I Hope Hugh Hewitt Realizes I'm Not A Religious Bigot
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Hugh Hewitt — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I do hope Hugh Hewitt now realizes I'm not some sort of religious bigot. I wrote a review of Hugh's new book on Romney, which you can read here. Hugh took serious exception to one passage, which you can read about here. I was on his show tonight to talk about it and I think we agreed while still disagreeing about some of the fundamentals. Hugh wants some bright lines I'm not prepared to give.
Here's where things apparently got controversial.
Please do read on . . .
Hugh started his book with a couple of passages. The first was his statement that "Our nation's abhorrence of religious bigotry was embodied in Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits 'religious tests' for office."1
Now, coupled with this statement of Hugh's from the next page
If any significant number of voters disqualify Romney from their consideration because of his faith, it will be a disheartening breach of the Framers’ contract with themselves and their political heirs on the subject of religion’s place within the American Republic."
I fell under the distinct impression that Hugh expected Article VI, Clause 3 to apply to the American people, not just the government. Hugh told me tonight he understands that it only applies to the American government, but he still thinks the American people should have no religious test it seems.
Anyway, that's background for what Hugh took to be so offensive from my article. Here is the offending passage:
In another contradiction, Hewitt writes, in the chapter titled “Mitt Romney’s Advantages”: “Start with the Mormons. The basic unit of the LDS church is the ward, comparable to a Catholic parish. Wards are collected into ‘stakes,’ again, comparable to a Catholic diocese. There are eight stakes in Iowa, which include 85 wards. . . . And in those 85 wards will be an incredible not-so-secret weapon--a core of young people . . . not to mention experienced missionaries.” So “the Romney campaign will certainly attract hundreds of thousands of Mormons. . . . This is a standard feature of American politics, and much to be celebrated.” But this begs the question: If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies.
The bold part was emphasized by Hugh, who found it "troubling" and wrote
I find the effort to mainstream religious tests and even religious bigotry to be abhorrent and far outside the political mainstream. As I argue at length in the book, the effort by those on the left to introduce this sort of rhetoric should have led to their shaming, and I am sorry to say the same about Erick's drive-by. Mormons are American citizens with every right to be enthusiastic about the candidacy of a co-religionist, and that enthusiasm is not a license to begin a theological inquisition at a public figure whose campaign is about the direction of America and his qualifications to lead it.
But that gets us back to where we both agree and disagree. I agree with Hugh that there are a lot of people, particularly on the left, who will use Romney's religion to display their religious bigotry. At the same time, I'm not prepared to shut down the discussion.
Hugh, also in his introduction writes
But if Romney is attacked--openly or sub rosa--for the particulars of his faith . . . then the country will have walked out on one of our most vital founding principles.
I just don't think this is very helpful. I understand Hugh's concerns, but I just can't bring myself to find fault in a deeply evangelical Christian who will not vote for Romney because he is not a Christian. Certainly Hugh and I may disagree, but I also understand the Christian who is so deeply committed to his religion that he will not vote for someone outside his religion. Certainly if Romney is *attacked* for his faith in the great debate of 2008, it will be wrong and we should all be willing to pile on.
Nonetheless, I do think there will be a large number of people in the evangelical community who might hear about "an incredible not-so-secret weapon--a core of young people . . . not to mention experienced missionaries" and wonder what's up with that -- the media will no doubt portray it as church support, which will be inaccurate, but nonetheless it will raise questions, many of which will be illegitimate and some of which will be legitimate.
As an aside, Hugh took issue with my characterization of these "young people" and "experienced missionaries" as "grassroots activists," "grassroots activists" being my term. Hugh said he did not use that term. This goes back to the lack of candor in Hugh's book about which I was critical.
Hugh describes these "young people" and "experienced missionaries" as
Romney volunteers [who] will be from the neighborhoods in which the caucuses will be held, will learn the sites where the caucuses will be held and will deliver not just themselves but their non-Mormon friends and neighbors to the caucuses en masse and do so with the full grasp of the rules and a deep experience in patience that comes from knocking on thousands and thousands of doors during their time as missionaries.
