Quantcast
Opinion

Romney argues case for cultural conservatism

Comments

Return To Article
  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    So Romney's speech writers are getting a clue. Maybe. You can't claim that Romney had anything to do with the quality of the speech, other than the delivery.

    I am so sick to death of religion in politics. I don't give a rip about Romney's religion, Obama's religion, Ron Paul's religion, Santorum's, Bauchmann's, or anyone else's religion. What I do see is their bigotry though. That speeks loud and clear, and what it is saying to me is that these people talk a good talk about their religion but they fail miserably when it comes to walking the walk.

    What would Jesus do? I don't know, but I'm sure he wouldn't be out campaigning against the rights of his fellow citizens.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    May 16, 2012 7:29 a.m.

    Religion has its place in politics.The large part of the U.S. population does share a general belief in God and/or Christianity. Secular humanism and its set of values should not be the only politically correct belief system that is allowed.to be expressed.What is happening now is the McCarthyism of our day, a politically correct "thought police" that is intolerant, biased and that attacks, censors and demonizes those that dare offend.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 16, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    As long we watched the intolerant haggling of "My Jesus is better than Your Jesus" shown by the GOP for the last 6 months --

    and then realize that America stands for the Freedom of Religon --
    i.e., ALL religions, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddahists, Shammans, ect....

    I can only conclude that Politics and Religion can not and should not ever mix.
    And that the GOP can never fully appreciate or represent the ideals of America.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 16, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    Will someone please explain to me exactly what "cultural conservatism" is? Is it like GW's "compassionate conservatism?" Is it something pushed by the Eagle Forum? Will it benefit and lift ALL Americans, or just a chosen few?

    Nebulous phrases have no meaning. They are smoke in the wind. But for some gullible people, they seem to hold some kind of ephemeral spiritual meaning. Yet, I'll bet that even they could not define them.

    Somehow, that seems just a bit dangerous.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    May 16, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    @ WestGranger

    Things would be so much better w/ a religious group calling the shots. But, then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    re: LDSLib

    "As long we watched the intolerant haggling of "My Jesus is better than Your Jesus" shown by the GOP for the last 6 months -- "

    Amen. Can't wait for Mitt to get elected and then we can take the my God is better than your God rhetoric w/ Iran to a whole new level.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 16, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" but we have a mix of religion and politics all the time, and is sanctioned by the government.

    The President takes the oath of office whith his hand placed on a Bible.

    Congress pays for a chaplain to administer to their spiritual needs.

    Congress is opened every year with a prayer.

    Politicians on both sides are concerned about religion, just look at the Democrat attacks on Romney's religion while ignoring Obama's former pastor Jerimiah Wright.

    The way a Politician approaches their religion are very indicative of how they will act once in office.

    You can no more separate religion and politics than you can separate democrats from liberals.

    One question for you and others of your ilk is this: If you are so tired of it hearing about a canidate's religion, why do you and your ilk keep bringing it up?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    @RedShirt1701

    Why does the name of Jeremiah Wright keep popping up? Why is it significant to Republicans to invoke his name frequently? Is he running for office somewhere? Isn't he a religious leader who having the same freedom of religion as everyone else, can say whatever he wants? I've had some church leaders both at the local and worldwide levels say some pretty incendiary things about other churches, yet it doesn't mean I share those same views, even though I went to church in their congregations every week. I remember an apostle saying some pretty mean things about the largest Christian denomination in the world - even publishing it in a book that sits on my bookcase. Does that mean I must espouse those same views?

    I believe it is Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin shouting "Jeremian Wright, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright" constantly. Do we need it parroted daily in the DN as well?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 16, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    We need to marginalise religion right out of the political process.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 16, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    To "CHS 85" the only time I hear conservatives discusing Jerimiah Wright is when they are asking why liberals attack Romney's religion while ignoring Obama.

    Why is it that your ilk is so concerned with Romney's religion, yet have no problem with Obama listening to a preacher for 20 years who taught about marxism and teaches hatred? Shouldn't that worry you more?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    When the name of a pastor is off-limits because that name is an embarrassment to Mr. Obama, then that name should be mentioned at every opportunity, not to embarrass Mr. Obama, but to remind us of Mr. Obama's hypocrisy.

    When we claim membership in a church, we should also claim the responsibility to acknowledge the teachings of that church. Mr. Obama's church taught hatred for America. Mr. Obama claims that he never heard those sermons, but he kept attending that church.

    His speeches have included that rhetoric. He preaches class warfare, just like Pastor Wright. He preaches class envy, just like Pastor Wright. He preaches redistribution of wealth, just like Pastor Wright.

