Deseret News | Reid gets warm reception at BYU

Reader comments
Reid gets warm reception at BYU

425 comments | Read story

Morals? | 3:01 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

My comment is for all those that seem to think that Senator Ried's comments on abortion and gay marriage were immoral. Senator Ried's point was that morality spans across more political agendas than just gay marriage and abortion. People should use their moral judgment when considering ALL policy, including healthcare and education.

The problem is that most members just do what their explicitly told by the Church (gay marriage/abortion) and then vote against anything that costs them a little money.

I personally think it's immoral to let someone go without surgery because they can't afford it just because I don't want to pay the taxes. I think healthcare is the moral decision. It's immoral to not increase educational spending because I may pay a few more dollars a year in income taxes. You may feel differently...fine. People have various moral stance on issues.

The whole point is that the Church is explicit about a few moral issues and implicit about other moral issues. Make sure you consider both in finding your political stance.

johnny | 3:08 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Yea! Senator Harry Reid to the rescue! Trust me; Ezra Taft Benson will get the last laugh on Reid. I'll accept Benson's insight 1 trillion to 1 over Reid's any day. This has nothing to do with "Republicrats" --excepting for a few politicians from both parties they are pretty much the same.

Socialists like Reid are nearly indistinguishable from genuine Communists. Both believe in the involuntary/forced redistribution of wealth through income, sales, property, payroll, social security, Medicare, and a maize of other taxes. Both believe the government does a better job than the citizens could possibly do for themselves on a voluntary basis.

It's a flawed philosophy because the hand-out lines grow longer while the debt spirals and prices increase. The illegal printing of paper currency only exasperates the problem.

Too bad we have all these taxes and paper money. Without them, Reid could only focus on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

Jayson | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Mr Reid whole commentary has one fundemental flaw. The Democrat party is all about taking away personal accountability and placing it with the government because they know what is best. Whereas the LDS church teaches self sufficiency and personal accountability. Members are encouraged to set aside money and food in the event of a disaster or unexpected loss of income. They are also encouraged to take responsibilty in all their financial obligations and to pay them off and not try to blame someone else for their poor financial decisions.

Also for someone who believes in not pushing his views on others he should have a major problem with the Democrat approach to redistribution of other people's money.

He has a right to believe as he sees fit but he should know better than to try to claim that somehow members are blindly obedient.

Comments continue below

David Edward Garber | 3:13 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I've been highly critical of Bush, myself, although I'm a lifelong Republican. Bush's "neo-conservative" policies, whether domestic or foreign, are not even remotely based on those sound political principles of Constitutionally-limited government and liberty and non-interventionism and such advocated by men like J. Reuben Clark Jr. and Ezra Taft Benson. Or countless other Church leaders, to some degree or another, for that matter. But for Harry Reid to accuse the Brethren of leading our Church astray--well, I'm astounded, to say the least.

Mo-town | 3:15 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Many on the Left are great people, good at their trade, worthy, charitable, good neighbors. But when it comes to the political realities of our day, they don't get it. That's not neccessarily their fault, they just don't get it

And honestly, I don't mind engaging, hanging out or worshipping alongside Liberals, but it does however scare me when they're in power

That's the difference bewtween Reid and your typical liberal. Reid has the power to shy away from protecting us from our enemies (which is 10% of the Muslim world. a lot of folks). Reid has the power to sacrifice our moral integrity. Reid has the power to waste our valuable time and resources on the myth that man is responsible for the slight increase on the earth's temperature

Reid is a man capable of alot of things, including being a righteous Latter Day Saint. Running the House of Representitives and protecting me and my family, however, are not things he's capable of

Shock and Awe | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I am in shock and awe at the level of personal attacks directed against the Senator on this blog. I have met him, and he is NOT pro-choice. But even if he were, is it impossible to disagree with him in a civil manner. Yes, he has made some inappropriate comments about Bush and others in the past, but is that the excuse to continue to do the same now?

