Real believers will defeat the Mormon

[D. Scarlatti]

Romney not Jesusy enough (http://www.charlotte.com/206/story/116159.html)

On Monday, Sharpton said in a debate that "those of us who believe in God" will defeat Romney for the White House. He denied he was questioning the Mormon's own belief in God.

Comedy gold.

The Rev. Al Dobson (http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2007/05/reverend-al-dobson.html)

[Sock Puppet]

Read about that in the paper today. Although I didn't hear the debate (Sharpton grates on me as bad as Limbaugh does), I read the quote, then tried to put together the context, and I just can't see how it could mean what Sharpton claims he meant.

[D. Scarlatti]

Me neither. Like I said, it's no secret lots of these bozo "Reverends" exclude Mormonism from the Christian umbrella.

Sharpton might as well just own up to it, and then go speak at BJU.

[Clutch Munny]

Sharpton might as well just own up to it, and then go speak at BJU.

Brigham Jung University. The archetype of religious institutions.

[D. Scarlatti]

Heh. Very good.

Sharpton's defense is completely ridiculous:

"The statement by the Mitt Romney campaign is a blatant effort to fabricate a controversy to help their lagging campaign," Sharpton said in a statement. "In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon church when I responded that other believers . . . would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons."

Bitch, please.

[TomJoe]

I wonder if Sharpton called Romney a nappy headed ho while he was at it.

[D. Scarlatti]

Something tells me you didn't require any additional evidence of "Reverend" Sharpton's hypocrisy.

[Dingfod]

Most Mormons that I've known (and that's quite a few) are quite ignorant of how many Protestant Americans view them. Many members of another large religious group in America, maybe the largest, suffer the same ignorance.

[godfry n. glad]

Most Mormons that I've known (and that's quite a few) are quite ignorant of how many Protestant Americans view them. Many members of another large religious group in America, maybe the largest, suffer the same ignorance.

Are we speaking of Roman Catholics in obscure references and hushed tones, now?

[godfry n. glad]

I personally think that MSNBC should fire Sharpton.

[Dingfod]

Are we speaking of Roman Catholics in obscure references and hushed tones, now?Shhh! They think they're the only ones going to Heaven.

[Ari]

I can't wait for the special edition of Oprah with Mitt Romney explaining he was just there to debate and that hateful man made bigoted statements about him. I mean, I assume he will be on Oprah and the 'Rev' will be painted as the evil guy... right?

All bigoted comments are equal, except some bigoted comments are more equal than others.

[Angakuk]

The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/09/sitroom.01.html)
SHARPTON: I think that, if there is no punishment, if there is no policy enforced, to continue to go there is to endorse the policy that it doesn't matter how vile you get and who is violated, that an apology will do. It's strange to me that none of them have stopped to talk about the offended. It is easy for people that have not been offended to forgive people that didn't offend them. I think that is arrogant and insensitive.

I would think that everyone, especially those running for president, would first say, wait a minute, has there been some punishment and acknowledgment by those who were offended here? How can I forgive somebody for something they didn't do to me?
This comment was made in regard to Don Imus. Sharpton seems to be suggesting that only those who feel offended are in a position to determine whether offense has been given. Further, he seems to be suggesting that they, and only they, have the right to determine what constitutes appropriate recompense.

If this is his position, and if there are Mormons who take offense at his recent comments, then it would seem that he ought to recognise that those Mormons who have taken offense have the right to determine whether or not his statement was offensive (his own explanation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18570358/) of his intent notwithstanding) and that they also have the right to demand an apology and determine the appropriate punishment. In short, the game is (and ought to be) played by the victims rules. Instead he accuses the Romney campaign of simply "trying to stir up a controversy because of their political differences". In other words, Victims Rules do not apply when Sharpton is the offender. Methinks the fellow is hoist on his own petard.

[Angakuk]

I can't wait for the special edition of Oprah with Mitt Romney explaining he was just there to debate and that hateful man made bigoted statements about him. I mean, I assume he will be on Oprah and the 'Rev' will be painted as the evil guy... right?

All bigoted comments are equal, except some bigoted comments are more equal than others.
Actually, Romney was not present when Sharpton made the statement.

[Clutch Munny]

Not all bigoted comments are equal. Some are more or less explicitly inciteful of bigotry; some are more or less likely to incite bigotry due to contextual factors.

It would be no credit to Sharpton if his remarks were less evil than others. But it certainly seems possible, and even likely. I don't recall reading about a Mormon getting dragged to death behind a pickup truck by Christians lately; the bigotry against them is serious, I'm sure, but not quite of that sort.

