by Melissa Harris-Perry
In this election cycle, on the Republican side, just-about everyone who’s running a real campaign is getting a chance to be the front-runner for a while. Even though newspaper columnists and politicos have been using the word “inevitable” to describe Mitt Romney for weeks now, he is not leading in the polls.
Given the cast of characters he’s running against, Mitt Romney probably should be the far-and-away front runner. He’s not. Certainly part of that has to do with his being seen-as “boring” or a “flip flopper” or insufficiently credentialed as a moral conservative.
But that doesn’t explain who is the front-runner right now. We are in the midst of the Newt bump right now. Newt Gingrich is in the lead among Republican voters.
Newt Gingrich is a man whose moral conservatism has also been questioned and who is also famous for flip-flops—including some doozies this election cycle. Remember when he called Paul Ryan’s kill-Medicare budget plan “right-wing social engineering” and then took it back and said anyone who ever tries to use his own words against him is lying?
So, Republican voters are saying they’d prefer the perhaps-questionably socially-conservative flip-flopper whose campaign looks more like a book tour than a presidential campaign over the perhaps-questionably socially-conservative flip-flopper who’s running a serious presidential campaign.
That seems weird, right? It suggests that something else may be afoot in Republican primary voters’ reluctance to get behind Mitt Romney.
Here’s a glimpse into one possibility of what might be dragging Mitt Romney’s campaign down from the Pew Research Center. Their latest survey, out today, shows that Mitt Romney’s religion— his Mormonism— is likely a factor in his candidacy in the Republican primary. The survey found that, among white evangelical Republican voters, 15 percent say Mr. Romney’s religion would make them less likely to support him.
Among all Americans, the survey asked people to give a one-word impression of the Mormon religion and the results were “About one-in-four give assessments that are negative in tone." Overall, "cult" is the most frequently used word.
Let’s be clear: if you’re a Republican voter, there are plenty of reasons to want to reject Mitt Romney as your party’s candidate. But his religion should not be one of them. If Mitt Romney is being rejected for his Mormonism, then Republican voters are demonstrating a troubling bias that has much broader implications.
So let’s pause for a moment. I don’t want to engage in a theological debate about Mormonism and whether Mormonism is a good or bad religion, whether it has troubling doctrine, funny beliefs, or strange practices. It is a religion after all and most world religions have what some people, somewhere would consider funny practices, troubling beliefs, and histories that include abusive actions against other groups.
What’s important here is that, the very thing that conservative evangelical Republican voters seem to be expressing angst about—Mitt Romney’s Mormonism—is the thing that makes Mitt Romney part of a group whose American story is marked by experiences of oppression, rejection, and second class citizenship.
Given the history of Mormon exclusion in this country, one might expect Romney to show real empathy for Muslims whose religion is distorted and degraded. Or for undocumented immigrants whose families are devastated by government policies as many Mormon families were in the 19th century, when Mormons were treated like many immigrants are being treated now— as threats to America that must be expelled. In 1838, Missouri’s governor ordered the Mormons expelled from the state or exterminated if necessary.
It’s almost time to celebrate Thanksgiving. As we gather, many of us will celebrate and reflect on the uniquely American stories of our own families. And my family’s immigration history is, in fact, tied up in the history of Mormonism.
My maternal line are Mormons. My grandfather’s mother immigrated from Sweden with her two siblings after her widowed mother was converted by Mormon missionaries. My great-grandfather’s father came to America as a 19-year-old from England following the Latter Day Saints to Utah. My immigrant ancestors pushed hand carts across the American West during the Mormon expulsion and I even have a maternal great-great grandfather who was imprisoned for polygamy. When he married multiple wives the practice was legal in the Utah territory. But when Utah entered the Union in 1896, his plural marrriages became illegal. Despite these laws, great grandfather Cooper refused to abandon his family. He served time in prison as a result. My own mother, though she left the Mormon church as an adult, was raised as a Mormon and attended Brigham Young University, graduating in 1965.
My American story is both the story of enslaved ancestors sold on the street corner in Richmond, Virginia on my dad’s side—and of a persecuted religious minority in the American West, on my mom’s side.
As we pause at Thanksgiving to celebrate a nation that, for all its shortcomings, makes a story like mine possible, it is a moment to celebrate our diversity, not to cower in fear of difference.
So to GOP primary voters, please feel free to reject the candidacy of Mitt Romney, but don’t do so because he is Mormon.
I’m happy to provide you with whole list of much better reasons!
Leave a Comment:
It's kind of the height of all irony that Mitt Romney has been going out of his way to court super conservative religious bigots and now we're supposed to be appalled that they're um well, super conservative religious bigots. They aren't going to change that just because he's on their side.
Just calling them bigots is rather tame considering all the comments that follow. It is amazing to me the amount of intolerance and hate by a group of people directed at another group of people because you disagree with them and think they are being intolerant and hateful. Talk about irony.
The following is the best description I've heard about the situation.
I grew up with similar religion.
RobDon, you're a total crack-up. Bigot is the strongest word used, and the strongest emotion expressed by Monique, and "all the comments that follow" is only:
"... and now we're supposed to be appalled that they're um well, super conservative religious bigots. They aren't going to change that just because he's on their side."
When intolerance and hate are all that is coming from one group in the country, aimed at every single other person and group in this country, it tends to make you (the target of the intolerance and hatred) a little defensive.
Religious republicans are trying to drag the entire rest of the country down their dark, dirty rabbit hole, and we don't want to go. The harder they try to control our behavior according to their narrow-minded agenda, the harder we resist.
Sending police to savage the 99% isn't going to solve the problem, or make it go away. Telling people to take a bath and get a job is the height of condescension, especially when you know you sent the jobs overseas!
You cannot defend the indefensible, and what christian republicans are trying to do in this country is indefensible.
The pendulum swings. The farther we swing to the right, the harder and more violent the swing to the left will be. When 99% of a population feels disenfranchised, that's a LOT of energy and it's going to be channeled somewhere.
Salamander Society ... what a hilarious site.
From FAQs:
If all they did was contact relatives, that would be quite tame. It's what they then do when relatives tell them the whereabouts. That's where it gets sick, Satanic and insidious, not to mention criminal—"coercive mind control tactics" fits very well. Yes, Virginia, the Mormon Church is, indeed, a cult!
All religions are cults. Some are more established and are taken more seriously, but all religions are cults. They may even refer to themselves as sects. Like insects? Praying Mantis.....
Pray/Prey
Censer/Censor
Pew/Pee-yew!
How many more words do we have like this?
If you believe in burning bushes that talk, and magic hats, your thinking is suspect, and you should not be president.
Going door to door and telling people they should also believe such nonsense or they'll be punished should be stopped. If I choose to enter your church, tell me any of your stories you want, but on my own doorstep? Eff off!
Or better yet, said best by one of my favorite authors, the great, wise and at times ruthless Caroline Myss, PhD:
You don't support the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause?
Oh, so we need to swim for our jobs, now. At least that addresses the bathing issue. Kill two birds ...
Not when it comes out of the church and lands on my doorstep in the form of earnest young men telling me I'm going to hell, no. Not when old women are trying to hand me copies of the Watch Tower, no. Not when there's a damned cross on every hillside in America, NO!
Would you like to see an Ankh, or a Star of David on every hillside in America? On every dollar bill?? Christians are far and away the most obnoxious, in-your-face religion in this country, and I'd like to see that changed!
There is a cross on top of a hill in Escondido, CA. A huge fire burned right up to it, and then stopped. Christians hailed it as a sign. An old folks home down the hill burned to the ground. Evidently, that was NOT a sign. So christ cares about crosses and not sick old folks. Yeah. I believe that. Symbols are more important than people. Fits right in with the behavior I see from christians every day. Been proselytized by clients and then stiffed on bills for work I did. christian behavior. Definitely.
Sick to death of christians, I am. Stopped from proselytizing they should be.
When the moron temple was built in San Diego, a freak storm boiled in off the ocean and lightning struck the Angel Moroni (!). A week after the angel went up, nature hit it hard and left it blackened. There's a "message" for you!
Christians are intolerant, and I'm tired of being the target of that intolerance. I choose to think for myself, and not to engage in magical thinking. I do NOT approach everyone I meet and tell them that rocks talk to me. That would be weird.
So why would anyone else think to approach me and tell me a 900 year old man saved the animals from a flood, and that's why we have fleas!?!
Really? You believe that? And you don't feel compelled to keep it to yourself??? That's like saying there really are monsters under the bed once the lights go out!
