Comments about ‘At BYU, Lieberman says Romney nomination would test American fairness’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 25 2011 5:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Atheist
Provo, UT

Lieberman should be smarter than this. He should know the Constitution forbids a LEGAL test based on religion. But private voters are free to vote based on whatever criteria they choose, including (especially?) religion!

Lieberman's comments are either naive or pandering to his audience.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

If Romney wins the nomination loyal Republican voters will shut their mouths about religion and vote the party line, just as they always do. It's the moderate independent voters that Romney needs to focus on winning, and those people don't care about his religion.

It's the economy, stupid!

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Atheist,

What you say is true regarding that "...voters are free to vote based on whatever criteria they choose." But contrary to what you stated, what Senator Lieberman stated is not naïve or pandering as you claim.

What Senator Lieberman really implied was a question, namely, will the American people be willing to "be fair" when they consider their voting preferences? This would include me and others even if an atheist was running for President. In my case, their religious preference would not be a factor.

Would Romney's religion be a factor for you if he becomes the Republican nominee?

Article-Reader
Spanish Fork, UT

Pagen, you're free to vote your conscience. You're also free to distort your own reality by continuing to post liberal materials that were solely written for the purpose of making the right wing look bad. We should have Detroit go bankrupt, Ford managed to turn around without federal assistance, GM on the other hand is now using OnStar to tell the government where we go, and our driving habits. Soon that information will be given to insurance companies. Government Motors never, NEVER, should have happened.

If anyone here buys a GM make sure you completely opt out of OnStar. Don't just not sign up for it, you need to completely opt out of it, or good 'ol Big Brother will be watching.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Lieberman says Romney nomination would test American fairness"

What a class act!

I disagree with Senator Lieberman on just about every political issue -- other than our historic party affiliation -- but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, for any political office, because he's proven, over the years, that he's an honest, decent man that loves his country.

I can agree to disagree with candidates over particulars, if I can just be convinced they will consistently choose the common good over personal political expedience, that they will never intentionally do something hurtful to the Nation. That's why I was happy to "cross over" and vote for George W. Bush -- though I freely admit that voting Republican has become, over the years, more the norm than the exception for me.

I won't get a chance in 2012 to cast a presidential vote for someone like that from my own party. Here's hoping Republicans will settle on someone we can trust and rally 'round.

Someone with the honesty and decency of a Senator Lieberman.

Hawkeye79
Iowa City, IA

Wait, Pagen. You complain about how a candidate claimed he would let businesses in Detroit go bankrupt for their poor strategic decisions, and then turn around and complain about how that same candidate sides with big business over the American people? Should the government side with and bail out big businesses or not? I'm getting mixed signals from you.

That said, there are times that businesses put themselves in positions where they are headed toward complete failure. Believe it or not, but trimming the workforce can sometimes help a company to survive when it otherwise wouldn't.

Again, it comes down to a short-term approach versus a long-term approach. Is it worth it to eliminate 500 jobs now in an attempt to preserve the other 2500 jobs at a company in the future? Or, should a company keep all 3000 positions when it knows that it will mean that the company becomes insolvent within a few years?

Ms Molli
Bountiful, Utah

Well I personally worked on the last Presidential election and spoke with MANY Republican voters all across this country just prior to the last presidential election who told me they would never vote for a black man for president, and you are asking if the American peopel are willing to be fair? I'd bet that many of those same people will say that would never vote for a MORMON!

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

@Pagen: Except our economy does need to lose jobs. Detroit was a great example. Those companies did bad things, made a lot of mistakes and *should* have suffered the consequences by going under. Instead they got a free pass, wrote off all their mistakes and bad assets and resumed business as usual. The government meddled, tossed capitalism out the window and now look what we are stuck with. Recovery can't occur with DC propping up parts of the economy.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Love your photo for this article.
Separation of Church and State.
Yep!

AZRods
Maricopa, AZ

Pagan, I couldn't have said it better myself.

"His actions are what I'm concerned with"
"I would not vote for him for anything"

And my favorite....IT IS ABOUT THE ECONOMY!

Wait, are we talking about Obama or Romney;)

Obama has not only not solved the problem, but is losing support among
his own party and staff members.
And in my opinion is showing to be out of ideas, other than blaming everything on congress.

I'm much more concerned that people will not vote for Romney simply because he's LDS. But many will pretend that other issues are the "real reason" only to avoid the obvious excuse.
And as Lieberman expressed, most who vote against Romney because he's LDS will do so without even knowing anything about or having talked to a member of the LDS church.
Hopefully more and more people will try to think for themselves and actually have multiple, respectful conversations with an active LDS member.

