Really?
Religious bigotry? Hey, whatever works!
Is this really how it is going to be? Are the media protectors of President Obama really going to stoop to anti-Mormon bigotry to attack Mitt Romney? First New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow writes disparagingly about the Mormon “magic underpants” with nary a peep of protest or discipline from his bosses at the New York Times, and now MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell spews out this last night as Romney’s three primary wins were being tallied:
“Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. Forty-eight wives later, Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was completely sanctified in the religion he invented to go with it. Which Mitt Romney says he believes.”
A news anchor, reporter or pundit who made an equivalent slur on Islam would be suspended, at the very least. (Of course, the media are frightened of Muslims.) A talking head who said something equally demeaning about Judaism would presumably be fired. Last I looked, however, O’Donnell was still on MSNBC after smearing the religion of 6.5 million Americans and over 12 million worldwide. How can this be?
Some who have criticized O’Donnell’s disgraceful attack on Mormonism have corrected O’Donnell’s facts and defended the religion—I’m not going to do that, because it dignifies his low-life values and his hateful methods. All religions are “invented”, and all have beliefs that any fourth grader could ridicule. Supposedly, we aren’t prejudiced against people because of their religious beliefs. Funny…I thought religion was right up there with race, country of origin and gender as personal characteristics that American culture respected and would insist that others respected as well. Apparently not, as the ethics alarms seem to be thoroughly busted at MSNBC, and the sensitive, 99% rallying, social justice-minded progressives who applaud the daily divisiveness championed by Fox News’s Left Wing doppleganger see nothing at all untoward about O’Donnell, supposedly MSNBC’s standard-bearer, embracing naked, blatant bigotry as part on the networks’ pro-Obama push.
The description for O’Donnell’s conduct isn’t just unethical, it’s ugly and un-American. It is also frightening, as it becomes increasingly clear that too many in the media are so desperate align themselves with progressives and Democrats that they are willing to abandon all values and principles, including honesty, fairness, decency, professionalism…you name it, they are expendable, if it helps re-elect Barack Obama.
MSNBC can prove me, if not wrong, overly alarmed, by firing Lawrence O’Donnell. What he did was not to denigrate one woman, like Rush Limbaugh, or a politician with a misogynist term, like Bill Maher. He attacked a politician by ridiculing his sincerely-held religious beliefs and those of other good and distinguished Americans…including, it might be noted, Seante Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, as well as three other Senators, several members of Congress, former Obama ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Amy Adams, Wiford Brimley, the Osmonds, Eliza Dushku, Katherine Heigl, Rick Schroeder, Matthew Modine, centerfielder Jacoby Ellsbury of the Boston Red Sox, plus Sharla Quayle, the lovely, talented pint-size blonde I had a crush on in high school, and Dave Scorup, my freshman room mate in college, both of whom were and presumably are still among the most decent, caring, good and trustworthy human beings it would ever be your pleasure to meet.
So I’m waiting to see if MSNBC—and its viewers— really oppose prejudice, hate and bigotry like good progressives and liberals claim to, and if Media Matters tries to pressure their favorite news network to reduce hate on the airwaves, or if, as I suspect, they prove the opposite by standing by the likes of Lawrence O’Donnell, because what really matters to them is not whether you are vicious and hateful, but whether you hate the right people.
I think it’s a fair test.
Ethics Alarms 
To: MSNBC and Mr. Lawrence O’Donnell , I try to understand free speech and what you said about Gov. Mitt Romney and the LDS Church and ” The Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.” You MSNBC should be outraged by Mr. O’Donnell’s conduct and his speech . He should be fired at once and he should be made to apologize on the air and in writing to Gov. Mitt Romney and to all LDS Church members . His conduct and his actions are so so wrong . Sincerely . Mr. D. Davis
I’m not going to defend Mormonism here, as I have my own reservations about some of their tenets. I’ll also admit that, had I lived in the 19th Century. I’d have probably regarded them as a dangerous cult myself. But that was then. Few Christians today regard the modern LDS church as more than a slightly eccentric denomination of Christianity, but one with good values which they largely hold to.
Blatantly, though, O’Donnell’s thrust here is not so much an attack on Mormonism itself, but on Mitt Romney through the controversial aspect of his faith. In this, he (as with others on the Left) sees a chance to divide the Christian vote by setting denominations against one another. To spot O’Donnell’s bias, one might ask as to what his reactions have been as to Obama’s religious affiliations, which include past Islamic connections plus a twenty year affiliation with an outrageously false and violent assembly that preaches “black liberation” theology under the guise of Christianity.