I also don't support the second amendment. I don't think anyone should have guns! But here we are, the most heavily armed country in the world. Armed, christian and poor. There's a combo.
Bathing and obesity issues! Yes, a trans-atlantic swim is just the thing!
I fundamentally disagree with your thesis. Belief systems are not inherited, despite the sad practice of childhood indoctrination. Any adult who attests to a religious worldview should be judged on the basis of that worldview. One would have no hesitation in making assessments of a person’s character given their stand on economics, politics, art or philosophy. Theological ideas deserve no special place isolated from criticism. Yet, it seems polite in our society to give sanctuary to the very ideas that the religious say are defining. Mormonism contains, in almost equal measure, beliefs that are weird and wicked. The ultimate irony is that those christians who mistrust Romney on the basis of his faith hold to be true fantasies that are no less perverse. So, rather than not judging Romney for his religion, creating a situation in which no amount of theological idiocy merits a moment’s consideration, everyone should be judged on his or her religious ideas.
I disagree. I feel privileged to live in a country where people ideally have the freedom to practice or express individualistic ideas, where conformity to an ideology is not culturally enforced on others.
I don't think it really need be said, given that your interpretation of what I wrote it so illogical, but I didn't say that people shouldn't have "freedom to practice or express individualistic ideas" or that conformity to an ideology should be enforced. After reading what I wrote did you really think that I was advocating for a totalitarian state? On the contrary, I'm arguing for a completely open society in which religious beliefs, like all others, are open to criticism and judgement. In any other realm of thought that would be wholly uncontroversial.
@Gareth - I get what you're saying. If someone says, "I believe everything in this book." and then you read the book, then I think you're allowed to judge them based on what is said in the book. But that may not be the whole story.
I believe anyone who says that may not be totally honest with themselves, especially when it comes to wholly unbelievable and illogical ideas. I imagine there are several levels of justification and clarification of the meaning of the words in the book that the person holds true, but is not conveyed in the literal translation. So, it's up to us to ask more questions to clarify someone's worldviews rather than using our own interpretations. If something is disagreeable to me, I try to see their point of view and reason why they would hold that view. Since we can't read minds, asking more questions is the only way to really understand. But, even then people will be dishonest so you can never really "know" for sure.
Personally, I think Mitt is very dishonest and will say anything to get what he wants. I find this true for most successful businessmen I've met.
"Any adult who attests to a religious worldview should be judged on the basis of that worldview."
No, people should be judged on the basis of their character, NOT on the basis of what they do or don't believe. That belief is itself an illiberal and undemocratic belief. The assertion that everyone should hold only those beliefs one approves of is called fascism.
"One would have no hesitation in making assessments of a person’s character given their stand on economics, politics, art or philosophy"
You should NEVER judge someone's character on those grounds. We liberals (and conservatives as well) believe in freedom of conscious and freedom of thought. Perhaps you would be happier goose stepping with everyone else you approve of. Most people do not agree and do not want to live in your hell.
Again, this reply is so utterly without merit that is barely deserves a response. Firstly, it's nice to know that you talk for most people. I wonder how you achieved such a high position in society? Secondly, why delineate the group for which you claim to speak (liberals), then parenthetically include conservatives and then go on to say that you talk for "most people"? You're rather falling over your exalted positions there. So let me summarize your reply: making judgements about people because of their worldview amounts to forcing everyone to live in a fascist hell. That really is beyond stupid and, as the voice of liberals everywhere, you really should know that thoughtless demagoguery/hyperbole almost negates anything you say.
Let me disprove your only and pointless repeated contention by counter example. You meet a person. The person says to you, "I believe all children should be mutilated at birth." Are you really going to tell me that you would not make a judgement about that person on the basis of his belief? Of course you would. Similarly, if a person says, "I'm a neoconservative. I believe that the welfare state should be wholly abolished and that America should pre-emptively attack Iran", then it is inevitable that an automatic assessment of that individual would follow on the basis of the stated worldview. My argument is that religion is not but should be held to exactly the same standard.
Finally, go look up the words "fascist", "liberal" and "democratic". Your use of those terms show you have no idea what they mean.
If someone believes being gay is a sin and gay people are going to hell, I most certainly am going to judge them based on that belief.
If someone believes women are the lesser sex and should submit to men, I'm going to judge them.
If someone believes black people bear the mark of Cain or believes slavery is acceptable, I'm going to judge them.
If someone believes poor people are just lazy, yeah I'm going to judge them on that belief too.
While people are free to think these things, it doesn't mean they can't be judged for holding those beliefs. It's just that there should be a distinction between specific beliefs a person holds, and the religion they belong to.
Religion should be scrutinized, just as any philosophy should. But you can judge a religion without judging the individuals within it, and you can judge an individual's specific beliefs without necessarily judging their whole religion.
@Gareth, oh, by all means feel free to judge away. This IS America. I'm just saying I will not be pressured into judging you based on your personally expressed ideology that we all should judge others based on their ideology.
Any belief based action or behavior that impacts others not living under the same, is fair game.
It's the history of oppressive regimes that propagated foul generalized profiles of all religious persons, in order to recruit the cooperation of others who sought cultural assimilation, safety, or national sovereignty ruled by a singular view, that gives me the shivers.
Few national travesties compare to the mass killings during the Russian Civil War, when the Red Army of the Bolsheviks (Lenin, in the aftermath of their success) set out to purge the country of all religion, and religious persons. The opposing White Army with it's diverse collective force, along with the support of Allied forces, unfortunately failed, and the emergence of the Soviet Union's State Atheism was indoctrinated from 1928-1941, in disregard of the 80% population holding various religious beliefs.
It's the idea that theology must just be accepted that's the problem here! Nothing should be accepted without critical examination, and religion doesn't stand up to critical thinking. That's why religious people insist their ideas can't be challenged, and must simply be accepted.
What's really sad is the pc among us who say, "okay, I won't judge, criticize or examine your beliefs, or your attempts to control everyone else according to your beliefs."
Nothing should be accepted without critical examination. Question Authority. Eschew Obfuscation. Think For Yourself!
@Peanut. Yes, attempts to control the lives of others against their will is bad. Obvious political and social realities aside...
Religion is not a hard science. Belief systems are not principally designed to define the world so much, as for each of us to define ourselves within it. It is not my burden to convince another my chosen way is best for ME, but only for them to allow me to be.
My discomfort with our society is that we practice selective tolerance, according to our own associated interests or beliefs. In this, the result is encouraging mass judgement, while excusing the individual. How much better could it be, if groups would challenge individuals within their own "house" when said "non/faith" is used to accost others.
As a side note:
I have been to blogs on the right, that are aware and disagree with their party direction. But they know not what to do, for as they glance left for alternative ideas, they see, and are skeptical of the same universal human frailties that have led them astray.
Locknpost, I think there are definitely times when we need to control the lives of others against their will; for instance criminals who would like to continue to infract. Locking them up for our safety is sometimes necessary. (Nowhere near the rate we seem to actually incarcerate, but if you murder someone, I don't want you wandering around unsupervised!)
Religion is not a science at all, in spite of my relative's efforts with "the church of christian science", and belief systems are specifically designed to define the world.
Christians still go out door to door and to other countries to spread their dogma. They are not tolerant of the beliefs of others. Watch an episode of 200 Kids and Counting! They go to Scotland and get religiously offensive! Watch Sister Wives, where a member of Cody's former church can't listen to what Cody has to say about his own beliefs because he's afraid Cody will confuse him! He's so weak-minded he's afraid exposure to a new idea will just spin him right round and up will be down and black will be white, and the devil will win!
Utah mormon money is in California elections encouraging intolerance by backing Proposition 8 against Gay Marriage.
It would be great if christians would just believe their stories behind closed doors and leave the rest of us alone, but they can't do that. For whatever reason, they have a compulsion to validate their beliefs by spreading them. And attempting legislation according to those beliefs is unconscionable when those beliefs conflict with the civil rights, or the health and wellbeing of others.
Religion does not withstand scrutiny, and the devout are rarely prepared to defend their faith, therefore we are not supposed to question it? Nonsense. There will be no "challenge within houses" because everyone within is so busy bolstering the delusions of everyone else within.
Neither sunshine, nor rain, can I feel the wonder of behind closed doors. If you see me dancing for thine, bear no duty to understand why. Just pass me by.
then why go to church or proselytize? Why not go for a walk in the woods and enjoy it in silence?
