Quantcast
Utah

At BYU, Lieberman says Romney nomination would test American fairness

Comments

Return To Article
  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    Oct. 27, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    Article quote from Sen. Lieberman: "Anybody who tries to separate faith from America's public square is doing something unnatural and ultimately bad for our country," he said."

    Sen. Lieberman, would you mind telling that to the liberals here in America and the ACLU?

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 4:56 p.m.

    Trident...

    Take an asprin or two.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Oct. 26, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    I have told many of my friends, years ago, that Joe Lieberman was the best candidate for me.
    And I happen to be LDS. I would vote vote for him today, if he were to run for POTUS. He represents my middle class/working class/conservative views the best.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska wrote:

    "I could not ever justify voting for an atheist. The reason is because I believe that it comes down to trust."

    Do not ever dare to call another person a "bigot" after such a confession.

    Not trusting a person, or associating them with Nazis or other horrible people based on the fact that they DON'T believe something is just plain irrational.

  • Grace Bakersfield, CA
    Oct. 26, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    I am a registered Independent, an evangelical "born-again" for the past 25 years, a Mormon for my first 35 years. I will vote for Romney over Obama, but for Cain, Huntsman or Gingrich over Mitt. All political reasons. I will never vote for Bachman, Perry or Paul, even though I share their religious persuasion. All personal reasons, I just don't connect emotionally with them or don't like their debate antics.

    I like each person in some ways and feel that each one is a principled, knowledgable, qualified candidate. At the end of the day, I feel an obligation to vote for the person whom I feel is best for our nation. If I voted solely for religious reasons, I would not vote for any candidate who may have to call SLC or Rome on a potential religious conflict. I made the choice 25 years ago to determine my spiritual destiny myself, without a middleman dictating extra-Biblical reasons that affect my life. This concern is at the core of many evangelicals' hesitancy on supporting a Mormon or a Catholic. Maybe this perspective will enlighten some here who erroneously call every objection prejudicial.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Oct. 26, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    I wonder if Lieberman would run for VP with Romney . . .

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    @Grace
    "I guarantee you that Lieberman has no clue. He's just trying to be sweet and inclusive. He doesn't know the theological issues that separate Mormons from historical, Biblical Christians. That's obvious from his statements."

    Lieberman's a Jew. He probably couldn't care less about what any theological issues are that separate Mormons from what you call "historical, Biblical Christians". And secondly, maybe as a Jew he has some sense of what it's like to be excluded. I know down in Texas there was a state race where a Jewish politician had to deal with organizers who wanted a more "Christ-centered" candidate.

    "but he also has free speech."

    The freedom to criticize exists.

    "Mormons did not experience bigotry in any fashion"

    Extermination orders aren't bigotry to you?

    "Biblical Christians were told by our founders that they were all "an abomination" "

    And "Biblical Christians" said the same about Joseph Smith. Are you really going to pull the "he started it" card? Frankly it's not even known who "started it" and really it doesn't matter who did. Oh, there is one more thing... "our"? You're LDS? I left the church and still seem to have a higher opinion of it.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Oct. 26, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    @speed66

    You said, "Republicans may vote for Romney but many will do so reluctantly. What they will do is vote against Obama...sad that so often it comes down to voting against someone rather than voting for them."

    Sad indeed. I just turned 50, and my entire life I have had to vote for the lesser of 2 evils for POTUS. Not once has there been a candidate I thought was worthy of the office. No. not even the Conservative Mormons' patron Saint Reagan (who, by the way was the initial catalyst for the irresponsible fiscal policy that has snowballed into the $14T debt we see today.) So yes, I voted against the worse one, rather than for the "good" one. I am happy to say, I have never been on the winning side of an electrion for President. I am however sad to say that neither has the United States been the "winner" in any of these elections.