True Christian churches are divided only in aspects of doctrine and organization. On the question of Scripture, they are united. Likely enough, O’Donnell couldn’t care less. His motivation is not providing an honest history of Christendom or its principles, but to pervert it as a political weapon against those who aspire to the Presidency against its current holder.
True Christian churches are divided only in aspects of doctrine and organization. On the question of Scripture, they are united.
No true scotsman would disagree with you, and that’s one major whitewash.
His motivation is not providing an honest history of Christendom or its principles, but to pervert it as a political weapon against those who aspire to the Presidency against its current holder.
I agree with this.
The real issue is not that Romney’s mormonism is being used against him, it’s that faith is considered off limits.
If Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or you, want to take on all religion, that’s an intellectual and philosophical choice, and a valid one. If someone’s fealty to a religion leads to radical and un-Democratic positions, like, say, Rick Santorum, that is fair game as well. If a candidate brings religion into the political discussion, such as Bush’s, or Bachmann’s, or Perry’s, claims that God is speaking to them, damn right its legitimate criticism.
But using one’s religion to denigrate him on no other basis but that he or she belongs to the church, when no aspect of the individual’s political philosophy or public statements appear to rely on the church’s tenets for authority, and in doing so, denigrate all members based only on their faith—that’s bigotry, and intolerable in anyone remotely connected to news reporting or analysis.
I would think we all could agree on that.
I’m with you on paragraph 1, but not the leaps of logic in paragraph 2.
If someone willfully subscribes to specific beliefs, then those beliefs are fair game. Not only that, but ignoring those beliefs is a dereliction of journalistic integrity. Being accurate is not bigotry.
Your argument appears to be: People believe crazy things. Talking about those crazy things makes the people look crazy. Therefore, it’s bigotry to talk about those beliefs.
Then get the laws changed. It’s illegal to discriminate in employment based on religion, which I think is correct: people do not adopt a religion from a neutral position, they are raised and indoctrinated in it. Romney should not have to forswear or defend his faith to run for President, any more than President Obama should have to lie about his lack of faith. The mythic origins of all religions are irresistible to you, I know, because ridiculing any of them is like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fair and decent place for that is in theological or satirical discussions, not in political advocacy. Insulting millions of people based only on their faith is bigotry by definition, and O’Donnell’s comments were denigrating rather than analytical. And, apparently, he sees no double standard when a Roman Catholic makes fun of another religion’s beliefs.
Then get the laws changed.
What do laws have anything to do with what we’re talking about? This is ethics.
It’s illegal to discriminate in employment based on religion, which I think is correct: people do not adopt a religion from a neutral position, they are raised and indoctrinated in it.
So, all indoctrinated beliefs get a pass? How about if I teach my kid to be unethical at every turn. Should people be prohibited from failing to hire him or her? Religion isn’t special and shouldn’t be given special treatment.
Also, roughly half of American adults believe they have changed their religious beliefs. http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx
Romney should not have to forswear or defend his faith to run for President, any more than President Obama should have to lie about his lack of faith.
I absolutely agree. It’s on the populace to make sure we don’t select a nutter, but there’s no reason a nutter should be prohibited from running.
The mythic origins of all religions are irresistible to you, I know, because ridiculing any of them is like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fair and decent place for that is in theological or satirical discussions, not in political advocacy.
I reject this wholeheartedly. It is fair and decent to criticize religion anytime religion or religious belief is given special treatment. Now, is it okay to only attack the other side’s faith? No. That’s hypocritical. It’s a bad argument, and you are right for attacking O’Donnell on that account.
Insulting millions of people based only on their faith is bigotry by definition, and O’Donnell’s comments were denigrating rather than analytical. And, apparently, he sees no double standard when a Roman Catholic makes fun of another religion’s beliefs.
I don’t think you understand the definition of bigotry. Accurately describing something is not bigotry. If you are accurately using the evidence, it’s not bigotry. O’Donnell though, does come close to fitting the definition, as he’s obstinately refusing to give mormons the same benefit he gives his own crazy beliefs, and he’s treating mormons more like an ethnic group than that of people who have similar beliefs. He’s quick to believe and proclaim things about them that are not true.
1.The law against discriminating against religions is responsive and under-girds a societal value and cultural ethical norm. When the nation changes its rules to approve discrimination, then that opens the discussion to whether it is also ethical. No, it isn’t.
2. You’re talking thought-crime now. Who cares if parents teach their kids that cannibalism is OK? If they don’t eat anyone, it’s none of our business.
3. It is bigotry to presume someone is a “nutter” (Is Mr. Peanut a nutter?) based on their religious beliefs. By your definition, any sincerely religious person is a nutter, and any true atheist as well, since it’s nuts to be convinced that anything is impossible when there does not seem to be a natural explanation for existence that we can posit. Sherlock Holmes would say that if every explanation other than a Supreme Being for the existence of the universe were disproved, then a God must be responsible, and thereby exist. Denying this is nuts.