Many of you seem to believe, despite instruction from the leaders in the Church, that it is impossible to be Mormon and a Democrat. One can have conservative moral views and believe that education, the environment, providing for the poor, etc. are important issues. Conversely, many republicans are socially liberal, including the likely nominee, Giuliani (pro gay marriage, pro choice, married thrice, not supported by his own kids).

dennis | 3:30 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

These postings are prime examples of how nasty and disgusting the political climate in Utah has become.
Reminds me of my favorite story where Christ bodily threw all of the hypocrites out of the temple.

I knew him | 3:34 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I knew Senator Reid before he was a senator. He openly stated his ambitions, which were primarily to be a success as a politician. He was quick to embrace the unfortunate practice of putting political success ahead of common decency. Most politicians do so now, which is probably the reason for the low ratings our politicians currently receive. I abhor the constant tearing down of others with negativity to garner votes. That side of this man was given no attention in this article, maybe appropriately so. Having said that, I see no reason for all the venom in these comments. Would you say the same things face to face? I keep asking myself why I waste my time reading comments on articles. Now I intend to stop.

JROD | 3:40 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

the fact of the matter is that Mr Reid and the liberal democrats are so far off the left that they even forget they are really supposed to be doing.. they are even going agains the fore fathers of this country and not against some of our prophets.. we have to support our military, they are doing a great job and i can only imagine that it is way harder than one sitting in congress or at home may think.. we have to deal with the problem now, so our children dont have to... how many 9/11's is it going to take before the support is obtained...?? How many innocenct people have suffer.. this is a great nations and as we all know and heard..." FOR HIM TO MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED"
we that are LDS should all support our candidate Mitt Romney, he may not be the best option, with all the necessary experience, but surely he will be led by the spirit to do what is right and much needed.

dvhansen | 3:42 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

The one thing that stood out to me was his comment on how the right wing, ultra conservative evangelicals are not Christian. The sole purpose of that comment, apart from his complete lack of respect for their religion, is to make it hard for Mitt to become President. By trying to anger them, and setting himself up as a spokesman for the LDS Church, he is trying to alienate the conservative base that Romney is trying to cultivate. He needs to keep in mind that many of them don't consider us to be Christian - he is only adding fuel to their fire by these highly rhetorical and vitrolic statements.

I'm a BYU alum currently living in Nevada - having to put up with Pinky is an absolute disgrace. I'm embarrassed to call him my Senator... I find it hard to reconcile his pro-abortion, anti-marriage stance with that of the Church leadership. Again, embarrassing...

dk | 3:50 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

No, JROD, the fact of the matter is the NeoCons are further right than Genghis Khan. And down the road the country is going to have to pay the price for a policy of preemption, torture, and shock-and-aweing civilians. Our country has been duped by a group of megalomaniacs (almost all former CEO's of corporations) who only care about the bottom line. Want to know how much $$$ Halliburton and Lockheed Martin made last quarter?

Say no more! | 3:54 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Harry Reid reveals his true thoughts on past church leaders to a reporter. He states that President Benson, called of God, was guilty of leading obedient church members down the wrong path because Pres. Benson was too right wing. Hmmm. Stop the tape! Red flag alert! I think I have heard all I need to hear from Harry Reid. Oh, and if that doesn't do it for you then listen to this- (according to Harry Reid) "Social Security is the greatest social program ever". Wow! Say no more again.

Chris | 3:55 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

This guy pretty well disgusts me, and that is hard to say since I am LDS too. Why does he tell BYU students, on BYU campus, not to worry about two extremely important moral issues like abortion and same sex marraige? The church adamantly opposes these issues, and publicly. Doesn't the church also teach self-reliance, and yet he would have a national health care plan that would be a large leap toward gov't dependence, and much higher taxes. Doesn't the Book of Mormon state that high taxes are "grevous to be borne"? I am insulted and offended that he would have the arrogance to say those things on our campus. The gall of this man! Go ahead and trash President Benson. Why stop there though, why not trash President Hinckley and Monson too? They believe in conservative moral, family values too. They are political party neutral but in no way are they moral values neutral.

People are welcome to have their own beliefs and vote how they wish. Just know what kind of values you are voting for (abortion, same-sex marraige, gov't dependence, higher taxes, retreat and surrender, and all the rest).

