Quantcast
Utah

Romney's speech champions 'Symphony of faith'

Religion: He focuses on beliefs he shares with others

Comments

Return To Article
  • Phil
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:18 a.m.

    I was impressed by what he said as I watched it live on TV. I was a worried that Mitt might come across too contrived, and he might sound like he was trying to tell everybody what he thought they wanted to hear. It was sincere and honest. The media response was very positive. Over all this will work out to help him get elected.

  • Flake kid
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:18 a.m.

    I understand that Romney wrote his own speech and that what he said was obviously from the heart. You can disagree with a man like that but you have to respect him.

  • Richard G.
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:28 a.m.

    Romney displays a complete lack of understanding of separation of church and state, and denigrated those of us who do not believe religious fairy tales. Nonbelievers are good Americans too. Government should be secular. Religious people have complete freedom to believe, pray etc. where ever they want EXCEPT they shouldn't use the government to advance their religios agenda. The religious right has hijacked the U.S. Constitution. Romney's speech kissed the backsides of these evangelical fascist theocrats to show he endorses their agenda for imposing personal religious beliefs on all of us via government.

  • Mahershalalhashbaz
    Dec. 7, 2007 5:37 a.m.

    This speech did it for Romney. Now is not the time to mess around with third rate candidates like Ron Paul (who I like) or Mike Huckabee. A vote for them is a vote for Giuliani, who will completely destroy the Republican party if he wins the nomination. I don't even believe Giuliani can beat Hillary. Why? Because there isn't much difference between the two, and even I (a Republican through and through) will vote for Hillary vs Giuliani. A wolf in wolfs clothing is far less dangerous to this country than a wolf in sheeps clothing. So really a vote for Ron Paul or Huckabee is a vote for Hillary!

  • lynn h.
    Dec. 7, 2007 6:06 a.m.

    Fantastic. I wouldn't change a word. Inspiring!

  • ty
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:00 a.m.

    Even if Romney doesn't get elected I hope that the other republican candidates will be inspired by his words.

  • Kevin
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:16 a.m.

    The speech was disturbing and self-contradictory. On one hand, Romney speaks of the separation between church and state, and on the other he says we need more religion in our discussions of public policy.

    He insultingly denounced people who are secular, as if we are anti-moral and anti-American.

    The most egregious form of political correctness is this deference to so-called "people of faith" on matters of morality. If our politics is going to be increasingly polluted with religion, we can no longer be polite to the faith-based.

    My opposition to Romney is reaffirmed.


  • Anonymous
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:16 a.m.

    It may be a symphony, mitt, but I know who you expect will be conducting and who will be in the back playing the triangle and who will be the roadie.

    You did a good job championing the church's rebranding efforts ("we're more normal than you!") but outside utah this is a tempest in a teacup.

    When your words reflect life in Utah, or life in Utah reflects your words, then I will believe.

  • Camille
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:39 a.m.

    I listened to and watched Mitt Romney's speech, and I feel he hit the nail on the mark. He did a great job!! Everything he said came from his heart and he didn't jeapordize anything. He didn't put anyone down and if some think he did they really weren't listening. He stood for his beliefs and for what these the United States of America is supposed to stand for and what our founding fore fathers wrote in the Constitution and that is Freedom of Religion and Liberty. Nobody should be judged by their faith. Mitt you did GREAT!!!

  • Ross
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:41 a.m.

    What Romney said was true and in harmony with the founding principles of our great nation. Truth is truth whether you like it or not, it is still truth. There is much to learn about Mormonism from his address. Some people hear the truth and can't stand it, but the truth is still true. Our liberty was and is a Gift from God, Freedom and Religion with tolerance must support each other. Those offended by this speech must be opponents to freedom and liberty.

  • Bob Kjar
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:54 a.m.

    Romney's speech was a signature moment in American history. It brought us back to ground level and introduced us once again to our forefather's principles. His testamony is one that will be listened to and respected throughout the world.

  • Kent
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:57 a.m.

    I feel that he did not give the world quite what they were hoping for, in not claiming or disclaiming certain aspects of the doctrines of the LDS church, but as he stated, it would be unconstitutional if he had to defend his faith or preach from a political pulpit. I think that he did well at building on commonalities between not only Christian religions, but those of other faiths, such as Muslim. He also reminded the nation of our religious heritage and the need to keep religion and freedom together, otherwise the nation will fail. I commend Mitt Romney on his courage and delivery.

  • Kyle in AZ
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:59 a.m.

    To be honest I fully expected another mediocre pre-presidential speech that would draw some media coverage and then die. This speech was unreal! This is the kind of leader this nation needs at this time. Could you imagine any of the other candidates even coming close to giving something like this?

  • Rob
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:02 a.m.

    I didn't read or hear the whole speach but am very impressed with what I did hear. Isn't it wonderful to see a man who is faithful to his wife and family. It sure says quite a bit about a man who honors his family. It seems like he would honor his committment to our beautiful country also.

  • Separation - no such thing
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:08 a.m.

    Separation of church and state- hmmm. Let's see that is detailed in which amendment to the constitution? NOT. That's right,there is no such ammendment. Never has been. This idea was hatched up by politians to apease the atheist crowd. Read Washington, Jefferson and Adams writings and you will find NO separation mentioned or even suggested. Interestingly enough today, you find the ACLU and other cancerous organizattions preaching plently about atheism and that is fine - I guess but don't any one dare mention the name of Jesus Christ . Pure political hypocracy.

  • David S
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:14 a.m.

