How to help millennials care more about religious freedom

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • stk Marshfield, WI
    Aug. 30, 2017 10:33 a.m.

    Religious bigotry is still bigotry. I support freedom of worship, not "religious freedom." Religious freedom should also include freedom from religion, but I am sure it is just some dumb dog whistle.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 28, 2017 7:42 a.m.

    @Thid Barker;

    If consequences are justice, then when someone loses his business for discriminating against others, it is justice. The CONSEQUENCES of bigoted actions. (btw, god isn't the source of good or evil since he is fictional).


    If those "moral people" think discrimination is Christian, they don't have a conscience to violate in the first place.

    Taxes support businesses, so we're being forced to participate in bigoted business practices if we follow your methodology.


    What is moral or fair about discrimination?


    Why don't you show us how religion does more good than harm? You can't.


    Why adhere to bigotry?


    Bakeries are not "religious" businesses. Forcing someone to go elsewhere to purchase what anyone else can purchase w/o issue is unjust too.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 28, 2017 7:12 a.m.

    Religions doing good work does not absolve them of the evil they do when they promote discrimination against anyone. Businesses are not religious entities and they should never be allowed to discriminate against anyone.

    Perhaps millenials would be more sympathetic to "religious freedom" if the religious weren't so heck-bent on deny that very freedom to others. Businesses that refuse to provide birth control FORCE their religious beliefs onto their employees at the loss of religious freedom to the employee.

  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    Aug. 25, 2017 11:30 a.m.

    Those under 30 have been educated under some of the most socialist trends than any prior generation of youth. They have had less of the core educational advantages than those before them. I have always felt the core education was a good background in reading, math, history, language, geography, science and knowing how to write. Cursive has been mostly lost robbing them of the advantage of reading old documents and history. Children who are more literate can read and learn any subject they set their minds to. I watched this trend begin in the early sixties. Entertainment has been substandard. Through all of this, I find so many this age to be such good people and find that encouraging.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 24, 2017 8:13 a.m.

    The title to the article is misleading. The study found younger Americans as less sympathetic to Religious Freedom CLAIMS, not Religious Freedom. That's an important distinction. Many of the high profile debates in the last few years have revolved around cases where more and more Americans don't think the claim of Religious Freedom is legitimate.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Aug. 23, 2017 11:30 a.m.

    NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT Aug. 20, 2017 8:46 p.m.ut wrote: "wedding industry business owners are being forced to participate in what is, effectively, someone else's sacraments." No they are not. They have the choice (agency) to not sell wedding cakes at all and find another way to earn a living that aligns with their moral code. No one is forcing them to make and sell cakes but if they choose (again agency) to make and sell cakes to the general public they must make and sell to all. The law is very clear and simple to understand in this regard. It is apparent that self proclaimed religious peoples attempt to convolute the law with religious freedom claims to suit their own agenda.

  • TheJester American Fork, UT
    Aug. 23, 2017 8:58 a.m.

    This is a perfect example of journalistic bias.

    The title could have just as easily read "Americans under 30 are less supportive of persecution in the name of religion than other adults"

    It really is an issue of viewpoint.

    I stand with those who say that the ability to practice your religion is not being infringed at all. If you want to practice your religion commercially, you should really become a televangelist and not a baker or photographer. A business requires a license, granted by the state. That license comes with strings attached. If you don't like the strings, then get into a different line of work. Your ability to privately discriminate against those you deem sinners will continue unabated.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Aug. 23, 2017 8:48 a.m.

    If the headline is accurate it's a shame. All people in this great nation should be free to practice their religion of choice (Judaism, Hindu, Islam, Satanism, Wicca, X-anity, etc) and conversely be free from religious prothelytizing in the public square, religious oppression of their rights in their everday life and government. No religion has the right to set the rules and rights of this nation though many attempt to. Religious people only have the right to worship as they see fit under their own vine and tree.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2017 8:03 p.m.

    Maybe because they haven't had to do without it. Maybe because they haven't had to fight for it. They are riding on the shoulders of those who have gone before. If it is taken away, they may change their minds.

  • Den Den West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2017 4:02 p.m.

    You gotta love millennials!

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:27 p.m.