Las Vegas Dave | 3:58 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

RE:KMAC

I'm not sure your read my comment before you wrote. I just re-read it and no where did it say I believe all Utah Mormons act the same. You may feel that way. I lived there for 40 years and know first hand there are about 10% that do not.

I did state that on my mission I was told all Utah Mormons were closed minded, but in the real world they are not.

I do think that the 160 comments (most of them anti- Reid) should be forwarded to the First Presidency and a new church policy should be written using these majority rules comments:

AFTER SENATOR REID'S ILL FATED TALK AT BYU, FROM HERE ON FORWARD ALL MEMBERS MUST BE A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN OR YOU WILL BE EXCOMMUNICATED. YOU MUST BELIEVE AS WE DO, SAY AS WE DO, ACT AS WE SAY AND YOU WILL ALL BE SAVED.

Oh wait wasn't this the plan in the pre-existence?

I went searching the bible for those Jesus was hateful, spiteful, and only loved those who agreed with him scriptures and setting it straight LV Jesus didn't care for a liar but he still loved all no matter what.

jsmith | 4:11 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

One message that is very clear from the Book of Mormon is that a society that forgets about its poor is on the verge of destruction. One message that is very clear from the Doctrine & Covenants is that we have weighty stewardships over what the Lord has given us: possessions, positions, and the earth itself.

In my understanding of the gospel, I ignore these principles at my own risk.

One message that is very clear from all scripture is that all life is sacred. One message that is very clear from modern revelation is that the traditional structure of the family is sacred.

In my understanding of the gospel, I ignore these principles at my own risk.

In today's political climate, it seems nearly impossible to find a political party that gives enough emphasis to both sets of principles (Republicans tend to ignore the first set, while Democrats often ignore the second). So I choose to be independent.

But I still want to be an active citizen and vote. So, like Harry Reid, I choose to support whatever party seems to me to have the most potential to actually accomplish some good in a given situation.

G. West | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

We Mormons should be acutely aware that both political parties are utterly corrupt. The right is filled with sectarian hate-mongers who would, if it were not the restraints secular society places upon the, be tarring and feathering Mormons and burning down our homes and churches. It is these good "conservatives" who won't vote for Romney because he is LDS.

Likewise, the socialist Democrats are part of the dangers Ezra T. Benson warned us about that will make America's constitution hang by a thread one day. Reid's willingness to badmouth a prophet doesn't speak well for him. One doesn't speak evil against the Lord's anointed without negative spiritual consequences.

Looking back at Joseph Smith's 1844 candidacy, the predominant reason for it was to prevent the political parties of his day from dividing the Church over political differences. The battle of leftist and right-wing demagogues will be the undoing of America, as political compromise becomes all the more unlikely and each side perceives the other as the ultimate evil. Mormons should vote, but neither the Democrats or Republicans are worthy of that show of support.

Rich | 4:20 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

To "I'm glad im not mormon": You're wrong in thinking that as a Mormon you are required to think a certain way. Brigham Young taught that Mormonism accepts truth wherever it comes from, and that would include science, politics, etc. Just as there are physical laws that govern the universe, there are spiritual laws that are in effect. If you violate such a law, you'll suffer the natural consequences. Lie or steal, and you'll suffer lack of self-respect, for one thing. The "90-year-old" man you disrespect, through experience and inspiration, can teach you much about the spiritual laws you should be obeying. He doesn't want to force you to do good, but he certainly has the duty to teach you what is right. You have the right to reject his advice and live the way you wish. You even have the right to become an ex-Mormon and criticize the LDS church and its leaders at every opportunity. But there are consequences to that, too. Question: As an ex-Mormon do you still believe in God? Christ? Ancient revelation? Modern revelation? Life after death? If so, do you actively support a religious group that strives to make the world a better place?

Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

At the time the war broke out, President Hinckley spoke about how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the scriptures "Renounce war and proclaim peace...(D&C 98:16)"and "Defend your families, even unto bloodshed...(Alma 43:47)" He stated "there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression." However, I remember listening very carefully for an outright endorsement of this war, which I never heard. He did say that this (Iraq) war is a continuation of the war on terror, but that is as far as it went. It is easy to suppose that there was a tacit endorsement, based on the timing of the talk and his strong statements that there are times when defense is justified. But the emphasis of the talk was to pray for peace among all of the nations, leaders, and people of the world. He also emphasized that it was healthy to have dissent and various opinions.

kd | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

There have been a lot of sanctimonious and self-righteous postings against Harry Reid. This should not bother otherwise rational persons. Don't forget, these same people (Reid-bashers) once believed weapons of mass destruction were plentiful in Iraq.

Revise that thinking | 4:32 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Do you honestly think that Republicans forget about the country's poor? Try thinking of conservative positions on welfare in terms of "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Look what happened in New Orleans: the city was basically a welfare state, where the government handed out benefits like they were candy, and when Katrina hit, half of the city's citizens had nowhere to go because they hadn't built their own financial foundation by which they could recover from the destruction. We Republicans firmly believe that taking care of the poor in the way you see it--giving people free money--does far more harm than good. We even feel that way in the church. In the church, recipients of church welfare funds or supplies have to work for what they get, and are instructed in ways to staty out of financial trouble. Giving government handouts makes people rely on government to take care of them. That teaches people that work isn't necessary because you can just get everything you need for free anyway. Republicans do not forget about the poor, they help in diffferent ways.

Joe | 4:43 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Hurrah for Brother Reid.

Hurrah to BYU for inviting him.

Shame on those who would allow only speakers who pass a particular political litmus test. I remind them that it was not long ago that Utah had political leadership that was more often Democratic than Republican. MANY members of the church hierarchy have been Democrats. When I joined the church, two of the three members of the First Presidency were, as were my bishop and stake president. Like Brother Reid, I also was uncomfortable with Elder Benson when he was in his period of high partisanship and diviseveness. But as he came closer to the presidency he moderated his tone, and as church president he was not the polarizing figure he had been.

It amazes me that some in the church are joining with those voices who call the church a cult, who have redefined the good word "conservative," giving it a harsh and intolerant cast, the same kind of people who drove the church from the Midwest. And Mitt Romney's courting of them will backfire on him, because they will not let him into their club.

I am not a Democrat. I am a faithful LDS member.

these comments drive people away | 4:44 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Look at the filth both sides are posting on this -- everyone is speaking with god-like phrases. Is this the Mormon image we really should be putting out there...??

Everyone believes that they are right. LDS believe they are the only true church, so do Muslems, Catholics, etc...all confirmed by feelings/experiences.

What people need to realize is that EVERYONE thinks this way. No comment board will change that.

To those that are LDS: What would Hinkley say?

Mormon Independant | 4:47 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I agree with Senator Reid when he said that we focus too much on abortion and gay marriage. The current Republican party gets the public to focus so much on issues that they don't really affect (the courts do). They've got us all afraid that everybody's going to turn gay if the Dems are in power. I think I've decided in my relatively short time here on this earth that some people are just born different and that we just don't understand why(Elder Oaks made mention of this in a news release) and making gay marriage legal isn't going to have the same effect as a government offering incentives to a company (in the form of tax breaks, etc...) to attract their business.
I believe these two issues are important but we, as a nation, are forgetting about the "poor among us." This is one of the main teachings of the New Testament, BOM, and D&C. "Who has done it unto the least of these..."

Anonymous | 5:02 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

To Revise that thinking:

I definitely donï¿½t think that all rank-and-file Republicans forget about the country's poor. I also donï¿½t think that all Democratic policies are good for the poor.

However, I do think that too many of the Republican party leaders are too closely wedded to big business. Big, big business. Oil, pharmaceuticals, Wall Street.

And these big businesses are in the business of making money (as they should be, they are businesses). In fact, these industries are in the business of making money at all costs, at anyone's expense.

The interest of big business is not the public good (or as the Declaration of Independence put it, the "common welfare"). That is why it is dangerous for our politicians to be cozying up to them.

