Mo Dowd Spews Religious Intolerance
But since it is directed at Mormons and (less directly) Evangelicals, that is OK in the eyes of her editors who blissfully ran her column trashing Mitt Romney today. After all, how else can you describe a column which quotes an anti-Mormon polemicist at length as an authority on Romney's religion?
And having then included a direct attack on Romney's religion as the heart of her piece, she concludes with this.
The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.
“J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic,” Mr. Krakauer agreed. “Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”
The backdrop, he said, is “the wickedly fierce competition between Mormons and Southern evangelicals to convert people.”
The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.
Mitt was right when he said that “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.
The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in the speech which speaks of religious fanaticism. Indeed, it speaks of common values held by Americans of many faiths,
Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which
Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
Yeah, damn those religious fanatics. How dare Romney appeal to people who believe in equality, service to their neighbor, and human liberty. Such beliefs are positively unAmerican in the eyes of the likes of her. Never mind that such elements of fanaticism have been at the heart of abolitionism and civil rights.
Of course, the secularist Dowd is quite right -- Mitt is no JFK. Indeed, he took precisely the opposite tack from that former president. Kennedy distanced himself from his Church, making it plain that he really did not take Catholicism seriously. Romney, in a move that Dowd characterizes as fanaticism, refused to temporize or apostasize, and declared his firm adherence to the tenets of his faith, though he refused to allow them to be a matter of political import. And that, in Dowd's eyes, makes Mitt Romney dangerous.
After all, she is one of those who supports a religious test for office, one which disqualifies those who actually believe in anything except for the Gospel of Liberalism.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds and Gateway Pundit provide a little tidbit about Mo Dowd's faulty memory -- She would have been 21 or 22 at the time of the events described in the "childhood memory" portion of her column. Makes you wonder about a tendency for fabrication in her columns -- sort of like Bill Clinton's burning black churches in Arkansas. Paging Jayson Blair!
Posted by: Greg at
02:32 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.
1
According to the LDS church, anyone who writes about their history, who isn't officially filtering and altering it to be "faith-promoting" is regarded as anti-Mormon. Joseph Smith did not live thousands of years ago, like the founders of most religions. There's a lot of historical documentation, letters his first wife wrote etc. which Krakauer uses, in his careful, thoughtful. balanced and fascinating look at the history of the LDS Church.
Dowd is right in the myriad of ways that the Christian component of LDS beliefs deviates from more mainstream Christians sects. Because of Joseph Smith and his peep stones, non-existent gold tablets, and lust for lots-o-wives, we have a major religion that not only re-writes the history of Christ, but also historical history of parts of the world. Yet Mormons regard themselves as the "one true faith," the "chosen people." Their religion is not inclusive of other Christian faiths, at all. For Mitt to be pandering to Evangelical voters, is just that, based on the hope that most of them are too ignorant to even know anything about Mormonism. Because Mormons are for the most part honest, respectable people, that does not change the fact that the history of their church is a) recent and well documented, and b) wacky.
Posted by: Mark Warner at Sun Dec 9 09:38:46 2007 (0HTwQ)
2
Please realize, this non-Mormon believes that Joseph Smith is no more a prophet than Muhammad. I have, however, read Krakauer's book, and find it to be an amateurish effort by an individual with no historical or theological background to do both history and theology (by the way, I am trained in both). That's why I refer to the book as an anti-Mormon polemic. That I find Mormon theology to be almost as difficult to accept as that of Scientology does not change my view of his work.
As for Romney and his speech, please realize the key thing was to point out that there are shared moral and political values that the overwhelming majority of Americans hold, and that the theological differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity are not a relevant or rational basis for rejecting a candidate who shares those values and seeks to govern accordingly.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 9 10:08:36 2007 (8r6bc)
3
MoDo hates everybody. Every. body.
(Where TF have you been?)
Posted by: PDiddie at Sun Dec 9 10:19:20 2007 (WKn5a)
4
Good thing we had like a thousand years of Christian religious dominance and widespread illiteracy in Europe in order to write history exactly as it should sound. Mormonism doesn't share this advantage. It is therefore obviously more fraudulent than other Christian groups, right? If someone handed you the bible for the first time and all you knew about it was that it came from some guy from Vermont who had weird lifestyle choices, your reaction would be no different than it is to Mormonism: it's crazy. Even Krakhauer hints that maybe the only difference between Mormonism and older religious traditions is just that, time. Perhaps another difference is that Mormonism has grown up in a land of basic freedoms and relative religious tolerance. As long as both Mormons and the rest of us contiue to foster that environment, we are all on the right track.
Should a Mormon be president? What difference does it make? The fact that people catagorically reject the idea is evidence to the bigotry and ignorance of this country. The democratic process is greatly hindered by the fact that this debate is even happening. Even people like Dowd who clearly don't give a damn about Christians or Mormons are cashing in on it with half ass articles designed solely to incite strong feelings.
Posted by: Jimmy at Wed Dec 12 04:51:01 2007 (ehOhQ)
5
Gotta disagree with you.
The reality is that most folks DO NOT have a problem with a Mormon president -- that is what the polls consistently show. Indeed, on the right the numbers are actually smaller than on the left, because most liberals are scared of the wholesomeness of Mormons.
But I'll agree the debate should not be happening.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 12 10:01:16 2007 (8r6bc)
6
Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.
Posted by: Pole at Sun Oct 26 22:08:36 2008 (YFNWd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
13kb generated in CPU 0.0045, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.008 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
