Truce Called, How Long Will It Last?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Here’s the background, and the follow-up. (We had a couple of other follow-ups on people attempting to defend O’Donnell and related bigotries that resulted, but this is about O’Donnell.) Essentially he apologizes for “inaccuracies” but remains on the attack at Romney. Some are trying to brush this incident off with a good face, but O’Donnell, and many others, miss the primary point.
He says that he was making a point that Romney was bigoted about secularists, he even plays a clip of Romney. Romney was engaged in a debate about the role of religion or irreligion in the public square. O’Donnell, even had he been accurate in his discussion of Mormon history, was engaged in an effort to squelch religion. There is a big difference that seems to completely escape O’Donnell.
Apology accepted as far as it goes, but this is not over.
Mormons are afraid of what is to come? Prov 27:17 – Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (NAS) ‘Nuff Said.
This is rich irony – NPR, yes THAT NPR, with a piece entitled “How To Rally The Base, And Other Advice For Romney From Former Foes.” The piece is not bad really, I just could not stop laughing when I saw it.
Let us close with a quote from Peggy Noonan’s look at lessons learned from the primary:
Evangelicals are an ever-dominant part of the base, but they don’t march in lockstep. Like all huge blocs they encompass all levels of affluence, education, attainment and aspiration. But one thing was clear this year: The old evangelical reserve, or animosity, toward Catholics is dead. It was the Mormon who carried the Catholic vote. The Catholic Mr. Santorum drew evangelical Protestants. America is great in part because it’s always scrambling its categories and changing its clichés.
Posted in News Media Bias, Reading List | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Lee Allred on 13 Apr 2012 at 10:06 am #
Regarding “iron strengthens iron” comment and the “Mormons are afraid of what is to come?” Guardian article you mentioned. Just a few minutes perusing the rather tart comments there pretty much confirm that Mormons anticipating — unpleasantness shall we say? — due to the electoral spotlight may not be far off the mark.
The Church and its members will weather it just fine but I doubt it will prove an enjoyable experience. The whetstone and refiner’s fire seldom do.
JLF9999 on 13 Apr 2012 at 10:26 am #
As this blog has taught me, we cannot paint everyone who finds our religious beliefs troubling with the same brush. Our church teaches us among others that“…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praise worthy we seek after these things.” I think that extends to people who make good faith efforts to correct past wrongs and errors and be as Christ-like as they know how to be. Even though all of us fall way short of that, we should acknowledge folks who try. Trying is in the nature of an apology.
Mr. O’Donnell did not apologize. It is apparent to this old country boy that he was caught doing something so out of line that his superiors demanded he fix it. That means his only interest was to save his skin. When I read about his apology my BS meter went into over drive. This is not about O’Donnell’s personal opinions of Joseph Smith or even Mormons. His diatribe was a call to arms to all those who harbor ill feelings towards Mormons and maybe even people who have like problems with positions the Church has taken. Allowing a Church representative air time to correct O’Donnell’s rant is like telling the victim he can have a little time to make counter arguments. That is no apology. So, just in case Mr. O’Donnell has some occasion in the future to truly repent, a real apology goes something like the following.
I apologize to those people who are offended by my ill-advised comments on the beliefs of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was out of line and I will cease making such harsh comments in the future. I ask those I offended for their forgiveness.
Michael on 13 Apr 2012 at 12:18 pm #
I noticed that the clip O’Donnell played of Mitt saying that Obama wanted to establish a new religion ended rather abruptly and in mid-sentence which, to me, is a red flag that we weren’t getting the whole story. He then went to great lengths to accuse Mitt of lying about Obama. If you listen to the whole thing in context, it’s clear that Mitt didn’t mean that Obama wanted to establish a formal government religion as O’Donnell suggests but rather that government is, indeed, intruding on religious liberties. The HHS mandate for providers to include contraception, even if it violates their religious beliefs, is an example he discussed.
O’Donnell already has a reputation of being a disparager of all things Mormon so his apology rings hollow, especially since he uses it to try and land another feeble zinger against Mitt. How this guy continues to have a job on any cable news network continues to amaze me.
