Article VI Blog

Today, at Human Events, Hugh Hewitt has published a column on anti-Mormon bigotry. His primary target is the Weisberg Slate piece from a month or so ago. We addressed the piece at the time, but we did so dismissively, there is no "there there" to argue with. Was it bigoted?

I think it tiptoed on the edge, but I think to decry it as hard bigotry can be problematic. The left has made a living out of crying "bigotry" where none existed. That anti-Mormon bigotry exists in undeniable - see the Reading List immediately below - and it is very ugly when it arises. The Weisberg piece, however, was not so much anti-Mormon bigotry as it was an anti-religious screed. His arguments where in Mormon clothing, but were not really any different than those that the left throws at religion in general all the time.

That the left opposes religious candidates is no surprise, but the real bigotry usually comes form the far-far-right. To my mind, bigotry implies not just prejudice, but perhaps a tinge of hatred. The 2002 piece Hugh sites was undeniably bigoted with its wisecracks about Jello and Mormon missions; it was ugly. Weisberg was just ignorant, and anti-religious, not anti-Mormon. In fact I would have less problem accusing Weisberg of religious bigotry than I do anti-Mormon bigotry. The piece does not say enough about Mormonism to be that specifically aimed.

Weisberg was sloppy and declarative, not argumentative, but I think he stopped just short of bigoted, at least specifically anti-Mormon bigoted. I think as creedals we should see it for what it was - a shot not just at "them" (Mormons), but a shot at "us" (religion in general). We have more in common with Mormons than we may think.

Lowell adds: I see Hugh's piece just a little differently. He is saying– and I agree– that Weisberg's (and the Left's) shots are aimed at Mormons, but are also going to hit other religions who "believe in the miraculous."

But is it bigotry? As we noted in an earlier discussion, the dictionary definition of a bigot is

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance.

Weisberg's piece may not be bigotry, but to me, it's too close for comfort.

Yes, we're all at risk, but as Hugh writes, the danger in 2008 is that Romney's candidacy will give the secular Left a place to start– with the Mormons:

Weisberg’s attack on Romney is exactly the sort of attack on other Christians and believers in the miraculous that the secular left would love to make routine. To mainstream Protestants and Mass-attending Catholics, the virtual mob against Romney because of his LDS faith may seem like someone else’s problem, but it is really another step down the road toward the naked public square. Legitimizing bigotry by refusing to condemn it invites not only its repetition, but its spread to new targets.

Yet another area in which there is common ground– and terribly important ground at that.

Update: More on this here.

Technorati Tags: bigotry, anti-Mormon, Slate, Jacob Weisberg, Hugh Hewitt