    "Americans under 30 are less supportive of religious freedom than other adults"

    Uh, Religious freedom is already a right in the US as long as you are not discriminating against others denying them of their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This has been the case for over a hundred years in the US. Of course young people consider it less important than older adults. It is a given. If this is not the case please provide a story where people were not able to have religious freedom even though they were not denying other people theirs!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 21, 2017 4:26 p.m.

    @ ngigs - Atlanta, GA
    Aug. 21, 2017 8:17 a.m.
    You wrote;
    " Note that in all the examples given, no individual is forced to compromise or change their religious beliefs. Companies and corporations are not a right but are instead and agreement with the government to perform business based on an agreed upon set of rules... That's what you agree to when you apply for a business license. If an individual wants to use their religion to enforce their beliefs on another through their company, that is a huge issue."

    Thank you for a clear and common sense explanation.

    It seems to me, that a certain group in the name of "Religious Freedom" is fighting not to lose
    "privileges" they enjoyed for centuries. When a group that was systematically discriminated against is accorded equal rights, those who supported the discrimination feel attacked and rightfully feel they are being forced to give something up. What is wrong here, is the notion that they ever had the right to discriminate in the first place.

    Society has moved on to recognize equal rights for all. Some are taking longer in accepting this reality. But Justice keeps moving forward without them.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Aug. 21, 2017 3:25 p.m.

    @Thid Barker: "Your argument seems silly to me!"

    Then you should probably reread it.

    Each of those scenarios is based in various real events of people claiming "sincere religious belief" gave them license to refuse service to entire groups of people.

    The courts do not dictate what your religion teaches. But they do dictate how you do business with the general public - we settled that in '64.

    Your doctrine is not an acceptable reason to refuse service or mistreat others.

    Younger people understand that.

    That latest attempt was in the Texas legislature special session. A group of Religious politicians tried to pass a law aimed at harming a minority group.

    People were outraged and it failed.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 2:00 p.m.

    Which "religious freedom", Dnews? I keep asking but those who keep talking about it never answer what it means.
    Right about the time gay marriage became legal is when we kept hearing about losing religious freedom.
    The only possible conclusion is someone is confusing 'religious freedom' with freedom to discriminate.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 21, 2017 12:52 p.m.

    @ GingerMarshall: Your argument seems silly to me! No one, gay or not, is forced to belong to any religion in America! Seems you want to force religions (via our court system) to accept your definition of what all religions are allowed to believe! That ain't freedom of religion! Freedom of religion means you or I can embrace ANY religion we choose, or none at all, not what other people choose for me or for you! Freedom of religion means you define your own religion (or none) and leave the same privilege to everyone else! Seems you want religion out of government but have NO problem getting government into people's religions! Read the 1st amendment to the constitution that men and women have shed their blood to preserve!

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Aug. 21, 2017 12:48 p.m.

    @Ginger Marshall.
    I found you recent posts on religious freedom thought-provoking.

    Your post at 10:43am was about non-conformity. Yet, your post at 11:40am was all about the need to enforce conformity, if individuals want to be part of society in some specific way (i.e. EMT, taxi driver, merchant, educator).

    Then, there are certain actions that are simply not allowed in the name of religion, no matter who does it or how they participate (or don't participate) in society (i.e. smoking peyote--technically speaking, and polygamous marriage).

    I would be surprised if even 10% of those under 30 even know what the First Amendment actually says about religion. I would be even more surprised if 1% of those under 30 understand why the religion clause of the First Amendment came into existence. Perhaps this is the greatest problem of all for the future of religious freedom in America. Someday, Congress may simply repeal of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, because it is simply too divisive.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Aug. 21, 2017 11:40 a.m.

    @Yar: "Forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is not a fair strategy to advocate. "

    So an ambulance crewed by 2 Muslim men could refuse to care for female accident victims?

    Muslim taxi drivers could refuse to transport female passengers, or refuse to transport anyone who had been drinking?

    Christian Store owners in the Deep South can refuse entry to black citizens?

    Christian Hospitals in the south can refuse to care for non-white patients?

    Christian businesses can have racially segregated restrooms?

    Private Christian schools can refuse all non-white students?

