On the EDge: Should a Muslim be allowed to be elected? Before you answer, consider this

Graphic, St. George News

OPINION — Should a Muslim be banned from the White House simply because of his or her religion? Before you answer, I have two words for you to ponder: Mitt Romney.

A lifetime member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Romney clearly has no ties to the Muslim faith.

Still, you might recall that when Romney was running for the presidency against Barack Obama, religion was a significant part of the campaign and there was a question whether a Mormon should be elected as president. I would like to think that Romney lost the election because of his political stance and not his religious beliefs.

The truth is, however, his religion played a role in his defeat.

How significant a role, nobody will ever know. But it had impact.

We have been through this before, of course. When John Kennedy set his sights on the White House, there was great consternation that if elected, he would take his direction from The Vatican because of his Catholic faith.

As it turned out, there was no reason for concern.

But this whole business of religion becomes an issue when you consider GOP hopeful Ben Carson’s recent comment that a Muslim should not be elected as president.

I haven’t seen any polling on this yet, but I would be interested to see how Utahns, particularly Mormon Utahns, are reacting to the statement. There are also a number of Tea Party types in Utah who claim to be defenders of the Constitution. I wonder where they stand on the issue, especially since so many of them are so delusional that they actually believe our current president is a Muslim.

I expected better from Carson, who claims to hold Christian values, patriotism and service in his heart. I shouldn’t have been surprised, though, when he made his comments because I’ve been disappointed by the remarks and actions of too many politicians in the past.

Carson clearly came up the hard way, overcoming a number of obstacles to become, at least for the time being, the second-most popular candidate in a wide field of Republican hopefuls. He was a poor, African-American man who worked hard for his success, so he should understand that such stereotyping as he suggested is absolutely ludicrous.

It begs, however, a larger question: Should faith be a part of the greater debate?

The answer is both yes and no.

Yes, because if a candidate, like so many in the past, claims deep religious conviction yet turns out to be a philanderer, abusive or deceitful, that person’s character should seriously come under question and be discredited because of their hypocrisy.

The “no” part to the answer is quite simple.

As the Constitution states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” It’s the law, after all, something more and more conservatives, by the way, are beginning to look upon with disdain as they turn their noses to recent Supreme Court rulings.

The question becomes more academic than practical because none of the candidates running for the presidency are of the Muslim faith.

The reality, however, is that we live in a post-9/11 world where every Muslim is branded as a terrorist. The sad thing is that Carson is not alone in this.

According to a June Gallup poll, 54 percent of Republicans would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim nominee from their own party, while 39 percent of independents and 27 percent of Democrats said the same. Bigotry, clearly, is alive and well in the United States.

Of course, try explaining that to somebody who mistakenly thinks that “In God we trust” was etched into our currency since day one or is under the delusion that the founding fathers were religious men. But, that imagery looms large in modern politics, where candidates must profess religious beliefs to be elected.

They will lament the lack of prayer in our schools but hem and haw all over the place when you ask which religious prayer should be shared in the classroom.

They will decry the decline of Christian charity, yet when given the opportunity to extend a helping hand to the sick or needy, refuse to support legislation that would improve their condition.

They will talk about the sanctity of life, yet stand tall for capital punishment or the funding of weapons of war. They seek divine inspiration in a quest for peace and understanding yet think nothing of a regime overthrow for political or economic advantage.

They will speak of a desire for equality, but the fact is that those who look, act and believe as they do are more equal than those who do not.

I once had a young reporter who would describe Utah and its woeful lack of diversity and tolerance as a bologna sandwich on white bread with mayo.

Unfortunately, that is an apt description of a larger slice of the American persona.

We like to think we are diverse, defending ourselves with, “Well, I’m no bigot because one of my best friends is _________” (fill in the space with whichever race, creed, political affiliation or gender orientation you wish).

When asked in a private survey when nobody is watching if it is OK for a Muslim to be elected as president it is an entirely different story.

I understand the backlash.

The guys who flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and tried to fly another one into another Washington, D.C., landmark were certainly practitioners of a radical wing of the Muslim faith.

But, make no mistake, I can also cite a rather long list of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

Nobody is blameless.

Should all Muslims be held accountable for what happened on 9/11? No, just as all Christians should not be held accountable for The Crusades.

Related posts

Ed Kociela is an opinion columnist. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews, @EdKociela

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2015, all rights reserved.


Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Accountable September 29, 2015 at 8:54 am

    We should absolutely never allow muslims. Sharia law/Islam is incompatible with our constitution.

    • Rainbow Dash September 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

      Tell me again, How EXACTLY is our constitution is incompatible with Islam? In many ways our constitution is imcompatible with MORMONISM! (especially the part about “prophets” and the absolute fallacy that only Mormons of a certain standing will get into heaven)

      • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm

        RAINBOW DASH, our Constitution is incompatible with Sharia law, one aspect of Islam. For Muslims, it encompasses their legal code and also prescribes many facets of personal behavior. For example, strict observance of Sharia law requires women to be veiled and wear a burqa. Hence both ACCOUNTABLE and I believe that a Muslim who advocates and lives Sharia law could not serve in good conscience in this country. Many Muslims do not subscribe to Sharia law in its entirety or only pay it lip service. I have no problem with Muslims who embrace our democratic principles which many living in this country do.
        As for your gratuitous slap at Mormons, their beliefs about prophets and heaven are irrelevant to how they carry out elected office. Is a Catholic’s belief in transubstantiation or the shroud or Turin incompatible with our Constitution? How about a Baptist’s belief in the infallibility of the Bible? Or a Jew’s belief his people are God’s chosen ones?
        The constant belittling of others’ religions on this site can be seen as far more antithetical to our Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion. Exercise some of the civility that Ed has repeatedly called for.

        • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 12:50 pm

          Not sure why my hyperlinks don’t work: Wikipedia does in fact have articles titles as shown in my post above.

        • mesaman September 29, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          I applaud your post, Big Guy you have set the balance wheel back in motion and have challenged the uninformed, but emotional support of islamic law. As for Dr Ben Carson’s remarks, he clearly defends his statement, beyond the chatter of the liberal press, last Sunday in an interview with a CNN correspondent. You seem to be quite supportive of his statement. I will not accept any muslim who finds fault in supporting the US Constitution as the law of the land. Furthermore I will not accept any muslim who cannot stand firmly against the terroristic acts of members the islamic religion.

      • Lastdays September 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm

        Well for one thing, with Islam Sharia Law it is acceptable to perform honor killings on your wife or daughter if they misbehave according to Islam beliefs. They belive that raping young boys and girls is also acceptable. And, they also believe it is acceptable to kill infidels who do not submit to Islam. So, none of these situations are in compliance with USA laws or Constitution and not sure of the motivation to attempt a Mormonism correlation in there.

      • Brian September 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm

        Wow, just wow. It never ceases to amaze me when uninformed gay or female liberals and progressives stand up for islamists (not muslims, there is a big difference) and Shariah law, under which gays are beheaded and women are raped, abused, and mutilated with impunity. It truly is the height of ignorance. BTW, nothing about prophets, Mormonism, or Mormon beliefs on the afterlife are unconstitutional or in any way incompatible with the Constitution. You should stick with the My Little Ponies universe.

    • Chris September 29, 2015 at 12:42 pm

      Yes, tell us specifically what passages of Sharia law are incompatible with what passages of the U.S. Constitution? Ben Carson can’t answer that question since he has absolutely no specific knowledge of Sharia. How about you, accountable?

      • Brian September 29, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        If you’re genuine in your request, here is the answer: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf Shariah law is completely incompatible with the US Constitution, just based on Article VI of the Constitution (the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land”. We don’t have Mormon Law, Baptist Law, Atheist Law, Muslim Law, etc. We have THE LAW.

      • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 2:04 pm

        CHRIS, do a little homework before making an uninformed request like this. Start with LASTDAYS post above and even my post above. Then refresh your memory about the Muslim father’s “honor killing” of his daughter in this country a year or so ago.

        • Chris September 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm

          What you call “homework” apparently amounts to scanning a few propaganda websites and, then, cutting and pasting a few links. Did you or Brian actually read his link? It contains only two actual citations of verses from the Quran, both of which are removed from context and misinterpreted. Not one of you have given me an actual citation of any specific Quranic verse that supports your allegations. Keep in mind, too, that the Quran is written in 7th century Arabic. Does anyone here read Arabic at all, much less archaic Arabic? I think not. Thus, you are at the mercy of anyone who claims that they can interpret the language accurately. Big guy, dare to give me the actual Quranic verse that advocates honor killing.

          • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 6:55 pm

            CHRIS, you must be kidding! Brian, I and others refer not to specific Quran verses, but to Sharia law as practiced in today’s world. Honor killings, beheading “infidels” (you’re one of them), executing homosexuals, whipping women not wearing veils or burqas. This list goes on and on. I find it amazing that you are trying to raise a defense of Sharia law: as practiced in the Middle East, it is barbaric by western standards.
            Using your logic, I challenge you make a defense of abortion or same sex marriage using “actual verses” from the Constitution. Interpretation of the Quran and the Constitution drive what is practiced day to day.

          • mesaman September 29, 2015 at 7:37 pm

            Do you speak and read fluent Farsi, the Arabic language? Have you read the quran and can you give Big Guy the verse that advocates honor killing? Where did you gain your vast knowledge of Arabic culture and the religion of islam? What is such a learned middle-east expert doing frittering his life away in a little podunk village in Southern Utah? Oh please hurry with your answers I eagerly await them.

          • Brian September 30, 2015 at 7:56 am

            Chris, it honestly doesn’t matter how YOU or I interpret the Quran, or even what the Quran actually says (regardless of language, including English, since there is this amazing technology known as “Translation” that lets us read things in our native language). What matters is how THEY interpret the Quran, and the reality is that somewhere between 10% and 20% of all muslims are radicalized islamists, and they’re causing massive death and devastation around the globe. That is the reality, no matter how much you try to whitewash it or Neville Chamberlain it away.

      • Accountable September 29, 2015 at 2:22 pm

        I believe both Big Guy and LastDays have answered your question, chris and rainbow. Just the smallest amount of research on your part would alleviate your ignorance.

        • Chris September 29, 2015 at 5:33 pm

          The “smallest amount of research” is apparently what you have done. Once again, you have not provided any specific citation. You can keep the b.s. websites to yourself. Tell me about actual verses from the Quran. Keep in mind my admonitions above about translations of archaic language. How much Arabic do you know, accountable? Better get out the seer stones.

          • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm

            CHRIS, have you read or watched the news in the past few years? ISIS beheads “infidels;” Afghani husbands and fathers “honor kill” their wives and daughters who are rape victims (not adulterers) while the rapist goes free; women are whipped who appear in public without veils or burqas. The list goes on and on. Sharia law is invoked to justify these actions and they are not only condoned by governments following Sharia law, Sharia governments support these actions. It is impossible to support women’s rights as practiced in the western world while defending Sharia law.
            YOU read the Quran to find justification for this behavior. I evaluate people based on their actions.

    • Rainbow Dash September 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm

      The sheer amount of hate and ignorance left by so called “Christians” (term is used loosely when describing the cult of Mormonism, I don’t care what Joseph Smith said No where in the bible did God marry a child.) on this thread. Makes me so glad to say that I lived near you. Not.

      • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm

        RAINBOW DASH, your irrational hatred of Mormons and apparently for all people of faith is evidence of a very narrow-minded attitude. Ed didn’t spew venom at Mormons, but you took his using example as an opportunity to spew your own venom. Rise above that. Accept other’s faith as just that. Feel free to express your opinions about their actions, not their beliefs. Your opinions lose much of their weight when you expose irrational biases.

    • 42214 September 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm

      Accountable, what part of the Constitution prohibits a Muslim from running for President. Please enlighten us with your expertise.

    • Accountable September 29, 2015 at 10:52 pm

      I did not state the Constitution “prohibits a muslim from running for President”.

      The Constitution is very clear: Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution states: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

      However, before a muslim candidate could become a member of our Government, he would be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution and swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The precept of the Quran is to wage perpetual war against all who deny that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God. Based on sharia’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations — and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion that sharia is an enemy of the United States Constitution.

    • Accountable September 29, 2015 at 11:37 pm

      In my previous comment about a muslim candidate’s acceptance/oath to uphold our Constitution, keep in mind this particular Quran verse regarding Muslims pretending to befriend infidels:

      … “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141)

      According to this islamic principle, if under pressure or threatened with force, not only may muslims deceive non-believers, it is even legitimate for muslims to behave in ways normally completely contrary to their faith. For instance, given such circumstances, a muslim may drink alcohol, skip prayers and fasting during Ramadan, renounce belief in allah and even pretend homage to a deity other than allah and utter insincere oaths. As long as their allegiance to islam is secure in their hearts, taqiyya allows muslims to behave like non-muslims — to do anything short of actually killing a muslim in order to perpetuate their deception.

