Deseret News | Reader comments: Romney honored for 'Defense of Religious Liberty'

Reader comments
Romney honored for 'Defense of Religious Liberty'

congratulations | 7:22 p.m. May 10, 2008

It couldn't happen to a nicer or more deserving couple.

Dixie Dan | 7:46 p.m. May 10, 2008

I don't recall him defending the exclusion of African-Americans being denied the Priesthood or that Polygamy remains a tenent of his faith. Did I miss this part of his talk?

to Dixie Dan: | 8:04 p.m. May 10, 2008

don't talk like that. Truth is the first victim when we give out awards. We don't want no stinkn facts to get in the way.

Romney was ... well, a flip flopping fluff. But he has positioned himself well for 4 years from now. He has done that. Now he just makes money and looks thoughtful for 3 years, and makes arrangements to keep Baptists out of the GOP.

Of course, the world changes. And that is why Hillary cannot stand the thought that Barak will get into the white house before she can, and thus her chances will be gone. She has to have it NOW!!!

Dixie Dan: right on southerner.

Comments continue below

Jim in GA | 8:18 p.m. May 10, 2008

Dixie Dan you are living in the past. Update your information before you have other people believing false information as you do. Does it really need to be repeated for the 10,000th time: polygamy was banned by the church in 1890. All worthy male members of the church 12 years old and more can receive the priesthood. You're welcome.

Bruce | 8:34 p.m. May 10, 2008

"She said the award was given "to those who refuse to compromise their principles and faith, and do so 'resolutely.' If there were additional honors for graciousness in defense of their faith, for modesty and sheer decency, we would be conferring those medals as well on Mitt and Ann Romney."

That's great to hear. Under that criteria, the mothers of the FLDS will be getting the same reward any day now. If anyone ever deserved "honors for gaciousness in defense of their faith"..they do.

RvrRnsThruIt | 8:49 p.m. May 10, 2008

Yes, Dan, you missed that part of the speech. Read it again. Quit analyzing it from a narrow Modernist perspective. And don't tell me racism is racism no matter when it occurs. Go study the film: Amazing Grace. You might there be able to extrapolate what Mormonism is about in the characters' inner conflicts. But they're not your French Revolutionary character who would have blood flowing in the streets, in order to careen headlong into Utopia. Many of us prayed long and hard for that change to be revealed and hastened; the nuance and complexity of those experiences are at the core of Romney's speech. talk to me more at URL:http://ofgoodreportpraiseworthy.blogspot.com

Rose | 8:56 p.m. May 10, 2008

I love the Romney's for their example of what LDS people everywhere should be. They are good humanitarians, citizens, parents, and this country would be better off if the Romney's would be in the White House in January '09. Thank you Mitt and Ann Romney for your devotion to your country and your faith. I hope you get to serve this nation that you love in the future. The award you received is well deserved.

just someone | 9:33 p.m. May 10, 2008

I think the Romney's are great. The award is well deserved. Much of the comintary about the Romney family is about how he stayed to his values.

Jay | 9:44 p.m. May 10, 2008

Political politeness aka mutual admiration, among the semi-religious/money-making sects.

Let's keep it simple, to allow everyone to have and keep their chosen faith, but take-away the "tax-exempt" status of all faiths, and keep religion and business completely seperate. One problem, where is the profit in that?

Yo Rude People! | 10:55 p.m. May 10, 2008

I have to say it, there are some really ignorant and disgusting comments sometimes. I guess that you people that have to say something to attack didn't watch the movie Bambi. And I guess I am the pot calling the kettle black. But give it a rest you anti-Mormon's, go find a way to be happy and let us be happy. If you are a Christian, then act like it, if you are an agnostic or atheist, then be a do gooder, but for heavens sake, grow up and stop attacking every turn of the way. I guess I can't get the reward, cause I am not being as gracious as Romney, but enough is enough, and it is so the same. Just reading the rude comments here is showing exactly what Romney had to endure, close minded hateful people to the Mormon church. Trust me, I have some issues with some religions at times, or lifestyles or even ethnic groups, and I keep my mouth shut, cause I respect human beings enough not to attack what they value and treasure, but I am not in a good mood right now and it is just the same thing every time.

Greg | 11:05 p.m. May 10, 2008

Dixie Dan,

Your statement just proves your ignorance on the matter. Any male in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can hold the priesthood. This came about in the year 1978. Also if you had any smarts at all, polygamy has not been part of the doctrine of our church for over 100 years. Get your facts together before you open your mouth. I would be embarrassed to make such a statement. You ignorance shine brightly.