    Or does this only apply if we're talking about gay people?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 11:15 a.m.

    Recent quote from the national news, "Evangelical Christian Jerry Falwell Jr said Trump could be more polished and politically correct but is not racist. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who last week criticized the white nationalists' "evil, sinful, disgusting behavior," but said unequivocally on Sunday that the faith community stood by Trump". It is amazing that these people would be so favorable of Donald Trump, despite his immoral life style and his failure to not make a clear distinction between the white supremacists and the rest of us.

    If these people represent mainstream religion, no wonder millennials are disenchanted with religion.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Aug. 21, 2017 10:43 a.m.

    @BradJames: "Family: A Proclamation to the World, should be in every home and meticulously adhered to."

    Thus perfectly illustrating the issue at hand.

    While you may think your church leaders are prophets speaking for your god, 98% of the country doesn't.

    The idea that everyone must conform is why people - young people especially, but all ages - are increasingly rejecting dogmatic right-wing religion.

    I don't see any difference between demands all society follow your prophet and demands all of society follow the Muslim prophet. Imposing your doctrine by fiat or force is not religious freedom and is the antithesis of US Constitutional rights.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Aug. 21, 2017 10:34 a.m.

    18 to 30?

    So they for most of "my religious liberty means you can't marry, civil union, domestic partnership, or sign a death registry". They got stories of hospitals keeping gay people alone as they die because "we don't recognize your relationship". They got the entire duration of Florida's don't for it's anti-gay adoption law. About half of the fight over DADT.

    Face it folks, you choose to try and wield "religious liberty" as a weapon against gay people in an obvious violation of the golden rule. The kids were watching. And now the edge is dulled.

    And for that matter? If you want to convince folks that non-discrimination laws are so incompatible with "religious liberty", maybe you should try and rescind religions coverage under those same laws? The hypocrisy is obvious.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 10:33 a.m.

    @Prometheus Platypus

    Let me explain something to you. Forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is not a fair strategy to advocate. There exist religious people that just want to follow their religion and nothing more (no ill will toward minorities, if you will). When you punish them merely for following what they believe is right, you unjustly take away freedom to practice their faith. I don't buy that unjust strategy.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 21, 2017 10:03 a.m.

    So often, "religious freedom" seems to mean being able to force others to respect your religion while not respecting their rights. So many people seem to think religious freedom trumps all other freedoms.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 10:00 a.m.

    Yar -said: "Well if the younger generation is so concerned about discrimination, there are better ways to combat it. Forcing religious businesses to conform with standards contradictory to their beliefs is not one of those ways."

    Religious businesses, are churches.

    Businesses that are owned by a religious person, are not a religious business, and are not a right as explained by others.

    People are quick to allow others to discriminate, when believing it will never effect them anyway.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:38 a.m.

    Religion and faith are two different things. If you believe they are one in the same you are on the wrong path.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:19 a.m.

    Well if the younger generation is so concerned about discrimination, there are better ways to combat it. Forcing religious businesses to conform with standards contradictory to their beliefs is not one of those ways.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:11 a.m.

    As long as lazy Millennials pay my Medicare and Social Security - I don't care what they think.

  • BradJames Manti, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:08 a.m.

    I respectfully say that as soon as religious freedom becomes an afterthought, the Apocalypse is not far away. Family: A Proclamation to the World, should be in every home and meticulously adhered to. It appears that the millennials are preoccupied wit social justice connotations. Heaven forbid that anyone should say something that offends someone. That's life, or at least, it used to be.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 9:07 a.m.

    sounds like one day in the future, the younger generations will start to give up their constitutional rights one by one... good luck with that

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 21, 2017 8:32 a.m.

    @ Usjust: Adam and Eve made a choice in the Garden of Eden. If they had not made the choice they did, you and I would never have been born! Check out 2 Nephi 2: 23-26, it explains it beautifully!

  • STTNGfan15 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 8:30 a.m.

    @Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    Though I disagreed with it, I liked your response. Anyone/anything that challenges my belief helps me acknowledge what beliefs of mine are wrong or contradictory gives me a better understanding mine. Though I doubt I could ever make you completely understand, I am going to try to explain the of reasoning of my beliefs to you.