    I anxiously await the day there is a nominee for POTUS who I can get behind because he / she is the best option for our country.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    To MRFOOTBALL - you're probably right - the last thing we need "at this time" is a highly educated President who understands economics and has a proven track record of turning unprofitable private and public sector entities into profitable ones. Who wouldn't choose Obama over Romney, especially considering Obama's sterling success creating jobs for average JOE's and turning the economy around?

  • Grace Bakersfield, CA
    Oct. 26, 2011 9:40 a.m.

    C. Warnick: You should also ask how many posters here have been LDS and understand why other Americans know why they will never vote for a Mormon, a Moonie or a Muslim. For voters for whom religious beliefs are an issue, we don't need anyone telling us what factors we should consider in our candidates. I have no prejudice or bigotry, but I know exactly which LDS teachings will always be an issue for me. I guarantee you that Lieberman has no clue. He's just trying to be sweet and inclusive. He doesn't know the theological issues that separate Mormons from historical, Biblical Christians. That's obvious from his statements.

    Neither has he understood Pastor Jeffress' comments: wrong venue, but he also has free speech. He just happened to describe Mormons the same way any evangelical bookstore does. Browse one sometime. The good senator from Conneticut would not be so gracious if this were pre-1978, would he?

    Coleman51: Mormons did not experience bigotry in any fashion, no matter how many posters here repeat that mantra. Biblical Christians were told by our founders that they were all "an abomination" and that the Bible was "corrupt". That was the battle cry.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 26, 2011 9:36 a.m.

    Consequences ... sometimes it takes a lifetime or more to pay for them. When a group of people are claiming unfairness in their treatment, perhaps they should take a good look at their own history to find some answers.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 26, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    The issue is not if voters should consider a candidates religion in evaluating him/her for office. Of course, voters should evaluated all aspects of a candidates qualities, a candidates religious believes are as important as his/her political believes, family values, organization memberships, community service, etc. It seems the problem is that Mormons fear voters may view Mormonism unfavorably and ungenuine. But that is the voters right of freedom to evaluated and make their own best conclusion and decision. It is the Mormons responsiblity to make themselves better understood if they feel they are being viewed incorrectly.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Oct. 26, 2011 8:45 a.m.

    i have had many friends ask me to answer their questions about my faith. i answer with what hopefully will help them understand we are Christians and that hopefully will vote our conscience towards whom we want to be our leader of the USA.
    sadly with people in politics spouting off it has become about religion NOT about what Romney would do for our country. personally i am broke because of the 'change' our current leader gave us. Romney has experience and yes he is human and has made a few business mistakes as we all have.
    this election will be made all about politics because of perry, cain, obama, and HELLO that is the past. we do NOT support nor condone such as polygamy. We are a dry church meaning no alcohol. we do not support sex before marriage. we are taught to respect our bodies...so in turn respect others.
    lieberman is sourgrapes because of the last election so how can we think he will be there to be positive ?

  • MRFOOTBALL DRAPER, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 8:40 a.m.

    I think that Romney might win the GOP over Cain but he would lose to the Obama. Romney body language alone is very "I am above you attitude". Remember he made a speech and said he was unemployed! He mocks society who is an average JOE. He is for the very rich, and he is not the right person for the presidency at this time.

  • Denys Picard near montreal, QC
    Oct. 26, 2011 8:16 a.m.

    Poor Mitt Romney,

    While Lieberman's attention to Romney means Mitt will probably win the Republican Partys candidacy; it also means the political death sentence of Romney's potential career in Washington DC, as it is always with anybody Lieberman associates with.
    And this means 4 more years of Banana Republic administration. When will we get an independent Presidential Candidate that does not bow to Israel and is not caught in the corruptions of both current political parties? And when, Oh! When will Lieberman with Schumer and Frank retire to Israel so that the US can prosper again!

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Oct. 26, 2011 6:50 a.m.