You've nailed me as somewhat ignorant. What the hell is "proselytize"?
pros·e·lyt·ize/ˈpräsÉ™ləˌtÄ«z/
Verb:
ahhh. I see. And what is this belief system I own myself to and have been forcing on others for nearly two years on this blog?
I'm not suggesting you are here proselytizing. Evidently you're not here to look up words you don't understand, either.
I'm saying every time I open my door to earnest young men in short sleeved white shirts and narrow black ties, or when an older woman is thrusting a copy of The Watch Tower at me, I feel like I need to shower.
Religious christians are constantly seeking opportunities to blather about the joys of their magical thinking, completely insensitive to their audience and differing beliefs. They remind me of the punchline of a joke about a Jew lost in downtown-somewhere Ireland, and a Catholic and a Protestant corner him in an alley. They want to know how he aligns himself and he says, "I'm a Jew!"
"Yes, but are you a Protestant Jew, or a Catholic Jew?" they demand. Christians can't accept other than (their own brand of) christian, and they're happily out in the world trying to spread the virus. Only they're no longer happy with bodies on benches, now they want to legislate their beliefs onto the rest of us.
Killing an abortion provider does not prove the point about the sanctity of life. It proves you're a savage with a gun. What about all that WWJD stuff? Would Jesus kill an abortion provider? Would Jesus sanction the killing of an abortion provider? My recollection of the bible (it's been years since I read it), Jesus was kind of a peaceable, hippy-dude who wasn't into killing. He was kind of into helping the poor, and not judging people. I don't see much of this in current "christian" behavior. I see a lot of zealotry and intolerance. I see a lot of extreme action without a whole lot of thought. I see a desire to impose a narrow and intolerant religious agenda on a broad and diverse population.
Christians fear gays because they think gays are trying to co-opt the young. Christians fear that other groups they hate are using the same tactics christians use to try and convert others to their cause. (Psychologists even have a term for it...)
I've never had a gay person knock my door and insist I give it a try. I've never had a gay person tell me I'm going to hell if I don't become gay. I've never had a gay person tell me being gay will solve all my problems. No one has ever said to me: "Let go and let Gay!"
Christians are enormous hypocrites and I'm sick of it. Go back to your churches and do some self-examination. Get back to what your religion is supposed to be about and then come back to the rest of us, a little more tolerant and a lot more penitent!
peanut9000 - Well, the reputation of The Nazarene as a peaceful hippy is a bit tarnished by at least a few things.
1. Luke 19:27, where Jesus says: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them -- bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Not all that peaceful.
2. Christian doctrine, confusingly, says that Jesus and God are the same. This is confusing because, particularly when the implications of the Resurrection are considered, it undermines the claim to sacrifice on the part of the father, and suffering on the part of the son. That aside, Jesus specifically instructed that "every jot and tittle" of the law (what Christians call The Old Testament) be preserved, he was not sent to toss out the law. Well, that's an explicit endorsement by God/Jesus himself of the bloody genocide, slavery, and psychopathic violence of that older work.
3. The concept of eternal damnation in a pit of fiery hell from which there is no appeal and no escape doesn't really exist in the old testament, it's basically an Christian Jesus concept. That's a level of violence and brutality that, as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have pointed out, far exceeds that of the most ambitious psychopath.
Hardly a peace loving hippy prescription for how to organize a peaceful, loving world.
Thanks, Gary! LOL, I guess I kept what I wanted to remember...!
Okay, so christianity should be banned as a dangerous and violent way of thinking and acting. Certainly it should be contained so the virus can't infect any more people!
Because, well, it's a book! Might as well subscribe to the philosophies in "The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove"!
As a fan of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I'm reluctant to suggest banning the religious texts, none of them. I think Daniel Dennett as the right idea. We should teach comparative religious studies in the schools. These religions thrive on mass ignorance about their own, and other religions, and by their indoctrination children. We can inoculate the children with abstract reasoning ability, and knowledge about the religions of the world.
Gary, I did not suggest banning the bible. As an author, I'm utterly opposed to banning any books. Ever. Not for any reason. Even the crappy ones that are badly written don't deserve to be banned. Maybe not read, but certainly not banned.
There are so many things we should include in our educational system, but religious study isn't one of them. We can't inoculate children against the poison spewing from their parent's mouths and religions are, by their nature, exclusive.
I am suggesting we ban religion, or at least contain it so it can't further damage society. Dinosaurs and humans never overlapped in earth's much longer than 6,000 years old history, but the Duggars and other ignorant christians are teaching their children this. I think that's child abuse, and shouldn't be allowed to continue. You can't counteract the sheer volume of madness coming from the religious right with reason. They are impervious to reason and fact.
FYI
I studied comparative religions in high school. And I was at an Episcopalian college preparatory school. Those classes introduced me to the Vedatta Society, Alan Watts and Mullah Nasadrin. I am personally all the better for it. What's the problem peanut is teaching religion badly. Understanding other peoples faiths is a good thing.
hey peanut9000, take 20 minutes to let Daniel Dennett try to persuade you on the potential value of the study of comparative religion in schools. The phenomenon you mention is real, but it depends for its success in the unchallenged indoctrination of children. Dennett proposes that this unchecked force of indoctrination might well yield to reason, if only we equip kids with the tools they need to make up their own minds.
Daniel Dennett at TED
Ironically, I also studied comparative religion in high school. I also did a ton of study on my own, reading everything I could get my hands on, and attending a wide variety of services with friends in order to get first-hand experience. I'm even a baptized and confirmed congregationalist who taught Sunday School.
But as long as arts and music, and physical education are not being taught in school, religion should not be sneaking in either. And as long as children are being mentally abused at home, school can't do enough to counteract the damage.
We can't even agree about the kind of sex education our children receive, and parents have the right to opt their children out of such information. Schools and parents evidently also have the right to prevent children from seeing their President address them.
So: as long as it is possible for parents to prevent their children from being adequately and properly educated in public schools, no: religion does not belong in school!
Warren Jeffs has not helped the LDS image, and this may be why modern persecution of Mormons persists. People see the headlines about the now-imprisoned Jeffs and his "polygamist cult", his child brides, and his false self-proclaimed status as leader of the Mormons. What is often overlooked in these headlines is the truth about Jeffs. He is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who ended their polygamous practices in the early 1900's. Warren Jeffs belongs to the Fundamentalist Church of LDS, which broke away from the mainstream Mormon religion. His status as a supposed leader gave him a puffed up, omniscient, perception of himself, and he abused his power by abusing his women and children, and by holding tight control over the men in his compound. Mitt Romney is not a Warren Jeffs, and neither he, Jon Huntsman, or the LDS church condone Warren Jeffs' beliefs or actions. The LDS church is not a cult. It has grown into a mainstream religion, despite its rocky beginnings (and what religion hasn't suffered that?).
Warren Jeffs, the wolf, opts out of sheep's clothing.
Warren Jeffs, the wolf, talks the sheep out of their clothing...
I find it difficult to sympathize with Romney. The white evangelicals don't like him because of his religion, and that sucks, but Mormons aren't exactly a non-discriminatory lot. Black people weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until the seventies. Women still can't. Mormons were largely behind the campaign that sought to overturn the California marriage law--they pumped in tons of money to advertise and scare (literally) up votes to get rid of gay marriage. Gay people aren't welcome at all in the religion--you can be excommunicated for the "sin" of being gay.
So if Romney is being discriminated against because of his religion, he's only getting a taste of what his own church dishes out to other people every day. Excuse me if I'm not reaching for my hankie.
Frankly, I hope the white evangelicals swing the primary enough to put in Newt or someone else equally laughable for their candidate instead of Romney, the only serious candidate they have. It'll just mean that the election will be all the more interesting, getting to watch them blunder their way through speeches, debates, and public appearances. God I wish Bachmann or Palin would run. The white evangelicals practically fawn over them. And every time they open their mouth, Comedy Central has a week's worth of fodder. They would make for a hilarious candidate, if not an intellectually significant one.
Happy Thanksgiving morn, Miss Cora. I'm with you all the way. It DOES feel weird to defend Mitt Romney (and Jon Huntsman, too) against the bigots but that is what is beautiful about America and our Constitution. As Dr. Harris-Perry says, there are a whole lot of reasons not to support Romney; just don't let his religion be one of them. The corollary to that statement, of course, is this one: there are a whole lot of reasons - including their acceptance of unconstitutional religious and other forms of bigotry within their doctrine - NOT to support the Republicans.
