My view: People of faith must assert righteous principles to combat secularism


Return To Article
  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2011 11:20 a.m.


    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 told.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 9, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    @Ranch hand

    A 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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 9, 2011 6:53 a.m.


    History has shown that when religion is government that it tends to murder the citizens for things like, oh, blasphemy, heresy, thinking for themselves.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    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.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 7:01 p.m.

    Morality is worthy of discussion. Frivolous, fluffy, phony, fictional stories about history and the origin of the universe will be combated.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Nov. 8, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 3:08 p.m.

    Doctrine and Covenants 134:9

    9 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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 8, 2011 9:56 a.m.

    Irony for Today--BobP's 14th Article of Faith: "We believe in being hard shell and getting into your face."

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Nov. 8, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    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..

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 8:24 a.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2011 2:42 a.m.

    Richards: "Both the freedom of speech and religious freedom are abridged when prayer is outlawed in school."


    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. Nobody.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Nov. 8, 2011 2:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 11:11 p.m.

    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 around"?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 10:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 9:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 9:21 p.m.

    @ 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 rights.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Nov. 7, 2011 9:20 p.m.


    I would get in anybody's face. I am hard shell LDS and that is what I would push.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 8:21 p.m.

    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 speech!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 7:58 p.m.

    "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?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 6:56 p.m.

    RE: Darrel

    We 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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    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.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Nov. 7, 2011 5:30 p.m.

    It is time for Christian believers to be more agressive and "in your face". Be polite, but totally firm and do not back down.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Nov. 7, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    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!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 4:41 p.m.

    The most free Muslim majority nations for Christians are the ones that have secular gov't.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 4:29 p.m.

    "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".

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Nov. 7, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    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.

  • Sutton Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    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...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    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?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 7, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 2:26 p.m.

    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.