      It is important to understand the concept of taqiyya; therefore, I will never support or “obey” a muslim in any position of control or authority.

      • 42214 September 30, 2015 at 1:31 pm

        Muslim Rep from Minnesota, Ellison or something like that, took his oath on a Quran, not a Bible, FYI.
        Also islam condones lying to infidels so their oath is meaningless.

  • 42214 September 29, 2015 at 9:48 am

    The Democrats should find one and run him for President with socialist Bernie on the undercard as VP. As for “allowing” a Muslim to be President, only a vote can stop it, not the Constitution. Better yet, run a Muslim and a Mormon on the ticket and cover all the bases of craziness.

    • radioviking September 29, 2015 at 8:58 pm

      True! And there are actually A LOT in common between Muslims and Mormons. Specifically, if you compare Joseph Smith (the first leader of the Mormon LDS Church) and Muhammad (first leader of Islam- Muslims)!

      Before you roll your eyes, do some research! Compare the two men:
      Both claim angelic visitations, additional scriptures and direct revelation from God/Allah, polygamy (including underage wives), fantastic visions unsurpassed by succeeding leaders, etc. etc.

      Great article Ed.
      Mormons should be careful how much they criticize Muslims!

  • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 9:57 am

    You’re paly loose with facts again, Ed. Carson did not say or even imply that every Muslim is a terrorist. He said no Muslim who embraces Sharia law should be elected because they could not uphold our Constitution without denying their own faith. This was not true of Catholics under Kennedy nor would it have been true of Mormons under Romney.
    Second, conservatives do uphold the Constitution but take issue with the Supreme Court’s continually evolving interpretation of it. Abortion rights based on an unstated right to privacy and more recently same sex marriage are interpretations that in the minds of many “invent” new rights as we go along.
    Third, many progressives decry the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling. Should I assume all progressives don’t support the Constitution or the law?
    Progressives have managed to move what they and their main stream media allies envision as “mainstream” so far to the left over the past 30 that anyone holding Reagan’s conservative values of thirty years ago is now characterized as a “right wing extremist.” Reagan at least was willing to compromise with Tip O’Neill to get things done as did Clinton with Newt Gingrich. Obama’s unwillingness to compromise in any degree created the Tea Party and continues to animate it.

    • Bender September 29, 2015 at 12:36 pm

      “Progressives have managed to move what they and their main stream media allies envision as “mainstream” so far to the left over the past 30”
      We live on different planets BIG GUY. Reagan would be tarred and feathered by today’s mainstream R’s for heresy.

      • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 2:15 pm

        BENDER, the last time I challenged you to name one of today’s conservative positions that differed in any significant way from Reagan’s conservatism of the 1980s, you were “too busy.” If you have a little time, please enlighten us.
        If Reagan and Tip O’Neill reforming the tax code in 1986 is at the top of your list, today’s conservatives have offered a number of ideas over the past five years, but Obama has never negotiated in good faith or expressed any desire to compromise. His refrain: raise taxes on the rich, period, even when that has been shown time and again to lower tax receipts.

      • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 6:12 pm

        BENDER, the world is waiting for your explanation of how today’s conservatives are “right wing extremists” compared to Ronald Reagan’s conservatism of the 1980s. Or have you been drinking the progressive/liberal media’s Kool-Aid about today’s conservatives and find yourself living on their planet, wherever it is?
        As you prepare your answer, remember the following quote from Reagan’s first inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” So please include an explanation of how today’s conservatives who complain mightily about Obama’s progressive/liberal uber-regulatory dream world are farther right than Reagan.

        • Chris September 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm

          Here is a reply in your favorite form: provide a link and then a cut and paste.


          “As president, he raised taxes 11 times, never submitted a balanced-budget request, hiked the debt ceiling 18 times and bemoaned the congressional brinkmanship that “consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility.” Plus, the federal deficit nearly tripled.”

        • Chris September 29, 2015 at 6:45 pm


          “The apostasies aren’t just fiscal. Reagan was a onetime union leader who extolled the virtues of collective bargaining. As governor of California, he championed environmental legislation and signed a bill making it easier to get an abortion. The only U.S. president to divorce, he incensed the Christian right by nominating a socially moderate judge, the future swing vote Sandra Day O’Connor, to serve on the Supreme Court. He cut sweeping deals with liberal legislators like Tip O’Neill, the Democratic speaker of the House. He signed a major overhaul of the U.S. immigration system that ultimately granted amnesty to some 3 million undocumented immigrants.”

