Comments about ‘Half of Americans worry about their own religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 29 2013 12:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

To me religion is what you do religiously. My manners and my daily rue teen. My free agency is something that I think is under attack. If I want to smoke, drink booze or eat potato chips is my choice. My free agency to decide if I want to be a couch potato or a healthy guy is my choice. I believe in the supernatural But My choice, the things that I should decide for my self are being interfered with greatly. Freedom of religion is a lot more than which church I have to belong to, or what that group of people wants.

Bakersfield, CA

How lovely the first 8 comments were, generalizing their hatred and prejudice against all evangelicals. How unethical not to specify which groups had offended. But this is a democracy afterall, and it doesn't ensure accuracy.

Where are the Mormons with any historical perspective here? I am 7th generation (former) LDS, and we've complained about persecution and interference with our rights to practice our religion since 1830.. The Manifesto didn't stop the next 4 prophets from keeping their covenant of Celestial Marriage, nor did any priesthood change take place until 1978. That was the original pioneer spirit, but it is almost totally muted today. Only the FLDS have any serious legitimate complaints in this area today.

As an evangelical, I feel no threats to the practice of my religion and do not understand all the whining and grand-standing of those who do. I listen carefully to their concerns, but simply do not see them. That may be my perspective because I evangelize and do ministry in Third World countries where true bigotry and imprisonment flourishes...

All the "haters" here need to find another venue to complain on, and allow civil discourse.



As atl134 said, in science the word "theory" does not mean a mere speculation. It is instead an explanation that is able to subsume a large variety of facts into a coherent whole, allowing them to be understood. In science, theories are useful because they allow us to make predictions about what to expect in new circumstances. Theories are always subject to revision in the light of new facts, because that is the scientific way of progress.

There are many scientific theories that you would probably not describe as "ONLY a theory, as any reputable scientist will attest." These include:

The germ theory of disease
Newton's theory of universal gravitation
The atomic theory
The kinetic theory of gases
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity
Quantum mechanics
The theory of plate tectonics

The theory of evolution fits very cleanly into this list of scientific theories by providing a unified explanation for a long list of detailed observations. Any reputable scientist will attest that it is a theory, but "only" a theory in the same way the the germ theory or the atomic theory is "only a theory".

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Chemist and atl134

Thank you both for your educational comments. If people would clearly grasp these distinctions, we might finally relegate ideas like Creationism and Intelligent Design to the same dustbin of pseudo-science now occupied by Astrology and Alchemy.

As someone said commenting on another article, “religion is about subjective truth”… it tells us nothing about the objective world and attempting to do so, in my view, only speeds its demise. Not convinced? Ask yourself the following questions:

1.Name a fact about the natural (objective) world in which a scientific explanation was later supplanted by a religious explanation.

2.Name a fact about the natural world in which a religious explanation was later supplanted by a scientific one.

Are the answers not obvious?

Bakersfield, CA

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'". The "scientific" explanations of the moment are fleeting. Astronomy being a prime example of theoretical changes initiated by baffling conundrums just within the past short decade, eg. Black Holes.

Meridian must have a lack of text books or Internet access not to be able to answer the last two questions ad infinitum. How sad to be hooked on theories that disprove themselves every day, and none that have disproved a single Biblical event, including Creation itself.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID


Please notice what I did not ask – I did not ask “name a scientific explanation that has been supplanted by a better scientific explanation.” That happens all the time and is what we expect from rigorous and robust science.

As to your question about disproving something found in the Bible, if you have not found anything I’ll simply suggest you’re not trying very hard. A quick Google search will provide a laundry list of false assertions. If you need help getting started, here’s perhaps the earliest.

Genesis 1 states the Earth was created before the stars (i.e., light), which we now know is impossible.

And that is just the first of many errors in the creation story. It works much better though if you take it metaphorically.

I’ll readily admit that science is in its infancy and we’ve likely barely scratched the surface of what we can learn and know about the universe. But the question remains, are you going to gain (objective) knowledge about the universe through science and reason, or by referring to a sacred book written by shepherds in the Iron Age?

Bakersfield, CA

No help needed for those who read Genesis 1:3- Light was created on Day 1, earth on Day 3.

Why not read the conversions of atheist physists and scientists who set about to disprove the Bible, realizing they had never read it correctly? There are a plethora of them, who debate the silliness of the Hawkings, etc.

My husband is a rocket scientist and works with the premier scholars on his field, 80% of whom are Judeo-Christian Bible believers.

You failed Genesis chapter 1. Go back and chronolize the order of God's Word. Only fool's think this book was written by shepherds in any age.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Shazandra (and I’m guessing Capella) – “No help needed for those who read Genesis 1:3- Light was created on Day 1, earth on Day 3.”

Actually you have it backwards…

From the NIV Bible -
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

By the way, you never did answer either of my original questions.

I’ve reached my comment limit, so no doubt you’ll get the last (and based on your previous comments) dubious word.

Best to you… and as Luke said to his father “let go of your hate.”

Salt Lake City, UT

Hutterite & Mukkake on page 1 have it pretty much nailed.

Per TOO...

How exactly does that differ from any religion when they get an opposing opinion?

GK Willington
Salt Lake City, UT

at Tyler D 17:00 on 1/30 ---

The hate is a by product of being motivated by fear & guilt. Are you surprised?

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I need to mention that there are a lot of Super Boll Fans that watch the game religiously. Religion is what you do religiously. It called free agency, personal choices. It's my choice to exercise, and eat healthy, I can't make that choice for any one but me. Nor can I make any choice for any one to smoke, drink or eat grease, high fructose corn and lots of carbs and vegetate. All the words in the world don't mean any thing, It's what you do.

Bakersfield, CA

Literal Biblists read the Hebrew in context, so E=MC2 is actually a great theory. If Einstein was correct, Energy and Mass were created on Day 1. The planetary "stuff" was made into planets on Day 4.

"Light"/Or (Hebrew) was created and separated on Day 1.
Atmospheric and stellar "Heavens"/Shamayim on Day 2, and the waters were separated.
Dry land and oceans, Earth's/Eretz watering system and vegetation were on Day 3.
"Lights"/Maor are created from the existing Light= sun, moon, stars, planets, on Day 4.

Isaiah 60:19 and Revelation 22:5 both state that there will be no sun in the future Kingdom, but "the LORD God will be your Everlasting Light".

"In Him (Jesus Christ) was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. And the Light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:4,5)

Unless man is indwelt by the Light, born spiritually, he cannot understand it. That is pure Biblical Christianity. All else is guessing.

Colorado Springs, CO

Kind of hard to disprove something that never existed in the first place. Jesus? Probably. God? No.

to comment

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