Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: In choice between truth and error, there is no compromise

Comments

Return To Article
  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    It is the strident forces of both parties that I believe has led us to where we are at. And BTW, where we are at is not a good place...

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Sept. 18, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    @hahaha

    Every piece of legislation passed by Congress and supported by the President during his tenure was a compromise. From the affordable health care act, to the stimulus package, to banking regulations. Each contains dozens if not hundreds of compromises. I cannot recall a single piece of legislation that did not contain compromises. That is how democracy works.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 17, 2012 8:01 p.m.

    95% of political decisions are not based on anything objectively moral one way or the other. As someone said in an earlier post, is a 39 % tax rate immoral but a 35 % tax rate is moral? Of course neither one is moral or immoral. Those are policy decisions that have nothing to do with morality. It's silly to say you will never raise taxes or cut entitlements or whatever. Those are things that can and should be compromised on in a society where people disagree. No one should expect to always get their way 100% of the time like a spoiled child.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 17, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" since you claim to be a member of the LDS church, go and read what the Prophets and leaders of the church you claim membership in have to say about life being shades of grey (Moral Relativism).

    D Todd Christopherson speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in May 2009.

    Dallin H. Oaks speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in October 1992 in an article titled "Religious Values and Public Policy". He repeated this message again in February 2011 in an article titled "People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion". He again repeated the message about the evils of shades of grey (Moral relativism) in a CES fireside in September 2011 titled "Truth and Tolerance".

    Neal A. Maxwell spoke out against it in May 1995 in a talk titled "Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness"

    Ezra Taft Benson spoke out against it multiple times, and said "The philosophy of relativism attacks the eternal principles of truth."

    If life is full of "shades of gray" why do so many prophets teach about absolutes. Why do the prophets teach that the shades of grey you believe in is wrong?

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    Truth is often in the eye of the beholder. Those that think in absolutes are simply emotinally and intellectually immature.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    dwayne
    Provo, UT
    The Real Maverick,

    "This type of mentality in this letter is just scary.

    What Sandy is advocating isn't Democracy nor freedom, but Totalitarianism."

    That is as uncivil as anything anyone could ever say.

    [No it isn't -- Never Compromising is Totalitarianism, period -- look it up for yourself.]

    ================

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "1aggie" you are wrong.

    God is a God of absolutes.
    Black & white.
    There is no gray area.

    [Then you deny the Atonement.
    You Deny the 3 degrees of Glory and MANY mansions,
    You deny in Moral reltivism,
    You deny the Heathen nations,
    You deny Proxy Baptism, Proxy Sealings,

    You're God of absuletism, denies just about everything that makes LDS theology true.

    Go back to your Heaven/Hell
    Babies and little children going to purgatory,
    And Heathen Nations are not God's children and not entitled to his blessings.
    That's a God of Absolutes.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    Pleasantville,

    all I could imagine reading this was the movie "Pleasantville".
    Where EVERYTHING was Black & White.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 17, 2012 8:04 a.m.

    jthompson..as the saying goes..good grief charlie brown..that whissing sound you hear going past your ears that's the point of the comments. Nobody is arguing tax policy. We've only said there is not a right or wrong tax rate. It depends on ...

    To a larger point..giving and taking on issues is not evil and does not require you to give up your intergity or principles. If I believe in a princple strongly that has three points and I believe the country will be better off if it implements those three points, but I can only pursuade my opponents to implement two of the points I'll take what I can get right now, and work on getting the third point later, and yes that requires that I act in the present without the third point contray to what I believe is best. It's William James pragmatisim it's Americanism.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 10:14 p.m.

    To "1aggie" you are wrong.

    Adam and Eve were told they couldn't freely eat of the fruit of knowledge. They had to be given the fruit at the appropriate time. No grey area, and no contradiction.

    God is a God of absolutes. See Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." That sure sounds like a Black and White viewpoint.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 8:54 p.m.