[Ari]

Actually, Romney was not present when Sharpton made the statement.
The Basketball players weren't exactly present with Imus either.


Not all bigoted comments are equal...
While I agree, I don't think Imus's comments warranted the media storm that occured. If people were against bigots in general (as opposed to other reasons for running with the Imus story) I would assume this comment should get some sort of reaction of proportion.

[Dingfod]

No, the "Christians" I know that hate Mormons are quite satisfied with the knowledge that they're all going to Hell, they don't feel the need to send them there any sooner than they would get there otherwise. They just don't view Mormons as much of a threat. If they knew what I know about Mormons and their plan for world domination, they'd hang 'em all now. OK, I kid, I kid.

[Dingfod]

Actually, Romney was not present when Sharpton made the statement.
The Basketball players weren't exactly present with Imus either.And likely would've never heard about it if not for the big fuss made. Several team members admitted to not knowing who Don Imus was. I can see how that could happen.

[Angakuk]

Actually, Romney was not present when Sharpton made the statement.
The Basketball players weren't exactly present with Imus either.

I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

Your hypothetical scenario, "I can't wait for the special edition of Oprah with Mitt Romney explaining he was just there to debate and that hateful man made bigoted statements about him." seemed to imply that the offending remark was made in the context of a debate between Sharpton and Romney. I was just clarifying that Romney was not present when Sharpton made the remark in question. There was a debate, but it was between Sharpton and author, Christopher Hitchens.

Excuse me for trying to keep the facts straight.

[Ari]

There was a debate, but it was between Sharpton and author, Christopher Hitchens.
I was referring to the republican debate which brought all the republican candidates out and I believe happened before the comments.

[Angakuk]

That makes every bit as much sense as Sharpton's explanation of his statement.

[Ari]

Ok fine, he would have said it whether or not Romney was in the news for being part of a debate. What does your complaint have to do with my point that it is being treated much differently because either A) who said it, or B) What the bigotry was targeting?

[Angakuk]

Nothing at all. I hadn't addressed that. Since you ask, perhaps you would like to explain just how you think it is being treated differently. It seems to me that Sharpton is on the receiving end of some well deserved criticism. Whether or not that will rise to the level of hysteria that was generated by Imus' remarks remains to be seen. Personally, except for the conservative media outlets, I doubt that as much will be made of it. Which is to say that I basically agree with your observation that all bigotry is equal, but some is more equal than others. In part I think this will be the case because Mormons are not generally perceived to be an oppressed minority. Nor do they have a large, well rehearsed and media savvy cheering section.

[godfry n. glad]

Nor do they have a large, well rehearsed and media savvy cheering section.

I was doin' fine right to this point.

All I have to say is "that depends upon where you live."

[Dingfod]

Mormons don't need a media savvy cheering section in Utah, most of Idaho, and parts of Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Nevada because they're the ones running things in those locales. Other places, they try to keep a low profile. It was always funny to run into Mormons that moved to Utah from other places because they invariably comment on how arrogant and dominating the Utah Mormons are. Mitt got a taste of being part of the dominating political and social force in Utah while he was running the Olympics, not to mention back when he attended BYU.

[Listener]

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," Sharpton said during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library.

Sounds like bigotry to me!

The "really" addresses Romney's beliefs not Hitchens'.

Sharpton didn't explain the word when he tried to cover things up by showing his bigotry against atheists.

That he should be appealing to religious Americans to take their religious beliefs into account when they vote for a politician is downright dangerous!

[Clutch Munny]

If people were against bigots in general (as opposed to other reasons for running with the Imus story) I would assume this comment should get some sort of reaction of proportion.
Only if being against bigots in general means being equally concerned with all manner of bigotry. But that doesn't follow.

I agree that people in general are not perfectly consistently against bigotry, since most people indulge in some form of it. But that may well represent a tension among their own beliefs and attitudes. In any case, being generally against bigots doesn't mean that an American should be as disturbed by, say, a joke from a politician at the expense of Latvians as by a joke at the expense of black people.

[Watser?]

Juan Cole in his blog (http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/those-who-live-in-glass-houses-is-mitt.html) yesterday was accusing Romney of being a bigot himself: But Romney is maybe not the most credible person when it comes to decrying religious bigotry. He is himself guilty of conflating Muslim movements in a way that does injustice to them. Last week during the debate, he said:

' "We'll move everything to get him [Bin Laden]. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America. This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die." '

What does he mean, "this is about Sunni and Shia?" Is he saying that all Muslims of both major branches are his targets, and that he associates them with al-Qaeda?

The inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in this list of jihadi groups willing to use violence does a grave injustice to the many members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who eschewed violence to participate in civil politics. The Muslim Brotherhood has 88 seats in the Egyptian parliament, and Egypt is a non-NATO ally of the United States. Did Romney just declare war on them? Isn't this lumping together of disparate Muslim parties a form of Islamophobia, i.e. religious bigotry?
Not that Romney is the only one who does that, Islam is fair game these days...

[Sock Puppet]

That he should be appealing to religious Americans to take their religious beliefs into account when they vote for a politician is downright dangerous!I agree, but IMO, the real danger is from politically powerful evangelicals, like Dobson and Robertson. Sharpton's effect is relatively marginal. They're all clowns, but Dobson & Co. are much scarier clowns.

[D. Scarlatti]

The "really" addresses Romney's beliefs not Hitchens'.

That's how it seems to me too. Sharpton made the teevee rounds last night, saying he meant non-atheists by "those that really believe in God." Then he went on to call Hitchens "Kitchens" about seven times in a row on Glenn Beck.

For his part, Hitchens said Sharpton was trying to be funny, so maybe that Sharpton was only kidding about Mormons not "really" believing in God. But Sharpton wouldn't even cop to that.

[TomJoe]

Something tells me you didn't require any additional evidence of "Reverend" Sharpton's hypocrisy.I grew up not too far away from where the whole Tawana Brawley fiasco went down. I've known of Sharpton for far too long. :sigh:

[Ari]

In any case, being generally against bigots doesn't mean that an American should be as disturbed by, say, a joke from a politician at the expense of Latvians as by a joke at the expense of black people.
I think they (or well the media that tells the public what they should be offended by) should if they have claimed bigotry is bad. Obviously it doesn't work like that (just like the Missing pretty white girl phenomenon) which is why the hypocritical attitude should be pointed out.
Of course the funnier part of this whole thing is the hypocrisy by the Rev himself who led the crusade against a bigot for what was (in the scheme of black hatin folks) a minor offense only a month or so ago.

[Clutch Munny]

In any case, being generally against bigots doesn't mean that an American should be as disturbed by, say, a joke from a politician at the expense of Latvians as by a joke at the expense of black people.
I think they (or well the media that tells the public what they should be offended by) should if they have claimed bigotry is bad. Obviously it doesn't work like that (just like the Missing pretty white girl phenomenon) which is why the hypocritical attitude should be pointed out.

I agree about the hypocrisy of Sharpton, but not with the general reasoning. The analogy doesn't seem to hold, since what's harmful about Missing White Girl is that (e.g.) missing Latino men are just as significant. But bigotry against Mormons is not (now) as significant as bigotry against black people. Holding that two actions are bigotry, hence wrong, doesn't require evincing equal concern over both of them -- no more than recognizing that two cases of disease are equally awful for their victims means worrying equally about them, if one disease is highly contagious and the other isn't.

[BDS]

Anti-Mormon bigotry may not be as significant as anti-black bigotry, but given its bloody and murderous history it is strangely persistent, even among the politically correct here in the American West. Many liberal Eugeneans who would shudder at the thought of anti-black or even anti-Muslim bigotry think nothing of scoffing at Mormons.

One might think that the bloody history of such bigotry would make people think twice about engaging in it – just like Germans might be careful about engaging in anti-Semitism. But many Eugene liberals blithely despise Mormons. I think it probably has to do with: 1) Mormon Conservatism, 2) Mormon Proselytizing and 3) Mormons refusing to drink and take drugs. I’m not sure if that’s it, though.

[Javaman]

My personal belief is that anti-Mormon bigotry stems from it being such an obviously made-up religion. For many people (and I include myself), it is on par with Scientology. It doesn't take much effort at all to figure out where the LDS ends up on the spectrum of plausibility from 'generic Deism' to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Perhaps bigotry isn't the word I'm looking for, though. More like open derision (?).

[BDS]

Good point. Certainly Joseph Smith appears to have been a transparently self-serving prophet.

Nonetheless, the bigotry I've seen in the American West extends beyond derision (which, I agree, is directed toward Scientlogy as well). I hear people talk about how they would never want to live in Utah, for example, because there are too many Mormons.

[Javaman]

Having worked with many Mormons and counting several among my friends, I must say that, as a group, they appear to be some of the most well-adjusted, friendly, and genuine people on the planet. I don't think it'd bother me to live among them at all. I'm of two minds in that, on one hand, their beliefs seem laughable. On the other hand, they have a fantastic support network and, for the most part, seem very happy. I don't want to begrudge them their faith but it's so obviously not true.