4. As I said, attacking all religions and all religious is legitimate. Attacking the people who hold those beliefs for holding them isn’t.
5. Bigotry is making negative assumptions about a person’s abilities, character and worth based on external, group membership rather than individual deeds, acts and statements. That’s what O’Donnell did.
1. So what point did “So get the laws changed.” serve? Second, if we’re going to talk about law and cultural norms here, the law should absolutely be changed. We should absolutely be able to to treat irrational people different from rational people. While the freedom from religious persecution was a major step for world governments, the catering to religious belief is a real negative.
2. No, I’m not talking about thought crime. I’m talking about not giving people who were indoctrinated special privileges. An employer should have right to refuse to hire someone because the prospective employee believes unethical things are actually ethical. Failure to do so would be a dereliction of duty, but you’re saying that so long as the belief was indoctrinated into the person, it can’t be used to judge their fitness for employment.
3. I didn’t actually say that anyone with religious beliefs is a nutter. But having faith does say that someone is irrational.
For your argument about “true athiests”, I agree. Find me one that fits. Not Dawkins. Not Hitchens. Not Sam Harris. Not even PZ Myers. It’s absolutely possible that a God created the world to look like it was created from natural processes. That’s absolutely possible. It’s just a silly statement that can be ignored as unnecessary.
As for your Sherlock example, it’s invalid. It assumes an explanation for existence must exist. It’s also moot, as it’s pretty impossible to come up with every possible explanation for existence.
4. Why is attacking religious belief okay, but attacking people for holding those beliefs out of bounds?
5. I agree that O’Donnell is a bigot. Your arguments for such, though, included premises that are simply not true. Judging someone based on group membership is not bigotry. If someone identifies as a member of Al Qaida, I’m going to say they are a terrorist. That’s not bigotry. The same applies to Volleyball fan clubs and political organizations. It applies to you as well. You identify as a musical producer. That means you produce musicals. Romney identifies as a Mormon. That means he believes in crazy Mormon junk. That’s what being Mormon means…believing in crazy Mormon junk.
TGT,
“Accurately describing something is not bigotry. If you are accurately using the evidence, it’s not bigotry.”
There is nothing ‘accurate’ about what O’Donnell spewed forth and there is no ‘evidence’ to corroborate it either. What he said was INaccurate, mean-spirited blather with an intent to mock and denigrate someone about their beliefs. If that isn’t religious bigotry, I don’t know what is!
I never said that O’Donnell was accurate. that was in response to Jack’s statement that “Insulting millions of people based only on their faith is bigotry by definition”. It’s not.
Now, did you read the rest of the paragraph you quoted that from? Emphasis added.
“O’Donnell though, does come close to fitting the definition, as he’s obstinately refusing to give mormons the same benefit he gives his own crazy beliefs, and he’s treating mormons more like an ethnic group than that of people who have similar beliefs. He’s quick to believe and proclaim things about them that are not true.“
“If someone willfully subscribes to specific beliefs, then those beliefs are fair game Not only that, but ignoring those beliefs is a dereliction of journalistic integrity.” (There is no journalistic integrity in what this idiot is saying about the LDS Church. He is making things up about the founding of the Church. I don’t know where he thinks he is getting his info but it is totally off base!!!) So being inaccurate and portraying it as the truth, then saying such ignorant things about a church he seemingly knows nothing about to denigrate good people is bigotry to me!
It’s bigotry to anyone. O’Donnell was hardly trying to do a dispassionate, informational piece on the Mormon Church. Of course the public should know the facts about any political candidate’s religion, especially if he or she is active in the church. O’Donnell was grossly deriding the church in order to denigrate Romney; there was nothing objective, fair or honest about it.
How is Romney’s faith an issue in the first place?
In our current media discourse: Mormonism is seen to be different from “standard” Christianity. And people fear that which is different, especially when it comes to faith.
In reality: belief in insane things should make getting votes impossible. Sadly, nearly all candidates believe or pretend to believe in insane things.
Your definition of insanity, TGT, now covers the vast bulk of humanity- past and present- to include just about every great thinker since Jesus Himself. I guess that leaves you as a member of a tiny elite who are specially endowed to run the world.
Before the information age, it wasn’t insanity.
I’m not sure it matters, but there’s also the slight problem that literally every detail was incorrect.
That too.