    "Richard G" suffers from the delusion that something like "the separation of church and state exists", it doesn't and it was never written as part of official law in this country until some rogue judge in the 30's made it so. The founders of this country clearly believed in a religion-centered government, just not in a government religion. Two days after writing the "separation" comment that today is erroneously-applied by religion-haters Thomas Jefferson attended church ... in a service that was regularly held in the U.S. Capitol Building.

  • Mike
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:15 a.m.

    I am a lifelong Mormon who admittedly has lost much of his testimony due to the history and early doctrines of the Church. But Romney's speech made me very proud of my LDS heritage. I believe he is someone who sheds a very bright and positive light on all that is good about the Church. And I like that, despite having to posture otherwise, he is probably a real Bush Sr. moderate at heart.

  • Re: Richard G.
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:15 a.m.

    As a non-practicing Catholic living in Utah, I found Romney's speech very impressive. It was patriotic, well-reasoned, and surprisingly inspiring.

    Like Richard G., I too noticed that while Romney was careful to be inclusive of all faiths, he did seem to stop short of including people who do not believe in God.

    On the other hand, neither Romney, nor any Mormon I've talked to, has demonstrated the blatant lack of tolerance for others' beliefs as he did here.

    If that is what atheists think of others, and this is how they treat them, then I'm happy to hang on to my "fairy tale" beliefs.

    Think what you will of people of faith, but the truth is, if everyone believed and behaved as him, clearly this would would be a much worse place.

    Why tear down other people for what they believe? Why not discuss instead the merits of what YOU believe?

    Failing to do so leaves us with the conclusion that perhaps there ARE no merits to atheism -- particularly when we see how miserable atheists are.

  • Rob S
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:17 a.m.

    In my opinion, way too much media coverage has been given this non-issue. The real issue is Mr. Romney's pandering to the "group of the day" that will garner him the most support (votes, money, etc.) and the back peddling / damage control / spin that follows.

    The perceived concern is the influence the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints would have on the Romney administration .... how is this different from the influence of Evangelical Christians on (enter administration name here)?

    The difference, it's not their influence on the administration.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:21 a.m.

    Romney made a fine speech that he shouldn't have had to make. Democrats are never asked about their faith or religion. It just shows the bias of the media. I can support any candidate that recognizes we have a serious immigration problem, but after Bubba, it would be nice to have someone with family values and integrity. This country desperately needs this. I do believe Romney is one who would be that person.

  • Just wait
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:29 a.m.

    So Mitt has now made his pandering to the religious right complete. I guess Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists just don't have a place in the country. Don't be surprised when the very bigots he's chatting up drop him for Mike Huckleberry.

  • willie
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:32 a.m.

    wow. Mormons supporting Romney, who would have guessed? Too bad he put religion ahead of the U.S. Constitution and ALL people just to suck up to the right-wing-religious-wackos.

  • Aaron
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:43 a.m.

    RICHARD G. "Romney displays a complete lack of understanding of separation of church and state...".
    I'm sorry Richard, but you are the one who has misinterpreted the constitution. I quote from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". You cannot find the words "Separation of Church and State" in the U.S. constitution. The founding fathers most certainly intended for religion to play a vital role in the direction and continued progress of this great nation! Of coarse, they did not advocate that the state establish, by law, the exercise of one religion over another, but all you must do is read the constitution itself to understand that the free practice, or non-practice of religion is an absolute right!! Romney and his fellow "evangelical fascist theocrats" do not wish to impose religion upon you, but you are obviously dedicated to imposing non-religion upon them (as is the radical American left)!!! Radical liberalism seeks to destroy the most fundamental and critical rights guaranteed us in the constitution, and I should hope you could see that your own thoughts and opinions are under attack when such freedoms are challenged.

  • Ken Baguley
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:44 a.m.

    Timing and location were great. The speech was presidential and if there were any fence sitters you pulled them back Mitt. Good for you and the country. Success!!!

  • Warning from the South
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:48 a.m.

    Governor Romney's speech was marvelous. However, ministers will use his lack of LDS depth of discussion as fuel for their nasty little sermon's this past week. Feelers indicate the sermon of the moment will be his lack of full disclosure on the tenets of his faith as proof positive he is "ashamed" of his religious roots. Ministers will pick up where Mitt left off. It will be brutal, just as the polls will indicate at the close of the weekend.

  • BBKing
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:49 a.m.

    Richard, sorry to hear you feel that way, though I am glad you posted. It is good to hear all sides of the issue.

    I think it is fair to say that the evangelical wing is playing an informal religion test. It is this same test, and purity in passage that has eliminated Guiliani, and people such as Clinton, Obama, etc.

    And the irony of these religious tests is that Bush passed, and yet most religious voters I know really do not like his policies outside of his views on religion.

    Americans are a faith based people, so looking into the religious views is important. I respect that. We do not need to worry about Romney or others imposing religion on us. On the other hand, we do feel that atheism has spent the last many decades attacking everything we do once we step outside of our front door.

    A balance has to be found and I think we have found it. There is no religious test for being a candidate. And voters get to ask religious questions of candidates. That is what took place yesterday.

    Now for the same passion for balancing the budget, or strengthening the dollar.

  • Steve
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:49 a.m.

    My husband and I felt that Mitt Romney did a fine job. It raised my eyebrows when he mentioned the whole "Freedom needs religion and religion needs freedom" thing, but do you know what? He's right! It is time America increases her vessel of faith. My husband and I have. I am unable to bear children, but hope to adopt. When I do, I hope that Mitt is the leader of our country, so that they will have good character at the helm.

    Steve Schlotzky

  • JWunderli
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:55 a.m.