    Yes really! I chose to live my life without religion and it defines me. I admit that I cannot find an answer to what is the source of evil of the world because to me there is no answer. It is just the way it is. We ultimately define what is good and evil, yes. We define what is good and evil based on what we believe betters the world for the rest of the world, our family, and ourselves. Yes, this matters, it matters to everyone else on planet earth, our family, and ourselves. As for if I want to live in a world like that, honestly, I don't know. Whether or not I want to live in it doesn't matter, for it is the world I have chosen to be a part of, and one that I grow to believe in/be a part of every day, so I better get used to it.

    I wanted this to be a more in-depth response, but I couldn't do it with only 1200 characters.

  • ngigs Atlanta, GA
    Aug. 21, 2017 8:17 a.m.

    Or we could rephrase this as American's under 30 are more supportive of religious freedom and an individuals right not to have another's religious beliefs forced onto them.

    Note that in all the examples given, no individual is forced to compromise or change their religious beliefs. Companies and corporations are not a right but are instead and agreement with the government to perform business based on an agreed upon set of rules... That's what you agree to when you apply for a business license. If an individual wants to use their religion to enforce their beliefs on another through their company, that is a huge issue.

    Good on our nation's adults under 30 for having the best grasp on this concept and shame on this article for trying to paint the results with biased language!

  • Livingdream ,
    Aug. 21, 2017 8:16 a.m.

    Religion is a farce. Sorry let me clarify! Every religion is a farce. It's been made up since man figured out how to lie. It's incredible how many different interpretations there are of the bible. Every religion has their own interpretation of the same book. Religion is a means of control and brainwash.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 7:56 a.m.

    water rocket said: "It seems to me that we focus more on what people say, and less on what God has said, through His prophets."

    Here is some things to consider:
    God seems to change his mind often, through his prophets, misc shaman, and individuals who claim to speak for God, although we've been told he's unchanging?

    Christian religion, is progressive and continues to evolve with society, the LDS church is no exception, check your own history. Why did it take so long for the "Non Policy" of blacks and the priesthood to be discovered, was God not concerned about leaving the black man out of his order, until it was popular in society?

    The young are seeing thru the facade of "religion" Not to say they don't feel a love or care about their fellow man, they just don't need religion to tell them "which" brothers and sisters to love, and give them justification, for treating others poorly.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 21, 2017 7:44 a.m.

    Don't need religion? Really? What/Who is the source of all good and what/ who is the source of all evil in the world? Do we all get to make up our own minds on what is good and what is evil.

    Do we all get to make up our own minds on what is good and evil. Of course we do, and that is exactly what does happen. You make a personal decision, on your own, in your own mind that you think what Joseph Smith said is good, and someone else will decide in their own mind that they disagree, and look to a different source for moral guidance.

    What the religious refuse to believe is that one can believe stealing is wrong without believing in Moses.

    "The whole premise of religion is to treat others respectfully and with love"

    I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. The premise of religion is you need to be saved, and God has told me how you should accomplish that.

    Without that premise religion falls apart completely, and has no purpose.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 7:34 a.m.

    Similar to how many are shocked at how quickly America's ugly history of racism has been inflamed under a president most really didn't know when they voted for him, many religious people seem unaware of how quickly "religious freedom" can be used against *them* and their religion... by other religions.

    They can't see it now, but freedom of religion is best secured by tolerant, often areligious liberals, who really do believe people should have the right to worship as their conscience long as it doesn't impact others.

    If too much religious power is given to the majority, religious minorities will find they're on the short end of the stick, which includes the predominant religion in the State of Utah.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Aug. 21, 2017 7:13 a.m.

    I absolutely love it when fundamentalists say (something to the effect) that if you have no religion, how do you know the difference between good and evil.

    Well, as most religions worldwide seem to agree on some basic principles, I might be able to agree on that assumption. However, the larger question ought to be why did all worldwide religions come to some basic fact (murder is bad, as is theft and lying, etc). Is it possible that our evolution (if you believe in that scientific Fact) provided early humans with a blue print for survival? Is it possible our basic nature is to be empathetic and to bind ourselves to a group? Is it possible that group behavior demands some of the basic concepts of good and evil?