Pagan, I do admire your loyalty to President Obama though.
It says a lot about your support of that which you believe in.

The Atheist
Provo, UT

VST,

I think you are treading in areas in which you may not like the outcome of your own thinking.

I hold to my statement that Lieberman was either naïve or pandering to his LDS audience. "Fairness" is not a function of separating a person's religion from their politics, especially when a person's religion is declared BY THEM to be the foundation of their identity and their politics.

You claim "This would include me and others even if an atheist was running for President. In my case, their religious preference would not be a factor."

I do not believe you. Neither you nor most Americans would vote for an open atheist for President. There IS a most fundamental "religious test" by which Americans in general, and LDS in particular, ARE "not fair".

It is disingenuous (or lying) for believers to claim religion is so fundamental to who they are, their worldviews, the basis of their morality, and then try to convince us that we should not take their religion seriously in evaluating their candidacy for public position.

Yes, Romney's religion is a factor for me. He has stated his religion is a factor for him.

BigRich
Orem, UT

If Pagan were honest with himself, he would admit that his whole problem is Romney being a Mormon, that he believes in God. I well remember Kennedy's speech regarding his Catholic faith and all of the scuttlebutt in the media concerning it. If Pagan would think for a minute, I think he would agree with Lieberman who would say the same thing about Pagan's non-belief in deity were he running for office. It shouldn't be a factor and the people shouldn't base a vote against him because he chooses not believe.

ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

@ Pagen, I agree with you. You could see clear evidence of the examples you have provided right here on the boards on DN. What goes around comes around.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Love your photo for this article. Separation of Church and State. Yep!"

I guess some people just look at the pictures and leap to their conclusions, without actually reading the story.

Senator Lieberman, from the state of Connecticut, not Utah, visited, in his private capacity, an LDS Church-owned school, note, he's Jewish, not LDS, to discuss the joys of Sabbath observance.

It would be interesting to hear an opinion, as opposed to a smarmy, snarky, unsupported comment, as to how that, in any way, could possibly threaten the separation of Church and state.

Apparently, it's just threatening to some people that churches are allowed in this state.

AzTim
Gilbert, AZ

@ no fit in SG

You mock the photo of Joe Lieberman, an invited guest speaker at BYU, standing next to two Apostles of the Mormon Church, who happen to own and operate BYU, for somehow invalidating the Separation of Church and State. How utterly petty! What? A religious based school cannot invite a politician to speak?

You obviously do not know that the Founders originally intended the "wall of separation" to be unilateral - meaning, it was to keep the government out of the religion business, but not to keep religious principles out of government or the public square. Go look at your copy of the constitution, it does NOT contain the phrase "separation of Church and State."

Newspaper Reader
Highland, UT

I attended the forum today. There was much, MUCH more to this speech than simply talking about Mitt Romney as a frontrunner in the election. I enjoyed his comments about defending and confronting the moral degradation of today's society. Regardless of faith, religious belief, or upbringing, there is power in believing in something. Something good. Something beneficial to our neighbor. Something wholesome. Senator Lieberman mentioned his book about his Sabbath-day observance, and how he has striven to stay true to those beliefs that he has throughout his political career.

trident
ROOSEVELT, UT

Is this a sad joke? BYU has run out of warmongering Republicans to invite to speak so they find the one warmongering Democrat. I wonder what the Prince of Peace would think given the pandering of BYU to such a cabal of war cheerleaders asked to speak... (Condi, Cheney, Petraeus, Brzezinski, Scowcroft, and now Lieberman) Disheartening and sickening.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Atheist,

For you to claim that I am lying when I state that religious preference, for me, would not be a factor, even if that individual was an atheist, is downright insulting.

You do NOT know who I am or what my value-system is based upon. You should know better than to make such an accusation about someone you do not personally know.

I stand by my statement that religion is NOT a factor when I step into the voting booth.

Furthermore, I hold the DN moderator accountable by their own standards for allowing such an accusatory comment to be posted.

ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

@ procuradorfiscal, I doubt anyone who resides in this State is threatened by the mere fact that churches are allowed in this State. But I bet that every person who has been in the work force in this State would have a factual story to tell about how certain people who wore certain kinds of religious clothing beneath their street clothes were given favoritism by the LDS owners of that business or by the LDS managers of that business (including governmental offices) for job promotions. Too bad people can't be fair in their decisions huh!

Carol P. Warnick
Ephraim, Utah

It's nice to belong to a church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, that is worth defending. How many of you that have made comments have read The Book of Mormon or attended our church? Some times we get so caught up in the degativity that we can't see the good. Do some research with an open mind and it might surprise you what good you will find. There is alot of good in this world, people helping and caring for each other and trying to live a Christ centered life.

to comment

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