    Mitt is honest, passionate, creative, and very intelligent. He is a very successful businessman and, therefore, probably THE best candidate to right the budget woes of our country, build our economy and our international relationships. As for the "non-believers," I don't think he meant any disrespect by not mentioning them; I think the focus of this speach was to address his faith and the role God plays for him relative to him being president. I can't help but think that he we be a good, fair president for ALL contributing citizens, believers and non-believers alike.

  • Scott
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:59 a.m.

    Richard,

    DID YOU LISTEN? He beleives that you should not be elected for your faith or not elected for your faith. He was not the one bringing up his faith in this election. He has tried and still has kept his personal faith out of this. Pay attention and listen!

  • Tai H.
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:01 a.m.

    Religion hasn't mattered in this election, and it still won't matter. Romney's supporters simply use his religion as a prop to sustain him, and then as an excuse as to why he will lose.

    Conservative rhetoric does not replace a liberal record.

    Huckabee has a proven conservative record, as does Fred Thompson. Ron Paul is a respected Libertarian-leaning Republican

    John McCain is the very person that tried to hijack the GOP in 2000 when he won the upset in New Hampshire, only to be defeated decisively in South Carolina. Is Romney not guilty of the same corruption?

    Rudy Giuliani is just like Mitt Romney - a liberal who has no respect for the Party of Reagan.

    Mike Huckabee will beat Mitt Romney like a government mule. Oh, and when I cast my vote for Mike Huckabee, I'll be wearing my CTR ring. I might even cook some green Jell-O salad with marshmallows and carrots that day.

    Mitt Romney's speech did nothing for his credibility. To label his rhetoric as a "Symphony of Faith" is not only irresponsible, it's down right dishonest. Mitt Romney's speech was a desperate attempt to garner a vote. He's just not wanted among conservatives.

  • spiritree
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:14 a.m.

    Gov. Romney's words were a breath of fresh air in a society that is more and more saying that believing in God should not be talked about by anyone that is in any government office. In God We Trust. Is the foundation of this nation and those that want to change that will stop at nothing to remove God from America. Thank you Gov. Romney for standing in the light and reaffirming what this country's strength is all about.

  • Founding Fathers will prevail
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:19 a.m.

    Romney will get the Utah vote.
    So what?
    In the end, the Founding Fathers' notion of complete separation of Church and State will stand.
    This IS American after all and all REAL Americans will stand for nothing less.

  • CBU
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:25 a.m.

    It took a lot of courage and conviction to denounce secularism. Mitt Romney spoke the truth. Kudos.

  • Teresa
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:31 a.m.

    Richard G. do you have any idea of why this great nation of ours was founded? Ever heard of a little thing called religious persecution? This country was founded on a belief in God and you should be thanking your lucky stars that you are privileged enough to live here where you can believe whatever you want to believe. If you think our Founding Fathers didn't believe in God then you are sorely mistaken. I'm so tired of the voice of the minority, ruining it for the rest of us. For example, those who want the words "under God" taken out of the pledge because it is a violation of their rights not to say "God" because they don't believe in God. Well, what about MY right to say "under God"? I'm so tired of being "PC" so as not to offend the fragile little hearts of those who prefer to feel picked on simply because they are the minority. Religion is here to stay in this country, it it really offends you so much, then GET OUT!

  • Ray
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:31 a.m.

    Mitt Romney said what was needed for the people of America especially those groups concerned about his personal faith and religious depth. He appears for sure the most presidential candidate my numerous friends and family have heard or read about. He did include the non-believers who say he didn't. They just couldn't read into it with a positive listening ear.

  • Hagoth
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:34 a.m.

    To all you who have denounced religion, that is fine and your opinion is respected. But remember what our country was founded on, and why the founding fathers came here, a release from oppression and religious freedom. How could the colonies, incredibly outnumbered by the english, the world's most powerful army, be able not only to withstand them, but to establish their here. It has been a God-based country since the beginning, and that is why religion is so vital to our country's success and foundation.

  • ???
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:35 a.m.

    After reading the contents of the speech, I am certain that it had the effect Mitt wanted. Except for a couple of unfortunate statements, it was a very good speech.

    I take exception with the phrase "Freedom requires religion", this is patently untrue. Mitt would have done himself a great favor by replacing the word "religion" with "faith" After all, what is religion but faith directed and defined. I think it can be shown that many very secular countries have tremendous freedom, but freedom requires faith; faith in the ability of mankind to rise above selfishness and power.

    Also, I don't understand why the religious view the secular as the enemy. They are simply two ethical choices. Religious fanaticism is much more the enemy of religion than secularism. If you disagree, let me ask you all who is the greater enemy, the atheist next door or Osama Bin Laden?

  • Michelle
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:35 a.m.

    Awesome Mitt! I applaude when he said that you can't have freedom without religion. Our country is based on this fact. The few 'seculars' posting can't deny history. I suggest if you want a country without religion take it back to England. This very well could be the beginning of ALL religions realizing similarities in 'heart' and becoming a united nation again. Oh yeah, "One nation under God."

  • Warren
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:46 a.m.

    When quoting John Adams (I believe), he said the constitution was for a religious and a moral people. Aethiests can be a moral people. He didn't even remotely suggest that if you are not sitting in a church pew on sunday your not worthy of being called an American. That would be a religious test, and what he spoke out against! To all you aethiest who got your panties in a bunch, the constitution works for you too, if you respect my religion as I respect your choice as well. The government should not supress either. It has no hand in my freedom of conciense, nor yours. So I can't spell, sue me.

  • suzyk
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:46 a.m.

    Mitt Romney did speak from his heart. He is a man of integrity and wants only the very best for the United State of America. He is a man of values and loves his wife and family. Like President Bush, Mitt is the man who will carry the calling of President with upmost respect and honesty. He is not afraid to admit error and yet humble with the abilities and experience he has. My hat goes off to you Mitt...hopefully the citizens of the United States will open their hearts and minds and see with full vision your capabilities and love for this nation. You have my vote.

