Today’s Reading List – May 9, 2007
UNTIL MONDAY NIGHT, there had been four blatantly bigoted attacks on Romney's faith. All four came from the left. Now Al Sharpton has made it five for five.
There's already been a fair amount of related commentary on the blogosphere. It began with Hugh Hewitt, who linked to the following from the New York Times story on the debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens:
. . . Sharpton, in a jab at Mitt Romney (and the Mormon religion, which Mr. Hitchens had criticized because it once endorsed racial segregation), added, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.”
Hugh asks, "If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those 'who really believe in God,' how great would the outcry be?"
It does seem that Mormons are somehow exempt from certain social conventions that apply to other religions. Hugh has more on that here.
And, of course, the audio is now available on YouTube.
Remember when a conservative Christian leader said God didn't hear the prayers of Jews? That stupid statement provoked a furor throughout the MSM. The bar has apparently been set so low for Sharpton that he seems to be getting away with an even nastier slur against Mormons. And on the recording, did you notice the laughter among the crowd? I hope that was nervous tittering, but it didn't sound that way.
Take-home message: The MSM and the left (but I repeat myself) don't mind seeing a religion slammed, as long as the one being slammed is a faith with conservative views on social issues.
More on this from Rush Limbaugh. And Power Line asks some questions about Democratic leaders' reactions (or non-reactions).
Sharpton tried to wriggle out of the controversy. You decide if you're persuaded. I'm not.
Strange bedfellows: K-Lo reports receiving "many e-mails" from evangelicals supportive of Sharpton' statement. I guess it's not surprising, but a little disappointing. I've got to think this comes from the hard-core group that will never get over Romney's Mormonism. We suspect (or hope) that's a pretty small group. (Canard warning to our LDS readers: some common distortions of Mormon doctrine appear here.)
By the way, the topic of this debate, sponsored by the New York Public Library, was advertised as "the greatest issue of our time—the malignant force of religion in the world." Perhaps that rather obvious slant explains why the sponsors selected an articulate spokesman (Christopher Hitchens) for the atheist side of the debate, and a preening caricature of a preacher (Al Sharpton) for the believers' side.
John comments: Sharpton's comment is horrific to me, perhaps the most horrific of all the religious attacks made to date, yes all from the left. We need to remember why we even know who Al Sharpton is – he is a man who has placed himself in the public view ostensibly to fight against bigotry.
Perhaps, as a Presbyterian white man born in the south, I am not allowed to say this, but Martin Luther King was not only influential on my thinking, I consider him a true and real American hero. Dr. King had a dream. To think that those that pretend to carry on his work would say something like what Sharpton said is nothing short of sickening. That the black community has not risen up in protest over it is saddening.
Has Dr. King's dream morphed so much that it is no longer a fight against bigotry, but just using bigotry as a means to political power? Is it no longer about justice? Apparently that is so in the mind of Al Sharpton and those who follow him. I honestly do not think our nation can stand if that becomes the majority view.
As to K-Lo's emailers – please, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? And isn't that what makes it bigotry? Unless you can prove that Mormon belief will make a substantive difference in how Mitt Romney governs it's like pointing out that Obama is black – a distinction without a difference.
ROMNEY SHOWED UP on Hannity and Colmes Monday night. His comment on The Question (in response to Colmes) was pretty familiar:
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: You spoke with Pat Robertson at Regents University just a couple of days before. He on his Web site, the Christian Broadcasting Network, another entity that Robertson has, says how do I recognize a cult? He says when it comes to spiritual matters "Mormons are far from the truth." Do you have a problem with Pat Robertson saying that about your faith?
M. ROMNEY: No. I think there are differences between different faiths in this country. And there will be battles between different religions.
But what I'm pleased about is that Pat Robertson invited me to speak at Regent University, not because he accepts the teachings of my church but because he believes that the values that I have are values that he shares and that his student body can learn from.
That's a great thing about this country. We don't — we don't decide who's going to be in office based on what church they go to.
COLMES: He seems negative towards your faith. I don't think anybody should be judged on their faith in terms of running for office.
M. ROMNEY: I agree with that, and I think he would agree with you as well. I think he'd say I don't agree with the Mormon church's doctrine, but he'd say, I certainly agree with the values of people like Mitt Romney and others members of his faith. They're doing the best to follow it.
BIAS IN THE ACADEMY: Interestingly, the academic left doesn't like evangelicals or Mormons. Additional common ground, I guess, but not a great commentary on the modern professoriate.
John comments: Once again, it is more evidence of bias, perhaps even bigotry on the left, a political coalition that really rose out of efforts to fight the bigtory and bias of Jim Crow, etc. Perhaps that fact is the best evidence of date of the corruptibility of a world without religion. Fighting for justice, absent the ultimate arbiter of justice, is not justice at all.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Romney has a position. David Brody says:
I'm not suggesting this is a defining issue. I'm just saying that this is a part of the overall discussion about a candidate,especially Romney who already is at strike one with certain Evangelicals over the Mormon thing.
John adds: Well at least Brody has toned it down in the last 24 hours from "most" Evangelicals believe in creationism to "certain." Brody is also missing the essence of Romney's stance; it's a federalism thing. The last thing Romney wants is a federal mandate, through legislation or the courts, on what is a local issue. A Roe v. Wade debacle from the right is no better than that one from the left.
As to the science/philosophy thing, so few people understand what evolution or I.D. is that Romney's statement may be very reasonsable, depending on how he is defining the terms. (Reminder, my graduate degree is in science.) Intelligent Design is an interesting theory gaining momentum, but its scienctific foundations are as shaky as evolution's. The real point is that both are used to draw conclusions that extend far beyond the science and that genuinely are matters of philosophy. This looks to me like Romney understands this much better than David Brody.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Article VI Blog » Telling The Story – Part III – ‘Clowns To The Left Of Me’ on 29 Sep 2009 at 5:37 am #
[...] defeated by those ‘who really believe in God,’ how great would the outcry be?” We pointed out that there was a clear case of double standard in the press coverage because Sharpton largely got a [...]