Religious attacks will increase, not subside, when Romney becomes the nominee
Last night, just as everyone was commenting on the Michigan and Arizona primaries, Salon’s Joan Walsh decided to join what Hugh Hewitt calls “the bigot parade.” Even as Mitt Romney was giving his victory speech, Walsh wasted no time:
freddoso (@freddoso)
2/28/12 7:55 PMRT @joanwalsh: Romney’s saving the soul of America – so he doesn’t have to baptize us after we’re dead.
Now, Walsh is far from a nobody like Charles M. Blow. She an “MSNBC regular and Salon.com editor-at-large.” So we have an editor of a well-known, established online publication sounding like an anti-Mormon who’s had too much to drink at a party — except Walsh was blathering on the Internet.
Guy Benson decided to fight with some wit:
Guy Benson (@guypbenson)
2/28/12 8:23 PMI’m offended by @JoanWalsh ‘s bigoted attack on Harry Reid’s faith.
Seemingly feeling her oats and inspired by her cleverness, Walsh doubled down:
Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen)
2/28/12 8:40 PMRT @joanwalsh: Also, Romney was the one who said he wanted to save our souls, just another apocalyptic, hysterical attack on the president.
Feeling the heat, perhaps, Walsh tried to take half-step back. then took one step forward:
Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen)
2/28/12 8:38 PMRT @joanwalsh: I’m torn: I honor religious freedom. But Elie Wiesel asked Romney to ask his church to stop baptizing Jews incl Anne Frank and Daniel Pearl.
Walsh finally tweeted an apology of sorts:
8:40 PM – 28 Feb 12
However, I believe in keeping religion out of politics and I don’t want to be responsible for everything my Church preaches, so I apologize
Amid all this Melissa Clouthier, a socially conservative tweeter, retweeted an insight:
Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets)
2/28/12 8:35 PMRT @dangainor: Ah irony, brown shirt left will now Jihad against Mormons, forcing social cons to defend Mitt even if they oppose him.
Think about that last one. Over the last 6 years my co-blogger John has repeatedly made the point that a religious attack on one politician is really an attack on all politicians who take their religious faith seriously. There’s no reason to think that Joan Walsh’s repulsive foray into twigotry will be the last by an establishment news media pundit. It will be interesting to see how religious conservatives like Melissa respond. My bet is that they will close ranks around Romney just as they have around Santorum. I hope they can do so before too much damage is done. As we’ve said before, there is power in denunciation.
UPDATE: Yesterday I posted about a Washington Post article that raised once again the Mormon policy against allowing black men to hold our church’s priesthood, which ended in 1978. A BYU religion professor made some unfortunate comments to the Post, which the newspaper dutifully published. Today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published this statement, which is remarkable for its directness:
The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests:
The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.
The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.
For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
This will not satisfy some people, but it’s hard to think of much more than can reasonably be expected.
Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 29 Feb 2012 at 8:47 pm #
The church’s condemnation of racism in our ranks and the recognition that it was social practice and not doctrine is important. It supports previous president Gordon B Hinckley’s statement that even prophets and apostles are entitled to their opinions and to be wrong. To many members, especially the older ones, personal opinions by church leadership vis-a-vie doctrine was a distinction without a difference.
That never felt right to this old country boy. I knew a couple of these men and I know from personal interviews that I was talking with ordinary men not perfect beings. Personal opinion is designed to enlighten not compel but that got lost sometimes among some.
TVHall on 29 Feb 2012 at 9:03 pm #
Re: the Church’s statement
I’d say that about covers it.
JLF9999 on 01 Mar 2012 at 8:30 am #
. Yesterday on Fox’ The Five, lone lefty Bob Beckel condemned the “Jesus eater” comment made some half-wit anti-Catholic bigot Tweeter I never heard of. Beckel knew who this guy was as did the others. Maybe he is just another self-important no body trying to increase his exposure and pump up his profile, I don’t know. The interesting thing was that Beckel, a self proclaimed Protestant, said he might find the opportunity to punch this guy in the chops too great to resist and that the cowardly comment would not have been made about Muslims because Muslims kill people who make such comments about their religion. Not so with Mormons, Catholics and Jews and so it is open season on them. Hmmm. I am thinking about taking back some of the nasty things I have been thinking about Bad Bob.
kgbudge on 01 Mar 2012 at 12:34 pm #
Like I said earlier.
stevenrushing on 01 Mar 2012 at 4:16 pm #
(13 year active Mormon, previously active Southern Baptist)
I remember as a junior in high school we were in Sunday school and there were probably only 3 or 4 of us teens in the room and we had a substitute teacher who I greatly respected and was later made a deacon. He asked us why the association our church was a member of was called the “Southern” Baptist church. I didn’t know, but the guy next to me, who was a year older but not the brightest fellow, said it was because we broke off during the civil war as our preachers and people were pro slavery. I openly laughed at him (I wasn’t the nicest kid, sorry) and said that was silly. The instructor said that that was correct and I was dumbfounded. I didn’t understand how my church could have been so racist.