    NinJutsu... I used to think both sides "believed in doing what is good" Sadly I can no longer believe that. Who is for the rich and who is for the poor? Which side has to make the President into "not one of us". Which side was willing to misrepresent and outright lie about the other? Which side said from the first that their only goal was to certain a one term president? Which side is more likely to get us involved in more waring. Whick side wants to do in Medicare and Social Security not to mention Medicaid.

    It isn't hard to see who has their heart in the right place.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 7:55 p.m.

    I have yet to see the left ever compromise.

    Not once.

    It has always been the right that must step left.

    I never buy it when left says we must compromise, or must we have more compromise, they are only talking about the opposition.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    The tax rate is irrelevant when there is no budget. Who would ever vote for an increase until he had a binding budget that paid only for programs authorized be the Constitution. As usual, some liberals want to argue about the tax rate when they are not willing to tell WHY we're being taxed. There can be no compromise on a tax rate until the Democrats first compromise on non-authorized spending.

    How can they justify paying G.M. Unions $39 billion from the public treasury? How can they justify paying Soros $2 billion out of the public treasury? How can they justify paying Solyndra $500 million out of the public treasury. Not one of those payouts is Constitutional, but they want to raise taxes so that they can do more of the same.

    Let's debate the important things before arguing on tax rates.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 16, 2012 7:12 p.m.

    Demosthenes

    Well said.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 6:56 p.m.

    All the repubs ranting on this board about the virtues of compromise, need to start preaching to boehner, mcconell and kantor . Name any compromises they have made to accomplish any sort of public policy, or regulation that is significant and noteworthy, and has pushed progress forward in governing the nation. Don't want to hear about vague half-truth promises they have proposed with fingers crossed behind their backs. No, real compromise that was actually inacted!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 6:39 p.m.

    So Mike does God want a 35% tax rate or a 39% tax rate? One has to be right and the other wrong..right..or wrong?

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 16, 2012 6:19 p.m.

    All the leftists ranting on this board about the virtues of compromise, need to start preaching to their president. Name 2 compromises he has made to accomplish any sort of public policy, or regulation that is significant and noteworthy, and has pushed progress forward in governing the nation. Don't want to hear about vague half-truth promises he has proposed with his fingers crossed behind his back. No, real compromise that was actually inacted!

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 16, 2012 6:14 p.m.

    The letter writer is trying to point out that on certain issues we as a nation have reached a point of impasse. Each side has a few issues that have a yes-or-no answer that they cannot give up.

    But the reality is, those issues are few in number and the rest we can give and take on. We ought to focus on those.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 5:38 p.m.

    Sandy Thackery represents today's conservative "base," and it's irrational letters like this that say the most about why we can expect President Obama to be re-elected in November.

    And btw, Sandy, I am convinced to the core of my very being that my moral compass is correct and that yours is out of whack.

    Now then, where does that leave us if no one is willing to compromise?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    "My values and beliefs cannot be compromised. I must stand and defend them rather than excuse or dilute them."

    ---

    You ASSUME that your truth and values are the only truth and values.

    You couldn't be more incorrect about that.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    Ms.Thackarey

    No gray area? Everything black and white?

    Garden of Eden:
    God: Don't partake of the fruit.
    Multiply and replenish the earth.

    Mostly the world is not black and white. Perhaps there are two extreme ends of any spectrum, but between those ends is a vast area of gray. If the world were just black and white, we could let a computer do the thinking/reasoning for us. Life is intensely complex. Look again.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    Kent,

    Who chose a King, the people or God. I find it amusing that you would blame the choice of a people on God and that you would tell us God changed his mind, when, in fact, it was the people who rejected God. Do you see anything like that going on today?

    When people compromise their principles, they often put the blame on God for the consequences that follow.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    Right now we have two competing views about how to solve our economic mess. Unfortunately, both sides are a little bit right and mostly wrong. Real solutions will involve changes that most Americans are not yet willing to accept. But for the parties to not compromise gives us the worst of all possible worlds. Better to compromise for an imperfect solution than to simply sit in our respective corners and pout if we don't get our way--while the house burns down.