  • Keith
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:47 a.m.

    I feel like I am in elementary school when I read some of these comments.

    First, to insult someones belief by referring to it as a "Fairy Tail" is outrageous. But I am sure you have not moral issue with that!!!

    Second, Separation of Church and State, Our Founders would have NEVER imagined not having FAITH in a GREATER POWER, THE CREATOR.......WAKE UP. LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GREAT MEN WHO SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION......

    Third, Non-Believers are "Good Americans too", only shows your LACK OF INTELLEGENCE. I have never met a member of "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATER DAY SAINTS" that believes non-members are NOT GOOD AMERICANS.

    REALITY...LDS belive ALL HUMANS are GOOD [WORLD WIDE] and have the LIGHT OF CHRIST...Next time keep your comments of ignorance to yourself.

    Final comment: you want to know what a Baptist believes, visit their church learn, same for Episcopalian, Catholic, Methodist, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness just to name a few.

    DONT'T LEARN FROM THE NON-BELIEVERS propaganda, by the way, where is the MORALS when you are not sharing love but hate, makes ya go HMMMMM.

  • Richard G the idiot
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:48 a.m.

    you can have a seperation of religion and state and still have religion in the public. he talking about ACLU and all the other organizations that are trying to take "under God" out of the pledge or prayer in school. he's not saying those without faith are any less american, he's just saying that if someone with faith would like to publicly display it by praying then that's just dandy. also, that no matter what these groups say, God will be an integral part of our money and pledge....AS WAS INTENDED BY OUR FORFATHERS. pull your head out and think a little.

  • Reality
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:51 a.m.

    If Mitt has the only true church and all the others are apostates what does he have to explain, he is right and they are wrong: end of conversation.

  • crich
    Dec. 7, 2007 9:54 a.m.

    Shorter Mitt: It's wrong to use Mormonism as a religious test for public office. The correct test is whether you're a Christian.

  • to: Just Wait
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:09 a.m.

    I am not sure if you paid close attention to Romney's speach. By your comments, you obviously did not. Romney spoke of the importance of religion and freedom - he spoke of respect to Jews, Muslims and other groups - not just protestant Christian sects.

    I would like you to help me on something. Will you please name one US president that did not mention something about faith while he was in the white house?

    What one's personal convictions are or are not should not be criteria for a public office (look at our speaker of the house). The media has pushed Romney to make this speach. He did great.

  • Returning to our Country's Roots
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:16 a.m.

    Thank you Governor Romney for giving us a real choice!

    Wouldn't it be nice to have someone with real values leading our country. As he spoke, we could picture George Washington, John Adams or Abraham Lincoln saying exactly the same things he said....and in the same way.

    Thank you Governor Romney.

  • Rose
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:26 a.m.

    I think it's kind of funny because I saw the way he stood up for Christianity a little different. Christians today are heavily persecuted based on past historical events, and those who are outspoken among that religion. The truth is that there are many who are not like, but are afraid to publicly let others know what they believe. While there is a great effort to protect a variety of other beliefs, there is no protection for Christians. They are suddenly prejugded as a bigoted, self-ritious people, unaccepting people. Those who are quote "non-believers" preach tolerance, but there is none for those Christians.

    I have met many wonderful Christians who are afriad to come out about thier beliefs because they will just be torn down. It's truly sad. This speech is hope that there is equality for those who practice that faith in which this country was founded. Sure there are a number of those who aren't Christian who are good American's, but please, let's respect everyone.

  • Bottom line
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:28 a.m.

    Romney is big in Utah (of course) and with Rush Limbaugh. (Need I say more?)
    But his connection to a peculiar people will come back to haunt him.

  • Separation: Keep reading
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:32 a.m.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 stating "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a "wall of separation" between Church & State."

    The framers always intended a separation.

    However, there is no constitutional separation, just the "Establishment" and "Free Ecercise Clause".

  • No to Huckabee
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:38 a.m.

    Mitt Romney's speak on religious tolerance was impressive and allayed some of my fear with him. After listening to Huckabee attack Mitt's religion, I will not vote for him if he wins the Republican nomination. Huckabee has a right to express his distain for the Mormon religion. But, if Huckabee wins then we Republicans will have a Mormon basher. And if Hillary wins we will only have a conservative basher. I think someone who distains a specific religious group is the worst choice of the two.

  • GOP in trouble
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:39 a.m.

    No matter how often candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee promise to uphold the Constitution and protect religious freedom, they are clearly seeking to impose the restrictive tests of faith that the nation's founders abhorred.

    And the GOP nominee is:
    Whomever comes across as "the holiest."

  • My2cents
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:48 a.m.

    Loved the speech. I'm sure Richard G. would be saying the same thing if Obama or Ms. Clinton had given that same word-for-word speech, right? It's about time someone said that this mad dash away from God should be stopped and re-thought. That it should be OK to have a Creche or Mennora in the town square, or crosses along the road marking where a fallen servant had died. It's OK to have a faith. It's fine to have a faith, and a common goal to be the best we can be. Mitt hit it out of the ball park, and touched the American spirit.

  • Jim D
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:49 a.m.

    I have read the speech several times. It it will go down as one the great speeches of our time. It rose above the petty wranglings that have unfortunately risen among religious sects today. It addressed the real issue of the role of faith in God and religious liberty that permeates and underpins our constitution and culture. It seems that with our total obsession with the economy we have forgotten the true foundations of prosperity and happiness; and that is a moral life; and that is founded in the fostering of religious liberty.