Hello CoraH.
This is exactly the reason I don't care for Romney.
Mitt Romney's father is one of the people that participated in changing mormon dogma that used to say "black people are cursed by god". Mitt Romney is not popular with many mormons because of his family involvement in policy changes that allow African Americans to hold high mormon office.
The difficulty is that while Romney may not be a dogmatic bigot, many mormons are, and it is possible that one or more dogmatic bigots will be appointed to high government office if Mitt Romney is elected.
That is the 500 pound gorilla that nobody is talking about.
@ Gareth Lennox
"Firstly, it's nice to know that you talk for most people. I wonder how you achieved such a high position in society?"
I am not speaking for everyone. I am stating general principles that I believe are true and then defending them. The general principle that I advocate is called Classical Liberalism which values religious tolerance and a general tolerance of what others believe. The reason that our founding fathers were liberals in this classical sense is because intolerance towards another's religious or political beliefs is highly destructive to society.
You are in the unenviable position of defending religious intolerance and bigotry. Good luck with that.
"why delineate the group for which you claim to speak (liberals), then parenthetically include conservatives and then go on to say that you talk for "most people"?"
Because the values for which I speak (classical liberalism) include both groups that we today label conservative and liberal. That is why the education you received is called a "liberal education". Because it transmits those values. That is also why even though we today strongly disagree with Republicans we do agree with them that democracy and religious freedom is a good idea.
I am not really sure you want to defend totalitarianism which is a political system that does not tolerate disagreement about religious or political affiliation. But that is your only alternative. So... perhaps now that you understand the issue you would like to change your position?
"So let me summarize your reply: making judgements about people because of their worldview amounts to forcing everyone to live in a fascist hell."
Melissa Harris Perry's position is that we should not judge others on the basis of their religion alone. I agree with her because that is the morally correct view. One of the tests for moral positions is to imagine that one's proposed belief applies to everyone. I am comfortable with the universal application of religious tolerance. I want others to tolerate my beliefs as I tolerate theirs.
You however are in the uncomfortable position of defending bigotry and intolerance. I don't see how you can do that. I highly doubt that you want others to treat you the way you propose to treat them. So you end up claiming some kind of special privilege where you are exempt from your own rules. Expecting others to obey rules you yourself do not wish to follow is inconsistent and immoral. I believe that a society that is intolerant towards the beliefs of others will quickly fall apart into anarchy. History supports that assertion.
"Let me disprove your only and pointless repeated contention by counter example. You meet a person. The person says to you, "I believe all children should be mutilated at birth." Are you really going to tell me that you would not make a judgement about that person on the basis of his belief?"
You mean Jews?? Because that is what the Jewish faith believes. Are you really saying that I should pass judgment on Jews because they advocate circumcision, which is most certainly mutilation?? Really???
"Similarly, if a person says, "I'm a neoconservative. I believe that the welfare state should be wholly abolished and that America should pre-emptively attack Iran", then it is inevitable that an automatic assessment of that individual would follow on the basis of the stated worldview."
Well yes I would disagree with that person but I would not judge them. People can agree to disagree. That is, again, classical liberalism. But I would not judge someone's worth as a human being on their political beliefs alone. Silly liberal me. I believe that all people have intrinsic value as human beings. The way that plays out then in interpersonal relationships is that you set aside those things your friend believes that you disagree with and focus instead on their other qualities. What we broadly call their character.
Do you not have any friends who do not share your religious or political beliefs? I feel sorry for you if you don't. Most people have a word for those who are constantly judging others on shallow political or religious grounds. They're called jerks.
"Finally, go look up the words "fascist", "liberal" and "democratic". Your use of those terms show you have no idea what they mean."
I know what they mean. Here is how I use them: "Fascism" is just a form of totalitarianism. Which is the belief that society should be structured so that everyone holds the same beliefs. Political and religious dissent is not permitted in fascist or totalitarian states. I'm against that. I have already defined "Liberal" as I am using it for you above. "Democratic" simply means a political system where there is some kind of representation of the people. The US is a constitutional republic, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Both are democracies. The existence or not of a welfare state is not a necessary prerequisite for democracy. It is something that people can disagree about.
I am terrified that one of these days someone in the Republican Party will wake up and realize that John Huntsman is the only viable candidate that could take the Presidency. The debates between he and President Obama would come down to practically a tie, the voting would be wholly decided by the Independents (and maybe a few Democrats). So far, I am so happy that the party has been too nutso to even think rationally, that it was one of the blessings I was thankful for yesterday.
I'm with you on that one gramapoet.
As I see it the Repubs demand that their candidate be a true consertive, but they also want a candidate that can win the Presidency. Time after time they like what they see about a new face in the race and then realize that he/she fails in one of thse 2 ways. Their problem is that there is NO human on the planet (well he/she would have to be an American) who is consertive enough to get the nomination from the Repub Party's primary voters AND can appeal to the independnts enough to win without either stuffing the balot boxes or lying in a huge way.
Sorry about the misspellings. It would not let me fix them.
Y'all got THAT right, gramapoetmn!
But, in the mean time - boy, ain't we got fun, watching the 25 clowns tumble around in the VW bug?
I thought Mellissa did a good job of promoting religious tolerance. Her use of her personal narrative was compelling.
I am left with the question of how would a Muslim treated in this forum?
Based on personal experience, a Muslim would get the same treatment in this forum. It has a tendency at times to be an intellectual exercise to justify liberal bigotry.
I was a little shocked at all the negativity on this forum about Mormanism. It's almost as bad as the bigots on Fox and TalkRadio! As a lesbian i can certainly see why some are pissed with them considering their pledge to take away all our rights because of their moral conviction that all us gays are evil and what not. The same can be said for other religons as well. But that's why we have a law in this country that says Church and State are to be seperated--it's just taking us awhile to live up to that. Our time will come. Lets not demonize every follower and paint them with such a broad stroke. Not all christians are are child molesters who hate women, nor are all mormans incapable of making rational decisions. As Mrs. Harris-Perry said in the show last night: "I’m happy to provide you with whole list of much better reasons" to reject Romney as president.
People have limits on what they can tolerate. And, for some, being intolerant of religion and the religious is a sign of rationality. That doesn't make any sense for a lot of reasons, but it happens. We can forget that rationality and reason are about the processes of thought, not a set of conclusions or positions. And it's easy to forget that what seems normal and reasonable to oneself may appear deviant and insane to someone else. It really all depends on what a person's experiences are and what falls within their comfort zone. Tolerance doesn't just happen. It takes conscious effort.
@ MeddlingMonk
being intolerant of religion and the religious is a sign of rationality.
FALSE. Religious and political intolerance are highly irrational responses. Intolerance is an emotional reaction and therefore irrational by definition. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to religious or political freedom of thought. People seem to think that by tolerating religious or political diversity we are approving every weird belief. This is false and illogical.
From the fact that one tolerates an extreme belief like antisemitism for example it does not follow that one approves of or agrees with them in their belief.
And you people have the GALL to call yourselves Liberals.
Gee, Oncoming, it helps to read and quote the whole statement before making the kind of comment you did above. The exact quote was "And, for some, being intolerant of religion and the religious is a sign of rationality. That doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons, but it happens." And you have the GALL to argue the same conclusion?
Thanks for giving me the reason to step into the conversation. with regard to "And it's easy to forget that what seems normal and reasonable to oneself may appear deviant and insane to someone else." In my personal experience many times things that I think in my head seem to be totally rational, until I voice them out loud. And then I realize that the whole idea is wonky and has no merit. I guess as human beings what goes on inside our heads really doesn't have a whole lot to do with reason or rationality unless we make an effort to personally double-check ourselves. I don't think it's a habit most of us have practiced. I include myself in that statement, by the way.
I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving.
@ gramapoetmn-4177227
The exact quote was "And, for some, being intolerant of religion and the religious is a sign of rationality.
It is still making an excuse for religious intolerance and bigotry. "Oh well, it happens" There is no excuse. Not today. Not if you want to be considered a rational, moral human being. It isn't like freedom of thought is a brand new idea. Pretending it's some kind of bizarre exception that only a few can achieve is an offense to everything America and Western Civilization stands for.
"I don't think it's a habit most of us have practiced."
Well that's just too f#$king bad. Tolerance for others is the minimum requirement for being a member of society. If you can't step over that bar you simply don't even belong in the company of others.
The comments here have shown everyone the truly UGLY side of liberals that the GOP rightly complains about. Both sides have something to offer. Life, even politics, isn't all or nothing. Thinking that it is, is insane.