    Dsb I fully agree with you. I could not ever justify voting for an atheist. The reason is because I believe that it comes down to trust. I would much rather put an egocentric religious individual in the White House than one who adheres to everything being about them. Athesist have shown what type of government are run by them, USSR, Nazi Germany, China and others. We don't need that here in the United States. The test that is implied is for one to be allowed to run. Once they start running then ones faith does have a determining factor in whether I or some like me will vote for them. I careless about their race, gender and party. However, their faith is one reason I select as an American to do so. I didn't vote for Obama because of his stances on certain things which the democratic aspires to. I almost didn't vote for McCain because I really couldn't trust either so I took the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, what I felt of Obama has come true. Some things I applaud but over all he has failed the American people.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Oct. 26, 2011 5:01 a.m.

    The LDS First Presidency has hosted world leaders of every different philosophy and political persuasion, including Presidents both Democrat and Republican.

    Harry Reid is LDS, and I would not vote for him, as I disagree with his views and agenda. I would vote for Mitt Romney because I agree with most of his views and agenda, more than with any other candidate.

    In this free, self-governing America, we are supposed to have the right to vote according to our conscience. That should be allowed all Americans. I do admit I would be disapointed in those who cannot vote for someone of Mitt's ability and outstanding citizenship, because he is a Latter-Day-Saint.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 10:59 p.m.

    @atl134 8:14 pm - Criticizing my opinion is completely American. It's called Freedom of Speech, and I'll take responsibility for my words, defend them if it's worth my time. Perhaps it's not so much Un-American to say that I or anyone else is "trampling on the Constitution" by applying any personal religious consideration as it really is just plain ignorant and laughably idiotic, which is also Constitutionally protected.

    However I still think it's Un-American to tell anyone that they can, or cannot, use any criteria in their voting decisions. How exactly would you enforce such a "violation" of the Constitution? Should each voter fill out a "motivation affidavit" to ensure they don't use religion as a consideration? Could we also somehow enforce a ban against voting for someone based on having a full head of hair? Hopefully we can all agree that such a voting motivation is merely stupid, and not a violation of the Constitution in any way.

    You can think I'm stupid for considering a person's faith when determining my vote, but I don't think I'm alone by any stretch of the imagination, nor in violation of the letter of spirit of the Constitution.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Oct. 25, 2011 9:38 p.m.

    fatcaesar | 8:38 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011
    Las Vegas, NV

    Lets not write off the South so easily. Just wait and see. I believe you will be surprised how many will go for Romney if he can make it past the ill conceived primary system. Lieberman would be a good VP choice for Romney.

  • Greggory Wood SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 9:16 p.m.

    Amazingly one sided view from Liberman who asks for the electorate to 'be fair'. He is off the mark regarding Article VI, Paragraph III of the Constitution: there is no federal religious test; but individuals may --and do-- use any criteria for whom they vote. If Liberman is making the case that people who don't vote for Romney --if he gets to the general election-- solely on his religious beliefs are being unfair, then ipso facto so are those who vote for Romney because he is Mormon.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 9:10 p.m.

    @fatcaesar
    "If Romney fails to win at least one southern state in the republican primary it will prove that the southern evangelicals have a deep prejudice for Mormonism."

    Not necessarily. They might just hate Romneycare, or his flip-floppiness, or a bunch of other things. Anti-Mormonism would be a component... but it would not be the only issue.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    'Once again, Pagan has succeeded in making the whole comments section almost completely about him and his opposition to things Mormon! Congratulations!' - Moracle | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011

    Well, since there are 12 replies on this story alone....

    AND, I'm not the one brining up Mitt Romney's faith....

  • mightymite DRAPER, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 8:43 p.m.

    How much was the fee for Lieberman's speech? I am not being critical but these guys don't just speak for the sake a speaking. Everything has a price tag and the price almost always sways the line of thinking.

  • fatcaesar Las Vegas, NV
    Oct. 25, 2011 8:38 p.m.

