Hat tip National Review
Now that it is becoming clear that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, the hired guns at MSNBC are focusing their attacks on him. Unfortunately, they have already sunk to this level. Last night, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell ripped into Romney's religion, Mormonism.
In 2007, O'Donnell was also attacking Mormonism and implying that Romney was a racist for following the tenets of his faith.
(For the record, Romney has publicly stated that he welcomed the announcement that the Mormon church was changing its policy regarding blacks.)
I hardly know what to say about O'Donnell's comments last night, and had not been aware of his previous comments about Mormonism. As a nominal Protestant Christian, I have formed my own evaluations of various religions over the years. I have lived in a Buddhist country (Thailand), am married to a Catholic, and only recently learned that the Presbyterian church at the highest levels was on a world-wide movement against the state of Israel. Like most, I have my private attitudes about religion including Mormonism. I am also somewhat familiar with the story of Joseph Smith's life.
Having said that, what O'Donnell has done on both occasions is despicable. We don't have to agree with any religion. We don't have to regard that religion's prophet as a great or even good man. Most religions have episodes in their history that are hard to defend including mine. Yet, we don't go around insulting someone's faith. We have millions of Mormons in this country, and most all of them are fine, upstanding people. That is what counts.
Of course, this leads to the obvious fact that there is a ton of religious strife going around these days, isn't there? Anti-Semitism is back in fashion, but it has little to do with the tenets of Judaism. And of course, Islam has come in for its share of criticism, has it not? Since I write often on this topic, I know I have to walk a thin line. For example, O'Donnell would never talk about the Prophet Mohammed the way he did last night about Joseph Smith. Nor do I. I know all the talk, but I choose not to indulge in it because Mohammed is the prophet of decent Muslims as well as well as those Muslims that I do dare to criticize. What I feel comfortable in saying is that Mohammed, in his later (Medina) years, spread Islam through war. That is incontrovertible. I am also quite comfortable in blasting away at jihadists, terrorists, terrorist supporters, those that consider non-Muslims as infidels and worthy of being killed, hate-mongers, and those that want to impose Islam and sharia on the rest of the world. I consider that as the most important issue of our time. But to insult Muslims for their religion? No.
O'Donnell, like so many liberals, has bought into the philosophy that it's OK to slam certain groups of people but not others. That is the intellectual rot of liberalism and political correctness. But more so, he has brought this campaign down to a new low. One could point out that President Obama came out of a church in Chicago led by a vile, hateful pastor who cried, "God damn America" in a sermon. In fact, it was an issue in 2008. However, to condemn Jeremiah Wright for his hateful rhetoric is not to damn Christianity as a religion and demean Christians.
Lawrence O'Donnell should make a public apology to Mormons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
These creatures cannot attack the politics of the man. Instead they attack his faith.
At least this man lives his faith, not like the pretender in the White House.
All religions have notions that are bizarre to others. That's why they call it "faith."
I only care about what kind of people they turn out and Mormons, in my personal experience, have all been great people. I am not aware of any statistics that they have a high crime rate or seek to impose their religion on anyone else. They have the normal amount of spreading the word that all religions have but no comparison to the religion of peace (starts with "I" and ends in "slam"). who behead those who convert, among other atrocities you can read about every single day in the newspaper.
O'Donnell should take a course in civility and logic. Nothing that Romney's ancestors did 100 years ago disqualify him. I'm sure anyone could make same criticism for O'Donnell religion but only he, so far, has stooped so low.
I don't thing the Rev. Wright coverage was anywhere near what it should have been as there were no real hatchet men on the Republican side and McCain excluded it as an issue in his campaign. Obama now carries out, as well as he can, the Black Liberation philosophy preached by Rev. Wright. His administration is obsessed with race and "getting even" for what was done to his fellow black people. They forget that the United States fought a war at the cost of considerable bloodshed and treasure to free them from slavery.
.
Mitt's father would have been a great president, and he was Mormon too. The only issue I have with Mormons is the same I have with Catholics and Assembly of God: would the president ask church authorities for direction in handling the duties of his office.
Mitt is so all over the map, I'd have more confidence in him if he would, which is to say, he has quite disqualified himself on his own merits. He's not one tenth the man his father was.
"I know all the talk, but I choose not to indulge in it because Mohammed is the prophet of decent Muslims as well as well as those Muslims that I do dare to criticize."
As long as you stick to that, you are within the pale of decent political discourse.
I must note that what MSNBC appears to be reporting is polling on the percentage of voters who would not support a Mormon candidate... journalists thrive on such technicalities.
And Jeremiah Wright, as I've pointed out before, observed that God damned America (past tense); he did not pray that God would damn America (future tense). Find an English instructor to explain the difference.
Siarlys--I must again correct you on this. As I recall it, Wright said something very close to "No, not God bless America. God damn America". I am no English professor (or any kind of professor for that matter), but this of course makes the tenses agree, which is the most logical explanation of, and conclusion to reach, relative to the message Wright intended to convey, which was that God should damn America rather than blessing her. I got it loud and clear.
Elwood is correct. Siarlys just lives in the past.
Gary--thanx for the support. If Siarlys has any doubt about the message, he should read up a little bit on "black liberation theology", as well as some of its antecedents and other organizations involved in "black liberation" generally, and he will soon learn what's what.
Siarlys also appears to condemn a President who was a person of faith who would seek spiritual guidance (and, by extension, engage in prayer)from religious leaders relative to his decisions. This seems to stretch the "separation of church and state" a little too far.
My dear elwood, you should find a way back to medieval Europe, when Popes could place whole nations under the interdict if the king disobeyed church orders. Or even read an excellent and well-documented book "American Democracy and Catholic Power" by Paul Blanshard. Our republican (small r-) institutions survived intact, but that was a much greater threat than any purported "Muslim takeover."
Gary seems to have missed the lesson "Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it." Or maybe he just doesn't want to think about it.
Since when is prayer on the same level as taking orders from a religious hierarchy? You mix oranges and horse apples, a most unappetizing bit of confusion.
As to what Wright said, I listened to the tape, several times, and I have a somewhat sympathetic familiarity with liberation theology. Wright has the failing of a man who cannot take yes for an answer... whose entire world view falls apart at the notion that what he has fought for might actually come about, in which case, he might need to revise his tune or relax and retire.
Post a Comment