When I said that Republicans too often forget the countryï¿½s poor, I did not mean to imply that Democrats have this issue figured out. Far from it. Rather I meant that Republicans have caused many problems in this area by simply ignoring the effects that favoritism for business can have on everyone else. Far too many LDS Republicans seem to be choosing to ignore the consequences of our societyï¿½s lust for riches.

anonymous | 5:02 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

What would Hinckley say (says "these comments...")?
Absolutely nothing. Who would want the IRS on their backs wanting to strip them of their tax shelters?

Who would you vote for? | 5:16 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Question. Given the choice between Guiliani and Clinton, who is Utah going to vote for? Both are pro choicers, both are pro gay marriage, but only one is anti war. It will be interesting to see who Utah sees as the most moral candidate.

dball | 5:22 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Harry Reid said that people in the church have to understand there are issues more important than abortion and gay marriage.
Apparently Mr. Reid has not read the family proclamation. He needs to reread the last paragraph. Because if that is true nothing else matters.

jsmith | 5:31 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

And by "Declaration of Independence," I (Anonymous a few posts up) clearly meant "preamble to the Constitution." :-)

Don White | 5:30 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Brother Reid mentions Joseph Smith.

Bensonite | 5:36 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

It's not about right vs. left or Republican vs. Democrat, it's about individual liberties vs. collectism and tyranny. Individual have rights intrinsicly, and delegate there rights to our government as a master does to a servant. If i do not have a right, neither does the government. If i cannot force my neighbor to pay my rent because i am crippled, the government cannot do it for me. I may believe that those who do not share my religious beliefs will be damned, but does that mean I can force my religion upon them? Of course not! I may believe that gay marraige is wrong and destructive, but as long as it's concentual, I have not right to force my opinion, only to persuade. The entire purpose of government is to protect my rights. NOTHING ELSE. Not determine how I live, what I do with my money or free time. Allowing natural law and consequence to teach me what is correct or advantageous is best. People have the right to destroy there own lives as long as they don't take the rights of others. That is constitutional law, that is the gospel, that is church doctrine.

jsmith | 5:38 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Oh come now, dball.

NOTHING else matters?

Harry Reid wasn't saying that abortion is right or that gay marriage is right. In fact, you may note that he is pro-life.

But there are other issues too. Surely you don't think that Christians shouldn't care about issues like war and peace?

Harry Reid didn't say that we shouldn't take a stand on abortion and gay marriage. What he did say was that we shouldn't take a stand ONLY on abortion and gay marriage.

And it just might be possible that in world we live in right now (with courts deciding those two issues), the stands that our legislative officials take on other issues will actually have more impact on our lives.

Don White | 5:39 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Brother Reid mentions Joseph Smith. It is important to mention that when Joseph Smith went to Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, to redress the wrongs done to the Mormons in two states, he was flatly turned down. Joseph said his refusal to even try to help would result in his not winning another election, and he didn't. In 1840 he ran against William Harrison, a Whig, who defeated Van Buren. Was it any wonder that the Saints of that time also voted against Democrats and most of them wanted to be Republicans in 1896 when Utah became a state. But one of the provisions for statehood was an even division of Demos and GOP. It is no longer 50/50 in the Beehive State because most Utahns are conservative and the Democratic Party long ago moved away from conservatism. Brother Reid is an albatross flying in the wrong direction. We suspect he will also lend his support to Mrs. Clinton when she runs for president and vote against Mitt Romney, who is the best candidate out there.

Mmmmm | 5:48 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I wonder how his remarks would stand a comparison to scripture when we look at moral principles (abortion and same-sex relationships) or the political philosophies of men in context of "cleansing the inner vessel" or how to deal with "robbers".

I think I will stand with the Prophets including Pres. Benson.

anonymous | 5:47 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Isn't it interesting how the gay issue always comes into focus today? The fact is, persons secure with their masculinity or feminity couldn't care less about what someone else does with theirs.

re:re:To Revise that thinking | 5:55 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

It may be of interest to those that think "Republican are too cozy with big bisiness" that it is that business that provides JOBS and money to those that want to work. Big business is owned by stockholders, who also are your neighbors. Big business is not an "enemy", is is a vehicle for all of us to support our families and way of life. If that is not general welfare, I am not sure what is. Harry doesn't understand the basics of life!