    If Romney fails to win at least one southern state in the republican primary it will prove that the southern evangelicals have a deep prejudice for Mormonism. It will be like saying that the Constitution should be rewritten with the qualifier that no Mormon ever need to apply for the Presidency! What a shame. This decade's new bigotry will be against Mormons.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 8:14 p.m.

    @DSB

    "I think anyone who tries to tell me that I'm Un-American or trampling on the Constitution for having this "religious test" is far more Un-American than I, for presuming to tell me what I can, and cannot, consider as a motivating factor in my vote. That's my constitutional right. "

    1. You can totally use that as a factor to vote but it's also a constitutional right of people like myself to be able to criticize your position.
    2. You just told people what they can and cannot call you unamerican for based on their telling you what you can and cannot use as a factor in your vote.

    @coleman51
    "we can now break the religion barrier."

    Let's not... not that I have anything agianst there being an LDS president (if I had a choice of Obama + republican congress or Huntsman + democratic congress, I'd take the latter, I like Huntsman but I can't trust him to veto the crazy a republican congress would pass), I just want Obama to win re-election.

  • American man WOODS CROSS, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 8:10 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    2:17 PM,Oct.25,2011
    Tooele,UT

    How can you threaten something that does not exist? I'm talking about your remark concerning the "separation of church and state".

    There is no such thing as, separation of church and state. If there is you will have to show me the docutment which makes it a law, or tell me where it is in the Constitution. I doubt that I will hear from you.

  • kiaoraguy Provo, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    Sure seems like there is something in water some our posters have imbibed- I was at the forum and it was a pretty innocuous speech- far from being the fodder of dissension that some of you think it was- it was just a speech..and the idea of a sitting US Senator, who happens to be Jewish, talking about the importance of observing the Sabbath in a speech at a Private Religious school-well, imagine that...

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Oct. 25, 2011 6:57 p.m.

    Mitt Romney should kiss off the far right and BYU should do the same to the Big 12. The Lieberman types should be Romney's focus and BYU should stay independent with its own TV network. Does being independent from the world apply here?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 6:07 p.m.

    I have my doubts about whether several posters comprehended the point of the speech. It seems to have spiraled downward into one's own vendetta against religion, race, war or any number of perifial things that have little to do with the either context or content of what was actually said.

    But that's another great thing about politics: ignorance is bliss and closed minds qualify to be thought of as being "ignorant."

  • defibman Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:43 p.m.

    @ Pagan continued

    "Yes, it's all George Bush's fault! President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending failed Bush administration.



    If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel. North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

    Oh, and did I mention what it would be like, if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying ( Nebraska , Louisiana ).

    If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now."

    Continued

  • defibman Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:39 p.m.

    @ Pagan continued

    "He broke Obama's promise, to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

    He broke Obama's promise, to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

    He broke Obama's promise, to end earmarks.

    He broke Obama's promise, to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

    He broke Obama's promise, to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

    He broke Obama's promise, to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

    He broke Obama's promise, to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

    He broke Obama's promise, to end no-compete contracts with the government.

    He broke Obama's promise, to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

    He broke Obama's promise, for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

    He broke Obama's promise, to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year."

    Continued

  • defibman Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:37 p.m.

    @ Pagan

    You may be interested in an article by a life-long Democrat from CO.
    "Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first term in office: Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever! Wow! Talk about change.

    Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

    Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault !

    George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies The White House, is to blame for it all."

    Continued

    He broke Obama's promise, to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:35 p.m.

    Once again, Pagan has succeeded in making the whole comments section almost completely about him and his opposition to things Mormon! Congratulations!

    I've heard (don't know if true or not) that the Mormon haters have a contest amongst themselves to see who can rack up the most response from others who post in this comment space.

    Like a bird on a limb, waiting to pounce upon the first movement it sees in the grass, some must anxiously wait for the online news -- in order to be among the first posting some anti-LDS morsel for others to attack. Then they succeed in making the comment section mostly about themselves and their down-on-Mormons comments. (See? Even I am doing it.... dang! Fell for the trap!)

