights of my fellow man.
Those who do not see religion under attack are new to the battle. Religion is
under attack. God is under attack. Satan is laughing now that many believe he
doesn't even exist.There are no constraints in the Constitution
against religious worship. The constraint is against government interference in
the religious worship.Just last week, the Supreme Court refused to
stomp out the legislation passed by lower courts that required memorials to
fallen police officers to be removed. That ruling by the lower court is blatant
in proscribing the freedom of religious expression (if that is what the
monuments even represent). NO LAWS means NO LAWS, not even laws passed by
lessor courts.Both the freedom of speech and religious freedom are
abridged when prayer is outlawed in school. "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;" and "or abridging the freedom of speech,"No
one can truthfully say that religion liberty has not been under attack by
unconstitutional laws passed both by Congress and from the bench.
We need to keep morals and ethics in our lives, I agree. The business world we
live in is completely devoid of ethics. Today, it's called "free
market" which translates into doing whatever you want. Make as much as
money as possible and gouge as much as possible. If gouging were wrong, people
would simply go to a different business or product. This doesn't excuse your own
lack of ethics. For "digging a hole" for your brother and
"conquering" by your own strength. Today, many people hold
the godless belief that everyone that isn't rich or have jobs, are just lazy or
unrighteous people. And that all rich people deserve their wealth and are
righteous and harder workers than others. I believe the savior debunked that in
the New Testament. Lastly, we need morals in our political arena.
Recently, a certain candidate from Florida has been exposed for having a very
extensive history harassing god's daughters. This is completely unacceptable. I
hope that we put politics and race aside, and do not vote for this completely
moral deprived person. He may blame the media for his condition, in reality, it
was his own free agency.
Liz Carlston has written a wonderful article validating the use of Sharia Law in
Islamic countries and promoting Theocracy.I'm probably safe to
assume she has never been a Mormon living in the Southeast U.S. either.I just got done watching the Mini-series "Fires of Faith" on
KBYU.Did we not learn anything about mixing Governments and Religion?I can't believe the Deseret News placed their one-sided editorial boards
seal of approval on this piece?
Yeah, because the concept of Secularism is oh'so evil... How dare
they try and stop religion from forcing their beliefs down other's throats
through law and legislation.Newsflash: Christian theocracy is just
as evil as the Muslim one...
Let me get this straight. A group of atheists put up a few billboards promoting
their ideas about humanist-based morality. Ms. Carlston calls that religious
censorship? In what way could the valid exercise of free speech be considered
religious censorship?It sounds like Ms. Carlston is suggesting that
the atheists' freedom of speech be revoked, because the free-exercise of
religion entails a guarantee that atheists not be allowed to suggest
alternatives to your religious views.
"God is becoming increasingly unpopular these days."Gee, I
wonder why? Because of the horrible behavior of those who claim to represent
God?"...while the adversary utilizes secularism as an
intimidation tactic to censor religious liberty..."So now we
"secularists", who want to avoid being enslaved to a theocratic
government, are "of the devil"?No wonder your god is
unpopular."Mayor Michael Bloomberg wouldnt allow clergy to
participate in the Sept. 11 memorial because 'there is a separation of church
and state in our Constitution'"The Mayor is correct. He has no
religious authority, and the religious people who wanted to exploit this
memorial event to preach their religion have no civil authority.Religious leaders had no right to invite themselves into this civic memorial.
That is not "censorship"."The dangers we face are not
in religion and faith, but in the caricature and demonization of the other, from
both sides".Atheists do not demonize anyone. We do not believe
in demons or the devil.Only religious people can demonize others, as
shown above.Atheists just refuse to subject ourselves to your gods
and your unsupported fiats about what is and is not "moral".
The most free Muslim majority nations for Christians are the ones that have
And what about the Mosque that was prevented from being placed near the 9/11
memorial? So we're really talking about making this an uncomprimised Mormon
country or are we compromising at Christian nation?Those are
wonderfull talking points for the republican party sir, you hit every one. No
wonder, you were in DC recently.So lets NOT compromise and make this
a TRUE Godly nation then. Take care of the poor, the sick and despise greed.
Lets really get busy on that. Along the way we can reaffirm that our motto is
"in God we Trust" several more times and get school kids praying to
Jesus outloud and all together again. Of course you realize the
Mormon view of things will still be a very small minority and will probably be
put down every chance born again christians get. I can assure you we won't be
swearing on a stack of Book of Mormons anytime soon.Don't let the
impracticality of your plan get in the way. Onward Christian soldiers, force the
Lord's Plan on all!
It is time for Christian believers to be more agressive and "in your
face". Be polite, but totally firm and do not back down.
God still tells me she wants me to build a casino somewhere in the SL valley.
I've met nothing but opposition to my religious beliefs.
RE: DarrelWe have freedom if speech in this country, which includes
religious speech, religous speech is legitimate speech in the
public square, if a law is proposed, no matter the relgiosity
surrouanding it, and enough representive and senators can be persuaded that
it is a good law, it can become law.That is how the system works. arguments about morality or religion is moot.
"It is time for Christian believers to be more agressive and 'in your
face'. "And what exactly would that look like?Which
version of "Christian beliefs" would you employ?Catholic?
Holy Roller? Amish? If a Muslim called for Muslims to be more
"in your face" about Islam, would that be ok with you?
I like "Darrell's" comments and I wish there were more people like
him. I guess some would consider me a "secularist" if they heard my
views on specific topics. But I am actually a "Deist"; (I believe in
God, but I don't believe in a specific religion). We need to keep that
separation between church and government alive and well and not have
"Theocracys". This is how extremists get too much power and get
people's rights taken away.I am so happy to live in this country of free
Blue:I would get in anybody's face. I am hard shell LDS and that is
what I would push.