Hugh, I hate to tell you my friend, but those are grassroots activists.
Hugh wanted me to give him some bright lines of questions that would and would not be out of line for people, particularly the press, to ask. I think for a mainstream member of the press, like Tim Russert, to ask Romney or a Romney supporter about Romney being a member of a cult would be way out of line. I think if a born and raised in rural Louisiana Southern Baptist had the same concern, it would not be as readily out of line due to the upbringing and exposure, or lack thereof, that the citizen has had with Mormonism.
To sum up my point, which I think Hugh agrees with but for the whole issue of what is and is not acceptable discourse on this issue, we cannot just tell people to "shut up" and "don't talk about this" issue. When we do that, more and more people will want to talk about it. Instead we should engage and be willing to show that Mitt Romney is a worthy candidate worthy of our vote.
Tench Coxe, one of the members of the Second Continental Congress, wrote "An Examination of the Constitution" in 1787. On the issue of Article VI, Clause 3, the religious test, Coxe wrote:
Any wise, informed, and upright man, be his property what it may, can exercise the trusts and powers of the state, provided he possesses the moral, religious, and political virtues which are necessary to secure the confidence of his fellow citizens.
If someone will not vote for Mitt Romney because of a deeply held religious belief that Mormonism is a cult or heretical to their own religion, I may disagree, but it is their right to do so. If someone will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is religious at all, that should profoundly disturb us all and Hugh and I are on the same team, playing offense, against such people.
-
This is actually not true. To quote from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "the ban extended only to federal officeholders. States were free at the time of the Founding to impose religious tests as they saw fit. All of them did. State tests limited public office to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants. The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever." Likewise, it is very clear from the constitutional debates that Article VI, Clause 3 was inserted to prevent one Christian denomination from being able to another Christian denomination from federal office. See e.g., statements by Benjamin Rush and Oliver Ellsworth.
↩
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain the Beneficiary of a Celebrity Effect? — Comments (11) »
I Hope Hugh Hewitt Realizes I'm Not A Religious Bigot 62 Comments (0 topical, 62 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...nor should there be. The voters have a right to know who they are voting for, and that means that there shouldn't be any questions that are off-limits. If someone wants to know about a candidate's religious beliefs, let them ask. The same goes for family matters, medical histories, service records, and any other question the answer of which may be "none of your business". Or not, depending on the candor of the person being asked. Then let the voters decide whose answers they like best. After all, what is the harm in asking?
Not necessarily a centrist, not always a moderate. Call me a synergist.
And I agree with Hugh on this. I don't think it is legitimate for a national reporter for a major media outlet to be questioning Romney on his sacred undergarments or to have a reporter ask him what it's like to be a part of a cult.
If the person feels deeply, religiously convicted, that's one thing. But I think these are questions that should not be a part of the national media led debate. People with deeply held views may want to have the debate, but the media has no deeply held view that is not already pre-disposed to be biased against all religions except Islam -- and only then because they're afraid they might get physically attacked.
Say what you will about the national media---and you have, on many occasions, to your credit---but one of the foundations of a free press is free inquiry. Unfortunately, that sometimes means that reporters and journalists get to ask stupid, inane, biased, bigoted, altogether awful questions... and a good one now and then. It's something of a crapshoot, with the obvious emphasis...
You see bigotry. I see opportunity. Personally, I'd like to see someone ask Romney that question, and see how the chips fall. I suspect the questioner won't like the answer.
Not necessarily a centrist, not always a moderate. Call me a synergist.
You hit the nail on the head with Article VI. Hugh was trying to slam you with a load of penumbra-itis and you outlawyered him.
Sooner or later the Romney campaign will fall under its own weight. And the issue that will trigger the fall is Romney's huge government mandated health care policy he signed into Massachusetts law.