    But, it IS cheap entertainment, and that's worth something, I guess, isn't it?

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    Joe Lieberman should know whereof he speaks. The history of the Latter-Day Saints is not unlike the history of the Jews. Persecution and bigotry have always been what we and the Jews have had to drink. Perhaps now, after we have broken the race barrier for a President, we can now break the religion barrier. Then we can claim as a nation that all men are created equal and deserve equal respect and dignity.

  • Palintram Holladay, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:18 p.m.

    Pander to the crowd. I'd guess Joe's about as knowledgeable re mormonism as the rest of the world is. If you find solace in his assurances that you're all ok, you should ask yourself why you think his opinion matters.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    I can't believe that anyone even engages some of these bitter, unhappy, anti-religious posters in discourse. I don't even read their posts anymore. I skip right past them. There are sad, lonely, unhappy people who spend all their time spewing their emotional problems all over the internet. That's all it is. Nothing more. It's tragic.

    Senator Lieberman is a good man. He tries to live his faith and is a man of great character. I'm so glad he came to BYU. Those of us who try to follow God and believe in the moral values laid out in our Constitution need to unite and continue the fight to save our country.

  • hotchow PROVO, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:57 p.m.

    Trident, I hope we can have Pres Obama give a talk at BYU so we can add another warmonger to your list!

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    Lieberman was pandering to the crowd. Shocking. Did he ever say anything like that away from BYU?

    People will make their decisions on their own criteria and feelings. Pretending that the average voter is well-informed is simply an act of wishful thinking. While those on this thread may follow politics, most people have trouble naming the countries - even continents - in which we are currently involved in active military action.

    Romney's problem isn't that he is LDS. If he gets through the Republican primaries, his faith will be inconsequential. His track record and casual relationship with the truth is his Achilles's heel. Republicans may vote for Romney but many will do so reluctantly. What they will do is vote against Obama...sad that so often it comes down to voting against someone rather than voting for them. For most Dems, Kerry was the Romney of his party.

    The real talent in the GOP are laying low and looking to make waves in 4 years. In the meantime, we are left with a choice between Perry, Romney, Cain and Paul. It's like showing up at the end of the close-out sale - nothing but misfits left to choose from.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:41 p.m.

    'Pulling out the broad brush may be an effective way to stir up controversy, but it is rarely accurate.' - Z | 4:15 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011

    Then why, is it tolerated?

    *'Buttars used 'black baby' remark again, officials say' - By Rodger L. Hardy - DSNews - 07/05/08

    'At an earlier legislative session Buttars said in referring to a bill, "this baby is black ... it's a dark and ugly thing."

    *'Gays greatest threat to America, Buttars says' - By Aaron Falk - DSnews - 02/19/09

    Discrimination is not acceptable. Weather it is directed FROM Mormons or AGAINST them. Neither has any place in our society.

    It was never my intention to claim otherwise.

    However, I WILL point to the three elections Buttars won, in 2000, 2004 & 2008 to show that discrimination does EXIST...

    and is sometimes, supported.

    We, you and I, need to make those people accountable, for their actions.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:34 p.m.

    'That you will vote for him because of what he has done?' - defibman | 4:08 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011

    *'Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News - 05/01/2011

    'Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, President Obama announced tonight.'

    *We have been waiting for this moment: Libya confirms Gadhafi is dead MSNBC 10/20/2011

    SIRTE, Libya Deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has been killed, the Libyan prime minister confirmed Thursday, following news of his capture and reports of his death.

    *'Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal' - By Ben Feller - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/21/2011

    'WASHINGTON President Barack Obama on Friday declared an end to the Iraq war, one of the longest and most divisive conflicts in U.S. history, announcing that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from the country by year's end.'

    Yep!

    Oh, and as for the economy...

    *Senate Republicans likely to kill Obama jobs bill By Andrew Taylor AP Published by DSNews 10/11/11

    How can Obama create jobs...

    when the Republican party votes 'no' on anything that would make jobs?

