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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Those of great fear....
Lock yourselves in your homes, but be sure to keep the internet going, however, so you can search for a new America. Those early settlers of this country came here from around the world to avoid religious intolerance, evil leaders, etc.
Keep your ears and eyes open.
Word is that South America is they place to go.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

"A stratagem is marching . . . it is marshaling forces . . . it commenced a conflict . . . it split faiths . . ." . Sen. Reid, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. A stratagem is a means, not an actor.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@gmlewis
Ok, i'm an atheist. Let's run through the 10 commandments and see which ones I (as an athesist)follow.
1.Thou shalt have no other gods(I guess I follow this.... I don't have any gods I follow)
2.No graven images or likenesses (Same as #1)
3.Not take the LORD's name in vain(Ok, I don't follow this)
4.Remember the sabbath day(See #1 and 2)
5.Honour thy father and thy mother(Yes, my parents are very important, and I respect them)
6.Thou shalt not kill (Never killed either)
7.Thou shalt not commit adultery(never cheated on my wife, or thought about it)
8.Thou shalt not steal(nope I don't steal things, it's wrong)
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness(I HATE liars, while i've lied before, it's not a habit)
10.Thou shalt not covet(ya, i'm pretty happy with what I have)
Ok, so out of those commandments I completely follow 6, don't believe in god so the other 3 are out, and one I just don't follow it. Is society going to crumble because I realized this stuff was bad without religions involvement?

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Kalindra

'The Rights in the Bill of Rights are individual liberties'

What utter fallacious nonsense.

The bill of right doss not create rights, and it certainly does not create individual rights.

It guarantees the rights of the people and the states,

and guarantees those rights no matter how the people organize themselves.

Furthermore, they say what congress can NOT do, nor what the people can do.

And in regards to religion it simply says that congress can not make any law favoring a religious organization, nor any law interfering with religious worship.

It say nothing else.

It certainly does not say government be must hostile to religion or the religious.

The founding fathers who helped write the constitution and bill rights, certainly exercised and practiced those rights differently than the extreme left and the anti-religious would have us do.

All rights belong to people and however they choose to organize themselves.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

The issue isn't just a religious issue. It's a serious social issue for our whole society. What would happen if we actually lived in a chaste society; a society in which the only intimate sex is between a man and woman legally married to each other?

1. Fewer divorces resulting in fewer children psychologically damage by divorce. Less poverty, abuse and neglect of children, less crime and drug and alcohol abuse. The list goes on.
2. Total elimination of STDs.
3. Fewer unwanted pregnancies. Abortions and the associated psychological problems reduced.
4. No sex crimes.
5. No pornography and related problems.
6. No homosexual or other unnatural sexual relationships

On the other hand, what are the benefits of living in a sexually promiscuous society like the one in which we currently live? Wouldn't we would be better off if we lived in a society that discouraged sexual promiscuity rather than in a society that is looking for more ways to legitimize sexual perversions?

TheReverendofReason
SLC, UT

If law cannot be justified by secular means it cannot be justified under the Constitution. If religious arguments are used as justification, the result is a vote on who's religion to establish as the official religion-a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If proposed legislation stands on its own merits, proponents need not resort to religious claims. Therefore, yes, it is proper to exclude religion from the 'public square', if what is meant by that term is the legislative process.
If the intent of this very vague column is to incite legislative action-the prevention or retraction of same-sex couples right to marry, for example-it is very plainly in the wrong. If it is not, it is merely a rambling bit of whining about others not sharing a particular set of religious beliefs. Either way, it is useless.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@Utes Fan - "Personally, I see plenty of evidence that lack of morals is causing many problems in society." I know a lot of people agree with you on that, but that's not Sen. Reid's argument.

Reid claims there has been a conspiracy for six decades to undermine morals and to attack religion. He offers no proof of it, no hints of the identity of the conspirators. He declares that propaganda is being distributed but doesn't tell us who is behind it. Propaganda doesn't distribute itself. A stratagem requires strategists. His basic assumption is deeply flawed and that calls into questions his conclusions.

Pointing out that public statements or attitudes are bigoted or hateful is not an attack on religion. It's an argument about the real world effects of particular opionions and attitudes - religiously motivated, negative attitudes toward gay persons have real world, harmful effects on the lives and wellbeing of gay persons.

I know many faithful persons are deeply pained when they accused of holding bigoted attitudes. Pointing out that a statement or attitudes is bigoted is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

redshirt007
tranquility base, 00

CIA type analysis - The Christian Taliban is armed and increasingly agitated. They want women to give up any former rights back to pre 1900's standards. Frankly, we're not sure what this group is capable of since shutting down the government in protest of the poor receiving healthcare.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

JSB,

How are you going to enforce all the rules you list? Put cameras in bedrooms?

Your morals are yours. Live them as you wish. The rest of the country has the same right.