Nobody who actually has taken the time to study Romney's health care law can honestly state Romney is a conservative. Far from it...In fact, Romney's health care program has much in common with Hillary care. Thats right, the same Hillary care that was rejected by the American public back in 1993.
Please, lets stop this chirade about Mitt Romney's "conservative" agenda. Romney is a political opportunist who will say anything in an attempt to win over conservative voters. But Romney's record as governor, which includes a big government mandated health care law, cannot be hidden from public scrutiny for long.
the MA legislature would have passed real life honest to God Hillarycare by a veto-proof margin. I'm not saying I'm a fan of Romney's plan, I haven't studied it closely enough, but it does seem to be a creative and yes, relatively conservative, solution to a liberal problem. I find more to admire than not, under the circumstances.
incidentally, I find it ironic how so many here seem to have become that which they hate (the so called "Romneybots") with the possible entry of Thompson. the chronic need to tear down Mitt has nearly made me jump off the fence and support him fully, I'm sure quite the opposite of their expectations.
Trust me, the Romney health care law is a goverment program that is hurting that state. As a result of the program, some insurance companies are seriously considering pulling out of the health insurance business in Massachusetts. That would decrease competition, further escalating the costs of health care.
As for Fred Thompson, I doubt he would support such a huge government mandate like the one Romney instituted in Massachusetts. We soon shall find out though, won't we ?
but I think it is a complicated problem and we aren't well served by fixing quick and easy labels on it. I think Romney does deserve some credit for using some ingenuity to run an end around the homogenous Dem legislature, but you may be right that it doesn't work in the end. certainly I'm hesitant to try to bring it to other states - and I'm pretty sure Romney has explicitly stated he is not advocating that - but again, considering the alternative...*shrug*
(p.s. I didn't mean to accuse you - or Erick - in particular of anything in my previous post, my apologies if that was unclear)
I see no difference in disavowing someone because they are religious vs because they are a particular religion. While it maybe troubling, as long as it isn't instituted then people are free to think and vote how they pleased.
I also think you and Hugh are arguing more of a hypothetical. I doubt that Mormons are so politically shallow that they will simply support him for his religion. I'm sure many came out in support of GW Bush (didn't Mormon rich Utah have the highest percent GOP vote?) along with various other religions. I don't think they came in drove to Orrin Hatch and I know they don't support Harry Reid.
"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain
I actually tend to think that's part of the contradiction in Hugh's book.
He'll have a horde of Mormoms to support him, Hugh argues, because they'll be excited about a Mormon running -- just like they were when Orrin Hatch ran.
I think Mormons are as typically American as the rest of us and they too will vote for or against the man on something other than his religion. But if Hugh is right, that there will be this tidal wave of Mormon support, er . . . to be accurate
Romney volunteers [who] will be from the neighborhoods in which the caucuses will be held, will learn the sites where the caucuses will be held and will deliver not just themselves but their non-Mormon friends and neighbors to the caucuses en masse and do so with the full grasp of the rules and a deep experience in patience that comes from knocking on thousands and thousands of doors during their time as missionaries.
I think some religious and not so religious people who do not remember this being a part of American politics (even though it was) will have questions, some legitimate and some not legitimate.
that makes me not want to vote for him. If he becomes president will he allow me to interrupt his meal at the white house while I try to proselytize him?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Mitt spoke in Miami to Cuban-Americans, quoted Castro, and told them the words should belong to them instead of Castro. This is wrong. They hate Castro, and they don't want to own any quote or philosophy that spews out of Castro's mouth. They want their Cuba back. They don't want Castro.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"If someone will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is religious at all, that should profoundly disturb us all and Hugh and I are on the same team, playing offense, against such people."
Why should that disturb anyone? Is it any more disturbing than people who will vote only for candidates who publicly espouse their religious beliefs?
By the way, I'm not sure Pennsylvania's constitution really amounted to a religious test for office, since it seems any deist could easily satisfy the test.
One quick point of fact on the ground.