Oncoming: You have a real difficult time with the written word. " I don't think it's a habit most of us have practiced." was referring to the fact that most of us don't stop to double check our thoughts until they have already been spoken.
I agree "it is too f**ing bad" that we don't practice the habit. But it doesn't have anything to do with tolerance, or decency, or mercy, or compassion. It has to do with being human.
I would have thought you would have noticed that tolerance is not a minimum requirement for being a member of this society. The minimum is that you are a part of the species. Especially in this country right now. There is no tolerance in our country anymore - all you have to do is watch the first few debates to see that intolerance is rampant, which is confirmed by this website. The company of others they belong to agree wholehearted with their intolerance - and I'm not sure they want to change that.
If the Republicans have a right to complain about the UGLY side of liberals, they had best move out of their glass houses first. So far liberals haven't cheered at the thought of over 200 executions, suggested that an uninsured victim should be left to die, or booed a gay soldier fighting at our request overseas. They (the liberals) haven't suggested that 9 year old children should be paid to be janitors, not have they applauded the idea of alligators in a moat at our borders.
Yes, there are ugly sides to the liberals, and as long as we are mere mortals, there will be ugly sides to all of us. But we don't have the corner on the market. I guess it depends on the degree of ugliness we portray.
"If you can't step over that bar you simply don't even belong in the company of others." Umm, Oncoming, that is a pretty intolerant statement, did you double check it before you wrote it?
"Both sides have something to offer. Life, even politics, isn't all or nothing. Thinking that it is, is insane." 'Nother intolerance. Thinking that life is all or nothing is still just thinking. We can think what we think - the ugly thing is what we do with our thinking.
Uh, no, it isn't. It's a sharp criticism. Gram's right, storm: you don't read things very carefully. You not only misunderstand the part you're focused on, you aren't reading it in the context of the whole comment. And then you can't own up to a mistake.
@ gramapoetmn-4177227
"The minimum is that you are a part of the species."
I disagree. Being a homosapien only is not enough, it just makes you an animal and there is no society of sharks. If one cannot tolerate "those who do not think like us" then there is no society. Period. Because all societies are constituted by people setting aside their individual differences for the greater good. If one is unwilling or unable to do that then logic demands and experience proves that such a society will disintegrate.
"they had best move out of their glass houses first"
The fact that someone is hypocritical does not invalidate their point of view. Hypocrisy is found on both sides and in my opinion in pretty equal measure.
"that is a pretty intolerant statement"
I am not required to tolerate intolerance. I will always call out people when I see it. Either from the left or the right, it doesn't matter.
I watch MSNBC everyday. Hardball, The Ed Show, Rachel, Lawrence... Chris Hays' "Up" is AWESOME. So I decided to start reading the blogs. I normally prefer science or tech blogs. I was deeply disappointed to find the exact same level of religious intolerance here in Rachel's blog that one can see for Muslims on GOP blogs. Only it upset me more because as a liberal I guess I just expect more.
"the ugly thing is what we do with our thinking."
Sure. I agree with that. It's pretty much what I've been saying. People have the right to think and say whatever they want. Though just because one can say something doesn't mean one should. We don't have the right to expect no one to criticize us. That is what I have been doing. I state general principles and then defend them. And I evaluate the responses I get as rationally as I can. Taking the counter argument apart and showing how it doesn't make sense. That's what I do and will continue to do.
"Because all societies are constituted by people setting aside their individual differences for the greater good. If one is unwilling or unable to do that then logic demands and experience proves that such a society will disintegrate."
And our society is so co-hesive right now that the legislators in congress are falling all over themselves trying to pass that Jobs Act and the Buffet Act for the good of our society. Yeah, right!
What there is of our society is fighting tooth and nail to overcome the intolerance and greed of the conservative stance. Lest you question what I see as intolerance, it is the effort to force women to give birth to a child of rape or incest or her ability to survive the childbirth, to try to exile anyone of a different sexual orientation from any chance of having the rights of any other citizen, to limit the rights of oppositionists at the ballot box by limiting their right to vote, to take away the ability to bargain collectively for safety, benefits and wages with employers determined to remove those issues.
Regarding the greed of the conservatives, their intolerance of any portion of the former middle class being able to share in the wealth they are hoarding, the refusal to bring to account the corporations that caused the collapse of the world economic health (to only their benefit), to place a firewall around our President to limit his efforts to accomplish anything for the people that elected him to that office, to take away the jobs of union janitors and force 9 year old children into those jobs, and the beat goes on.
If you don't recognize that our society is already disintegrating (and has been for 30 years) there is little hope for us. Yes, there is intolerance all around us and the answer is to wake up and see what that intolerance is buying us.
"The fact that someone is hypocritical does not invalidate their point of view. Hypocrisy is found on both sides and in my opinion in pretty equal measure."
Yet you find it unacceptable for the liberals to be as intolerant as conservatives? How is Hypocrisy any better? As I read your missive you are saying it's ok to be hypocritical, but not intolerantly hypocritical, especially if you consider yourself a liberal. I find that very confusing, storm. I don't understand that even if you are hyocritical you can have a valid point of view, while if you are intolerant of something your view has no merit. Even you reserve the right to be intolerant (see below) so where does that become totally without merit?
"I am not required to tolerate intolerance. I will always call out people when I see it. Either from the left or the right, it doesn't matter.'
Does that "I" include the rest of us??? We aren't required to tolerate it either, or is there some limit the rest of us are denied to use? The intolerance for some religions does have a point of view with value if you were denied the ability to participate in the full rights of your religion because you were a woman, black, hispanic, asian, or gay. It does have a valid point of view if you were raped by a pastor or priest and the act was covered up by the church. It does have a valid point of view if forced into any act that negates your human rights. Many of the people here are expressing their views because of some personal experience that is the root cause of the intolerance. Not being allowed to express their sentiments contributes to the kind of hypocracy that ignores some of the egregious acts in the past and present of religions. The same is true for politics. I am grossly intolerant of the practices of the last 30 years that has decimated our middle class, removed our right to retirement, denied us an equal footing for earning the most we can by hard work and effort and having jobs and a home as in the American Dream. And, storm, that is my right.
"We don't have the right to expect no one to criticize us. That is what I have been doing. I state general principles and then defend them. And I evaluate the responses I get as rationally as I can. Taking the counter argument apart and showing how it doesn't make sense."
I think that in taking "the counter argument apart" you are also removing it from the context of the argument. To pick out a sentence and reply only to that statement, is confusing the issue in your head. You need to look at the whole sentence and the ones before and after in order to determine if you are preaching to the choir or even more, whether you are beating a sarcastic horse.
"Only it upset me more because as a liberal I guess I just expect more."
Storm, whether we are liberal or conservative, we are still imperfect human beings. I'm sorry to remove your rose-colored glasses, but all of us have clay feet. Realizing that, you may learn to save your arguments for even more important issues that will have an effect on people. Railing at their intolerance while protecting your own is a waste of a really good mind. I have such great respect for your mores and your intolerance of ideas that seem reprehensible to you. But you cannot wage a battle with both sides of the argument.
OK, I'll dislike him because he's:
A despicable human being
A firer of American workers
A pathological liar
A flipflopper
A conservative
In other words, an all around scumbag. The real issue isn't don't dislike him for one of a billion reasons. No, the challenge is to find a single redeeming quality about the man. I've yet to find one.
I agree, Romney's religion is at, or very near the bottom of a rather long list of reasons not to vote for him.
Believing in grandpainthesky says something about your thinking and your character. I will judge him on his religion, and every other thing that shapes his functioning in our society.
He lives in his son's basement??
Isn't voter fraud a crime?
Do we not care about the unethical, illegal behavior of candidates? Willard "Mitt" Romney does not live in his son's basement, nor has he ever lived in his son's basement. And yet he says he does, and votes accordingly...
Rachel: I'm deeply disappointed with your substitute on 11/23/11, Melissa Harris-Perry. In short, her defense of the morman "religion" as some venerable American tradition is deeply offensive. Part of her tack was that somehow the "past suffering" of this group makes them "American" and that that should garner sympathy on our parts. What?! This is the group that amassed MILLIONS of dollars, squeezing their clans of fortunes -- to give to the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California -- to deny gay persons marriage rights. They were a leader in this. But it was more than that. Prop 8 is really a front for a deep institutional hatred of gays, not just something against marriage. And this commentator seemed to miss this and the unavoidably strong link between this initiative and mormon "religion." The mormons aren't a "religious" people. They're a fascist group of fanatics trying to bilk the world out of fortunes for their own purely monetary gain. They were the L. Ron Hubbard kooks of the 19th Century. And that is a perfectly good reason NOT to vote for Perry. Or Huntsman. And before someone chortles that "I'm just as bad," note that at least I'm not going to go out and spend a fortune on initiatives to deny them their basic rights as they have done to me and those like me …
I shall never watch you again, Rachel, as thanks for putting that idiot on in your place.