Gandalf
Salt Lake City, UT

I agree completely with TheReverendOfReason's comment.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

re Bebyebe. It would be difficult to legally "enforce" what I said. But,is it wise to change laws in order to make it more socially acceptable to live promiscuously? Frankly, social pressure can do a lot. I avoided making some pretty serious mistakes in my youth because what I was tempted to do was socially unacceptable; my reputation would be shot. And an awful lot of guys and girls I grew up with had the same feelings. But, a couple decades later Clinton's behavior was winked at. He's just a good old Arkansas Boy. The indisputable fact is that promiscuous sexual behavior causes a lot of social problems, misery and expense. A society that encourages chaste behavior, even if it's just with social pressure, will be a much healthier society. Can you show me how sexually promiscuous behavior makes a society better? That reduces disease, divorce, pornography, taxes, misery, sexual assault, etc. If you don't think things have changed, when I worked in a med lab in the mid '60s, gonoreha and syphilis were the only STDs we were aware of. Now there are over 30 STDs we worry about. Things have changed for the worse.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@JSB --

"But,is it wise to change laws in order to make it more socially acceptable to live promiscuously?"

Using your argument, we should all SUPPORT gay marriage.

Marriage encourages stability, commitment, and monogamy -- the opposite of promiscuity. So encouraging gay people to marry is a GOOD thing.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

JSB,

The question sin't whether these behaviors are harmful it's about using the government to pass laws limiting other peoples' private lives. I don't care about promiscuity. I'm not obsessed with other people's private lives. If you have issues with all those behaviors then don't engage in them. You nor the country should dictate personnel behavior.

Malala Yousafzai was shot by the Taliban because they considered her desire to go to school a violation of God's law and immoral. You are using the same justification - your definition of morality.

1covey
Salt Lake City, UT

Thank you, Mr Atheist for being (mostly) honest. In all fairness, like the rest of us,hopefully. As previously mentioned, a moral life avoids the problems, and there are serious problems brought on by immorality. Is that not a rational basis for morality? By a quirk of fate, the Judeo-Christian faith was first in establishing this. My faith dates this back to Adam of Garden of Eden fame. Ancient records other than the Bible attest to this. Senator Reid was incorrect in saying this "storm" goes back 60 years; it goes back to time immemorial. Mass media ( magazines,movies,TV ) have given great impetus to molding public opinion; loss of faith in God, likewise. I see it in many of the comments given. One wonders whether or not all the crises we see today are not connected?

Gandalf
Salt Lake City, UT

JSB, the "social" pressure you refer to are very different that having laws prohibiting particular behavior. In fact, I would argue that the likelihood of providing increased social pressure to stigmatize destructive behavior is actually increased by not having laws on the books that are not enforced and that deal with the same issue.

As for your comment about Bill Clinton, I totally disagree with you that his idiotic behavior with Monica Lewinsky was "winked at." In fact, the House impeached him for it. And he will never have the positive reputation as President and as a leader generally he should have and would have had based on his generally solid leadership and policy proposals (welfare reform, responsible budgetary practices, great economic growth) but for his lack of self control with a White House intern. Such a self-defeating decision on his part!

In short, we don't need government to reflect moral values in its laws nearly as much as we need citizens living up to them in their lives. If we have the latter, we'll be fine. When we use religion to prop up government, or vice versa, we weaken both.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

And am I the only one who thinks that we could bring back all the injustices of the past (racism, sexism, intolerance, inequality, etc…) but as long as people were modest & chaste many religious folks would consider that a morally superior society?

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

@glendenbg

"Pointing out that public statements or attitudes are bigoted or hateful is not an attack on religion...negative attitudes toward gay persons have real world, harmful effects on the lives and wellbeing of gay persons."

Saying that I believe that the government should not recognize certain types of marriages is not an attack on individuals, gay or otherwise. There are plenty of ramifications on the government recognition of same-sex marriages. I have a right to discuss them without the unnecessary labels. Negative attitudes towards gay persons should be eliminated, but that hardly means that I am obligated to accept government recognition of all types of marriages.

"I know many faithful persons are deeply pained when they accused of holding bigoted attitudes. Pointing out that a statement or attitudes is bigoted is the beginning of the discussion, not the end."

Pointing out that I "hate" somebody because I disagree on what the government should recognize is faulty logic and the beginning of disrespectful discussion. Also, religious persons are the attacks of bigotry also, and given the current anti-religious leanings of the media, religious people now have plenty to be hurt by. It's a two-way street.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ 1covey: Actually, the Abrahamic religions were not the first to define morality in a way that avoided social harms and repercussions - all religions have always defined morality in ways that promote their societal values.

Any honest study of history will show this - just as it will show that the premises of this article are nothing new but are the last death throes of religions unable to adjust to changing societies.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@1covey;

It's quite sad that your "morality" is completely based on sex. I base mine on how I treat others (no religion required). Sex is just sex and there's nothing moral or immoral about it.

The other thing I find sad is that you only go back as far as Adam and Eve. Humans have been around much, much longer than those two and we developed our "morals" in order to better get along with one another as we began to congregate into large groups.

@Utes Fan;

If religious people would stop acting like bigots they wouldn't be called bigots, would they. Bigotry is a form of hate.

Morals are not a derivitave of religion. Religion is not always moral (the crusades, witch trials, stonings, etc.).

This entire article is nonsense.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I read the head line,
and thought it was going to be about the proud and the rich,
trampling the poor, the weak, the sick, the elderly and the children.

It seems some would have us believe "morals" are only an issue about sex.

BTW -
This sort of fear is what drives terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Nazis.

to comment

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