    And Mike, how do you know God does not compromise? I can think of a few examples from the Bible where he was talked into allowing something he had forbidden (the Israelites wanting a king comes to mind). I always find it amusing when people take it upon themselves to declare what God will and will not do. Thin ice there, in my mind.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    Someone once said, "All roads lead to Rome". Another said, "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it".

    Where is Rome today?

    How many are walking the "straight and narrow"?

    How many are trying to tell us that there are many ways to compromise (our principles) so that they can claim "unity"?

    There can never be a compromise on principles. Principles are black and white, wrong or right. Shades of gray only exist with those who are willing to compromise. They, like Rome, will cease to exist, while those who hold true to principles will be endowed with eternal responsibilities.

    God does not compromise. We must never compromise when the question at hand is about morals or about ethics, i.e., we can compromise on how much should be spend on defense, but we can never compromise on the necessity of spending for defense.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    If only there was such a thing as truth. And if there was just a way to know it if we see or hear it.

    In all forms of government only a select few are allowed to decide what is truth. In a democracy we think the weight of numbers point to the true. Though the failure of democracy to always be correct persists, many of us believe it to be the best.

    If a person believes democracy to be the best he should seek those who would allow the choice of the people to reign. And be able to recognize what sort of government actions lead to personal freedom and the ability to be a voice in government.

    Those touting independence, self reliance, voluntary participation in society and lack of control from government would take away a person’s personal freedom. Their motivation is that they themselves wish to control and enslave the people.

    Even though those characteristics are regarded as good they also weaken the individual in his ability to deal with the world in general. And thus make him a readymade victim for those who would enslave him.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    It might be incredibly stupid, but we've always done it that way.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    To compromise with political opponents over, say, tax policy, is not a betrayal of core principles. It's an attempt to get something done that's important.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    This type of mentality in this letter is just scary.

    What Sandy is advocating isn't Democracy nor freedom, but Totalitarianism.

    Why even have political parties if one is wrong and the other is right?

    Heck, based on your logic, why even have an election since you seem to think that one party endorses your religious/moral beliefs while the other is/does the complete opposite?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Very few of our political decisions in involve right and wrong. They tend to involve better or worse. Is a top marginal tax rate of 35% better or worse than a rate of 39%? Should the defense budget be 500 billion or 525 billion? Again it's a case of better or worse, neither position is intrinsically right or wrong, and you can make a valid case for either one. Most of our political decisions are like that.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    How convienent to think that the world consists of simply right and wrong and not often just dfferences. If this is true there can only be one true form of democracy..so England sorry you're wrong. Thanks for letting us borrow some of your ideas..but in the end you're wrong. I presume this also means the federalist and the anti federalst we're just a bunch of spineless compromisers..and oh wait a minute how can we be right if we have a mix of both. One has to be right and the other wrong so..?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    So the world is black and white. How naive and unthinking. And is it just what you say it is? Maybe it's the Democrats who have truth and should therefore not compromise. Ever think about that?

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    Sept. 16, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    Yes, Sandy. You must stick to your principles. But is there no common ground? Politics is not a war between good and evil. It is a rivalry between different philosophies of governing. Surely both sides believe in doing what's good. Let's see the good that each side has to offer and build on that rather than vilifying the other side to the extent that any concession whatever, no matter how helpful, is considered traitorous.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Sept. 16, 2012 7:24 a.m.

    This letter has lots of tough talk, but what does all of this verbiage mean? Sounds like the expression "big hat, no cattle". There is a lot of rhetoric coming from the right but when it comes to actually sacrificing for your principles it's a different story. When a tropical storm hits Louisiana, famous conservative Bobby Jindal is on the phone in 15 minutes begging Obama for federal disaster aid. When Mitt "saves" the Winter Olympics, who foots the bill for $342 in Olympic expenditures? You guessed it the federal government.
    It reminds me of one of my Tea Party tenants, who after attending a Tea Party rally, and railing against "big government" returns home, and collects her SS, and Postal Service retirement checks!