I remember how my grandfather was a pastor who welcomed hispanics, filipinos and blacks into his congregation well before “mixed” churches were common or publicly accepted. Still, I remember maybe only 15 years ago him telling me that he didn’t do mixed marriages in his congregations because “marriage is important and hard, why make it harder on yourselves and your children”. He didn’t mean that mixed marriages were inherantly harder, but that society was harder on mixed couples.
While I was of a much younger generation and didn’t agree with him at all, I did understand what he was saying and I never thought him a racist. I remember he would ask me to go down to the church occasionally. He would go every day and keep up the little church and mow the lawn. It was (is) arranged on highway 77 in south Texas with a railroad right next to it and illegals would always come up the highway/railroad into Texas to find a better life. He was vehemently against illegal immigration, but he always had food for them as they came up. I didn’t get it, the disfunction between his espoused beliefs and his actions. He always said that it was right to help your fellow man, whether you agreed with what he was doing or not.
Sometimes I wonder what I would have thought of the LDS church’s previous policy had I not had his example.
I don’t know why the previous policy was there, but I am glad it has been changed, for whatever reason it was changed.
coltakashi on 01 Mar 2012 at 5:26 pm #
Once Romney is the nominee, and it is him v. Obama, I think every time an attack is made on Romney and Mormons, the Romney campaign should call on Obama to either take responsibility for that religious bigotry against the faith of his major ally, Harry Reid, or denounce them as inappropriate and offensive. Obama cannot get by with claiming ignorance of such attacks or saying he is not going to renounce attacks on six million Americans. And he cannot hide behind the fact that some Republicans did the same thing. He has a duty as president to set an example for all Americans of religious tolerance and respect for diversity of belief. If he does not take a clear moral stance against religious bigotry, then he has again shown that he is unqualified for that office.
Our Particular Tribute To Andrew Breitbart | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 02 Mar 2012 at 6:55 am #
[...] Commentsheidiglyn on A Weird Postcoltakashi on Religious attacks will increase, not subside, when Romney becomes the nomineestevenrushing on Religious attacks will increase, not subside, when Romney becomes the [...]
Phil T. on 07 Mar 2012 at 12:33 am #
I sent the following today to Joan Walsh and her boss David Talbot at Salon.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
Mormons – members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – have fought and died defending America’s religious freedom along side Jews and other Christian and Non-Christian denominations.
Besides their sacrifice to help protect America’s “first freedom” (i.e. religious), freedoms of speech, the press, etc. were also preserved.
The anti-Mormon twitter comments below, made by an employee of your firm (Joan Walsh), were inappropriate, offensive and bigoted.
freddoso (@freddoso)
2/28/12 7:55 PM
RT @joanwalsh: Romney’s saving the soul of America – so he doesn’t have to baptize us after we’re dead.
Are you considering any disciplinary action against Ms. Walsh? A NASCAR commentator on our local TV station (Ross Shimabuku) was suspended for a week without pay for comments made to disparage Danica Patrick. (see link; http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-from-the-marbles/word-describes-danica-patrick-starts-b-134532444.html).
Ms. Walsh has since apologized. Before it happens again you may want to note the following.
According to New York law, “An employer is liable for the conduct of co-workers, supervisors and low level managers which create a hostile work environment if the employer acquiesced in the harassment, or condoned the harassment after the fact.” Ref. Joshua Freidman, Esq.
Your firm’s lawyers might want to read about the intricacies of hostile-environment law in the city and state of New York and at the federal level at http://www.joshuafreidmanesq.com.
If the facts of a case warrant it I will happily contribute to the legal fund needed to prosecute the perpetrator accused of violating our “first freedom”.
In this age of enlightenment and open dialogue it would really be sad for a court case to end up proving any firm condoned bigotry.
Perhaps in future your employees will treat another’s religious beliefs with respect.
Sincerely,
Phil T.
Vista, CA
cc: Joan Walsh