          • Rainbow Dash September 29, 2015 at 9:43 pm

            Thank you Chris for your informed response. Regan was a far cry from the “Lie, deny, whine then, when that doesn’t work, shutdown” republicans we see today.

        • fun bag September 29, 2015 at 7:01 pm


        • fun bag September 29, 2015 at 7:02 pm


      • BIG GUY September 30, 2015 at 6:47 am

        CHRIS, my request was for conservative POSITIONS today that differ in a significant way from Reagan’s. Time, as a liberal magazine, talks about Reagan’s actions that are in reality political tactics that fit the reality of his times, not deviations from his political philosophy. Reagan was working with a Democrat-controlled Congress and needed to look for ways to compromise and find common ground. To wit:
        Reagan didn’t “raise taxes.” The Democrat Congress raised taxes, Reagan signed the bill.
        Hiking the debt ceiling is the only alternative to shutting down the government.
        Bemoaning the Democrat Congress for brinksmanship is no violation of conservative principles. As Democrats discovered then and Republicans discovered now, governing from Congress is almost impossible without some measure of cooperation from the president.
        Today’s conservatives don’t oppose collective bargaining but do believe as Franklin Roosevelt did, that government employees should not be allowed to bargain. Conservatives today oppose Obama’s continual borderline-legal tinkering with union organizing rules.
        Reagan was operating in the early phases of environmental awareness when new environmental safeguards were needed. Today’s conservatives don’t oppose environmental rules per se. They do however take exception to Obama’s continuing expansion of environmental rules far beyond original Congressional mandates, e.g. declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant.
        The Supreme Court is deciding many more contentious social and religious issues today than it was in Reagan’s day. Nominating a competent female jurist to the Court was hardly a violation of principles.
        Reagan was willing, as are many conservatives today, to address our immigration problem. Today’s conservatives have considered immigration reform laws but doubt that Obama will enforce them.
        Reagan’s leadership is in stark contrast to Obama who refuses to work with and compromise with a Republican-controlled Congress, instead blaming them for political gridlock of his own making. Obama’s rigid progressivism and unwillingness to compromise gave rise to the Tea Party: it would not exist if the still very unpopular Obamacare had not been forced through the Democrat super majority in 2010. The Tea Party folks on the “extreme right wing” mirror Obama’s unwillingness to compromise from the “extreme left wing.” Further, Obama’s willingness to selectively enforce some laws and to expand his interpretation of other laws has made Congress unwilling, for example, to pass immigration reforms.
        You and the liberal media confuse Reagan’s willingness to get things done with his conservative philosophy. Would he embrace Obamacare, same sex marriage, Federal regulation of the Internet, “leading from behind” in international relations, “resetting” our relationship with Russia, and the myriad other progressive actions of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid left wing? I doubt it.

        • Accountable September 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          Very accurate Big Guy.

        • Accountable September 30, 2015 at 4:06 pm

          Yours is a concise description of Reagan and the era.

        • fun bag September 30, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          LOL, BG you idiot. How many times a day do you say “it’s all the liberal’s fault” can’t blame obama for how dumb you are though, can you? ahahah 😀

  • Forsooth September 29, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Sharia is definitely incompatible with the constitution, or basic human rights, for that matter. But then, take a long hard look at Leviticus in the Old Testament and tell me there’s a stone to be flung. The problem is fundamentalism in any religion, not Islam in particular.

    Though I will say Ed is rather off in comparing the crusades to modern troubles. The crusades occurred before the invention of modern toothpaste whereas the last ISIS beheading was… yesterday. It’s a rather important distinction, I think.