[BDS]

Well said, Javaman. I agree.

[Angakuk]

I don't want to begrudge them their faith but it's so obviously not true.
It has been my experience that most, if not all, religious beliefs are "obviously not true" to those who do not hold those beliefs. In this particular respect LDS beliefs are no different from any other religious beliefs.

I recall a conversation I had, many years ago, with a fellow seminary student. He had expressed his amazement at how Mormons could possibly believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired. I suggested that he ought then to be in perfect sympathy with those Greeks, Romans and Jews who viewed Christians and their beliefs with such incredulity. Not surprisingly, he did not get the point of the comparison. (This conversation, btw, took place within the context of a course on early church history.)

[Javaman]

It has been my experience that most, if not all, religious beliefs are "obviously not true" to those who do not hold those beliefs. In this particular respect LDS beliefs are no different from any other religious beliefs.I disagree. Actually, I can't really 'disagree' with your experience but I will say it doesn't jive with my own. As an evidence-based experiment, I can find very little to fault with my above-mentioned 'generic Deism'. That I don't ascribe to it's tenets (if it can be said to have any) does in no way make me think it is 'obviously' not true. I only quote the word obvious as that's the part that I'm writing about. Again, as I mentioned above, I think there's a spectrum from obvious to non-obvious and I wouldn't put either Lutheran group toward the 'obvious' end. Others might, though.

[BDS]

"Obviously not true" may not be the best wording. I would say, "less credible than other religions".

Ancient religions at least have this going for them: their origins are mysterious, as are other ancient events. They are lost in the foggy mists of time. Modern prophets SEEM more human and accessable, whatever their divine inspiration, or lack of it.

Also, the test of time seems to add crediblity to a religion. False prophets, after all, are a dime a dozen. Faiths that have numbered a great many highly intelligent people among their followers gain credence by that very fact.

Based on this not-very-accurate rating system, Mormonism is a lot more credible than Haille Bop (sic?), or Jim Jones -- but not so credible as more mainstream Christianity. Needless to say, this reasoning may be "fallacious", from a logical standpoint, but we all indulge in this kind of thinking. I believe in many scientific "facts" simply because lots of smart, educated people tell me they are true.

[Freddy]

If Sharpton wanted to attack "Mitt The Twit" he should have went after his $250 million fortune that he amassed at Bain Capital, the capital venture corporation, that gobbled up companies, sold them off in pieces, and took Americans' jobs then sent them offshore. Next he screwed up Massachusetts with $1 billion structural deficit but forgot to tell anyone during the last two years of his term while he was out of state trying to be president. Oh, Mitt never took a dime while governor so I guess he was not wasting taxpayers' money while campaigning. Mitt a Mormon, what a revelation! If Joseph Smith lost those Golden Plates, Mitt sure found them. Al should have come to Massachusetts where we would have given him a clue about Mitt. Good riddance Romney!

[Listener]

Juan Cole in his blog (http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/those-who-live-in-glass-houses-is-mitt.html) yesterday was accusing Romney of being a bigot himself: But Romney is maybe not the most credible person when it comes to decrying religious bigotry. He is himself guilty of conflating Muslim movements in a way that does injustice to them. Last week during the debate, he said:

' "We'll move everything to get him [Bin Laden]. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America. This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die." '

What does he mean, "this is about Sunni and Shia?" Is he saying that all Muslims of both major branches are his targets, and that he associates them with al-Qaeda?

The inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in this list of jihadi groups willing to use violence does a grave injustice to the many members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who eschewed violence to participate in civil politics. The Muslim Brotherhood has 88 seats in the Egyptian parliament, and Egypt is a non-NATO ally of the United States. Did Romney just declare war on them? Isn't this lumping together of disparate Muslim parties a form of Islamophobia, i.e. religious bigotry?
Not that Romney is the only one who does that, Islam is fair game these days...

I wonder if this (reference to Romney) is as sinister as Cole makes out.

A few years ago when Northern Ireland was close to civil war I could have said "this is about Protestants and Catholics" without implying that the whole of christendom was politically suspect.

I think it is always dangerous when politics are based on religious (or atheistic!) dogma. Faith is for the individual not the government!

[Freddy]

Romney cast 250 vetoes and every one was overridden in his last year as governor. With such a record of being an effective governor in Massachusetts, let us now make him president.
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/REPOSITORY/705030311