  • mad09 Taylorsville, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2017 7:06 a.m.

    I think what we're seeing here is that the focus of each generation is progressively more set on the individual and less on institutions like religion, family, marriage, society at large and so forth. There is some good arising from that focus but also a lot of bad. We're losing our ability to be tolerant of other opinions outside our own sphere. Some are villifying religion based on very shaky so-called evidence claiming religion causes more harm than good. Fact is, people are going to fight and seek for power over one another based on any difference they can find. We need to bring back God into our society. We need to continue allowing and supporting religions freedom because religions lead to way more good than has been measured by any study. Focus on the individual really means that we've become selfish, entitled and our society is falling into anarchy because we refuse to follow a moral standard. Religion is our reminder to have a moral standard and that is really why so many are tearing it down. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable to have someone or something standing for right when you'd rather do as you wish.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 6:49 a.m.

    The solution is simple. Let business owners decide whom they will serve, leave the government out of making moral decisions for business owners. When someone is discriminated against unjustly in their mind, let them spread the word. Then let each individual who has heard about it decide whether or not to use the products or services of that business, and whether or not to spread the word further. In other words, let the market decide, let the market be the judge.

  • twinkleberry67 Layton, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 6:37 a.m.

    With the myriads of definitions floating around out there who knows what anyone is talking about anymore. My understanding of religious liberty is the ability to choose which religion to affiliate with and practice the tenants of, according to one’s conscience or ditch religion altogether. There are still some places in this world where there is a state religion and it is illegal to practice anything else. Every time I hear the term “freedom of religion” it is sounding more and more as if this is referring to freedom from the tyrannical grip of oppression. I have no problem with what others believe or don’t believe about whichever preferred deity, and I think that is their business in the first place. It is possible to not agree with or condemn behaviors without condemning other people . I wish the capacity to agree to disagree wasn’t going the way of the dinosaur.

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    Aug. 21, 2017 5:57 a.m.

    I think the problem is that there has been some overreach in the name of religious freedom, and young people recognize that.

    Nobody wants to ban people from going to the church of their choice, or praying to the God they worship. But should plaques of the Ten Commandment be allowed in public spaces? Why should a for-profit company be allowed to poke their nose in the private medical business of employees by deciding not to cover contraception? And do we really want to live in a world where business owners can decide not to serve someone because of their religion, sex, or sexual preference?

    Young people see these as examples of religious intolerance, not religious freedom. And it turns them against religion, too.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 5:41 a.m.

    First off, Kelsey Dallas, you need to know that you can never "eat too much avocado toast." That's a universal truth, shared by young and old alike.

    On the merits of the discussion, before any intelligible comment can be made, we need to know what is your definition of "religious freedom." Most of us have adopted the theory of that fine old adage, "your freedom ends where my nose begins."

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 21, 2017 4:51 a.m.

    @ Thid

    We get it that life would make little sense to you without your religious paradigm. But millions of people daily prove that a religious paradigm isn't necessary to be good or for one's life to be filled with meaning. They also demonstrate agreement with you on good/evil fundamentals. They don't go around lying, stealing, cheating, or killing.

    Which makes your complaint sound an awful lot like, "People don't think the same as me anymore." (Boy, do I wish the older generations in the Muslim world had this complaint.)

    @ NoNamesAccepted

    "It is easy to infringe on conduct one doesn't personally engage in."

    Yes, LGBTs are well aware of this.

  • Susan Storm Sandy, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 12:45 a.m.

    The moment religion became associated with a political party was the start of the decline.

    The trouble is, politics is filthy and corrupt and when you link religion with politics it becomes filthy and corrupt too.

  • UtahnAbroad Sandy, UT
    Aug. 21, 2017 12:42 a.m.

    I think religion is great.
    I don't think religious people imposing their beliefs on others is great.

    Living in a place where I'm in a religious minority has made me really appreciate the importance of the separation of church and state.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 20, 2017 11:40 p.m.

    Religion, among other things, is a moral value system that a willing community agrees to adhere to in order to respect rights, thoughts, and fairness of others. The exception to that is the State religion, which is usually crypto-theocratic, and carries with it the penalty of law to a specific moral value system by those with money or powerful political resources, no matter how skewed, narrow, hypocritical, or false those morals might be.