  • Brian September 29, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Once again Ed turns twists a sound-bite into a misguided article. It’s simple, sharia law is evil and directly opposed to the Constitution. Since the POTUS swears under oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” it is literally impossible for someone that believes in sharia law to be a good, honest, decent POTUS. IMPOSSIBLE. That is the essence of Ben Carson’s answer, but the media (include Ed) incorrectly distill that down to “muslims shouldn’t be allowed to be president”. They leave out the part that 51% of muslims in the US (a majority) agreed in a recent poll (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/) that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah”, and almost a quarter agreed with the statement, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed”. In short, Mitt Romney has exactly nothing to do with this discussion, and neither does JFK, because 25% of Catholics and Mormons don’t believe in using violence to defend their beliefs, and both groups uphold the Constitution (for Mormon’s it is part of their doctrine that the US Constitution was inspired by God and has His seal of approval). The line between muslim and islamist is WAY too thin for me personally to ever vote for a muslim for any government office, and frankly, the good muslims around the world have barely lifted a finger to make that distinction, perhaps out of a legitimate fear for their lives (you know, honor killings, and all of that).

  • ladybugavenger September 29, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    We already did..Barack Hussein Obama II

    • Bender September 29, 2015 at 12:34 pm

      The Tea Party crazy is strong with this one.

  • ladybugavenger September 29, 2015 at 2:08 pm

    I can’t argue politics cuz I don’t care therefore I come to my own conclusion. The dude has the same middle name as the last name as a terrorist ( big red flag) but whatever, one world order is coming no matter what.

  • anybody home September 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    What would you have to say about the Mountain Meadows terrorists?

    • BIG GUY September 29, 2015 at 7:11 pm

      ANYBODY HOME, using a “tu quoque” argument is the last resort of someone with a weak position. Sharia law is indefensible in the western world unless one is in favor of beheading “infidels,” executing homosexuals and “honor killing” rape victims. Guessing that you support none of these, I’m disappointed that you join those who look for opportunities to bad mouth Mormons or others of faith at any opportunity. You’re better than that: I’ve read your previous posts.

    • mesaman September 29, 2015 at 7:39 pm

      And what would you have to say about the white protestant terrorists in Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri?

      • 42214 September 29, 2015 at 9:52 pm

        You mean the ones that executed Joseph Smith? I say good for them. They saved a lot of young girls from rape and molestation. How ya like that Mesaman?

    • Rainbow Dash September 29, 2015 at 8:48 pm

      People who tell the truth would say that it was an atrocious act committed by some of the worst people in the history of the human race.

      • mesaman September 29, 2015 at 9:25 pm

        Now you are being foolish and silly. To state (I presume you are degrading, the Mormons who allegedly were at the crux of the massacre) as the “worst” people in the history of the human race against the treatment of the Jews in Germany, or the civilians in Ruwanda, or the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese Army, and on and on ad infinitum, is clear and frightening evidence of a diseased mind, one that will likely never be cured.

        • Rainbow Dash September 30, 2015 at 12:27 am

          You presume to much. If I was accusing or degrading any person or group I would have said it. I also said that the people who did this were SOME of the worst people (inferring that there have been others). The fact is that the people who did this (doesn’t really matter who, imo) launched a unprovoked attack on over 100 innocent men women and children. If that doesn’t put those people right up there next to Hitler in your mind, I don’t know what will.

          • mesaman September 30, 2015 at 2:15 pm

            So stick you neck out and write what you mean. Your response is included as a reply to the comment by nobodyhome regarding Mountain Meadow Massacre. Then you run and hid behind; “the fact is… blah….blah…. blah…100 innocent men women an children. That does NOT put those people right up there next to Hitler. It puts you directly in the cross hairs of a blatant hypocrit, and a very naive one at that. Again, at the expense of overloding your frontal cortex, read my comments comparing your comment with Nazism, the Idi amin “dada” reign in Uganda, and the Nanking attrocities, just to give you a start. I’ll bet you can find many more; Kampuchea under the Kmer Rouge, and maybe Myanmar. Don’t be afraid to read, it broadens your mind, you are a broad, are you not?

          • fun bag September 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm

            there goes MM with the name calling again…

          • mesaman September 30, 2015 at 8:04 pm

            scumbag, bite me.

          • Rainbow Dash October 2, 2015 at 4:12 pm

            Regarding Mesaman’s most recent comment on this thread, Why are comments like that allowed on this site?

          • Joyce Kuzmanic October 3, 2015 at 2:02 pm

            I looked. We moderate not mediate. I bet you can all work out some decent style of disagreement if you try.