If you are interested, Mitt’s entire comment can be heard here: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-obama-wants-establish-religion-called
coltakashi on 14 Apr 2012 at 6:30 am #
Even with the advantages of Obama holding the White House, it seems to me that Mitt Romney has a better chance of defeating him in this election than if he had been the nominee in 2008. A major factor affecting any Republican candidate was the financial crisis that began under Pres Bush and the natural tendency to give the other political party the opportunity to try to solve it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were front burner items and the Republican candidate was inheriting Bush’s mantle of responsibility. And in a historic moment between the opportunity to elect the first black president, and erase some of America’s collective guilt over centuries of abuse of African Americans, versus the opportunity to elect the first president who is a Mormon, a religious minority that no one in particular feels responsible for persecuting now or in the past, and which have the ongoing irritating habit of growing at the expense of other churches and of becoming increasingly prosperous to boot, the symbolism would have overwhelmed the individuals, just as it did with Obama against McCain. McCain appeared, to me, to be reluctant to campaign on the contrast between his many years of signal accomplishments and Obama’s utter lack of real public achievements. He was also unwilling to campaign on image, as the Naval pilot and his years of suffering as a POW who overcame and roared back to serve his country in Congress without fear of either party. Obama’s personal experience of deprivation as a black man in America was mostly secondhand, while McCain’s suffering as a POW was excruciating and years long. And McCain failed to showcase his multi-racial family and establish that as part of his narrative. And so we got a president who was elected by people who thought they were voting for another American Idol contestant, not hiring someone to do the toughest job in America.
So I think that, saddled with the legacy of Bush 43 at the unpopular end of his administration, and the battle of image versus reality, Romney would have lost the same way McCain did, and would have been a footnote in history.
In this election, Obama is saddled with his own record, in which his signal accomplishment is the thing most voters hate him for. He has ended the Iraq war and now has to defend the war in Afghanistan and the ongoing use of Guantanamo Bay, neutralizing them as issues. Attacking Romney because he came up with one of the ideas incorporated into Obamacare could be a factor in the primaries, but is not a winning argument for Obama himself, who cannot attack his own program. And the thetapeutic benefit of electing a black man has already been achieved, and will not be factor beyond those who would support any Democrat.
Finally, the different nature of this primary, with many more proportional vote contests, has actually made it more meaningful as an expression of the will of the majority of Republicans, rather than the chance factors that allow a person with a slight plurality, but a definite minority of the votes, to claim delegates that do not tepresent the will of the majority. Winner take all contests when there are three and four contestants are more akin to lotteries rather than elections, and fail to build a real consensus among primary voters. This time around, Romney’s large delegate lead represents a real consensus of Republican voters. And the contest has definitely made him a better candidate, and established his image as a winner of elections, all over the country. He has won in a fair fight, and established that the only shot that the most conservative voters have to unseat Obama is Romney, who has been supported by many of their neighbors.
The Left who hate Mormons for being politically conservative and enthusiastically religious also hate Evangelical Christians for being conservative and enthusiastically religious, so being Mormon makes little difference in the general election. Do they claim Mormons are racist? They say the same thing about all Southern whites. Look at Eric Holder insisting Texas cannot be trusted with a voter photo ID requirement that is standard in many other states and has been upheld by the Supreme Court!
I also think that if Obama fails to denounce any significant attacks on Mormons he will suffer a backlash, of which the attack on Ann Romney for being a “non-working mom” was just a minor foretaste. Appealing to religioys bigotry would undermine the core of his public image, and only revive questions about his own religious upbringing. He is largely neutralized on his ability to capitalize on Romney’s “weird religion” and the efforts to portray Romney as a 1950s “Father Knows Best” dad actually neutralize any concern about his “weirdness”.
So Romney has a better shot at the presidency now than if he had been the nominee in 2008. The nation’s suffering has made it clear that we need someone who has experience in turning bad situations into good ones.
Rockgod28 on 14 Apr 2012 at 10:51 am #
As November 2012 draws closer and the political strategy of Barak Obama of class warfare starts to collapse under the weight of the economic reality of failed White House economic gambles; the allies of the Democrats will come out in force against Mitt Romney.