Dana | 5:56 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Just a couple of quick thoughts. I have followed Mr. Reid for years and never knew from his actions or words that he was LDS until a few years ago. I have found him to be untruthful, vitriolic, and a rather despicable person. But that is all I know of him and I will allow the Savior to be his ultimate judge. All I can do is judge his public personna and the words that he uses. To me, abortion (the taking of life) is an extremely important issue and far much more than global warming which man can not affect anyway. I personally have believed for years that liberalism, the way in which it is practiced today, is evil. It is the devil having perfected his craft and winning the hearts of people with a destructive message that holds just enough appeal and truth. It is a philosphy of man that places the government in the role of deity. And, to the person that said that abortion rights are irrevocable, you obviously do not know about the way the Supreme Court works. It is not irrevicable.

History Buff | 5:57 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

To Anonymous:
The "welfare" clause you allude to isn't in the Declaration of Independence. It's in the Constitution.

I presume you are employed by a company that is either (1) big business, or (2) aspiring to be a big business. (If you're not employed, then you are either retired or living on the largess of government.) Since I presume you are employed, then your being employed is most certainly something in the interest of public good: frees gov't resources for needed services.

Liberal philosophy is that money in the economy belongs to the government (after all, by whose Constitutional authorization is money printed -- and I'm not talking Federal Reserve) and they make a determination as to how much you get to keep.

Conservative philosophy is that the money you earn is yours and you should keep most of it. The Constitution provides for government functions that are paid by taxes (infrastructure, etc.), but overall, I believe the republican philosophy to be more honest. It's not government's job to "provide the general welfare," just to "promote it."

Only a fool ignores the poor. A bigger fool supports indolence common to the poor.

In DOI, Pursuit of Happiness is property rights.

anonymous | 6:01 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Ah yes, always something "supported by scripture." Next we'll hear about a talking snake in The Garden or man giving birth (Adam's rib). Why not try to take others into consideration and stay the civic course on these blogs? That way it won't sound like pontification and might actually make some real world sense.

jsmith/Anonymous | 6:08 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

History Buff,

You are right about the quote. I corrected myself a few posts down (or up now, I guess).

I am not against capitalism. I am all for capitalism.

What I am against is capital-seeking businesses being let into the political process. Lobbyists have used the Republican party to further their own interests. And that is a shame.

There is much value in the principle of ï¿½separation of church and state.ï¿½ There would be at least that much value in the principle of ï¿½separation of business and state.ï¿½

Brian | 6:09 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

He has no experience in the military but states that the military has failed in Iraq. His whole career has been in politics except for a few short years as a lawyer. He has no moral compass as Sean says. He simply panders to MOVEON.ORG.

Anonymous | 6:13 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Hopefully at the dinner on Monday night Reid drafted a proclamation on Globel warming for President Hinckley.

2 cents | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

locals , or we and they ...like in SE Utah ,this guy wouldn't stand a chance and would be banned from the good ol' boy system in place. but good try

Mormon tired of Bush | 6:20 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Reid has been saying all along that the war in Iraq is unjust. Turns out he's right. I have a son in Iraq who loves his country and I am proud of his service. Bush is wrong and his stance on Iraq seems to be motivated by the interests of the multi national corporations instead of the preservation and support of our freedoms. I voted for Bush twice and I am sorry that I did. Thanks to BYU for letting Reid stand up and present another view.

Observant | 6:24 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

What I don't understand about Mr. Reed's comments is that if it is wrong for a conservative church leader to state his political views: why is OK for Hillary Clinton's chief stooge to use BYU as a bully pulpit to press his left wing political agenda. Shouldn't both parties have to play by the same rules.

Anonymous | 6:26 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

"He (Reid) has no experience in the military" says Brian. And Bush, Cheney, and Rice do?

jsmith/Anonymous | 6:38 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

History Buff,

I cannot let pass your comment about "indolence" being "common to the poor."

This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes some conservatives seem uncharitable. (Note: I did not say that liberals have the solution to poverty. Only that they are not as likely to be condescending.)