          • Rainbow Dash October 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm


            Thank you for your reply. Moderating a Mediating are two very different things and your job is not to be mediators. We, your readers, are entitled to our own opinions and to share them freely if we choose to do so. However, and I realize that I have been guilty of this too, derogatory and personally offensive statements like “Scumbag, bite me” do nothing to further the debate on either side and should be removed by moderators. In my opinion allowing such vile, negative and non contributing(for lack of a better word) responses actually degrades the validity of the newspaper you and your staff work so hard to maintain. Let me give you an example; BRIAN’s comment on 30 Sept at 11:08 am is an example of an opinion that should be allowed because it is an opinion and does not personally attack anybody in particular. In fact, his is a comment that should not only be allowed but encouraged.
            On the other hand MESAMAN’s “Scumbag, bite me” comment is a personal attack that does nothing to contribute anything of any real worth to the conversation at hand. This kind of comment should be removed.

            Now let me say this: I love your paper and read it every morning. Yours is, in my opinion, far and away better then The Spectrum and I do not say that lightly (especially as one of my nearest and dearest friends works on their editorial staff). The fact that I am writing this instead of simply moving on to another paper should be proof of that. I am writing because I think that you have a great paper overall but I think that the comments section could use some improvement. I also think that if you clamped down on the comments a bit, you would get less comments in the short run but far more worthwhile ones from all sides in the long run.

            Thank you for reading this,

          • Joyce Kuzmanic October 4, 2015 at 11:44 am

            It would be our hope that everyone considers your proposition, Rainbow D. It is a challenge, moderating, to allow freedom of what is too frequently insipid or inane chatter versus filtering everything out that is tiresome, offensive and even boring. I do my best to strike a balance – and encourage all of our commenters to consider if they are finding a repetitious comment they post being disapproved that perhaps they might come up with something more stimulating for the broader audience. Striking a balance, inherently, means I may not always get it dead center every time. Of course, we want to be a watering hole where people whose paths may not otherwise cross are able to have provocative conversation. Imagine seeing a differing viewpoint with grace even if not acceptance?
            Stick with us RD, and your protests are welcome and considered seriously – by me – always.
            ST. GEORGE NEWS
            Joyce Kuzmanic
            Editor in Chief

  • .... September 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    This issue was discussed last week for 2 days on social media. so why is Ed just getting to it now.? this is old news already.

  • beentheredonethat September 29, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    A Muslim would be more honest than Romney. Typical mormon….Cant trust them.

  • 42214 September 30, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Mesaman, tell me. What is more cowardly than to disarm people under a flag of truce and then shoot them in the back and steal their children. The only difference between Hitler and this is the scope and scale of Hitler’s atrocities. But an atrocity is an atrocity, don’t you agree Nolan?

    • fun bag September 30, 2015 at 5:41 pm

      and then turn the stolen children of those they murdered into child brides for the old pervert polygamist mormon men. Mormons just have such a great history, don’t they…

      • mesaman September 30, 2015 at 8:09 pm

        Gee, maybe you and half a dollar were there and can attest to the accuracy of your senses. You both have a OCD when it comes to Mormonism. If you were as intelligent as you think you are you would pick up stakes and find a place more suitable to your attitudes. You haven’t changed one person’s mind in all your carping and demeaning so all you can produce is static. Live with it or leave.

        • 42214 September 30, 2015 at 11:07 pm

          WShat’s more cowardly Mesa, didn’t even come close to dealing with the topic. You just resort to your usual, leave if you don’t like it and name calling. Can’t deal with facts? No wonder your students thought you were a cook. As for accuracy, your own cult admits to the atrocity by Gordon B Hinkley. Any reply?

          • fun bag October 3, 2015 at 3:23 pm

            MM, we are waiting for your well-thought-out response….

  • 42214 September 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    OK Mesa, you new name is Ostrich. You deflect, defer, deny, and bury your head in the sand. I know you’re elderly but it doesn’t give you license to be dumb.

  • .... October 1, 2015 at 9:19 am

    I moved to Utah because of my employer. but it didn’t take long to see it wasn’t for me. I gladly gave them my 2 weeks notice and left. I still have a lot friends there. I visit once in awhile to stop and say. ‘ hello. ‘ but that’s enough for me.. it’s just not my. ‘ social cup of tea. ‘ I’m not complaining about the people there you were all great hosts. but it’s just not my preferred environment. but I will say this. there are great people there and Utah has some of the most amazing sights to see.

  • Scooter August 25, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    Excuse me? We ALREADY HAVE a muslim president! And he’s a TRAITOR!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.