    Every man is free to choose his church, but he is not free from the consequences of making a poor choice. Mr. Obama spent twenty-years in that church. Had he found the teaching repulsive, he would not have maintained membership.

    Mr. Obama uses God to promote un-godlike principles and conduct. When people are honest, they will admit that Mr. Obama's speeches and policies are not worthy of being associated with Christ.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 16, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    Redshirt, I don't recall seeing any Democrat attacks on Romney's religion. But there have been a lot coming from conservative Christians.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 16, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    So how are compassion, respect, and hard work not liberal values also? I'll put my liberal values up against Mitt's "conservative" values any day--but his conservative values also include squandering vast sums on warmaking,giving tax breaks to his ultra rich buddies while the rest of us shoulder the burden, defending polluters, etc. At bottom, so to speak, the values conservatives hold dear are all found in their wallets.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 16, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    I gather that for conservatives, holding your nose and speaking at Liberty U is one of those obligatory but unpleasant requirements. And Romney's speech seems to have done a nice job of negotiating that particularly treacherous terrain. Personally, I would prefer that a candidate speak at a university in which actual science is taught.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 16, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    So, Romney is sophisticated because he relies on Jewish and Christian teachings without providing any references, and Obama is unsophisticated because he relies on Jewish and Christian teachings and provides references to support his positions.

    Gotcha - if you back up what you say, you are unsophisticated; if you cannot (or will not) back it up you are sophisticated....

    Using those definitions, I think I would rather have someone who is unsophisticated.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 16, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    To "one old man" do you watch the news???! Did you miss the whole Larry O'Donnel attack on the LDS church? The DN's article "Anti-Mormon bigotry repeated by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, watchdogs say" covered that one.

    From the Daily Mail we read "'My dad's dad was not a polygamist' Romney lashes back at Montana Democrat over personal attacks" where "Mitt Romney responded to personal attacks that questioned his family's history with polygamy yesterday that stemmed from aggressive comments by Montana Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer."

    Listen to the CBS Boston broadcast titled "NightSide Weekend Commentary – Democrats Attack Mitt Romney’s Religion" where they state that Democrats are seeking to discredit Romney using his religion.

    Go to YouTube and watch MSNBC's Martin Bashir Attacks Romney's Religion.

    Do you need more examples?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 16, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    I am a cultural conservative. The music of J.S. Bach is better than the music of Brittany Spears. Anyone who disagrees with that is stupid. The novels of Saul Bellow are better than the novels of Danielle Steele. Anyone who disagrees with that is stupid. The plays of William Shakespeare are better than anything on television. Anyone who--well, you get the point.

    It does not follow that defending our culture leads one to a position of opposition to gay rights.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    Roland,

    Is music more important than lifestyle? Surely you know that the Nazis had soothing music played as the Jews were taken to the "showers".

    Literature and music are important, but choosing which God to worship is more important than either literature or music. Choosing to obey God at all times and in all things is more important than giving lip service at a political rally. Obeying Christ, because Christ is always right, is more important than sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

    Mr. Obama has chosen to invoke Christ in his political campaign. He has twisted and turned Christ's words to fit his political agenda. That is a great insult to those who worship Christ.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 16, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    Interesting recent interview of Jeremiah Wright played on the radio today. I now know Obama did not know what he Wright was saying. Wright said the Clinton campaign paid to have him discredited early on in the run up to 2008 nomination. He also said the Obamas attended church because of political expediency, they were not religious prior to needing a political base. He also said the Obama campaign tried to pay him off to be silent prior to the 2008 election. It all speaks to character.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    May 16, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    Romney continues to be behind the curve when it comes to change in America. Like the remaining troglodytes, Romney hands on with his fingernails. In twenty years, his ideas will be completely irrelevant to voters since those who support him will be long gone. It will be the middle of the 21st Century and attitudes associated with progressive thinking will be all but mainstream. Even the conservative voices will have adapted to the new social order. It will be like compairing the way things were in the late 19th Century to the mid-20th Century.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 16, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    Redshirt, I said -- as you did - Democrat attacks.

    Those people were radio/TV commentators. The other side of the coin from Rush and friends. None of them on either side are worth the time of day.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 16, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    @RanchHand:

    "You can no more separate religion and politics than you can separate democrats from liberals."

    I think that happened back in the 1980's when the Democratic congress would tax the working poor to pay for subsidized health insurance for retired millionaires (Medicare) or when they spent the social security surplus to make the deficit look smaller (raided a pension fund) or in 1991 they spent less on helping the homeless in 1991 than the Bush administration proposed.

    One can't separate the Democrats from PC.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 16, 2012 8:29 p.m.

    Speaking at Liberty and talking about how marriage is tool for fighting poverty was in fact invoking a liberal argument. Supporting marriage is a liberal value because it fights poverty because it reduces out of wedlock births.