I would say that a good majority of "returned missionaries" (as we call them in the Church) reside at BYU / BYU-Idaho / BYU-Hawaii or UVSC. Still others attend University of Utah or Dixie College in St. George, UT. In short, most of these "returned missionaries" are going to be little use except perhaps in the general election - if they volunteer to head back home and help
That leave regular Mormon families in these "wards" which means regular citizens making evaluating the candidates.
Will these folks be interested in helping yes? Will people say: there goes the Mormon Mitt Missionaries... Absolutely not.
The Mormon church does not endorse candidates or party period.
Taught to obey the laws of the land.
Have no political machine period.
Missionaries come from all over the world and return home after their release and return to a normal life of a 21 year old. Jobs, college etc.
Mitt Romney nor anyone else will have an active missionary campaigning for him. Strictly prohibited.
If you are going to judge a mans character as it relates to religion judge his devotion to it not which one he believes.
Just so you know I currently support no one in particular.
What really concerns me is Hewitt calling everyone who disagrees with him concerning Romney, a "bigot". He and some other Republicans, not conservatives which he isn't, are sounding more and more like Democrats with their name calling. He's also pro-amnesty like Bush for criminals who are constantly breaking our laws.
Democrats really abuse the term bigot but there still are bigots, you know. David Duke, for example, was and is a bigot. Lots of leftists who complain about Jews are bigots. I've met lots of people, including a few Mormons, who are bigots about Catholics. Lots of leftists and the mainstream media are bigots about Christians. And people who won't vote for someone just because they are Mormon are also bigots.
----------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I thought the Christian right did a lot to support Bush's run in 2000? Didn't they hang McCain for thumbing them in the eye? I see your concern you brought up, but after thinking about it most of the day, I am not so sure the difference is all that great between the two.
If Christians never worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004 then I think your point would be stronger. Problem is Mormons won't go out as "Mormons for Romney," although I think you did see that with Bush. I knew plenty of people who told me they voted for Bush because he was Christian. Mormons will go out as people who like Romney and happen to be Mormon.
I totally disagree that it's ok to not vote for him if you have a problem with the LDS faith but it's not ok if you have a problem with Religion in general. It seems one is just a subset of the other and the underlying principle should be applied to both, whatever direction that might be.
Lastly, I don't remember a single Mormon getting excited about Hatch and his run. Frankly I never thought Hatch could be president and you would never see me open a blog called www.mymanharry.com for Reid.
You're right about the Christian evangelicals in 2000 and 2004. The difference, I think though, is that most people on the left and the evangelicals themselves see them as part of the broader mainstream.
I think a lot of people aren't very familiar with Mormons, particularly in the south where a lot of Southern Baptists are raised to believe Mormonism is a cult. It's one thing for a group of Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians to be knocking on the door of a home campaigning for Bush and quite another thing for a group of Mormons to do so.
Now, I should stop here and say that I really do believe it should not be any different, but sadly so few people really pay any attention to Mormonism, when the media inevitably and inappropriately turns on the spotlight, a lot of people would have concerns.
Of course, at the end of the day, you're right -- no one is going to suspect the 18 year old in khaki shorts and a Pearl Jam t-shirt knocking on a door is a Mormon. I do think, though, that when the media starts making the connection the average joe will start making the connection.
Of course, at the end of the day, you're right -- no one is going to suspect the 18 year old in khaki shorts and a Pearl Jam t-shirt knocking on a door is a Mormon. I do think, though, that when the media starts making the connection the average joe will start making the connection.
But that's Hewitt's point. There shouldn't be a double standard where its OK for Christians to get excited about a Bush presidency but if Mormons volunteer for Romney its an ominous media event. And once its acceptable to criticize Romney's religion because people who share his religion support his campaign, then the Left's effort to demonize Christian political activists and Christian candidates just became that much more mainstream. I don't know why don't care about this.
Sorry,
I know that too. I had a friend in High School who spelled just with a "K."
Hugh needs to drop the Don Quixote schtick and stop chasing windmills. Mitt's current poll numbers(5th place and dropping) indicate he has little if any chance of being the nominee.
