Skip to comments.Religious Bigotry--by Liberals
Posted on 01/15/2012 9:05:25 PM PST by stolinsky
Religious Bigotry − by Liberals
David C. Stolinsky
Jan. 16, 2012
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
− U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Many liberals are secular, or agnostics, or atheists. And those who are religious often belong to mainstream churches where religion is indistinguishable from liberal politics. Nevertheless, liberals are criticizing some Republican candidates not just for their policies, which is expected, but also for their theology, which is astonishing.
Questions are being raised about Mitt Romneys Mormon faith. Some of these questions are raised by conservative Christians who care deeply about theology. But some of these questions are raised by secular leftists who couldnt care less about theology, but who use it as a club to beat a leading Republican over the head.
As usual, the liberal media spread disinformation. A prominent Evangelical pastor questioned Romneys Mormon beliefs. The New York Times headline read, Prominent Pastor Calls Romneys Church a Cult. But in the next-to-last paragraph, you find that the pastor concluded, Im going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values. So the headline should have read, Evangelical Pastor Prefers Romney to Obama. I couldnt agree more.
Instances in which Evangelicals question Romneys faith are emphasized by the liberal press. But many of the questions are raised by liberals themselves, who hope to stir up conflict among Republicans. For example, take the 2011 cover of Newsweek showing Romney jumping around like a crazed fanatic, holding a book − presumably the Book of Mormon − with text reading, The Mormon Moment.
If there is a clearer example of religious bigotry, I hope never to see it. And dont forget the 2008 cover of Time, showing a photo of Romney with the text, Sure, He Looks Like a President. But What Does Mitt Romney Really Believe?
But whose business is it what Romneys religious beliefs really are? In fact, this is a blatant attack on Latter-day Saints theology. This is a clear example of religious bigotry. It is also a colossal case of hypocrisy: Republicans are religious bigots, but we Democrats are tolerant, sensitive, and diverse − so we can do whatever we want to further our agenda, even if it is intolerant, insensitive, and. bigoted.
There was a 1970s song titled, Love Means You Never Have To Say Youre Sorry. The idea is absurd. But even more absurd is that liberals in effect proclaim, Being liberal means you never have to say youre sorry. Monstrous debt foisted on our children? Economic policies that stifle innovation and job creation? Social policies that destroy the family? Educational policies that ruin the public schools? And now, religious bigotry? No problem! Our motives are good, so our results are irrelevant.
Of course, liberals never questioned Barack Obamas religious beliefs when he ran in 2008. Twenty years of sitting in Rev. Wrights church? Hearing Wright preach God damn America and Israel is a dirty word and the U.S. government may have invented the AIDS virus to kill people of color? No problem! Obamas a liberal, so his beliefs are excellent by definition.
And then we have Rick Santorum. When he began to rise in the polls, liberals let loose. MSNBC pundit Alan Colmes and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called him weird and crazy for the way he handled the death of his two-hour-old baby son Gabriel. By what perverted logic are they empowered to dictate how a family should deal with the death of a child? This goes beyond arrogance and reaches hubris: Actions that shamed or humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser.
A Los Angeles Times columnist calls Santorum a weird, pious wackadoo whose opinions are rabid, nonsensical, and incendiary. She compares Santorum to religious fanatics who assault women for improper clothing. But what, exactly, does the Catholic Santorum believe that set off this hateful tirade? He holds the same positions on abortion and same-sex marriage as does the rest of the Catholic Church − that is, 1.2 billion people − not to mention 310 million Eastern Orthodox, as well as tens of millions of Evangelicals. Are they all rabid, nonsensical, incendiary, weird, pious wackadoos?
One definition of wackadoo states that it is a mock Italian insult. If so, its use for Santorum is not only insulting but also racist. Oh wait, I forgot − Democrats cant be racists, only Republicans can. Sorry.
Recall the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by Senate Democrats, who pointedly asked whether his Catholic faith would influence his rulings. Of course, no one asked nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan whether their deeply held liberal beliefs − from religious or secular sources − would influence their rulings. Liberals are allowed to be influenced by their beliefs, but conservatives − no way!
Criticism of Michele Bachmann for her Evangelical beliefs was cut short when her campaign fizzled. Had she done better, we would have heard much more. She, too, would have been called a rabid wackadoo. As it is, Bachmann+religious nut yields 1,450,000 hits on Google. Tolerance? We dont need no stinkin tolerance. Were liberals!
The extreme of this process is represented by Bill Maher, who regularly mocks and denigrates public figures who express any religious sentiments. He revealed his true feelings recently when the Broncos lost a football game. Mahers brilliant analysis of the loss was, Wow, Jesus just f****d Tim Tebow bad!
Few liberals dare to express Mahers overt hatred of religion and religious people. But many share it. The Washington Post called Mahers nauseating remark controversial. Did the editors search the thesaurus to find the most tepid adjective possible? This is a case of praising with a faint damn.
Liberals claim to be afraid of conservative Christians. Yet liberals repeatedly insult and mock conservative Christians, and Christianity itself, with impunity. But would Colmes and Robinson ridicule a prominent Muslim for the way he grieved for his dead baby? No, they would call it touching and sensitive. And when we killed Bin Laden, did Maher opine that Allah just bleeped Bin Laden bad? No, he wouldnt think of doing so, but if he did, hed be fired immediately − and probably have to go into hiding. As it is, Maher remains on HBO, doing his thing.
Whom people claim they fear, and whom they really fear, may be quite different. Dont listen to what they say; watch what they do.
What little I know of LDS theology doesnt bother me in the slightest. What people believe in their hearts is between them and God. Only He can see into our hearts. We can see how people act − specifically, whether they treat fellow human beings with kindness. If people form stable families, work hard, are reliable, and keep their word, thats whats important − or what should be important.
