Comments about ‘My View: There is a storm forming against moral standards’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Oct. 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, Utah

The Rights in the Bill of Rights are individual liberties. The First Amendment is about individual religious liberty, not about the right of religion to demand adherents. Congress cannot pass laws that prevent individuals from practicing their religions (unless that practice creates a harm, such as child marriage or denying necessary healthcare) nor can Congress pass laws that favor (respect) the beliefs of one or more religions over those of other religions.

You and your religion may define something as a sin, but that is not sufficient reason to pass a law prohibiting that thing.

And what is with all the vague references to the topic? If you are going to write an editorial calling others to action, at least have the courage of your own convictions to state the issue clearly instead of just hinting around it.

Houston, TX

Senator Stuart Reid has summarized my own observations over the last 6 decades. When I was a boy, we tried to adhere to the Ten Commandments. When I was a teenager, I was surrounded by teens who were not so committed to them. When I was a young adult, the Ten Commandments were openly flouted. Twenty years ago, I found that many people couldn't identify many of the Ten Commandments. Now the teens of today ask "What are the Ten Commandments?"

Satan has done his work well. Those of us who have made covenants to obey the Lord and teach His Gospel must be urgently engaged in the work.

Bubba Royce
Port Charlotte, FL

Is it time for we the people to form a ten million person protest in D.C.?

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Bubba Royce

To protest what? This article is so vague that I have no idea what he is trying to say. Does his "sexual stratagem" mean the strategy of homosexuals, birth control pills, divorce, scantily-clad women, polygamy, short skirts, Victoria's Secret ads, condoms in grocery stores, movies, tv shows, or what exactly?

Church member
North Salt Lake, UT

Religion wants to control everyone else. They want to tell everyone what they can and can't do in this life. Seems like they don't believe in "free agency".

Bountiful, UT


I would imagine almost everyone could identify some of the main teachings of Jesus: forgiveness and mercy. Likewise, no churches today emphasize the Abrahamic Law and the uncompromising edicts found in Leviticous, and other parts of the Old Testament. Stoning people to death for wearing two types of fabric? Really?

Even Jesus left much of the Old Testament in the past, when he stopped the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death, clearly and disruptingly upending the morality that prevailed to that point.

As we've seen on issues of race, interracial marriage and other topics in ourrecent past, maybe Jesus' implicit message of changing historic understandings is the right one.

Eugene, OR

Translation: I can't use the law to force my standards on other people and that's not fair!

Tooele, UT

Re: "The First Amendment is about individual religious liberty, not about the right of religion to demand adherents."

Agreed. And, of course, that comment has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments laid out in Mr. Reid's opinion piece. The comment is standard liberal sophistry that has, sadly, become accepted as liberal thought.

When confronted with arguments they can't win, liberals change the subject, disingenuously asserting that the discussion is about something it's not. They'll inject some irrelevant, but hard-to-refute, party-line talking point, then triumphantly raise a fist and declare victory. Real people walk away, shaking our heads in disbelief.

Of course the First Amendment is about personal religious liberty. And the article is about the loss of it to liberal attacks. Obviously, no American religion demands adherents.

But that obviously won't stop liberals from asserting as much.

Our only demand is the God-given right, identified and guaranteed in the Constitution, to freely exercise our religion in our own way, free from government intrusion.

But, then, that's a hateful concept to liberals.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Articles like this always make me think, “Gee, I wonder if people are ever going to grow tired of others pushing their emotional buttons (most frequently, Fear) and start thinking for themselves?”

And in the case of this article, we can easily dismiss its false premise by simply citing the following:

Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Finland, Australia, etc…

Religion and Morality are NOT synonymous and losing one does not imply the loss of the other, as these and other mostly agnostic (and very pleasant) countries clearly demonstrate.

American Fork, UT

Those so called God given sacred rights are mine, not religions'. Religion is very happy to steamroll over my rights, and proves it all the time. This is about the loss of individual freedom to religious attack.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Religion is very happy to steamroll over my rights, and proves it all the time."

Thanks for proving my point.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

The latest liberal thinking is that religious influence should be removed from the "public square". Meaning, political debates should exclude religious beliefs, and people should not use their religious beliefs when voting.

Nothing could be more non-American than that. A person running for political office has every right to bring his/her religious beliefs into the debate. A person listening to the political debate has every right to hear a religious idea should one be presented. A person voting has every right to vote according to his/her religious beliefs. A news organization has every right to print opinions that reflect religious beliefs. And political representatives have every right to vote on proposed laws based on their religious beliefs.

