Reader comments
'Religion card' not in play in Salt Lake mayor's race

Isn't it nice though - that since the candidates have NOT raised the 'religion' card - Deseret News has effectively raised it by publishing this almost totally worthless story. One of these years we'll just run elections on political positions, policy, and plans - not on media hype.

What no newspaper has the courage to report is the fact that Mormons vote for Non-Mormons MUCH MUCH more than do the non-LDS vote for any Mormon. When it comes to religous tolerance, it is the so called "liberals" who are the ones rejecting people simply because of their religion. Becker doesn't need to bring up the religion card, the media does it for him, and he gets all those that think every Mormon is a puppet to vote for him. The Mormons just don't care as much as the liberal activists in the city do.

As a former Utahn now living in Dixie, I check the Deseret Morning News web page at times to keep up a bit with news in my childhood home. I must say I am stunned to see how hostile SLC is to religion in general, and toward the LDS church specifically. The LDS church seems to put a load of cash into the city to make it beautiful and the only thing I see is complaints when the church wants to have control over the use of their funds. I knew Ralph Becker only slightly before I left in 1996. He had just been elected and struck me as a most self-righteous, arrogant man. If you vote for him, you deserve him, SLC. Good luck and may you have the wisdom to recognize the result of your decisions.

I think your headline was incorrect. The religion card is in play; Rocky is using it again in his support for Becker. I�m glad to see Becker has more integrity than Rocky and is not using it. Maybe with Rocky out of office the religious divide he widened to exploit for political gain can start to mend.

If Mr. Bernick's facts and Dan Jones' polling information are correct, then it would appear that it is Mr. Buhler, not Mr. Becker who is playing "the LDS card." And of course, as dan states above, Mr. Buhler is assisted by the Deseret Morning News in this ugly practice of pitting fellow citizens against each other because of their religion. Hmm. I'm reminded of Lilburn Boggs.

Why can't politicans run for politics and leave religion out of it. And the media isn't helping the issue.

Isn't it interesting that the only time you hear about religion in a political setting is when one happens to be LDS. If a Baptist were running against a Methodist, its likely that religion would never be mentioned. But add someone who is LDS into the mix and it always seems to come up. Anybody know why??

I agree

The religion card is almost always played in this state. It is generally played to the benefit of the Mormon, however that doesn't work in Salt Lake City. Its nice to have one place in the state where being non-Mormon isn't bad for your political career.

Whether or not it gets mentioned, the issue of interference by the church is always there. It's not about religion but rather is about interference. The church is demonstrably willing to wade into issues that affect members and non members alike, expecting to impose its' will on all.

Sam is wrong. The Church does not interfere in civic affairs, but the accusation does get a lot of mileage for those who claim it does. Exploiting that non-issue has gotten distructive bigots like Anderson elected time and again in SLC. When will it end?

I have worked on campaigns for both political parties in this state. Religion is forever in the forefront of every campaign. I have heard prominent Republicans dismiss potential candidates "because they are not LDS" or even because they were converts to the LDS Church rather than long time Mormons.

Meanwhile the Democrats openly talk about needing "more LDS candidates". In Salt Lake City and increasingly in Salt Lake County being a Mormon is now a liability.

The fact is that people do vote based on religion in this State. 70% of those who identify themselves as active Mormons favor LDS candidates and 70% of those who identify themselves as not being Mormons vote for non-Mormons.

In the meantime, I have yet to see the Mormon Church make their wishes known and have an active Mormons say "no".

I think what the State needs is for truly independent public officials that can demonstrate an independence of special interests including religious ones without being antagonistic.

So Mr. Drummond, why is it wrong for a religious organization to present a view to its members, particulary on moral issues, and for voters of that religion to concur by supporting candidates that espouse those same views?

People might not like the fact that the LDS religion is predominate in Utah, but it is what it is and ALL Utah citizens have the right to choose how and for whom they vote. You know as well as I that the LDS church does not "hold a gun" to our heads when we vote, does not know how we vote, and in fact, is mostly concerned that we DO vote - whatever our views might be.

The political process is alive and well in Utah.

Pretty lazy reporting. This was a non-event. Way to go News. Slow day in the office?

Let's report on the non-earthquake in Utah. Or maybe the non-fires in SLC too. I'm sure that by not getting out and finding out what's important to readers and the community you can publish more non-events.

Oh wait. I don't care, so this non-story about a non-event doesn't matter.

Maybe my non-vote will not count? (Oops, double negative.)

I am so disgusted with grown adults complaining about how the LDS church tries to control the city and state. Well hello!? It was founded by Mormons and don't expect it to change! And the so called ex mormons becoming bitter against the church are guilty of their own wrong doing and use the LDS church as an excuse. Grow the heck up! or SHUT UP! And if you don't like the strict laws or LDS influence? Then move on to another state that suits your guilty pleasures! Maybe the norteast is your region of the country to be miserable in!!

Give me a break Mase. You sound like a junior high student with such an attitude.

Mase, perhaps you need a little growing up yourself. The Catholics were first in California. Should that give them the right to try to control it for all time?

You are disgusted with anyone who doesn't bow down and kiss the feet of the "prophet" constantly. Well, others are equally disgusted with those who think nobody else has any rights. For your information a great many of those who are complaining about the idea that Utah should be a strictly mormon state with everyone else told to leave are actually mormons. Just not so narrow-minded. You also need to know that a great many people leave the mormon church and are NOT bitter about it, just want to be treated equally.

The question of religious membership and influence in a community are idiotic. I grew up in a county with a large Jewish population, large enough that some school districts closed on major Jewish holidays. This was no kowtow to religious inlfuence, it was simply a practical response to a major segment of the population.
Being LDS in Utah is like being Catholic in Rome. You are in the majority, you should have more influence. Being a Catholic (Jewish, etc.) in Utah is like being LDS in Italy, you are in the minority and you should expect that the majority will do things that annoy you. Why? Because this is a DEMOCRACYand the majority is SUPPOSED to get it's way, as long as they are respectful of the minority (which the Church is).
By the way, what has the LDS Church over the past 160 years that so ticks off guys like Anderson? Founded the city? Built the infrastructure? Created Zions Bank, IHC and many other great businesses so vital to our economy? Invested half a billion that no one else was willing to spend on downtown? Organized the Tabernacle Choir?
Yup, those Mormons really are a crowd of scumbags.

The LDS church does not interfere in civic affairs? Really? Want to explain that to the former owners of the Dead Goat, who were driven out of a legal business in a legal zone simply because the big brethren didn't like that kind of business near Temple Square? And no, that was not members acting on their own behalf, it was the church legal department deliberately interfering in the rights of a businessman.

Why is there opposition to the skybridge? Does it negatively impact the surrounding businesses? I honestly have no idea, can somebody tell me why anybody would oppose it.