Fred Thompson's in third place and he hasn't even announced yet. When he does, some of the Giuliani and much of the McCain, Romney and Gingrich support will flock to Fred and it will become a two man(Giuliani/Thompson) race to the finish.
Thompson is tied with Mitt for third in the new Zogby. And Mitt isn't even a TV star with huge name recognition!
Fred Thompson: More Than Flirting With Presidential Bid
Looks like Fred Thompson really isn't teasing about possibly running for president.
The actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee was spotted having lunch today at the see-and-be-seen Mayflower hotel restaurant with GOP Party guru Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee who has advised and groomed many a successful GOP candidate over the years.
Sources say Thompson, currently of "Law and Order" fame," and Gillespie were locked in a serious conversation, even though they were repeatedly interrupted by conventioneer types - aka, real people - wanting to chat with the actor/politician. No one we spoke with heard the "P" word come out of Thompson's mouth but it appeared the lunch was "intense," according to one source.
Thompson wouldn't be able to hire Gillespie, of Quinn Gillespie and Associates, since Gillespie is chairing the Republican Party of Virginia and, therefore, must remain neutral in the presidential primary. But Gillespie is a friend. The two bonded during the Senate confirmation hearing of now Chief Justice John Roberts - Thompson was Roberts' White House-appointed sherpa; Gillespie was the White House's front man on the confirmation process.
I see we have another windmill chaser here.
Zogby two days before 2004 election: "KERRY WINS!!!
You want to put your faith in the laughable Zogby, go ahead.
Three weeks ago Romney's Gallup numbers were at 8%, a distant fourth with no Thompson in the mix. The latest Gallup numbers have Romney at 3%, a distant fifth with an unannounced Thompson at 12% in third and growing stronger.
Want to wager who's numbers go up and who's go down even further when Thompson announces?
For now on let's just use the polls that support your argument and discount the ones that don't. So far you have one poll that shows Romney loosing groud with Thompson in the race. Yet, many polls that show Romney gaining ground with Thompson in the race.
Sounds like a good plan.
I ran a poll showing Erick Erickson whooping all other candidates asses. +/- 0%, I came in with 100%, Romney got 5% so Hugh doesn't think I'm a religious bigot, and all the other candidates came in under 1%.
Citing of this poll is the only legitimate course of action at RedState. The fact that I'm not an announced candidate for anything is irrelevant to any and all discussions.
That settles it. Just start calling me POTUS, though I insist all the contributors keep call me "Dear Leader".
If someone will not vote for Mitt Romney because of a deeply held religious belief that Mormonism is a cult or heretical to their own religion, I may disagree, but it is their right to do so.
I think that's Hewitt's point. It may be their right to do so, but is it compatible with American values? We don't discriminate based on race, color, or creed. If someone said they refused to vote for Jews or for Catholics, would you just say, no problem, that's your right?
That said, I think you do have a partial point in talking about a Southern Baptist from Lousiana or whatever. Someone who grows up in an environment where they hear lots of lurid things about Mormons shouldn't be damned as a bigot just because they want some reassurance. But they shouldn't be coddled either the way Erickson wants to do.
I sometimes get the impression that people like Erickson don't really want Mormons to be part of the Republican coalition. He must see some advantage to the GOP being permanently in the minority that I don't. Either that or he thinks Mormons should be plantation negros, good enough to do the grunt work but not good enough to actually run for office.
You've obviously not paid attention. Either to this debate, which has been going on for several months, or to much of anything Erick has written.
Thanks for wiping the floor with any credibility you might have had, it saves the rest of us from wasting our time paying any attention to anything else you feel obliged to waste RS's bandwidth with.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I'll take your word for it that I'm wronging Erick Erickson. I apologize for lumping him in with the crowd that refuses to vote for a Mormon.