The only way for Barak Obama to win the 2012 election is for him to portray Mitt Romney as a horrible, polluting, wild-eyed Republican that hates women, children, blacks, the poor and Americans in general.
That is going to be a really hard sell with Romney’s accomplishments and achievements on record compared to Obama’s failures.
There will only be one avenue left open to Obama to exploit if he wants to keep the White House. This also is a losing strategy, but a damaging one if he tries it with his allies.
Religious bigotry of the type O’Donnell tried.
Now Lawrence O’Donnell made a mistake of being the one to attack Mormonism and exposing his bias. Not a smart move on his part. If he was smart, O’Donnell would have ‘guests’ on his program pushing his agenda of attacking Mormonism.
Dozier, LGBT, and other similar organizations would line up at the chance to discuss Mormonism’s short-comings compared to their lofty standards of civility they would try to present themselves to be to Americans.
Prop. 8 showed an underlying anger, hatred, and bigotry just below the surface against Mormons. A combination of political alliances would assault Romney’s faith from feminists, race baiters, and gay marriage to distort the real issues of the 2012 election.
Genuine people who care about these issues who are Mormon will use the political climate to hopefully pressure the LDS Church into changing policies and practices in favor of their agenda. The article from the Guardian proves that is exactly what is happening.
The happy, peaceful, bubble of political obscurity is popping as the fires of political power approach the members of the Mormon faith again.
It was this fire that got Joseph Smith killed. It was this fire that kept Utah from becoming a state for nearly fifty years. It was this political fire that caused the US to invade Utah with an Army in 1857 on false reports of rebellion.
The main focus for President Obama as the election gets closer and the fear of losing becomes a reality there will be only one play left to make against Mitt Romney.
Race.
The ban on the priesthood to exclude Blacks and other races from joining will be front and center.
Before I go on to talk about this subject I want to point out some facts. First most Americans have no idea about their history, and especially the religious and racial history of the United States. It is a fact that over seventy-five percent of US Citizens would fail the Naturalization test an immigrant has to take to become a US Citizen.
Questions like: What were the names of the original Thirteen Colonies of the US? Who is the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? How many states are there in the United States? (57 right?)
So if most citizens fail such a basic test how could anyone expect an average citizen to know the history of the United States when it comes to race and religion.
Lawrence O’Donnell and those like him will count heavily on people not knowing the history of the US at all.
Let us start at the beginning. September 17th, 1787 was a great day in the history of the US, however during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia there was a huge stain on the delegates of the convention: The issue of slavery that was a contradiction to the declaration of independence of the United States. The Southern states of North and South Carolina threatened to withdraw from the convention over this issue. In the end there was a compromise.
The importation of slaves would end 20 years after the ratification of the Constitution to end the increase of slavery. On March 4, 1789 Congress was seated and then on April 30th, 1789 George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States of America. At that point America with the US Constitution, as we know it, was a real living document implemented a new form of government unlike any in the world.
That meant in 1808 the importation of slavery was to end and the Southern economies had twenty years from 1787 to adjust their economies from slavery to end the practice. As we all know that did not happen and slavery continued. It continued illegally as the importation of slaves continued and the laws of the US were manipulated to increase slavery to other new states. Again it was contradiction of the founding principles of the United States and a violation of the compromise of the original Constitutional Convention to end the practice of slavery.
In 1820 the importation of slaves continued and was then a crime of piracy that could mean death to those caught.
It got worst as instead of ending, slavery continued. Laws again in contradiction to the original compromise of stopping the increase in slavery continued in new states.
Democrats controlled two of the three branches of government to get ‘compromises’ on increasing slavery that started in Missouri. Slavery was not supposed to go beyond Louisiana. It did and the at the same time of the Utah War in 1857 there was the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling of the Supreme Court. That ruling made any compromise moot and freed slaves were no longer safe in Northern States that did not allow slavery by State law.
That changed everything and the Underground Railroad had to go all the way to Canada.