In fact, my only problem with the Latter-day Saints Church is whether day should be capitalized.
So perhaps you will understand why I become upset when I see magazine covers belittling and mocking the faith of Mitt Romney. Perhaps you will sympathize when I pace the floor in anger as a mob assaults a Mormon Temple because of a moral stand the LDS Church took against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you will identify when I mutter words that would make a Marine gunnery sergeant blush when I read that Rick Santorum is demonized for stating orthodox Christian beliefs.
And perhaps you will agree when I insist that no religious test means no religious test. Not for Mormons like Romney. Not for Catholics like Santorum. Not for Evangelicals like Bachmann. Not for anyone. And certainly not a religious test administered by liberals, whose religion is liberalism.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
Do you “become upset” when you read the Mormon doctrines “belittling and mocking the faith” of Christians ???
Or are you feelings selective ???
OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Constitution/Article VI documentary from the '08 campaign just don't "get it." You & these others believe that Article VI halts the crux of objections to Romney's other-worldly commitments.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language thats NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
I just recently heard on Fox News from Whorealldough that Mitts Great Grand Father left the US because he had 4 wives and that was frowned upon at the time. In Mexico he took a 5th wife who bore him a son.
That son then left Mexico and had a son named George. George as we all know later became governor of Michigan. George had a son called Mitt.
Mitt therefore is entitled to dual citizenship with Mexico. Of course I doubt that he would claim it with the political consequences involved.
The upshot of this is that Mitt would proudly proclaim his Mexican heritage if he were unconcerned about his polygamist heritage.
Second, there is a guy who I just read on Drudge is about to drop from the race and endorse Mitt. That would be Huntsman. Also a Mormon but I havent read anything about his multi-generational heritage.
But then you say later on: What little I know of LDS theology doesnt bother me in the slightest. What people believe in their hearts is between them and God. Only He can see into our hearts. We can see how people act − specifically, whether they treat fellow human beings with kindness. If people form stable families, work hard, are reliable, and keep their word, thats whats important − or what should be important.
I guess consistency isn't your strong point, eh?
Let's see...Lds theology labels all Christian sects as "apostates" who are "corrupt" professing believers who embrace 100% abominable creeds. So that's apparently NOT religious "bigotry?"
But if somebody says something negative about Mormonism, that is "religious bigotry?"
If you judge based upon what others say about Mormonism, shouldn't also -- to be consistent -- judge Mormonism by what it says about Christian sects?
And if Mormon beliefs are all a "heart" thing "between them and God," then why aren't the religious convictions that people have about Mormons also a "heart" thing "between them and God."
Can you say you're vying for one of the top foolhardy posts of the year?
Why all the double standards? Is it because you can't think straight, or is it because you can't apply your personal standards evenly across the board?
“But some of these questions are raised by secular leftists who couldnt care less about theology, but who use it as a club to beat a leading Republican over the head.”
Ironic, isn’t it? Strange bedfellows.
“Instances in which Evangelicals question Romneys faith are emphasized by the liberal press. But many of the questions are raised by liberals themselves, who hope to stir up conflict among Republicans.”
Liberals stirring up conflict among Republicans - with help from the anti Mormons around these parts.
I’m not voting for theologian-in-chief, I’m voting for president. I’ve worked closely with evangelical Christians and devout Catholics. They may believe I am going to Hell because I’m a Jew, but they treated me like I was in Heaven while I’m still here. On the contrary, I’ve worked with agnostic or atheistic liberals who don’t believe in Hell, but they treated me like I was in Hell because they disliked my conservative views.
So no, theology doesn’t upset me. Obnoxious, untrustworthy, cruel behavior upsets me. And what really upsets me is liberal nonbelievers who suddenly become experts on theology—for the sole purpose of condemning conservatives, that is.
You seem uncomfortable at FR. Are you sure you want to continue posting here, Sandy?
That son then left Mexico and had a son named George.
George Romney, Mitts Dad was born in Mexico...
and not under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US
To quote you, “What little I know of LDS theology doesnt bother me in the slightest.” Either you know little to nothing of mormonISM, or your brand of ‘christianity’ avoids defending Christianity when the spirit of anti-Christ rises. Perhaps you should learn abit more about both MomronISM AND becoming a Christian, the hows and whys, and Whom is the Savior and how He does it.
Still a free country last time I checked.
Obnoxious, untrustworthy, cruel behavior upsets me.
Then why dont you write about it...
Mormon history is chock full from its beginings with “Obnoxious, untrustworthy, cruel behavior” towards Christians..
does it “upset” you ???
or are you selective ???
As a Jew does it “upset” you that your favorite religionists have dead dunked your co-religionists, the Jews of the Holocaist into Mormonism along with Hitler himself ???
What truly does move you on a genuine plain ???
Still a free country last time I checked.
“. . . when the spirit of anti-Christ rises”
There you go - condemning me to hell again - that I am filled with the devil because I’m a Mormon. Well, it’s a good thing you are not my judge.
Jesus Christ is my Savior and I love Him. He will be my Judge.
Well, its a good thing you are not my judge.
jesus christ is my Savior and I love Him. He will be my Judge.
Well I hope he knows he has to stand in line behind you main savior and judge Joey Smith...
Poor thing, you’ve tipped over from victimhood to paranoia and delusions. Have Nice Day
Was George a citizen when Mitt was born? Was Mitt’s mother a citizen when Mitt was born?
I would argue that his father was not a NBC, but with the information I have I would guess that Mitt is.
jesus christ is my Savior and I love Him.
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.