The US government has no right to limit or stop the influence of religion in the "public square". The government can only allow all religious ideas from all religions to be presented.

It is shocking that so many want to move to a dictatorial, non-freedom based government where these rights are limited, or taken away, as so many of the liberals desire.


@ procurador: Perhaps before criticizing comments, you should read the article.

From the first paragraph, "...a radical, sexual stratagem, which is victoriously marching on religion’s defense of moral standards. Now it is marshaling forces against rights of religion and religious conscience across the nation. The question is, can it be stopped or will religion lose its God-given, sacred rights memorialized in the First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution."

The entirety of Mr. Reid's piece is about the rights of religion - not the rights of the individual. Kalindra's comment has everything to do with the article being discussed.

Your attack on her - and liberals in general - exemplifies the off-topic, throw in a red herring because you can't argue the point comment of which you accuse her.

You really should read the article before you accuse others of not understanding it.

The Skeptical Chymist

What nonsense! "A virtuous society cannot exist without the faith of a religiously free people." Have you ever heard such a ridiculous, self-aggrandizing and offensive statement? I have never observed religious people to be any more virtuous than atheists. They simply proclaim that they are, very loudly.

Secondly, what Mr. Reid wishes is the ability to enforce his religious views through government edict. What about the rights of the Unitarians to marry same-sex couples? Shouldn't they have the religious freedom to do so?

Mr. Reid stands for family rights, he says. So do I. But I will not denigrate the family just because the couple at the head of it are of the same sex. Their children deserve to have their family recognized as such, and provided with the same governmental blessings that are provided to Mr. Reid's family.

As with most people who exclaim vociferously about the decline of religious freedom,
Mr. Reid is mostly concerned with his reduced ability to limit other peoples freedom
according to his own religious views. He is not really concerned with freedom at

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

The new morality is an old immorality that's been whitewashed.

Salt Lake City, UT

Living in fear of the grand conspiracy....

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

A few questions for the Senator -- what happened 60 years ago, i.e., in 1953, that gave rise to this monstrous "sexual stratagem" you fear so much? I checked Google for that year . . . Was it the death of Stalin? The coronation of Queen Elizabeth? The academy award for that titillating film "Roman Holiday"? Just what was it that happened "six decades ago" that turned the world into a sexual nightmare?

Eldersburg, MD

We live in a time of unprecedented wealth, luxuries, freedoms, conveniences, and so forth.

People can freely choose to mock, persecute, and tear down the very fabric of our nation that was built upon faith in God, moral principles, and freedom. Sure, that day was far from perfect and the idea of the Constitution did not exactly ensure liberty for all people. Mormons know this very well actually.

All of us have lost touch with both the simplicity and trials of yesteryear. This was a time of humbly placing faith and trust in God for very survival sakes. This mindset is where the world's attractions became swallowed up in a far grander eternal perspective of immortal glory. The world cannot see such a perspective today and this notion is considered the blind hope of foolishness in make-believe things.

But, what if this life is the consolation prize of a probationary existence and decisions made here have eternal implications? For all those who doubt God and the truth about events in the world today that were referenced in this article, they will one day see things as they really exist. Until then, we must preserve freedom of worship.

Salt Lake City, UT

The late Carl Sagan liked to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Senator Reid's editorial is filled with extraordinary claims but no evidence. This editorial alleges a six-decade long conspiracy which the senator names a "radical, sexual stratagem." He provides no details of this alleged stratagem. Who is behind it? How have they sustained it all these decades? Who is currently coordinating the efforts? It's a conspiracy without conspirators.

Since the alleged "sexual stratagem" lacks evidence to support it, the Senator's other claims are deeply suspect.

There are more likely scenarios than a nefarious decades long "stratagem" by a nameless cabal of faceless conspirators. As for example, society is simply changing and with that change more and more people identify as religious "nones"; those persons are willing to challenge the cultural supremacy of religious claims, to question the validity of the policies supported on the basis of "my religion says so."

Claiming "my religion says so" is no longer a persuasive argument in the public square, which may distress the faithful, but is not an attack on religion or the rights of religious persons.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT


"Senator Reid's editorial is filled with extraordinary claims but no evidence."

Perhaps due to limits in the length of the article. Personally, I see plenty of evidence that lack of morals is causing many problems in society.

"Claiming "my religion says so" is no longer a persuasive argument in the public square"

Claims of "bigotry" and "H8" etc. for opposing views are certainly not persuasive arguments neither, and these claims ARE attacks on religious persons.

to comment

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