  • Z South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:15 p.m.

    @Pagan, given that SLC is the LEAST Mormon city in Utah (with the possible exception of Park City), poverty numbers and discrimination reports from SLC alone are a pretty poor case for Mormon discrimination.

    Do individual Mormons discriminate? Certainly, but the same can be said for any population group. One can also find individual Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Pagans, etc., that are friendly, caring and neighborly.

    Pulling out the broad brush may be an effective way to stir up controversy, but it is rarely accurate.

  • defibman Syracuse, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:08 p.m.

    So Pagan, do you believe the same about Obama? That you will vote for him because of what he has done? I await your response.

  • BigRich Orem, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    @Pagen. My apologies. My remarks were actually directed to atheist and I mistyped who it was.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    I've probably written comments challenging The Atheist more than once. I daresay we probably don't agree on a lot of things. But, I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on this thread, and I'm happily and enthusiastically LDS. I'm not ashamed to admit that I would probably never vote for an atheist, because I believe it's extremely important for the leader of our country to invoke the blessings of Providence on our nation.

    That said, my candidate of choice does not have to be LDS, and the specific religious affiliation is not my primary concern. I do happen to like Romney's track record on economics and leadership, and he's clearly intellectually superior to many other Republican candidates. I also like his family orientation and non-profit service. I'm honest enough to admit that the personal values formed by our common religion is an advantage as I consider my options.

    I think anyone who tries to tell me that I'm Un-American or trampling on the Constitution for having this "religious test" is far more Un-American than I, for presuming to tell me what I can, and cannot, consider as a motivating factor in my vote. That's my constitutional right.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    'So, is your premise that it's OK for people to discriminate against Mormons, since Utah Mormons discriminate against our non-LDS neighbors?' - procuradorfiscal | 3:19 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011

    Discrimination is not acceptable.

    It is also not reasonable to claim discrimination does not exist due to the experiences of one person, who is anonomys.

    In the SLC 2009 discrimination report, the percentage of African American persons who lived below the poverty level...?

    30%.

    The per month average of LGBT persons who had to file a complaint due to housing and employment discrimination in SLC...?

    Three. Per month.

    So, please. Do not claim that Mormons do not discrimination because of your one, example.

    Heck, I can't even mention Prop 8 because the Deseret News cannot stand behind the stories they publish.

    Oh, and that SLC 2009 discrimination report...?

    It can all be found on the website.

    Page, 19.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    Re: ". . . 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 . . . were given favoritism . . . ."

    I've been in the workforce in this state and I don't have a story about "certain people" [you mean Mormons, of course] receiving preference over others.

    In fact, during a stint in labor law, I found just the opposite -- people in authority, not of our faith, giving unlawful preference to those they thought were also not affiliated with the predominant Utah religion.

    Interestingly, in 2 of those cases, those being unlawfully favored fooled 'em, and really were [lapsed] Mormons -- not that any of us could have known, but it was ironic, all the same.

    So, is your premise that it's OK for people to discriminate against Mormons, since Utah Mormons discriminate against our non-LDS neighbors?

    Interesting, but you'll have prove both assumptions by someone other than me.

    As you said -- "Too bad people can't be fair in their decisions huh!"

    Huh, indeed!

  • Carol P. Warnick Ephraim, Utah
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:51 p.m.

    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.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:28 p.m.

    @ 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!

  • trident ROOSEVELT, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Newspaper Reader Highland, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    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.

  • AzTim Gilbert, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:20 p.m.

    @ 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."

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    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.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • BigRich Orem, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    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.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 2:00 p.m.

    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.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:58 p.m.

    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.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:52 p.m.

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

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    @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.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:44 p.m.

    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!

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:43 p.m.

    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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Article-Reader Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 1:35 p.m.

    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.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 12:57 p.m.

    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!

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Oct. 25, 2011 12:52 p.m.

    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.