The bottom line is that America was racist. The South’s biggest fear was the rebellion of slaves. Draconian, cruel laws in contradiction to the founding principles of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were enacted to increase and support slavery.
Religion changed in 1830 when Southern Baptists and Methodists argued for the compatibility between Christianity and slavery. A year later rebellions were such a concern that 1831 slaves were forbidden from learning to read or write.
Just because the Civil War was over there wasn’t a cultural change that happened overnight about other races. In fact it was just the opposite with the rise of the Klan. Blacks and other races were murdered and assaulted without relent. In areas of the South where Republicans had majorities, because of the murders, no Republicasn voted in some elections.
The Klan spread to many parts of the US and was just not isolated to the South of the US. This is not just about the Klan, but an attitude of racism that was pervasive for a long time even after the Civil War, in religion, politics and economics.
America was racist and dangerous for Blacks and other races.
Now how does that relate to Mormons?
Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States. His platform was one of freeing the slaves, respecting the Native Americans and other controversial issues that to those supporting racial inequality raged against to the point they assassinated him and his brother Hyrum. This was after Joseph had been tarred and feathered, fed poison after chipping his teeth, an Extermination Order on all Mormons in Missouri and false accusations (like Lawrence O’Donnell’s) caused him to be imprisoned in practically a freezer, and nearly outright murdered a few times before his assassination.
No official reason was given for the ban on Blacks and other races for exclusion from the Mormon priesthood. In fact an honest answer to the question is ‘I don’t know.’
There were opinions, but those were not official doctrines or practices of the Church. With 20/20 hindsight of the past it is much more clear now the reason for the ban was not because of the inferiority of Blacks and other races, the superiority of whites, or other even spiritual types of explanations.
The reason for the ban was that America was racist. Whether you agree or not, a holder of the priesthood is a representative of Jesus Christ. Imagine for a moment Blacks and other races holding offices in Church and missionaries. In ‘racist’ American more fuel would have been added to the fire of bigotry to the Mormon Church between 1830 and 1978.
Not only was this to protect the current membership of the Mormon Church, it was to protect Blacks and other races from the scorn, hatred and outright murder of representatives of Jesus Christ.
Whether you agree or not, a holder of the LDS priesthood is a representative of Jesus Christ. The South in its condition of after the Civil War and after to the Civil Rights Movement would have been one of murdering servants of the Lord, not that they were doing that already. God spared the United States and gave its citizens time to repent of the sin of slavery as a country and then repent of racism.
America I believe has truly repented of this grave sin and has forsaken it forever as proof in a Black President in the White House now.
For over 33 years since 1978 ALL worthy male members can hold the priesthood and the Mormon Church has been consistent in upholding this practice which will remain forever.
So this means that Mormons (according to divine revelation; even though no official reason was given) could have withheld the priesthood not because of racist attitudes in the Mormon Church, but directly because of the racism of America in general. The weakness of Americans and the sin of pride were worked on by a merciful God until the blessed day of extending the priesthood to all worthy men.
It happened. God softened the hearts of the people of the United States and upheld the principles of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.
So would Team Obama really want to make the accusation of racism? Only when they have no other choice after class warfare fails. Even then it is a losing argument in the face of the Extermination Order from Missouri, Utah War, discrimination and bigotry Mormons have historically faced from the United States.
Mitt Romney will be President of the United States and the political fire will only increase for Mormons as the spotlight turns intense.
“Fear not, little flock, do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail. Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I commanded you. Look to me in every thought; doubt not, fear not. Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.” D&C 6:34-37
RunHillaryRun on 15 Apr 2012 at 7:44 pm #
O’Donnell is so disingenuous.
He speaks of frequent contact with authorities of the LDS Church. If true, he well knows the name of the church. Yet, at the end of his “apology” he cites the name of the church by truncating the name.
He is like all others that hate Christians. He drops the most important descriptor of the Church’s name: “Jesus Christ.” The easiest and best way to truncate the name is to drop “of Latter-day Saints.”
This was no mistake and in my opinion, is the “tell” that outs the sincerity of his apology.