@ the truth"if a law is proposed, no matter the relgiosity
surrouanding it, and enough representive and senators can be persuaded that it
is a good law, it can become law." As long as no one's rights
are trampled in the process, nor one particular religion is given unfair
advantage over another I absolutely agree with you. But the moment someone
loses a right, or there is unfair advantage, that is why we have courts. Majority does indeed rule, but not at the expense of the minority's
Yea Darrel | 2:26 p.m. It is the commercial aspect of religion that
is driving many to question the religious truths of churches and their message.
Just like other businesses, churches are competing for and striving to obtain
customers for their product. Their demands to have unlimited freedom for
themselves betrays their ulterior motives of gaining and controlling the wealth
of the world. In that they are no different than any other corporation. Religious freedom cannot exist under a religious controlled government.
There are many examples where this is true. And because religion is more
restrictive of human behavior than mere political government there is less
freedom for individuals. Only a secular government can be neutral in the
administration of laws.
Here's what Ayn Rand had to say about religion it is the great poison of
mankind and the first enemy of the ability to think. In 1934 she said, I want to
fight religion as the root of all human lying and the only excuse for suffering.
Now there are many in the conservative movement who idolize Rand. I
don't think that it is possible to disentangle her views on morality and
religion with her views on economics.
BobP: "I would get in anybody's face. I am hard shell LDS and that is what
I would push."So... you'd push your LDS faith?Any
limits to your pushing? Time? Manner? Place?Do people who don't
share your faith get to "push" back? As in, you say something about
your "hard shell" faith, and someone else points out, just as
vigorously, that your beliefs are riddled with contradictions, morally
indefensible instructions, historical and scientific impossibilities, and just
plain make no sense?Do you understand that the harder you
"push" your beliefs, the even greater "push-back" you'll
create?Do you understand the concept of "what goes around comes
You know what is particularly troublesome Liz? It's that you use a picture and a
few words of an LDS church leader to try to make a point that the church clearly
has not made.The LDS church has not called for you or anyone else to
end the separation of church and state. For that you are entering into the the
realm of false teacher.William Atkin is clearly involved with
INTERNATIONAL affairs and probably has good reason in other countries for his
remarks. Most probably religious minorities that are suppressed by larger
religions that CONTROL THIER NATION'S GOVERNMNET. Precisly what you are
advocating for. You should be ashamed.
Richards: "Both the freedom of speech and religious freedom are abridged
when prayer is outlawed in school."Bull.Government
is totally within their rights to pass laws that say that you and your religion
can not practice your religion on my property. You cannot come onto my property
and preach, you cannot come into my house and pray, you cannot build a shrine in
my yard, you cannot take my children and make them participate in religious
practices.Government has every right to pass laws limiting religion
and their free exercise in these types of cases. Other rights, just as important
if not more so, trump your so called right to unlimited practice of your
religion.Public schools are owned just as much by me as you. My
children have just as much of a right to go to those schools as children from
religious families do. You have no right to indocrinate other's
children into your religion (or lack of religion in the case of atheists) in our
public schools.But nobody stops you from doing as you will in
private schools. Nobody stops you from worshiping as you will on your property.
So who decides what "righteous principles" should be imposed? What if
there are disagreements, particularly between the various churches, let alone
religions? Feel free to promote your values and beliefs, as is your right, but
don't ask that they be official views of our system of government. That's a top
down imposition, and the approach should be bottom up.
BobP: I've been listening now for decades, but I just can't recall anyone
instructing me to "get in anyone's face" as a way to promote faith. I
doubt that approach is even taken in matters of international observance of
freedom of religion and law..
Irony for Today--BobP's 14th Article of Faith: "We believe in being hard
shell and getting into your face."
Perhaps, if we didn't have people -- slamming airplanes into
buildings, Launching crusades, "marrying" little girls,
or committing genocide during the Inquisition -- all in the
name of God or Religion....We wouldn't NEED Secularism.
Doctrine and Covenants 134:99 We do not believe it just to mingle
religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is
fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual
rights of its members, as citizens, denied.===Perhaps if
the religious would stop trying to FORCE everyone to adhere to their particular
beliefs, they would find more acceptance.
I'm sure these concerned religious pharasies would be taken aback on thier
position if the majority MUSLIM religion wanted to pray and preach to thier kids
in a predominatly muslim community.In fact they are absurdly
paranoid allready of madazzas and sharia law.Oh the horror that
would cause amoung the proud and stiffnecked in the chrisitan community to have
to live thier own decisions as a minority.
Morality is worthy of discussion. Frivolous, fluffy, phony, fictional stories
about history and the origin of the universe will be combated.
History shows...the more secular a civilization becomes the greater it's chances
for destruction. In case it's gone unnoticed, It seems the world is on a fast
track to that end...just saying.
@Tulip;History has shown that when religion is government that it
tends to murder the citizens for things like, oh, blasphemy, heresy, thinking
@Ranch handA complete and utter distortion of the great majority of
people of "faith." Not looking for a "religion-run"
government. Simply looking to keep a voice in the debate without constantly
being shouted down by the secularists. But then you knew that.
@Tulip;The majority of "people of faith" are not the
leaders and are not in government, are they!It is the leaders of
said religions, when religion is government, who are corrupt and evil. And they
do it to their own as well as others.I said "when religion is
the government" (i.e. when they're in bed together) - then you get these
evil things happening. The sheep are only that, sheep, and they do what they're