    Jim Duffin

  • Milt
    Dec. 7, 2007 10:58 a.m.

    When Chris Matthews of CNN praises ANY republican about ANYTHING they said you have to know that what that republican said will reach the hearts of many democrats as well as republicans. This is a very rare thing.
    I am a volunteer for Mitt here in NH and last night I was working a phone bank polling NH residents and it was incredible how excited most of them were over Mitts speech. Things here seem to still be looking up for Mitt.
    Several respondents to this column in the paper have complained that Mitt is only saying what he thinks the people want to hear. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I have known Mitt for quite a few years and I have attended numerous town meetings that he spoke at during this campaign and I tell you as a friend that what he says is the truth, which is what most voters want to hear.

  • to Re: Richard G
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:02 a.m.

    Bravo! Your comments are right on target.

  • Pittakos
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:05 a.m.

    Great speech. I was actually moved by it's patriotic theme. However, now can we move on to something really important? I, for one, want to hear a speech from Mitt on how he will turn this country's debt into a surplus like he did for the Salt Lake Olympics; like he did for the State of Massachusetts. We are $9 trillion in debt! It'll be 10 by the time the next President assumes office. Let's stop worrying about what religion someone is or how many times they have been divorced. Let's start hearing some concrete solutions to the Nation's problems.

  • Hmmm...
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:21 a.m.

    It's amazing how Christians in America have ever been insistent on taking credit for the creation of the Constitution and that this nation was founded as a "Christian" nation. This is simply not true and historically incorrect!
    The bulk of the founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Washington, even referred to themselves as "Deists," not Christians per se.' The Constitution is not based on Biblical precedent per se,' but on the Articles of Confederation which were decidedly based on the Iriquois Confederation (a pact held among Native Americans). This is not to say that Biblical and 'Christian' principles played no role, but to only say that the role was not as primary and overriding as claimed by contemporary Christians. In fact, the founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with institutional Religions having sway over the affairs of State, AND VISA VERSA! The operating principle here being fairness and equity, which is why the separation clause was added to the constitution, which interestingly was insisted on by the South Carolina delegation, who named Christian ministers among their group. Protecting personal religious freedom was the overriding intent, separating institutional religion from state affairs to protect both from each other was the underlying intent.

  • CTR Art
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:28 a.m.

    Romney said a positive thing about Islam. But, previously he has said" We must civilize Islam. No other candidate has that 'big world picture' in my observation. Mitt has the marvelous ability to discern betwen truth and error. I Choose The Romney.

  • davidutefan
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:42 a.m.

    Teresa, maybe you should study your history. The puritans did not come here to establish religious freedom. They came to establish their own religion, not equal opportunities for all.

  • Screen Age
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:45 a.m.

    It is amazing to me that a single speech has had so much coverage and commentary.

    In the last 24 hours I've watched analysts on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, NBC, ABC, CBS discuss it, and have read about it all over the Internet.

    The two most intelligent and insightful commentaries I've seen so far were those from the Wall Street Journal, and Pat Buchanan of all people.

    The truth is, whether you are a rabid soccer mom, an atheist, an anti-Mormon, a Mormon, or a CTR wearing trash talker ...

    Sadly, most people see ONLY what they predispose themselves to see, and attack that which threatens them.

    Before the speech I wrote that the speech won't matter -- bigots will still be bigots and supporters will still be supporters -- but I was wrong.

    Regardless Romney's political fate, his speech yesterday will live on. It will be studied, quoted, and referred to in years to come. It is already an "instant classic" in the library of American religious freedom.

  • Nice speech, no difference
    Dec. 7, 2007 11:57 a.m.

    I am not a Romney backer, but I am LDS. As a Mormon, I felt that Romney gave a good speech (in spite of a few slip-ups, such as the "freedom requires religion" remark), and it will be remembered in LDS culture for years to come.

    However, it seems to me that Romney's religion is not the real issue - it's his changing stances - and that is what will ultimately doom his presidential candidacy.

  • Jim
    Dec. 7, 2007 12:03 p.m.

    In some of the commentary published in newspapers recently the point is made that those who won't vote for a man because of his religious belief are bigots. I do fear the prospect of having a Mormon in the White House because of the tendency I see within that church of a jingoist leaning. Will Mitt Romney be led by his obvious deep faith and patriotism into the mistake of thinking the American way is the correct way, all other countries are in error. Historical study will show that in Nazi Germany, the LDS Church leadership told its members that they either join the Nazi Party or be excommunicated. It is this sort of blind nationalism that I see in Romney's speech.

  • Yes to Huckabee
    Dec. 7, 2007 12:28 p.m.

    When the heck did Huckabee attack Romney's religion?!?

  • Common Sense
    Dec. 7, 2007 12:30 p.m.

    Being anti-Romney doesn't make you anti-Mormon. It just mean you are conservative.

    Buh bye Mitt!

  • Zippy
    Dec. 7, 2007 12:38 p.m.

    The speech was like the man himself: a cipher

  • Christians are persecuted?
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:07 p.m.

    Christians indeed are persecuted in China (as are Baha'i and many other groups). That's worth complaining about.

    But I believe Rose is making the claim that Christians are persecuted in America. No Rose, we non-Christians are simply trying to protect our own rights.

    I should point out that the Germans complained about persecution by the Jews.

  • Freedom w/o Religion
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:18 p.m.

    How about posting about things you know, not things you think from now on.

    The Framers believed in a Diety, w/o any religious affiliation. Freedom and Religion do go hand in hand, and Romney was well within boundries with this assertion.