Here's the thing, though. There's a lot of people in that crowd and its pretty disturbing to me. I refuse to participate in the GOP as a second-class citizen. I haven't decided that Mormons are second-class citizens in the GOP yet, but this election has made me wonder. I hadn't even thought it was a question before. And Erickson doesn't help much when he tries to legitimize what looks like bigotry even if he doesn't share it himself.
-----------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I would have liked Orin Hatch as President compared to our present President.
And I also think I've made it abundantly clear that I disagree with those who'd vote against Romney based on his religion. But I don't think voting for or against someone because of their religion is incompatible with American values -- in fact, I think it is rather American.
I retract the "like Erickson." I had forgotten the part about Hatch (who I wouldn't have wanted for President).
I think your position is contradictory. How can you say that you disagree with voting against Mormons on the basis of their religion but that its not against America's values? Do you think America's values are flawed? I don't understand.
Thanks for your reply, by the way.
----------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I had a nice reply planned out, but somehow lost it through the miracles of New IE Window / Alt-tab.
I think Erick is saying there's nothing unAmerican with a voter applying a religious test, but there is something unAmerican if that religious test causes one to vote against Mormons.
I would have no problems voting for Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, atheists, etc., because I know enough about these religions to know that they don't necessarily conflict with my political stands. On the other hand, groups such as Satanists, Wahabbists, or even Jehovah's Witnesses or certain sects of Buddhism hold to religious beliefs incompatible with my politics. Does that make me unAmerican to refuse to vote for members of those faiths?
-
NARF
In other words, when Americans say 'no discrimination on basis of creed,' they mean 'no discrimination on basis of creed within broad paramaters,' and Mormons generally fall within those broad parameters but Salafi Wahabis don't?
I could buy that.
_______________________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
1) What are you quoting wrt "no discrimination on basis of creed"? I'd bet it's applying either to the government or to private hiring practices, not to restrictions on an individual's right to vote.
2) Many Americans are not well-informed about Mormonism. Romney or any other Mormon candidate running outside of Mormon-prevalent areas must expect to field Mormon-related questions, as citizens attempt to discern whether Mormonism falls within the "broad parameters". The average citizen should realize quickly that it does.
-
NARF
I'm not quoting a law that I know of. I'm just saying that since the 1950s or so an important American value has been not discriminating on the basis of race, color, or creed.
I think you are right about Americans needing more information. I just think that in response to this need for more info, some on the left and the right who are opposed to Mormons period, for whatever reason, try to fudge the distinction between religious beliefs that are relevant to politics and religious beliefs that aren't.
-------------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
"If someone will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is religious at all, that should profoundly disturb us all".
If a Christian views Mormonism as a cult and votes accordingly, there's no fault; but if an atheist views all religions as cults and votes accordingly, there's a problem?
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnel
we are allowed to vote or not vote, associate or not associate, with whoever we choose for whatever reason we choose.
If an atheist chooses to not vote for me or hang out with me solely because I am an evangelical Christian I have no problem with that. Same comment as relates to Mormons. Or Canadians.
Things that influence the way an individual analyzes and processes information are, or certainly should be, on the table when we make a decision on a vote. That includes an individual's faith (or absence thereof), and specifically their religious tradition. Some people apparently think that is "bigoted", I absolutely disagree.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Then you disagree with Erickson, because apparently he thinks it would be wrong of someone to vote against a candidate because they were religious.
Look, if you really want evangelicals to not vote for Mormons and Catholics, and Mormons not to vote for Catholics and evangelicals, and Catholics not to vote for Mormons and evangelicals, that's your prerogative. But it would also be the end of social conservatism in this country and probably of the GOP.
___________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Go back to my post and provide a quotation where I said any group of people should not vote for another group. Hint: I didn't.
I find it interesting that you've confined yourself to "religious" tests and limited yourself to evangelicals, Mormons and Catholics. How about Hindus? How about Muslims? How about atheists? Or animists or Satanists? Should following "any" specific group make a person out-of-bounds for a POTUS vote?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Go back to my post and show me where I said anything about "any group of people." Hint: I didn't.