    The whole premise of religion is to treat others respectfully and with love. The whole premise of the state religion is to crush anyone or anything that does not think in only one way, like those in power. What many on this board do not realize is that they are part of religion, a very specific and morally imposing one, that is sanctioned and organized by the state but not labelled by traditional monikers. The only check against it is the plurality of religions outside the state.

    This is all covered ad nauseum in the literature the founding fathers relied upon and invoked in drafting both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But you have to actually read about the history of ideas to know it.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 20, 2017 11:28 p.m.


    Orwell was suspicious of religion in only one respect: when the State adopted its own crypto-theocracy and applied it through political enforcement, sloganeering, and virtue signalling. Many would say that we are indeed well on our way to such.

    But to apply Orwell to shut down the plurality of religions is completely antithetical and is itself quite a feat of doublespeak.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 20, 2017 11:24 p.m.

    Believe it or not, I don't think it has as much to do with the lack of religious affiliation, as it does the lack of literacy and reading of the great works. Today you are likely to find most graduates from college have never read a single Shakespeare play. Not long ago, it would be hard to find a high school graduate who had not read a Shakespeare play.

    I have a very intelligent anti-religious friend who is a millenial. He had heard that Orwell's 1984 was an important thing to read from someone older than he. I asked him how it went and he just stated he could not read all the way through it. It was too long, he said. The last book he read was "Hatchet," in high school. Orwell is too long? Wow. Unfortunately, he represents most under 30 today.

    If you don't understand the deep thought contributions of our civilization, or even read some of the Bible, you don't understand how critical religion has been to the shaping of civilization itself.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 10:27 p.m.

    It seems to me that we focus more on what people say, and less on what God has said, through His prophets. Here is something to consider: It has been prophesied that in the last days, if it were possible, even the very elect would be fooled. The bottom line is that we all have the God given right of agency. However, the four elements are: 1) There must be a right and wrong choice. 2) We must have a knowledge of the right and wrong choices we make. 3) We must not be forced to make one choice over another (we must make those choices on our own). 4) There is always a consequence for the choices we make (good or bad).

    Can we "choose" to believe God knows what He is doing, or that He even set any "rules" of conduct? Sure we can choose to believe or not believe, but that will not change the reality of reaping the whirlwind, or reaping eternal glory. For those who choose to ignore the reality of God, they had better hope that they are right, because if they are not ... well, the consequences of their choices may not serve. them well. Agency and the natural man are two subjects you really need to study. Then pray about them (or not, as you choose).

  • Usjust Draper, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 10:17 p.m.

    Third Barker: "a world without good and evil" religious terminology, wouldn't that be considered Eden? Sounds pretty great to me.

  • dr.bedrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 9:06 p.m.

    The headline seems misleading as it focuses on a mostly small minority of the percentage of the people surveyed.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 9:03 p.m.

    Let us remember that at the time California voters approved Prop 8, not a single, material legal right was denied to homosexual couples. California continued to recognize same-sex civil unions with every legal benefit granted to heterosexual married couples.

    So why the push for "marriage"? Why the anger over being denied use of a word?

    Because marriage carries social significance beyond the legal benefits. Marriage grants social approval. Being denied the use of marriage contributes to the lack of dignity afforded homosexual couples. (So argued same sex couples in court filings across the nation.)

    Marriage is special.

    Marriage is different than every other contract or relationship.

    And becauae it is different, men of faith rightfully also feel differently about it. It is a sacrament.

    Gasoline, groceries, entertainment, lumber, the lunch counter, employment, etc are just goods and services unrelated to sexual identity.

    But wedding cakes, photographs, catering, and reception hosting are all about weddings. Don't force me to participate in your sacrament. You don't want to be forced to partake of my sacraments.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 8:46 p.m.

    So progressive admits nobody should be forced to drink, even as she continues to assert that people should be forced to support or participate in homosexual celebrations as a condition of earning a living.

    I don't know what makes inter-racial relations any different than single race relations. Maybe racists can tell us that. But we all know exactly what makes homosexual physical relationships different than heterosexual, congugal marriage.