    HATRED OF RELIGION WAS imbedded in Marxism-Leninism. Marx had called religion "the opiate of the masses" and said that "Communism begins where atheism begins." His chief disciple agreed: "There can be nothing more abominable than religion," wrote Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, in a letter to Maxim Gorky in January 1913. Religion, howled Lenin, was "a necrophilia," akin to a virulent form of venereal disease.

    The Framers were Christians, and did not model the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation.

    The Articles of Confederation DID NOT WORK, so they threw them out and started ove.

    There is way too much false information on these boards.

  • Dutchman
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:21 p.m.

    Great speech but in the end Mitt Romney is trying to get the nation to do something even Salt Lake City will not do--elect a Mormon!

  • Melva McKenzie
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:28 p.m.

    I thought his speech was excellent. He's the man for the time I think.

  • Mitt Supporter
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:33 p.m.

    This is to "Nice Speech, No Difference"

    And you have never changed your mind on an issue; PLEASE - there is nothing wrong with evaluating various issues and re-evaluating as you gain addition knowledge and insight. Name just one Politician who has not changed their mind on a particular issue!! Let me count the ways with Hillary~

  • Oregon Ute
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:37 p.m.

    Wow, a Mormon political leader (Republican)says he will do what's best for the nation and not take direction from his religious leaders. I think that's a great statment/position. I believe Mitt has demonstrated this in the past. . .congrats. However, I wonder if the string pullers on Temple Square and the puppets in the legislature understand Mitt's position, much less are capable of acting on it?

  • need help
    Dec. 7, 2007 1:57 p.m.

    Please forgive me, but just a quick perusing of these posts leads me to believe a lot of Mormon people need psychiatric help.

  • RE:Duckman
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:05 p.m.

    Wow, did you miss the point, or what?

    So you wish the next President of the United States of America to be a person with the character of Rocky Anderson?

    The point is not to elect a MORMON, it is to elect the best American.

    The past few elections it has been difficult getting excited about any American. I hope this election is different.

  • RE:Hmmmmm
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:11 p.m.

    Separation Clause in the Constitution is found where?

    (There is an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause, but neither create any "separation". -- 1st Ammendment)

    Where do you people get your "facts"????????????

  • Sort of Plastic
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:16 p.m.

    Of all the Republican candidates, Romney is the one I can stomach the least. He reminds me the most of GWB -- the empty suit whose very emptiness is his appeal.

  • you people make me laugh
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:21 p.m.

    its hilarious to read all of these religious arguments. Richard G who im assuming is a 7th grader from his comments, is afraid of the words Mormon, God, and Religion. Mormons write in biasedly and praise mitt. Protestants who are smart write in and say "love thy neighbor" nice things but don't support romney.
    All of you write in and argue about the one thing in this world that you can't win an argument about..Religion!
    Watch the debates and realize that no canidate wants to answer questions about his/her religion, but since mitt romney is a strong believer in Jesus Christ and the mormon faith he gets targeted. Mormons can believe what they want, protestants, catholics etc. athiests, muslims, jews...etc etc etc. but when it all comes down to it this country was founded on people wanting to believe what they personally hold dear to them. What they feel inside. Respect that. And realize that your personal beliefs are as weird as another persons.
    You can't prove religion. That's why its so amazing. Its between you and what you believe and no one else.
    All i want is an honest president...So far Mitt fits that description best.

  • wrz
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:21 p.m.

    "Like Richard G., I too noticed that while Romney was careful to be inclusive of all faiths, he did seem to stop short of including people who do not believe in God."

    The whole point is that this nation was founded on the principle on a belief in a God. Atheists don't believe in God. And that's OK. But if enough of us were atheists the country would cease to exist as a nation that our founding forefathers envisioned.

  • False statement from Romney
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:22 p.m.

    "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." - Mitt Romney

    This statement is so patently false that it scarcely deserves refutation. If Romney has studied the bloody history of his own church, then he knows that the religious fervor of its adversaries drove them to deprive the Mormons not only of their freedom but their lives, and that the Mormons reacted in kind. If he has studied the bloody history of the world's older religions, then he knows that the most devout Christians of all sects have not hesitated to suppress, torture and murder "heretics" throughout history. Only the strictest separation of church and state has permitted the establishment of societies where freedom of conscience prevails -- and those freedoms are firmly rooted in societies where organized religion has long been in decline.

  • Bill Keshlear
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:22 p.m.

    If Mitt Romney's presidential fate was not already sealed by the right-wing of the Republican Party before yesterday's speech, it certainly would've been had he closed the way Sen. Harry Reid did on Oct. 9 at BYU:

    I bear testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the foundation for the blessings we now enjoy laid by the young boy and assassinated Prophet Joseph Smith and with certainty, I testify of Gordon B. Hinckley as our modern day prophet.

    It is finally my plea and prayer that we will follow the teachings that we know to be true, and in so doing create a better world.

    This closing, a public testimony and benediction in front of every news camera and reporter of significance in Utah, coming from Romney could never happen because he is a Republican. It could and did happen coming from Reid because he is a Democrat.

    Democrats have many issues. Some of the most pressing and historically significant involve Sen. Reid because of his position. But his faith and his expression of it are not on the list.

  • Amanda
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:22 p.m.

    Well done Mitt! Excellent speech and congratulations! Clearly your religious commitment has helped make you a successful husband, father, business and political leader! Thank you for your continued service to make our nation excellent!

  • zrw
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:39 p.m.

    Warning from the South: "Ministers will pick up where Mitt left off. It will be brutal, just as the polls will indicate at the close of the weekend."

    Ministers won't need to pick up where Mitt left off. The have been non-stop brutal for the past 160 years... Since Smith's death and before. The big question to answer is, or should be, "why the fanatical, rabid bigotry and abject, despicable unrelenting, obnoxious, vile hatred of Mormons?"

