Quantcast

Comments about ‘Reagan’s Moscow speech — 25 years later, do we still value freedom?’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 30 2013 9:35 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Quite a long and tortured walk to get your antipathy for the ACA. And somehow I think folks in, say, Syria would seriously question your notions of freedom and tyranny.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

Jay, you had me up until the point where you went off indirectly about war on religion. Sorry I dont' see it. I must be missing something.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Reagan was the greatest president of the 2oth century. He understood something about God and liberty that only appears as a foggy notion for those who believe that government is the answer to all our problems. No wonder he could smile and still gain the respect of many who didn't believe as he did. You either believe that government is God or God is God, but the twain do seldom meet, particularly with a culture that more and more doesn't understand nor want God, but needs something for stability, and that something is government. No wonder its reach is getting so vast! America will rise again, but it won't be government that does it, it will be the fundamental principles from God that will make the difference.

Owen
Heber City, UT

Ronald Reagan 10/26/84- All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith. ...

And there's something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind -- none.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Reagan identified religion as a necessary counterweight to freedom’s tendency to make people “selfish and materialistic.”

What rich irony!

Reagan's party now defends selfishness and materialism!

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Truthseeker: You're right about Reagan's party defending selfishness and materialism. However, you missed it by one. Democrats and Republicans, with a few exceptions on both sides, observe their #1 rule, which is to gain power and further their cause--which is to gain more power--meaning more government, not less. When Americans realize that they have the answers and not the politicians, then we will see a return of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The more people hope for a government answer, the less hope they get in return. Too many people want liberty without responsibility and both cannot exist together, but government will do its best to manage the irresponsibility end of it while taking away the liberty part of it!

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

Great reminder of some great words by a great President.

I must admit that even though I voted for Pres. Reagan, I didn't have the appreciation for him as most people at the time. I wondered why he was considered such a great "communicator". But, over the years since I've come to realize that his greatness was mostly in his steadfast belief in the basic truths that were so eloquently stated in this talk and elsewhere.

After his talk at the 2004 Democratic convention I, like many people I think, was very impressed with the then Sen. Obama. His words also were eloquent and inspiring. However, in the years since that talk, especially since witnessing the effects of his administration, I've come to realize that his steadfast beliefs are almost diametrically opposed to mine, some of which are indicated by his administrations blatant disregard for the first amendment, among others.

Reagan was pivotal in helping free many millions of people from the tyranny of Communism. Obama is, apparently, doing his best to push us toward a tyrannical state. I think history will treat them both as they deserve.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Thanks, Banderson, for the 4th of July version of something. You're short on any facts, but won't let that get in the way.

A real tyranny wouldn't let anyone mention it, would they? The history books 50 years from now will show that GWB was a large step toward tyranny, with Obama leading in the other direction.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Mark. You are so right; Real tyranny doesn't exist, just ask the IRS about political targeting, Eric Holder about confiscating phone records of "unfriendly" journalists or Hillary about Benghazi. Obama? He claims ignorance to all of his scandals but in the meantime, as he told Ohio State grads recently, "Government is good, freedom is bad and there is no tyranny". Remarkable message in America but about right for the former USSR, Iran or Cuba.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

I know Utah Republicans don't understand the difference between the government providing for all our needs and the government being a partner in the solution to life's problems, but then that's exactly why the last two Presidential elections haven't been close. I just hope I'm around to see Mountanman's head spin when he realizes he's going to have to pledge allegiance to a country being led by Hillary Clinton.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Pragmatistferllife. Will I be forced to pledge allegiance to Hillary? Will she force me? Stalin, Mao ste Tung, Hitler, and Pol Pot achieved that, but Hillary too?

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Real tyrants have zero tolerance for dissent of any kind, so the fact that you can complain about tyranny means there isn't any. And, no, you won't have to pledge allegiance to the former Secretary of State.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"The same can be said when some American cities are able to revoke the licenses of church-sponsored charities because they won’t adopt children to couples who are unmarried or of the same gender."

---

Oh ye purveyors of half-truths (which are essentially lies). The government didn't revoke the licenses of church-sponsored charities, they just said these organizations couldn't do it with TAX PAYER FUNDS. If they want to use their OWN FUNDS, they can discriminate all they want.