Anyway, groups of people are just groups of individuals, so if you're ok with individuals discriminating, you're ok with groups discriminating. If its OK for 1 anti-Semite to decide not to vote for Jews, its OK for 5.
--------------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Do you think being a Mormon is equivalent to being an atheist, pagan, animist, satanist Wahabi? If so, be proud. Let us know. Its not bigotry, so you have no reason to hide it. Mormons really are EEEEVVIILL.
The benefits of honesty are many: me and other Mormons can quit wasting our money and our votes and you can enjoy the GOP's new religiously-pure perpetual minority status.
---------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Lose the victim status you seem to have anointed yourself with. My participation in this is done.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Shorter MBecker: Its Ok for me to discriminate against Mormons. Its not OK for Mormons to point out that this could do real damage to the GOP.
------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
amount of "discrimination" against LDS will be far less you are flacking. I personally have huge problems with Romney. His affiliation with LDS is on page 52 in very fine print and I'll never get that far when it comes to choosing a primary candidate to vote for.
My issues with LDS are theological and run very deep. However, my theological issues with Hillary's form "Christianity" are greater. Last I looked, we aren't electing a Pope or a bishop in '08, we're electing a President. The fact that, up to now, Mitt isn't getting much traction has nothing to do with his religion. It has more to do with his ever changing variety of positions on issues and the state of the Republican Party in MA. Both of which have been beaten to death and I'm not resurrecting them here.
Romney will be judged on his positions on issues v. the positions on issues of the other available candidates at the time of the primary. I'm constantly amazed that the Rombots seem to think that Mitt's religion is going to be a big deal with evangelicals when it's patently obvious that Rudy's positions on social issues aren't an issue.
For the record, I'm perfectly willing to vote for a Mormon for President. I'm, at least at this point, not willing to vote for Mitt in a primary. If it comes down to Mitt v. Hillary, I'll vote for Mitt. I'm also on record as saying that if it comes down to McCain v. Hillary I won't vote for either. Does that make me bigoted against Christians?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
That's fine. And, frankly, I'm not a big Romney fan right now, for the reasons you point out, though I don't much like any of the other candidates either. But I've seen a lot more bigotry from Republicans than I expected. And I've seen a lot of people who say that they don't have some kind of anti-Mormon litmus test but who defend people who do.
---------------------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
not equivalent to being an atheist or pagan, in terms of having beliefs that others can agree or disagree with?
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Every religious belief is different from every other, in terms of having religious beliefs that others can agree or disagree with. But I think it would be a sad world if people only voted for their own faith.
__________________________________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
...that an atheist refusing to vote for a religious person is "bigoted". But then I'm still not sure what the distinction is for him.
There is - in my mind - a distinction between bigotry and measuring the beliefs and values of a candidate against one's own (or against an ideal). To some, beliefs about the nature of the universe are a big deal. I can't really find fault in that.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
This goes to your larger question above.
I don't really have a problem with a person of a particular denomination refusing to vote for someone of another denomination or religion because of a firm foundation of believe in his own religion.
I do have a problem with someone refusing to vote for someone because that someone is religious at all -- our nation, I think, is and has always been a religious nation and discriminating against a religious person, solely for being a religious person, is really wrong to me.
I understand and much more readily accept religious people failing to vote for other people of different religions than I do an atheist shunning a believe for being a believer.
Our nation is and always has been a religious nation, true.
But our nation is and always has been a land of religious diversity and religious equality.
I still don't see how you can have a problem with the atheist who says I won't vote for religious people, because their beliefs are crazy, while not having a problem with the Assembly of God person who says they won't vote for Mormons, because their beliefs are crazy.
___________________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The "offense" that you're playing has to do with keeping this nation a religious one. Fair's fair. There are atheists, I would imagine, that are trying to accomplish just the opposite.
But I think it's important to be clear that the atheist in question is not necessarily acting in a bigoted way. The athiest could simply be saying, "this candidate's strong moral values differ from my strong moral values due to his or her religion".