Lennie | 11:05 p.m. May 10, 2008

There will always be anti-mormons nipping at our heels. We seem to intimidate them, and rightly so for they are unable to figure things out. they listen to their Ministers,that most of the time,preach about the evils of the lds church, and in the meantime we keep growing and growing,and keep spreading the Gospel throughout the world.
The Romneys, Mitt and Ann, are a shining example of what is good about the Church, and also this country we are priviliged to be able to live in. may the Lord bless them.

Questions for Dixie Dan | 12:48 a.m. May 11, 2008

We live in a pluralistic society. Homosexuals can have multiple sexual partners. So can heterosexuals. Adultery we're frequently told, is common.

If polygamy is all about sex, so what? What isn't these days?

What's the big deal if some people who have multiple partners also choose to marry them? What is it about the marriage contract that makes it illegal to be married to multiple spouses, but not illegal for a person with one spouse to have multiple sexual affairs?

Help me understand why polygamy (which is all about sex, after all) is a problem for the State to intervene in, but adultery is not?

And how is it that Mitt Romney can be slandered for something he's never done in an age when he'd get a slap on the back at the club if he ever got caught "fooling around?"

PHYLOSOPHICAL | 7:33 a.m. May 11, 2008

CIVIL LIBERTY IS BETTER

Liber-T | 12:52 p.m. May 11, 2008

I find it ironic that throughout human history, one of the most powerful, pervasive forces AGAINST individual liberty has been religion! And yet we live in a country where even religion is protected - If you have read history much at all, you will agree that "religious liberty" is an oxymoron! So what does that say about Mitt Romney when he receives an award for protecting an absurdity??

Rex | 3:14 p.m. May 11, 2008

It is hard in a world where we honor people like the Clintons, who lie and cheat, but have a problem in honoring the good like the Romneys.

Freedom | 7:18 p.m. May 11, 2008

Religous liberty IS a civil liberty!

re: liber-T | 8:55 p.m. May 11, 2008

In reality, because of religion, Nations have been born, art inspired, music created, laws formulated, freedom granted, civil rights indentified, the hungry fed and the list goes on. You should rethink your narrow view of human history, not that religion has been perfect but its done more than say...communisim, which bans all religion and "individual freedom."

JCE | 12:21 p.m. May 12, 2008

I still haven't heard a cogent explanation of why freedon requires religion.

To JCE | 1:36 p.m. May 12, 2008

There is not explanation for why freedom requires religion. It doesn't. Religion is antithetical to freedom. True freedom requires nothing but a recognition that all human beings are "equal" in the sense that they each have unalienable "rights" that are not conditional upon anything else.

Matthew | 6:30 p.m. May 12, 2008

I assume that "To JCE" meant inalienable rights.

To hear (or read) a cogent argument one would need to open their ears (or eyes) AND THEIR MIND. Failure to hear (or read) a cogent argument is a strong sign of having failed to open either the ears (or eyes) and/or the mind.

True religion asks an open mind, a sincere heart, and personal agency. But some people either just donï¿½t get religion or are too afraid of those three requirements to give it an honest try. Blaming much that has historically been done "in the name of religion" on religion is like blaming democracy for the torturing that the current administration embraces. Good systems canï¿½t always prevent bad people from doing bad things, its that agency thing all over again.

JCE | 10:54 p.m. May 13, 2008

Matthew,

It is an obvious sign of a poor communicator and a person unfamiliar with reason and logic who blames the hearer for "failure to hear" when the reality is that the argument lacks cogency, truth, or both. In other words, don't blame others for your failure to have a good argument.

To Lennie | 4:38 p.m. May 14, 2008

Your comment is probably the most ignorant and disrespectful to those of us who don't happen to be LDS. Do you really believe that all we do in church is talk about the evils of the LDS church? I have gone to church my entire life and have done nothing but bible studies. We don't sit around every meeting and discuss the LDS views. The entire world does NOT revolve around the LDS church. It is still a grain of sand on the beach of religion. Please learn to respect my religious view as I have tried to respect yours!!!!

Wendi | 4:28 a.m. May 15, 2008

Also make a distinction against Government sponsored religion and religion that is followed at the choice and freedom of those who choose to. Most of the atrocities of the dark ages was caused by state sponsored religion as it was abused for power and control. Rome outlawed the reading of the bible for over a 1000 years at one point. Only high level clergy could read it, not even your average run of the mill priest was allowed to read it. Our own founding fathers respected personal choice in religion, what they despised was state sponsored religion. Religion isn't perfect because the people practicing aren't perfect. But if you took it away, people who abuse it would just find something else to justify what they are doing anyway.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.