    It might increase their imagination so that they being to think what else can be done to fight poverty.

    (I wonder if that is why some people are criticizing or belittling this: they are uncomfortable with a Republican invoking what should have been a Democratic argument).

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 16, 2012 8:39 p.m.

    Oops! I have to correct my missive posted at 8:17 pm. It should have started with:
    "@Redshirt" rather than with
    "@Ranchhand".

    I apologize to both Redshirt and RanchHand.

    I can't see how anyone can claim that Obama is Moslem. What is the evidence? Why would the Moslem Brotherhood support him? If he did have a connection with the Moslem Brotherhood why isn't he putting more pressure on Israel rather than giving them a pass?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 17, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    Which is more conservative, freedom to live your life as you determine and choose, or having conservative institutions (including churches and government) dictate and compel you in how you must live your life? What a conundrum, right?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Every man is free to choose his church, but he is not free from the consequences of making a poor choice"

    So you think Romney deserves whatever anti-mormonism gets thrown his way because people have a right to hold politicians accountable for what they consider to be "poor choices" in religion? Or let me guess... you think this is something okay to fire at Obama but not at Romney?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 17, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    @alt134;

    The only "right choice", according to every Mormon, is the one they made. Everybody else gets to "suffer the consequences".

    They just don't see their own hubris.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 17, 2012 3:18 p.m.

    To "Esquire" but your ilk does not advocate for freedom to live life as you choose. The liberals are intruding into our lives at an unprecidented rate. Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are irresponsible.

    The conservative does maintain freedom, while your liberal ilk "dictate and compel you in how you must live your life". Just look at the number of regulations that they have enacted since 2009.

    You claim you want freedom, yet you and your ilk vote for people and policies that put government in charge of your life. Just look at Obama's "Julia" slide show. Where is the freedom there, somebody has to pay for it, and why society take care of people from cradle to grave?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    May 17, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    Ilk four times in one comment. Did you just learn a new word?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 17, 2012 7:12 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701, so what is my "ilk"? Someone who does not agree with you? I stand on my premise and strongly assert that conservatives are as hypocritical on the issue of freedom as anyone on the face of the planet.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 18, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    To "Esquire" your ilk are the hard core leftist liberals.

    You may stand on your premise, but it is a premise that is based solely on opinion and lacks any facts to support it.

    Simply put, freedom is inversely proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to regulate more. The more regulations there are, the less freedom we enjoy.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 18, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    @ RedShirt 8:26 a.m. May 18, 2012

    "Simply put, freedom is inversely proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to regulate more. The more regulations there are, the less freedom we enjoy."

    Its probably semantics but.. Does this mean the more Commandments and directives there are the less Free Agency there is?

    Ball is in your court, Redshirt...

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 18, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    "Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are irresponsible."..like those darn old people, those ingrate disableds, the poor children,who are daily being taught to mooch (if they just went to bed hungry they'd soon learn true values).

    PS. business regulations under Obama are fewer than under Bush...fact.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 18, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    To "Hank Pym" no, Free Agency is not something that government can take away. Governments can take away freedom, which is not necessarily equal to agency.

    To "pragmatistferlife" why should you pay for the retirement of somebody who refused to save for their own retirement? Isn't that irresponsible?

    What about people who are claim disabilities who are not really disabled, yet claim the benefits?

    What about the parents who are poor because they thought that dropping out of Highschool and getting pregnant at age 16 because their boyfriend said that he would take care of them?

    What about the poor children who have breakfast at home, then go so school and get the federally funded breakfast and lunch, then go home and have steaks because their parents WIC account had too much money in it?

    Again you are wrong about Obama and his business reglations (obama has only approved fewer new regulations, the regulations are still adding up):

    See "Obama's regulatory flood is drowning economic growth" in the Washington Examiner.

    "Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business" at Bloomberg

    "Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" US News.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 18, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    @ RedShirt 11:14 a.m. May 18, 2012

    That was not the point of my analogy. Gov'ts are akin to regulation not agency. Nice attempt @ obfuscation, though.

    There is; As people/corporations are going to do what they feel are in their best interest whether is physical survival or the fiscal bottom line.

    I guess this means Darwin > Adam Smith

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 18, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    To "Hank Pym" then what was the point of your analogy. Your analogy was quite clear that you assumed that that Commandments limited Agency. Now, it appears that you are backtracking and trying to coverup you mistake, rather than admitting that you are wrong.

    People/corporations will always do what they feel is in their best interest with respect to physical survival, the fiscal bottom line, or to maintain their power or position.

    Adam Smith and Darwin are at best parallels. But, that is better than the alternative, which is socialism and its eugenics parallel.