I agree with most of the negatives expressed here about the Mormon faith, but I also believe candidates should be judged as individuals. However, what the candidate believes about religion is fair game to the extent that it affects his ability to carry out his service to the public.
Religions is precisely and properly one of the first things to assess about a candidate for high office. Take one tiny example: if you belong to any other club of any kind which routinely spread messages of discrimination and loathing for gay people or didn't allow black people into the club, or restricted the participation of women in the club leadership, in America, today, this would disqualify you as a serious candidate. If you call your club "The Mormon Church" (or any other church) suddenly we are to ignore all this and take you seriously as a candidate for the President of the United States?
Ms. Harris-Perry has clearly not thought this one, through. This is just one of many specifically religious issues, such as obsessions with end-times, and suspension of reasoning faculties, which ought to concern all American voters, when pondering political candidates.
Well, I'm confused.
I don't pretend to be enamored with their beliefs, but the treatment of those who have practiced the Mormon faith is an established part of American history. There is much in the American historical tradition that is offensive. We ignore that at our own peril.
Oh my, here we go again, with the "F" word. Accumulating wealth from the vulnerable masses is more a Capitalist precept than Fascist, and hardly limited to the Mormon church. Pay for Pray is fairly common.
Rick Perry, the presidential candidate, is not a Mormon. And Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry isn't running.
A person's ethnic, cultural, or religious ancestry does not equate to who that person is. I would hope that since at one time I worshiped at a Southern Baptist church, my beliefs would not be founded in "if you hold a person underwater long enough, they will come around to your way of thinking". They aren't.
Dr. Harris-Perry's point is that rather than inheriting the traits of their assigned compartment based on a person's attributes, people need to be evaluated for their fitness to perform a task based on their individual abilities and/or faults. That point seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
Perhaps the decision to reject a concept that causes us to examine what we currently believe may be part of our undoing.
Ding ding ding!
@ WGK-4592270
"I shall never watch you again, Rachel"
Concern troll is concerned.
WGK: It is sad that you would stop watching one of the most informative hours on television because you didn't appreciate the view of a stand-in. I thought that her call to vote on the ability to perform the duties was a clear and decent effort, but you see, when people are so wrapped up in their own angst that they won't even question their bias, they are condemned to never being able to move out.
Almost any western "religion" has at one time or another discriminated against Women, Gays, Lesbians, Blacks, Indians, etc. and many have moved beyond that point. As a Lutheran, my synod not only had serious problems trying to incorporate Women and Gays into the full congregation of the church, but when they did the right thing, many churches terminated their connections.
The worst part about condemning any whole religion is that they consist of individuals. To judge them by the church dogma doesn't mean that they live by that dogma to the last period. It simply means that that seems to be their spiritual home for many different and varied reasons. There are beliefs in my religion that I don't agree with or live by, but you see, my faith is in God not the leaders of the church that make bad decisions. My personal relationship with God is simply that. When someone expresses an idea I disagree with, I will confront respectfully my disagreement. So far I haven't been kicked out because of that.
Never watching TRMS is truly your loss, WGK. Don't let the door hit you.
I am a huge fan of Melissa Harris-Perry but on this I must disagree. While she doesn't want to engage in a theological debate about the beliefs, she completely disregards the very recent and suspect beginnings of this religion. I don't have room in this space to go over all the points, but suffice it to say that anyone who takes a thorough look at who founded the religion, what they believe happened in America, and the activities of their leaders throughout their history and still decides that this religion has any validity has no business being president. If you look at it from a purely anthropological perspective and want to explore Mitt Romney's decision making/rationalization tendencies, then his religious beliefs are fair game and should be discussed and debated. And because the LDS church has a recent and fairly well documented history, it gives us a unique opportunity to do so.
True statements about Mormonism, but let's be frank here: The only difference between Mormonism and Christianity is the recentness of it's founding. The march of time may have given Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. the air of legitimacy, but they're all based on the same underlying superstitions and made-up mumbo-jumbo.
ArtlessDodger - you have illuminated the root of the problem. Christians cannot criticize Mormonism on the grounds of it being unsupported by facts, or contravened by evidence, because the bright floodlight of reason would next shine on their own religion. It's the same reason they cannot bring themselves to honestly discuss the problems of Islamic fascism, and persist in averting their eyes and repeating the "religion of peace" mantra.
Melissa, since you're an academic I respect, please do yourself a favor and read "Devil's Gate: Brigham Young and the Great Mormon Handcart Tragedy." The author, David Roberts, lays the blame for the disaster--the largest human tragedy during the entire Overland Migration--squarely at Brigham Young's feet, and I've reviewed a number of other credible historians outside the circle of LDS spinmeisters, and his scholarship is impeccable. With the disclosure in 1852 that the Saints were practicing polygamy, donations from wealthy English Mormons dried up, and Brigham Young sought to economize by using human beasts of burden. And seriously, while what many endured in Utah might not be on par with the abuse your Afro-American ancestors endured, but it was pretty horrific. Many had sent their moneys ahead to Salt Lake, found it had vanished when they arrived, and they were still liable for the cost of their transportation here.
One can't vilify Mitt Romney for this one, but as one who was raised on the propaganda passed off as facts here, your own naiveté is evidence of how widespread the dissembling was. For a church to control information--as they do here--in such a manner is an assault on truth and a crime against history.
Too, since you have Mormon immigrants in your ancestry as well as Afro-Americans, you might well review Young's views on interracial marriage. They were as noxious as any racist in the Deep South...
It is nice to see Cabbie come for a visit
I misread the title... I thought you said "Moron", which seems like a perfectly valid reason.
This is a generalization, but I've noticed Mormons are some of the nicest people I've ever met. Despite religious beliefs and magic underwear, they seem to accept science and the scientific method which other religious organizations are more suspect of. So that tells me that many of them are reasonable. Mitt specifically seems a bit politically dishonest, but I think that is more about surviving the political game than what the book of Mormon teaches.
I don't think being Mormon invalidates a potential president more than practicing any other religion. Just because someone may have an irrational fear of spiders or flying or who believes in a god or luck doesn't mean they can't be rational. We have to accept the human condition with all its contradictions and inconsistencies. You can't define a person with any one generalization.
My maternal grandmother was raised a Mormon. She married a Lutheran. So in the small town in Iowa my Mom grew up in, the whole family went to the Lutheran service, then turned around and went to the Mormon Church for services every Sunday. laughingly my Mom would say, "and if there was a Church party for a holiday we always went back to the Lutherans, because they had beer." She was not a mature member of the Mormon Church, her parents divorced when she was 13. but she never thought of the Mormon Church as weird or unusual. She had LDS friends, always had stores of food in the basement, and used to light her cigarette and say, "When I die, I'm not going uptown, I'm staying in midtown where all my friends are drinking and smoking."
Every religion we have has a horrific history. Mormons killed a lot of native Americans, Christians did too. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, the Crusades. On and on, we could talk about weird and horrible offenses in any religion. The Mormons say Jesus walked through America after he was crucified. Maybe he did. Doesn't sound any weirder than some Catholic or Protestant ideas.
Reject Romney because he has no integrity, is flat and is begging for some notice of eviction. Take Mr. Huntsman instead. They are both Mormons of course, but Mr. Huntsman compared to Mr. Romney is like looking at a book of poetry and comparing that to a book of broken english.
Just a thought.
And another thing. I am a democrat and I like Mr. Obama, but I do think Mr. Huntsman has a strong platform and seem to be a voice of contrition in a world where contrition is needed by a nation that has just voted to invade two nations in the last 10 years.