Religions don't necessarily have the "truth" either.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"The same can be said when some American cities are able to revoke the licenses of church-sponsored charities because they won’t adopt children to couples who are unmarried or of the same gender."

.???

Are you talking about charities that receive STATE funding?

How is it that LDS Social Services has not had to stop their adoption services?

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Short answer is Yes. We sit and wait on an omniscient and omnipotent government to save us, provide for us and tell us what is good or bad. George Orwell would have loved it, 1984 is arriving.

across the sea
Topeno, Finland

88 was still two years away from end of SU...

Reagan's speech at Moscow State University (MGU) stands there with his Berlin "tear down this wall" speech.

His visit to Moscow inspired people to do many things, such as an academic exchange between MGU and BYU ( one of the first such btwn major US university and the best university in the SU). Two years later in a meeting with Reagan we talked about his inspiration and the two schools he admired BYU and MGU.

Reagan changed the world and saved countless lives by forcing the Iron Curtain and Gorbatshev/Soviets to fall.
Miss him! Miss his honest, true, respect for individuals and freedoms.

When we met, privately, there was a feeling of total respect from one to another. I knew that he knew the values of eternal principles. A moment I cherish!

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Boy was the a real twisty long road to get to yet another anti healthcare rant. There is plenty of innovation coming from countries that have much more "government run" healthcare programs than ours. The triangulation of innovation, religion, and healthcare indicating a decline in personal freedom is mind bending and tiresome.

One only has to visit the most basic of principles in psychology that states the true ability for expression (or innovation) comes only after one gets beyond the state where most basic and elemental needs has been satisfied. Most of the innovation we see today did not come from people who were struggle to provide for their needs - no these have come from people where these were not of concern.

Reagans speech is an interesting one worthy of revisiting. But to make the leap that "Obamacare" is a precursor to the destruction of innovation.... that is a leap only the most tainted could make. Innovation has thrived and flourished in much more oppressive conditions than mandated healthcare for the poor.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century? Come again?

Are we talking about the same Reagan who more than doubled our national debt? The same one who sent defense spending through the roof? The same one who wages "secret wars" without ever approaching Congress? The same one who deregulated our health care and got wall street involved which has sent costs shooting through the roof? The same one responsible for Iran Contra? The same one responsible for trickle down economics? The same failed economic policy which got us into the mess we are in?

That Reagan???

And what about the best presidents in the 20th century. Reagan wasn't even close to the best repub president. Reagan acted in movies for the war while Dwight D. Eisenhower actually fought in it. He was the greatest repub president in the 20th century. By far, the greatest president in the 20th century had to be the one who gave us safety nets, got us out of the repub created depression (interesting how repub presidents destroy our economy), and served through most of WWII.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself!"

FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT

higv
Dietrich, ID

Hillary already ran the country for 8 years. Hopefully she does not get nominated in 2016. If she does she better not win. Can't term limit her out of the White House since Bill with the help of Ross Perot was on the Ballot.

As for a reason the last two elections haven't been close is it because some people wanted government to help them with there needs instead of government helping themselves. Government can only guarantee a loaf of bread per person if enough people make a loaf of bread per person. Not guaranteeing our needs helps us be rich. So people get votes because they want something for nothing.

Reagan was far from perfect in many ways, Washington and Lincoln were not perfect either. However they were great communicators that started the country, saved the union and ended communism in Eastern Europe at least.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"saved the union and ended communism in Eastern Europe at least."

Saved the union from what? Wasn't aware the union needed saving back then.... and I was there...

And ended communism in Eastern Europe....... how? With a speech.... that's all it took.

I am all for giving Reagan a lot of credit. I voted for the made. After the Nixon - Ford - Carter malaise... he did give American some self confidence back again. But lets not be delusional. There were a lot of forces in play at that time. The soviets were not just worrying about us. IF anything they get a lot of the credit for their own downfall... Do not take away the sacrifices of the Polish workers... nor the brave people of Czech Republic, nor Slovania... who forced out dictators.

I know Americans think the world spins on an axis rotating around the United States.... but there were a lot of other actors in this story. Time to do puff just a tad.

to comment

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