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?
Trident...Take an asprin or two.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if Lieberman would run for VP with Romney . . .
@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.
@speed66You 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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 ?
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.
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!
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.
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.
@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.
fatcaesar | 8:38 p.m. Oct. 25, 2011Las 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.
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.
@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.
'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
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.
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.
@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.
procuradorfiscal2:17 PM,Oct.25,2011Tooele,UTHow 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.
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
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?
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."
@ 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
@ 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
@ PaganYou 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."ContinuedHe broke Obama's promise, to close
the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Trident, I hope we can have Pres Obama give a talk at BYU so we can add another
warmonger to your list!
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.
'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.
'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?
@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.
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.
@Pagen. My apologies. My remarks were actually directed to atheist and I
mistyped who it was.
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.
'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.
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!
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.
@ 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
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.
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.
@ no fit in SGYou 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."
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
@ 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.
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.
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.
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 amonghis 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
Love your photo for this article.Separation of Church and State.Yep!
@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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.