Be it as it may, maybe we can have a Grover Cleveland Situation with Mr. Obama. Come back in 4-8 years from now, be our 46th president too and by that time, your daughters will be adults and you can concentrate fully on the presidency. Not to mention that you get 4-8 years for family time and planning. Sounds like a win for you indeed.
blogging at: www.sirhenryschimney.blogspot.com
Ms. Harris-Perry,
Thank You for sharing your family History on the subject of LDS faith. Ironicly I was raised in a similar fashion, my mother and my entire maternal extended family are LDS. My mother converted to my father's Lutheran faith when I was 4 yo, so I wasn't raised in that faith. I would spend summers in Utah with all my Mormon relatives. As an openly gay man I am loved and respected by my non devout (Jack Mormon) relatives. After prop 8 I will NEVER spend a day or a dime in UT. If relatives want to see me they can travel to Louisiana, another thing we share. I missed tonight's show, I hoped you would speak about the slur of Uppity used by Limbaugh to Mrs. Obama.
Rush Limbaugh is a slur on the tapestry of America. His "uppity" rant is only minorly better than when he called her a female dog. He should be removed from the media for inciting hatred and bigotry. The removal of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck from any public forum is a dearly held hope in this household.
It infuriates me when any of the major media encourages his pathetic rants as something that is of any interest. Ignoring him hurts him more that confrontation would. He is a bottom feeder.
HISTORY of the LDS church's heinous treatment of African Americans, Women, and LGBT, make me VERY thankful my Mormon mother converted to the Lutheran faith. If you review the horrible lawsuits NAACP had to use to fight LDS, and the barbaric kidnapping of gay teens to Chris Buttlar's MORMON GULAGS, where boys have been held up to 2 years AGAINST THEIR WILL. All to beat and bash the GAY out of them. West Ridge Academy formerly called Boy's Ranch(wholesome sounding name for a torture facility for CHILDREN)..http://mormongulag.com/
http://www.affirmation.org/
The key is to not paint everyone belonging to a particular group with a broad brush.
And, besides, no group of people--religious, areligious, antireligious--is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in the eyes of members of other groups. One bad habit of thought people have in judging others, is that people judge themselves by only their high ideals and others only by their failings. That always makes others come off badly and makes oneself intolerantly self-righteous. I mean, consider Mark's comments specifically. Is there anything on that list that can't also be laid at the feet of non-Mormons? That doesn't justify Mormon failings, but neither are the rest of us in a position to condemn them without being hypocrites.
@meddlingmonk
THERE is NO OTHER faith which call Black people the MARK OF CAIN, decendants of the first MURDER. There is NO OTHER faith which would kidnap a gay teen from his grandparent's hoime on the authority of an UNRELATED step-father to beat the GAY out of him. The West Ridge Academy tells parents in it's OWN literature to IGNORE if their child says he is ABUSED, parents are kept from contact with their son for 6 weeks. I wouldn't let ANYONE babysit ANY child even for an hour ,that told me to IGNORE if the child says they are abused. CAN YOU IMAGINE how much damage they can do in 6 weeks? They claim this tortutre facility is non denominational, but force inmates to memorize the first book of Mormon before they can speak, the only church on their 60 acre facility is an LDS Temple.
Sorry, mark, but you're wrong on all of that. Mormon views of black people have their roots in common 19th-century attitudes. Ditto gay people. All that you are accomplishing is showing that you've got a real thing going about Mormons. And that you're in danger of wearing out your caps lock key.
I love you, Meddling. Your comments turn on my LOL so many times. Don't ever stop.
Stop? I don't have that much sense. Or I have too much sense. Hard to tell the difference, really.
I'm really annoyed by the Mormon-bashing that's gone on in this topic. Full disclosure: I am not a Mormon, I have no Mormon relatives that I'm aware of, and as far as I know no one that I currently know is a Mormon. There's nothing personal in this. But I've taken a kind of academic interest in Mormonism, beginning more or less 25 years ago. I know it's place in American history, and in particular frontier history. The religion is intellectually familiar to me although I have no emotional attachment to it. Mormonism has its flaws and failings, of course, but sometimes people with only a nodding acquaintance with the religion get caught up in it's strangeness and controversies and lose all perspective. In a way, that's to be expected, but it's damned annoying anyway.
I don't really have a point to make in this comment. I'm just venting some frustration over the fact that some people want to make religion, and in particular this one religion, a proxy for other issues.
Like the GOP makes politics a proxy for religion?
Prop 8 is recent history. So is electroshock therapy. Giving African-Americans the priesthood occurred in 1978, relatively recent. And women? hahaha ... . Good luck. **Unless you enjoy being characterized as "pretty flowers in a field." What a euphemism!!
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done...When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy... To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony..."
- Deseret News (http //www exmormonscholarstestify org/)
To think, even otherwise, apparently, is a sin. I believe thinking should be a prereq. for Office of the Presidency. Does Romney look like he thinks much? I mean, we know he's a man (Mitt: The Man), so he certainly is equipped, but will his religion allow him?
Here is the deal acording to the Book of Me. When the correct Mormon comes along that Mormon will be elected President. It occured with a Roman Catholic and with and African-American. It will happen with a woman, a Mormom, a Jew, an Asian-American etc;, etc., etc.
Mitt Romney, whatever his virtues or lack thereof, just ain't that Mormon.
True.
Eisenhower is the last Republican presidential candidate that did not think in terms of absolutes.
While Mitt Romney is not a bigot, the way that he speaks clearly indicates that he thinks in terms of black-and-white and good-and-bad dogma, which is commonly associated with religious education.
Thinking in terms of absolutes is why he believes his own comments, like "corporations are people too, my friend".
A person that thinks in terms of absolutes is a good description of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush (both of them).
This is the reason that Reagan destroyed the FAA, this is also the reason muslim extremists feel compelled to attack the US, and this is the reason Richard Nixon hired burglars.
Romney will do whatever it takes to destroy anyone that disagrees with him, which might make him a good investment, but this would make him a bad president.
The only positive of having Romney as president is that we will have a First Lady, a Second Lady, a Third Lady, a Fourth Lady...
No, we won't - the "real" Mormon Church disavowed that practice long, long ago in this very galaxy. The sarcasm is dishonest and sad.
I once was visited by two very nice young fellows that came to my house to discuss this religion. While I enjoyed their company and even was invited to the wedding of one of them I had to turn them down. For one reason they offered to allow me to be "sealed" to any one of my ex-husbands in heaven. I was appalled! I asked them why, since I couldn't stand being married to them in this world for longer than 2-1/2 years, would I want to be stuck with them forever in the here-after?
The second reason was that when I read the Book of Mormon, I could not read the name of their major prophet without chuckling. Being an adherent of Moron-I was just more than I could handle and I felt in respect to their beliefs it was probably better if I didn't break out in guffaws in the middle of a service when his name was mentioned.
I highly respect some of the tenets of the Mormon church, but couldn't partake of the whole religion. In addition to the above, they were limiting the full participation of women, blacks and gays. Even then, I totally disagreed with that premise. I have the same problem with Catholicism (sp?) and the other religions that disrespect any human being that they believe was created by God. If God created them, how could they possibly be of less value than the male of the any color, race or sexual orientation? I have the same basic disagreement with the Bible. I have never understood how God would declare the extinction of entire groups of people He had created, especially since He tolerated the consistent disregard of His covenant with the Israelites and forgave them over and over.
There ends my sermon, and please forgive the rant. The brain just kept going.
The Republican base's reluctance to support Romney probably IS related to his religion.  The typical (R) primary voter has shown time and again, in both voting habits and in polling data, that they don't care one whit about a candidate's actual policy history, personal foibles or any other characteristic outside of towing the party line on the memes of the day.  One of those memes is currently "are you a Christian?". It's nearly as important as "Do you believe in the lie of supply-side trickle down voodoo economics?" and the all-important: will you promise never ever ever ever ever ever ever to raise taxes?
Since Romney basically says whatever he thinks will get him elected, there can be almost no other reason for the base to currently shun him, other than his magic underpants religion.
Personally, I find the whole lot of them despicable. They act like scoundrels
and pretend to be Christians. When Newt said they were the "party of the
family" I wanted to scream. What have Republican policies done for families
recently? Stolen their savings, shipped their jobs oversees and foreclosed on their
homes. And the Republican family- friendly policies for the future?
Ending their unemployment checks, raising their taxes, taking away their health-
care benefits, dictating their family planning and defunding their schools and
social services. I'm sure I've even left some out. Their hypocrisy is astonishing and
every time one of them opens his/her mouth I get nauseous. Re-elect Obama.
I didn't need a poll to tell you that 25% of white evangelical christians don't like mormons. 25% of white evangelicals in any poll think negatively about whatever other religion than their own brand of christianity.