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Erick:
I am one of the callers to Hugh's show yesterday that asked you a quick question at the end of the segment. I thikn you are well-intentioned but haven't really thought through all the issues.
The links at Hugh's post today are to some very good sources of information. Those links show that several bloggers of various religious backgrounds have been exploring the issue of Romney's religion in 2008. I recommend them all.
It's not bigoted to say, "Romney's religion should not be an issue, but it will be." I think that's what you are saying, Erick. The important question is whether that's acceptable. I don't think it is. Hugh's thesis in his book is that is Romney is made to suffer politically for his religion, the door will be wide open for the Left to make other religious candidates suffer for theirs. That's a point that deserves careful, non-dismissive consideration.
Lowell Brown
I hate to say I'm more nuanced, but I am on this. I have no problem with a Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian not wanting to vote for a Mormon because he is a Mormon. I disagree with them, but I wholly understand it.
And to that extent, I think Romney's religion will be an issue for these people, though I still maintain it should not be.
I do, and I think this is where Hugh and I agree, think this is not an issue for the media because the media is always distrustful of religious people, despite us being a religious nation, and the media wholly and completely is incapable of understanding the subject.
Certainly I think the left will make religion an issue, but considering that the majority of this country considers itself religious and Christian, I think that point is borderline silly.
Frankly, and I left this out of my review of Hugh's book, I think he comes quite close to making the argument that if you aren't voting for Romney it is because you are a religious bigot -- just like lefties believe if you aren't voting for X position it is because you are a racist or hate poor people. Hugh certainly does not go to the line, but I think he's come close.
A failure to have discourse on this issue and to take it out of any sort of civil discussion as being bigoted is what the left does, not what the right does.
I just don't understand the distinction you're making. It seems to me that if you disagree with them, you're not ok with the choice they're making, and vice versa.
I will say this, though: I can understand evangelicals who are worried that if Romney were elected, the Mormon church would get a big boost in conversion. I don't think that would happen myself, but I don't think thats unseemly like refusing to vote for someone just because you don't like where they worship on Sundays.
----------------------------
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The Revs Jackson and Sharpton regularly use the church of the perpetually fooled to raise money and workers for thier own campaigns and those that they extort deem worthy.
Thier support is almost exclusivley made up of Black Chistians (after a handfull of counter-wisdom liberals). I don't hear anyone stating that that is wrong or against some kind of law - or even complaining about it out-loud (although a few R's have pointed out the hypocricy of 'separation of churh and state' issue and using churches as political tools, but that would be very un-PC and I never mentioned it either). Why doesn't anyone stand up and try to stop Blacks from supporting Obama stricly on racial issues?
I personally find it ignorant to simply support a candidate because they are "like me" or from the same socio-economic-religious-racial strata in some regard.
If Mormons use thier particular advantages to support the candidate of choice - good for them. If they support him soley because he is a Mormon and no other reason, well, that's thier right, but a very stupid reason to do so.
If we go down that road of attacking Mormons for supporting Romney, be prepared for some extremely intense push back on this issue. What goes around comes around. Harder.
Hopefully Fred will run with Hunter for VP - solves a lot of problems (at least for me).
One. I'm not at all surprised (nor do I care) that some Mormons would support Mitt "just because he's a Mormon". He is, after all, the first potentially "real" POTUS candidate from LDS. A couple of more viable LDS candidates down the road and we won't be having this discussion. It's the same argument I've heard from women who support Hillary simply because she's a woman.
Two. Given that the IRS swoops down on "white" churches who do no more than distribute "voting guides" that are compilations of candidates responses to questionnaires, I am actually incensed that black churches can routinely get away with this stuff. I think any church should be able to host a candidate that the pastor/board feels represents them the best, but the selectivity really irritates me.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Point one I agree with.
Point two clearly makes you a racist. ;)
A candidate's character is perhaps more important than policies. Religious beliefs are perhaps the most important element in ones character. Therefore, there should be no bright lines to limit inquiry about a candidates religious beliefs.