    Someone refusing service to a mixed race couple has few possible reasons other than bigotry toward skin color.

    Someone declining to participate in homosexual events whose primary social purpose is to grant social approbation to the sexual relationship that is otherwise illegitimate can object rstionally to behavior without any bigotry at all.

    But wedding industry business owners are being forced to participate in what is, effectively, someone else's sacraments.

    General goods and services should be available without discrimination. Creative talent must be allowed to avoid promiting a message to which the creator objects.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Aug. 20, 2017 7:59 p.m.

    And herein lies the problems with some claims of religious liberty. To whit it was said: "When the drinkers complain about alcohol laws in Utah, remember the glee you expressed here about the more secular, younger generation being ok with infringing on religious liberty".

    I take it that a younger generation was okay with alcohol service. So did you have to engage in drinking alcohol after the laws got changed? No, you are still free to pursue your own religious sensibilities. No way your religious liberty was infringed upon. Nobody told you to do anything.

    Further analogies are just as clear. No one tells you to get divorced, yet we have normalized divorce. Same with same sex marriage. If you don't want an abortion, no one tells you that you must have one. Women are allowed to make that choice based on their own religious counsel.

    So the real problem is that some religious people don't see the difference between allowing a behavior or practice that they find a violation of their religious belief and what they see as religious liberty. It would appear that this claim of religious liberty is an attempt to enforce their own beliefs on all of us by prohibitions.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 20, 2017 7:25 p.m.

    Don't need religion? Really? What/Who is the source of all good and what/ who is the source of all evil in the world? Do we all get to make up our own minds on what is good and what is evil? If so, good or evil just doesn't really matter does it? Want to live in a world like that?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 6:34 p.m.

    Stalwart: interesting how you Californias believe federal recognized rules and regulations apply against things that may infringe on religion but not on laws dealing with marijuana.

    Ultra Bob: it's ok if you don't believe in God, he still believes in you.

    The young also believe in first amendment free speech but only if it agrees with them. Example UC Berkeley.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 5:48 p.m.

    Looks like the anti religion zealots are out in force today.

    The take away from this article is simple:

    It is easy to infringe on conduct one doesn't personally engage in.

    When the drinkers complain about alcohol laws in Utah, remember the glee you expressed here about the more secular, younger generation being ok with infringing on religious liberty.

    And do be careful what you hope for and push in laws. It was an attempt to impose criminal penalties on movie makers that resulted in your much hated Citizens United decision.

    Respect for sincere religious beliefs, reasonable accommodation to prevent forcing decent people from having to violate their moral conscience will lead to far better results than trying to rub anyone's noses in conduct they don't want to associate with.

    Remember what the supreme court ruled in Truax v. Raich, "“the right to work for a living… is of the essence of that personal freedom and opportunity which it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure"

    Creative talent enjoys both free speech, religious, and free association rights to decline work.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 4:00 p.m.

    Ya still have the choice. Without that, what? I can see how religion has lost taste. I've gone down that rabbit hole, I didn't like what at the bottom of it, it isn't Jesus. That is what ya have to find on your own. Ya might think differently about September eleventh, to say marry Christmas.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 1:58 p.m.

    I believe that Organized Religion is a man made invention used to enslave the minds and bodies of people. Its ultimate purpose is the same as every other organized group of humans, the ownership and control of the wealth of the world.

    Having the most sought after product in the world, life after death, their business success is unapproachable successful and their market is every living person in the world. The bad news is that the same thing that makes organization religion possible is their worst enemy.

    A thinking, reasoning, eager to earn mind is the thing that is spoiling their product. As humans find out the truths of this world they no longer accept to organized religious story.

    Religion is good when it provides the answers we need and want and right or wrong, our minds are freed up to do other things than worry about death. The fact is, that much of human progress in life has been made possible by organized religion.

    Every person has a religion for his personal life, and no matter the force of outside pressure, his own religion can only be changed by the logic of his own mind. It is this inner consensus that I regard as freedom of religion.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Aug. 20, 2017 1:50 p.m.

    And the young shall show us the way.