  • txmistake
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:52 p.m.

    Tai H's remark about the CTR ring is a mockery. Live as you please, why mock someone elses religion.

  • Scooter
    Dec. 7, 2007 2:55 p.m.

    What a classic! Not only did he touch my mind & my heart, but he showed total class, tolerance and the importance of attaching ourselves to our past. We must remember what our founding fathers represented and believed. If this man isn't elected president we have missed a golden opportunity.

    We need to remember how America became the great country it has become. Understanding history is essential.

  • holiest candidate
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:13 p.m.

    When it comes to which candidate is "closest to God"
    (which is sadly what it might come down to with the ever-sinking GOP) Romney would be the "one of ours" favorite in Utah and Huckabee would get the nod because he's more likeable and from a mainstream religion.

  • Barry Bonds
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:13 p.m.

    Those of you who are "non-believers" such as Richard G. Good for you. Do you not realize however that your denunciation of a God is your form of religion. The very definition of religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists and others who profess not to believe in a supreme being have their own beliefs system and ideals about the very cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Is there a God or isn't there. I have been told I can not prove God exists. Can those of you who don't believe in God prove that He doesn't? Regardless God and Christ are always at the center of the Universe. "For everything has his opposite" Darkness has light-Evil has good-Sour has sweat-Where God isn't There also God is.

  • Rich
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:21 p.m.

    Is this right? Mormons believe the Bible literally that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the savior of mankind, and the God of this world and maybe this universe. They believe that God the Father sent his son Jesus to earth to atone for our sins. Christ was resurrected and gained a body of flesh and bones. He is so like his father in purpose, in righteousness, in power, in immortality, and so forth that if you have seen him, you have seen his father. Evangelical Christians reject these interpretations of the Bible because they are counter to the so-called "traditional Christian viewpoint" that has its roots in the Nicean Creed, adopted under political pressure well after Christ's resurrection. They believe that Christ is an embodiment of God, often described in confusing and contradictory terms as an incomprehensible and unexplainable power beyond the scope of man's ability to understand. Since the LDS view is different than this revised modern Christian view, Mormonism is considered a cult. And this is the real reason for Romney's speech. Enlighten me.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:31 p.m.

    You are right Scooter about needing to remember how America became a great country.
    It was the Founding Fathers' abhorrence of any kind of Theocracy.

  • General election speech
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:36 p.m.

    All in all, the speech was perfectly calibrated for a general election race - or for a Republican primary campaign that did not include a candidate by the name of Mike Huckabee. Romney has a strong case to make that the shared political and social concerns of religious conservatives across faith traditions require them to join forces in the public square. But that argument only holds so long as evangelical Republicans have no other candidates to choose from. The question isn't whether evangelical voters could support a Mormon, but whether they would back a Mormon over an equally appealing Catholic or Protestant. Like, say, Mike Huckabee.

  • Les Moore
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:38 p.m.

    Would Romney uphold the Constitution? He chose not to talk much about the doctrines of the Mormon church, and rightly so. But that does not prevent the rest of us from discussing doctrines. So consider the following doctrines of the church:

    We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
    We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. (Articles of Faith 1:11 - 12)

    And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
    (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5 - 6)

    I could also point out dozens of Mormon scriptures which make it amply clear that freedom of choice is one of the most sacred and fundamental doctrines of the church. The freedom to disbelieve is just as sacred as the freedom to believe.

  • To the "non-believers."
    Dec. 7, 2007 3:41 p.m.

    You atheists apparently haven't had a dying child in in PICU for months. I understand your thought processes, I too didn't believe at one time in my life. Then I grew up, realized the world wasn't about me, relied on a faith and a higher power that I didn't know was there and now I am finally at peace with myself and the world. I too was once too blind and stubborn to truly see the world as it could be. Yes, it took a dying child to show me the way but when I found it, it's so much better, and more real, than the defiant "no one can make me" life I used to live. Don't try to fool yourself like I did for 15 years. Life's to short to be mad at every notion of a higher being. I know, I was there. Romney or not, faith in God is the only way to truly be happy.

  • John Swenson Harvey
    Dec. 7, 2007 4:01 p.m.

    Here is an example of how to think about a religiously *neutral* approach to government.

    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it defines. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and full rights for all.

    I care about the constitution, not the flag. The phrase "under God" in our current pledge was added by Eisenhower in the 1950s, it is not an artifact or cornerstone from the early times of our country.

    Likewise the motto on our currency "in God we trust" was added during the 20th century as well. While I admit I like the signs which say: "In God we trust, all others pay cash!" I find it odd that *anyone* thinks associating God with the value of the currency isn't an insult to God.

    I feel a lot better teaching my children about my beliefs than having some right wing Christian fundamentalist attempt to do it through a government back door.

    I was disappointed in Romney's speech in that he did not address how he proposes to integrate God into his decisions, but not into the government's formal functions.

  • Brett
    Dec. 7, 2007 4:07 p.m.

    Those who were reluctant to back Romney due to his LDS faith have now been replaced by those who are reluctant because they are not religious. It is clear that Mitt is going to the evangelical right, and could care less about the millions, such as myself, who love the USA and all it stands for.... but do not count themselves amongst the religious faithful. Does this mean we are less patriotic, or deserving representation in Washington? Mitt is a very clever guy, but he could have mentioned that he would be President of all Americans, whether they had faithful convictions or not. This speech seems to be the beginning of a dialog that will now vilify non-religious people as somehow "un-American". Pity. We vote too.

  • Reality check
    Dec. 7, 2007 4:14 p.m.