Most of the poor work far, far harder than most of the rich (and even the middle class). And they see so little reward for their labor because they were born in the wrong circumstances, or got sick at the wrong time, or just werenï¿½t as smart or talented or lucky as others.

I know because I grew up among the poor. I am no longer poor, but not because I alone was a hard worker. In truth, Iï¿½m pretty lazy; but I happened to have the blessing of good parents and the good luck to be very good at school (thus, full-ride scholarships, job offers, etc.).

Please note Iï¿½m not saying that Democrats have the solution to the problems of poverty. They donï¿½t. But please donï¿½t be so smug as to suggest that Republican favors to Wall Street would solve poverty if only the poor werenï¿½t so lazy.

History Buff | 6:43 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

jsmith:
And George Soros (with MoveOn.org) doesn't lobby or attempt to influence Congress?

The whole idea is for various factions (or groups of people) to petition government for action. Ideally (maybe) everyone would have altruistic motives, but that is not reality. So business owners/operators have every right to lobby government for favorable legislation. You do it. I do it. Not the same way as monied interests, but we do do it every time we cast a vote or write to those who represent us in Washington for some action on things of interest to us. McCain/Feingold is such a horrible law: It prevents us from banding together to exert some influence on our national legislators (via political contributions). That law has been upheld by the Supremes, but it violates every principle of Freedom of Speech.

I think we can agree that corporate welfare is seriously abused.

IMHO, Conservatism is a much more equitable and just philosophy over modern liberalism. Big government is anethema to liberty, and that is where I disagree with Reid and his party (and more than a few republicans, including Bush).

(BTW, I saw your correction after I posted...thanks.)

TTFN

Charles | 6:44 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

I am an alumnus of BYU and my politics have been definitly against abortion and the deplorable scourge of sexual perversion so raised out of purportion to the numbers of people who really do practice such life styles.

But when it comes to health care, global warming and caring for the poor,President Bush showed more of his oligarchic approach to the poor and defenseless as he tried to reduce the money for CHIP the money for which is comparatively a drop of water in the ocean to even just the daily cost of the war. In the balance I can't conscience such callousness. I think we as a people need to read King Benjamin's speech really closely. Senator Reid sounded a lot more like King Benjamin than the speaker of the great and spacious house!

We are a people who are commanded by scripture to study these issues out for ourselves. But we are rather quick to label, judge and then dismiss. The issues ought to be our focus and NOT some one's label and the diatribes attached to those labels.

I think Senator Reid was very courageous to enter the lions den today!!! Daniel would be proud!

Edward | 7:02 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

Mr. Reid is a disgrace as an American. A man in his position telling our men & women in uniform that we have lost the war. His type of Democrats have no respect for our military. It is our military that has given us the freedom we enjoy, not people like Reid. I don't want this type of person defending our country. We will lose our freedom with his type of leadership. Sixty years ago he would be called a traitor by everyone. Unfortunately so many in our country today are so uniformed about what our enemies want to do to us. As a politician Reid is a fool. As a Mormon he is a disgrace to say that there are more important things than worrying about killing unborned babies. He should read The Family, A Proclamation To The World and then think about the gay agenda. The nerve of the man to attack former Presidents of the of the Church. He has a very screwed up belief system. Non members cannot believe he is a member of the Church. His political beliefs and our Church are out of sync. BYU officials have lost their moral compass by inviting Reid.

jsmith | 7:04 p.m. Oct. 10, 2007

History Buff,

Youï¿½re right. There are just as many unfavorable favors given on the liberal side of the bench.

Iï¿½m not trying to defend one side or the other. As I mentioned above, Iï¿½m an independent who is sad that I canï¿½t find satisfaction with any party Iï¿½ve encountered.

I hope I have not come across as too strident. What I did mean to express was that Harry Reid should not be attacked just because he is a liberal. There are too many skeletons in both the Republican and the Democratic closets for the followers of either party to suggest that they have a monopoly on virtue.

On the other hand, there are enough good people on all sides of all issues for us to learn to listen to what they might teach us.

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.