The interesting part of the poll to me is how this 25% would vote in the general election of Romney vs. Obama. 91% would vote for Romney, and 79% strongly supporting him over Obama. Which tells me that their "negative feelings" about Mormons or the LSD Church are not deeply felt.
That was something I noticed too. I think people have to remember that polls are nothing more than snapshots in time (as my HS American Government teacher used to say). They tell us how people are feeling at the moment, but not necessarily anything about how people felt 2 weeks ago or will feel in another 2 weeks. Honestly I think we poll our citizens to the point we encourage solidification of views that weren't held that strongly (I can't remember what that phenomenon is called in psychology, but it's where the more you talk about something and actively think on something the more convinced you become that your view point is correct). In this particular instance what we are probably seeing is the current Republican pollsters expressing angst about Romney (for various reasons, not just his religion). In their attempt to rectify that angst they are turning to everyone else and vetting that candidate before the national stage in an attempt to see if any of the other candidate shines under the limelight. This does not translate into how people will vote once a primary candidate has been chosen. If Romney gets the nomination (which he probably will) then I sincerely doubt you're going to find a bunch of Republicans suddenly voting or campaigning against Romney solely because he's a Mormon.
Also what is w/ all the Mormon bashing? I'm very surprised.
Why????
I don't disagree that it's a bunch of nonsense news ;-) Just seems everyone's comments are...I dunno...vindictive? Judgmental? I dunno...just seems mean to me, I guess.
Religion has been a giant circle-jerk from the get go. Christians hate Jews, Jews hate Islam, Evangelicals hate Catholics, Christians hate Islam more than they hate Jews, Islam hates everyone, everyone hates Mormons.... around and around we go....
Personally, I think they all stink but as long as they don't impace me I don't care!
Agreed =)
And how could I forget? They all hate gays!
Hi Mouser,
Mormon bashing is mostly due to intolerance of other people that is built into LDS.
The irony is that Mitt Romney's family was instrumental in changing discriminatory LDS policies, so Romney is not even popular with Mormons for that very reason.
It is difficult for people raised with LDS faith to accept facts. Race is by far the single best example.
LDS teachings still include scientific-racism, some of which can be found here.
LDS considers people with dark skin to be cursed by God, and LDS teachings about DNA are still trying to validate racism, which was used to prohibit escalation to high LDS office until the late 1970s. This teaching is incompatible with genetic archaeology that places 100% of human ancestors in Africa (facts are incompatible with faith).
This permeates LDS belief, and you must believe incorrect information like this to be Mormon.
People that have these beliefs are not necessarily bad people.
The problem with LDS is that true believers are very difficult to communicate with because "facts don't mater as much as belief".
Mouzer, I guess all the bashing is because we are all basically human and feel the need to raise ourselves above someone else. Actually, we are pretty ecumenical. The atheists bash the religionists, the religionists bash each other and the atheists, the agnostics withhold a determination. It is regrettable that we simply cannot respect anyone that differs from our primary opinion, but I suppose then we would be in Paradise - and I'm not ready yet.
I believe what I believe and my beliefs are no better or worse that some others. There are those who are so dogmatic that they simply cannot pass on a chance for an insult. I think if we all look at our own chests, we can find a similar feeling in there somewhere.
Just bein' human beings with all the complexity of a Gordian Knot.
I am an atheist...well, depending on one's definition of atheism. If you define atheism as the definitive disbelief in god or gods then I would be an agnostic. If you define atheism as skepticism about god or gods then I would be an atheist. It's OK to talk about religions in terms of their historical context or even in their modern context if the modern context has significant influence on life. I don't blame people for bringing up complaints about LDS' attack on marriage in California or other complaints about the historic actions of Mormons in America. But there is a difference from recognizing historical context, even when emotional about said events, and bashing someone for their beliefs. Just because someone attends an LDS church doesn't necessarily mean that they follow all of the beliefs the religion itself presents forward to the world. At the best you'd be stating that you can't rationalize why people would follow a religion w/ such a history or w/ such and such current dogmatic stance...but if we're going to put up that apprehension then we might as well put it up about all religions. And since the majority of people in the world put up w/ religion for one reason or another it's safe to assume that the reasoning behind religious worship is more complicated than simple rationale over theology or other philosophies and politics. It's that latter fact that leads to me to believe a lot of the attacks against Mormonism are hugely misplaced and, whether intended to be or not, in effect are discriminatory. Since most of us (referring to Maddowbloggers) face discrimination in one context or another it seems unwise or at least just very, very cruel and borderline hypocritical to take up spears against the LDS church.
I fully agree, Mouzer. I seriously don't think there is a religion that hasn't some really ugly skeletons in their closet. I think, that most people really aren't aware of some of them. I know until I started reading about the mainstream religions and their histories, I was almost totally unaware of their dark side. I, like thousands of us had heard about the inquisition (and was horrified by that!), but then I learned about the Albigenses and their total extinction by the church and truly wondered if I wanted to belong to any "religion".
While nominally a Lutheran, my connection to the church is more a committment to God as I understand Him. I have my deep faith which isn't a religion as such, but a personal journey toward a better me. My experience is mine and I don't choose to force any part of that belief on others, nor would I want to. I respect everyone's right to believe as they choose. I only ask that they allow me the same freedom.
"Nothing's right or wrong, it's just that thinking makes it so."
Religion doesn't impact you?
Re-quoting myself, from above:
I basically agree with every comment omfkggod posted!
And I'm really pissed and disappointed in Melissa Harris-Perry essentially setting up a political promotion ad for Mutt Romney and his cult (and yes all religions are cults.)
Individual Mormons may be "nice" people but you NEVER want to live where they comprise the majority pupulation because you will suffer a "second-class life."
I have become inceasingly disappointed in Melissa's program. It really is inferior to Chris Hayes UP program that precedes her. She is a deeply religious person which clouds her ability to be a "critical thinker."
I feel very sorry for Mormon children and the brain washing they are given. As the son of a hell-fire Baptist deacon I can relate. I personally think children of Mormon's and other fundamentalist religions are victims of child abuse.
As an atheist, I consider Romney's Mormonism as a point in his favor. It means this rich slick white guy may actually have enough background to be able to empathize with other people outside the mainstream.
If we had a sane Congress, he'd make an okay President. However, if we had a sane Congress, we'd be comparing Obama to Lincoln, Jefferson and both Roosevelts combined.
As someone who is very familiar with evangelicals, I can tell you they are taught that Mormonism is a cult and the religion is not looked upon favorably. I don't particularly favor religion in general as it usually has lots of rules that no one seems to be able to follow. I prefer to stick to the basics of treating people with respect and kindness, and do all that you can to make the world a better place to live. Peace to all!
Mormon shormon. Right wing evangelical Christianity is just as bad. Religion can be the root of all evil. Leave it out of politics!
I don't give a crap that he's mormon. It's no more ridiculous than any other religion. No, they should not be discriminated against by christianists. But make that argument on the basis of freedom of religion in this country. Let's not pretend mormons deserve special dispensation b/c they're an American religion or b/c their founder was a sociopath and his followers suffered accordingly.
As a practicing SubGenius, I have an appreciation for deliberately silly cosmologies.
As an atheist, lazy, and extremely nominal discordian, I too have a curmudgeonly soft spot for some of the wackier ones.
I disagree with Mitt because of his politics not his faith.
Just a little perspective from my observations, The two individuals who turned to preaching from my high school were from outside what would be considered normal peer groups. They never really fit in socially with any of the multiple clicks, never had typical social relationships thus a difficult time in general growing up. The older i get and the more i interact with preachers, priest, what ever they tend to fall into predictable molds. I tend to get the feeling they are receiving positive reinforcement more from the social perspective than the supernatural beliefs they hold. Moral autonomy can not be weighed against individuals with stronger supernatural belief systems than those without. It does create strong tribal bonds and created a process in which humans have evolved from small tribes into larger units. The issue is or the question should be why do humans have a hard time assimilating from these small bands,tribes,clans into larger collections of people like countries, states, counties, or political parties for that matter. I don't think we were designed to except a large group of humans in our self identified "tribe". History is full of religions killing each other off. Get used to it humans evolve slowly overtime. We are still the only animal on this planet that develops efficient methods to kill other members of our own species and declares war. Happy Thanksgiving!
That's right Cadmus. And religion, instead of helping us rise above our dog-eat-dog mentality and get in touch with our spiritual side, has fueled prejudice and intolerance. What a species! One small step above chimps!
Happy Thanksgiving!