    I'm sure the good people of Utah love Mitt Romney and his recent speech. But the world outside Zion has already spoken.
    In an Iowa poll just this afternoon:

    Huckabee - 39%
    Romney 17%



  • a.B
    Dec. 7, 2007 4:23 p.m.

    The "unchristian" attempt by the "cult mongers" to marginalize Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy reeks of the un-American persecution of Catholicism that prompted the historical JFK speech in 1960. Romney with his defining defense of the legitimacy of religious liberty in the market place, presents the clarion call for all Americans to remember and cherish the roots of the Constitution which made possible the creation and continuation of this great country.

  • Secularists and humanists
    Dec. 7, 2007 4:49 p.m.

    Surely Romney knows that Mormonism, in particular, was historically hostile to liberty for blacks as well as women. The founders of his church believed that God had cursed the world's dark-skinned people. They rejected abolitionism and later the civil rights movement. And their acceptance of full membership for African-Americans in the LDS church dates back only 30 years.

    If Romney is going to attack humanists and secularists as "wrong," then let him explain why they were so far ahead of his church on the greatest moral issues of the past half-century.

  • mylo
    Dec. 7, 2007 6:57 p.m.

    Soo Mitt did not detail LDS Doctrine .
    There is no need . Doctrine is for those who believe ! My opinion is that it should not matter to those who do not believe . The important question arises how does one treat his neighbor .
    That really counts as far as I am concerned .

  • KYDEEPA
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:36 p.m.

    For all the anti-romneys, I know he was talking about religion and government, but what did you guys want, Political Correctness or what Mitt believes????? He has freedom of speech too!!!! To the secular and humanist comment above, Mitt doesnt have to justify mormon theology, just like Kennedy didnt have to justify the holy inquisition.

  • Poll reader
    Dec. 7, 2007 7:45 p.m.

    Reality check, get a grip on reality. You'll have to wait till the next poll to see whether Romney's speech had any effect. My opinion is that the liberals would love Huckabee to win the Republican nomination because they think he would be easier to defeat in the general election. They fear Romney and Juliani most, especially Romney with his good looks, suave manner, outstanding speaking ability, etc. As President, Romney could make great strides in moving America toward conservatism. Huckabee would be tolerated much as Bush is. As a former Baptist minister, he won't assuade the voters who fear a theocracy, that's for sure.

  • qrz
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:37 p.m.

    "I would like you to help me on something. Will you please name one US president that did not mention something about faith while he was in the white house?"

    Good point. Some presidents even meet with religious leaders... such as Billy Graham.

  • TOT
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:52 p.m.

    DesNews makes no sense on which posts they allow.
    Here's the short version and I hope they will post this-

    Romney will not win the primary and he will not win the general election. What issue can we get worked up about next?

  • romney
    Dec. 7, 2007 8:59 p.m.

    romney is a typical mormon

  • Hairspray
    Dec. 8, 2007 12:27 a.m.

    Romney is handsom and should win on good looks. Maybe he would run the country like he did his business. A winner!!!

  • flip flop!
    Dec. 8, 2007 1:20 a.m.

    Romney is the John Kerry of the republican party. He flip-flops more than a fish on dry land!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 8, 2007 11:22 a.m.

    Romney would go over big if he moved to Utah.

  • Neighbor
    Dec. 9, 2007 8:00 a.m.

    I think the issue here is religious intolerance. Some Muslims are so extreme that they kill each other over their differences, even when they are both Muslims. Are you a Sunni or a Shiite? Be the same as me or Ill kill you.

    Did we learn anything from Hitler? What he did to the Jews goes without saying. Then there are Christians. Remember the crusades? Dont forget Ireland. Are you a Catholic or a Protestant? How about, are you a Mormon? If so, I wont vote for you. We need to love each other and respect our differences.

    We dont need reverse discrimination either. Non-believers need to respect Believers and visa versa. It needs to be OK to worship our God in public or not. God is there whether we believe in Him or not.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 12:30 p.m.

    Mitt Romney is another mega-wealthy politician.
    Politics is, well ... politics.

  • To Rich
    Dec. 11, 2007 11:12 p.m.

    Huh???

    Which Christians believe that? Wow...

    I think you need to get a Bible and read it. Maybe an easy-to-read translation, like New Living would help. The writings are plain for all to read. My understanding of Christians is that this is what they do and the Bible is the basis of their belief. I never heard any of them talking about their "creed" or belief in a "creed". Your conclusions strike me as odd.

    You create a straw man, call it "Christian", then tear it apart. Is this what they teach in Mormon Sunday School???

  • Mitt's issues are political
    Dec. 11, 2007 11:26 p.m.

    Mitt's issues are political, not theological.

    Look - Americans know about Mormonism. No big deal. They know it is a religion, they know it's not Christian even though its adherents try to cloak themselves in Christian language. They know, OK? Don't use Mitt as the cause for some big coming-out celebration for those who say yes to the R U LDS stickers. We get the whole Mormon thing.

    That said, Mitt's true weakness is his past liberal (very liberal) political positions. He has since renounced them. Voters will let us know whether they believe his turnaround was genuine.

    I'm not a Republican. I would MUCH rather have Mitt in the White House than Hillary. Heck, I would rather have a sincere Muslim in the White House than Hillary.

  • BY Persecuted????
    Dec. 11, 2007 11:29 p.m.

    The part about Brigham Young being persecuted is funny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....oh boy.

    Mormons better hope the media folks have short attention spans, and that nobody develops the desire to do some historical research.

    Better yet - someone needs to tell Mitt to stick to the issues at hand.

  • hank
    Dec. 14, 2007 6:01 p.m.

    Rich; just listen to your heart and have an open mind but don't listen to the devil.