    Leave it to the younger generation to recognize that the freedom from discrimination, whatever it's rationale, is the higher value than the freedom to discriminate against others with religious claims. These young people of all religious stripes see the hypocrisy that us older folks have been stuck with for generations.

    Listen to your children and grandchildren. It is soon to be their world to run. We messed it up enough. Time for their leadership.

  • Jeremiah S Fielding, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 1:47 p.m.

    This is an interesting study. I wish the writer had included more of specific questions and included statistics, comparing generations on certain questions.

    I think it's very important for us to explicitly define what religious freedom is and what it isn't. Obviously we are going to disagree on some of the specifics. I fear that the term "religious freedom" is used too often as code for "we want the ability act in ways that may be discriminatory against certain groups without experiencing either government consequences or public shaming." Isn't there a way that this freedom could be defined in more positive terms? Isn't there a way we could make this discussion less of a dog whistle, and more of a nuanced, heart to heart discussion?

    I do not blame anybody for fiercely defending the right to live as they chose, and with whom they choose. When we talk about religious freedom, are we really talking about same-sex marriage? I think that members of the LDS Church would understand what it is like to be discriminated against due to uncommon marriage practices, and find ways to live more harmoniously with others who wish to marry in way different from us.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 12:31 p.m.

    I think pretty much everyone supports religious liberty, they just differ in belief on what all constitutes religious liberty. Does religious liberty include refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? What about the same for an inter-racial couple? Does religious liberty include allowing churches to perform same-sex marriages if they want to? (a couple states actually made this illegal alongside their gay marriage bans while most had it as "they can do it if they want but it's not going to be recognized by the state").

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Aug. 20, 2017 12:02 p.m.

    Since when is religion supposed to be disorganized?

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 20, 2017 10:51 a.m.

    Religion is discriminatory? Really? If you keep God's commandments, He blesses you, if you choose otherwise, He withholds His blessings! Religion doesn't discriminate, we make choices and the consequences of our choices are fixed: that's not discrimination, its justice! Some may ignorantly whine about that being discriminatory, but they are choices we all make! Are those who choose to qualify for God's blessings (here and especially in the next life) discriminated against or is it the ultimate consequences of our choices=justice? How could it be otherwise for any of us? If not, there can be no justice nor mercy and all things are void and life has no purpose or meaning! Read the scriptures, it's wonderfully explained therein! Stop watching fake news and keep the commandments, especially loving God and your neighbor! Disagreeing with God's commandments is not evidence of discrimination, rather its our choice and choices in life make all the difference and the consequences, like them or not, are fixed by eternal laws! Isn't it great that we each get to choose?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 20, 2017 10:24 a.m.

    There is an old adage that is apt for this article which states, "your right to swing your fists stops at my nose." As pointed out by Mycroft above, the term "religious freedom" is insular and does not pertain to your treatment of others, particularly in the public sphere.

    When a person decides to enter the marketplace by opening a business, the business is amoral; it is not baptized and does not attend church. Rather, the business owner is opening a for profit entity (not human) that is utilizing infrastructure and commerce which subjects them to the Commerce Clause of the US. Thereby subjecting the business owner to comply with recognized federal rules/regulations. We've already had this discussion and the discriminatory practices of the right lost - see SCOTUS case Heart of Atlanta Motel.

    Regardless, if your "religion" teaches you to treat any other person differently, you need a new faith.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 10:07 a.m.

    Mycroft and Impartial 7 nailed it. Young people are aware of what is behind the drumbeat of religious 'freedom' these days.

  • Mycroft , NY
    Aug. 20, 2017 9:20 a.m.

    Well, the terms "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" (as they're used these days) are Orwellian doublespeak -- the "freedom" and "liberty" to discriminate against and marginalize those who aren't members of your in-group. When the in-group is the religious right, the "freedom" they seek is legal sanction enabling political and cultural dominance. If millennials are disinclined to fall for that -- great!

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Aug. 20, 2017 9:14 a.m.

    ""They also show a strong sense of concern about discrimination.""

    Our younger people have acted and know what older Americans don't want to acknowledge. That organized religion divides and creates hostility. Exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached. Hopefully, we are at a tipping point that will begin an enlightenment where we understand that organized religion is not good for our country.