I watched 30 seconds of CBS News coverage this morning. What I heard was the talking head (don’t know who she was) say “(with Santorum out of the way) the only two obstacles between Mitt Romney and the presidency are Barack Obama and the media.” I believe that is how they see themselves, they are the last line of defense keeping the country from a Republican president. In that role, the end justifies the means…
I do want one questioned asked about Mitt Romney’s faith and I do think it is relevant. In the LDS church, you have to follow the orders of a superior in the church (because it comes from God). I have seen officials in the LDS church order subordinates in the church to quit jobs, move, and make specific decisions at their place of employment. If he becomes President of the USA, will Mitt Romney take orders from the President of the LDS church? I think if he wants us to make him President, we have a right to know if he will be working for the citizens, or someone else. I likewise wanted someone to ask John Kerry how he was going to handle the fact that his family would control one of the country’s largest corporations while President, which would have been unprecedented in American history.
Talking Head you quoted seemed to be attacking the media. Were you trying to say you agree with that person, or that person was evidence the media is trying to get in the way of a Republican president?
For the rest, questions should be asked of Romney about his religious beliefs. The power structure question is important, but so are questions like “Do you believe the words of one dead conman over real evidence?”
No, the talking head was reporting more like a war reporter, Obama and the media need to stop him. The American voters apparently don’t figure into the run to the presidency.
So, you’re saying that the talking head was saying the media needs to stop Romney from becoming President? An advocacy position. Well, then I put that talking head firmly in the corner of unconstitutional dipshit, but it’s not like Obama can do anything about it. That would be an attack on freedom of speech.
If the talking head is attached to the Obama campaign or U.S. Government, then he should be jettisoned, but otherwise, what would you have Obama do?
That’s never stopped Obama before, TGT. As to the question of loyalty to the head of an heiarchical church; that same argument was used against Catholics running for office.
So, you’re suggesting prior bad acts require new bad acts that you can further declaim. Pass.
The attack on Catholics is a good parallel. It’s a completely fair attack, but only if all silly religious authorities are attacked. The Catholics were singled out, so it wasn’t fair.
Nooooo… TGT. I’m suggesting hypocrisy, a the very least. The rest is irrelevant due to your narrow atheistic bias.
I don’t see the hypocrisy, can you lay it out for me?
The LDS church leaders have striven to not influence the members of the church when it comes to politics. There is no justification in thinking the president of the LDS church would tell a Mormon president what to do. As for your point of church officials ‘ordering subordinates to quit jobs, move, and make specific decisions’, I don’t know where you are getting your information. Most church officials have never, and would never, do that. Plus there are no “subordinates” in the LDS church because the leaders are chosen for a number of years and then are released. This means everyone is on equal footing within the church. That said, there are always those “nut-cases” that think that once they get a little power, they control the world. You’re going to find that in every religion, corporation, government, etc.
Most wouldn’t do it means that some do it. Your belief in equal footing is that leadership postions are not permanent. By that argument, President Obama does not have authority over anyone.
That cinches it: I’m going to vote for Romney for President, if for no other reason than to retaliate against O’Donnell and every individual who dares to come out with a defense for this latest smear by O’Donnell – and against every individual who heretofore has enjoyed a position of prominence in the national dialogue, who FAILS to denounce in their respective spotlight or microphone, what O’Donnell did.
Let’s hear the “greater ‘O’ ” in the White House personally denounce this latest O’Donnell offense – or send out his little brigade of spinklutzes and damage-enhancers to help distance the President from O’Donnell’s convenient bigotry, with the same zeal that the President has personally injected himself into that trumped-up, race-hate hysteria over George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Nah – not gonna hear Obama say anything about O’Donnell, I predict.
God, I’m angry right now. (If He hears, He knows what to do with me.)
Your argument is ridiculous. By the same logic, how many times would you have had to say this:
That cinches it: I’m going to vote for Obama for President, if for no other reason than to retaliate against Limbaugh and every individual who dares to come out with a defense for this latest smear by Limbaugh – and against every individual who heretofore has enjoyed a position of prominence in the national dialogue, who FAILS to denounce in their respective spotlight or microphone, what Limbaugh did.
Let’s hear the “greater ‘R’ ” on the campaign trail personally denounce this latest Limbaugh offense – or send out his little brigade of spinklutzes and damage-enhancers to help distance the candidate from Limbaugh‘s convenient bigotry, with the same zeal that the candidatehas personally injected himself into that trumped-up hysteria over the state of our country.
Nah – not gonna hear Romney say anything about Limbaugh, I predict.
God, I’m angry right now. (If He hears, He knows what to do with me.)
Can we have a mad libs form for this Jack?
I’ll work on it. Good idea.
Tgt (Jack too), you can substitute whatever you want, using my comment for a “form.” Macht’s nichts to me. Depending on what you substitute (I see you already did that, tgt – tsk!-tsk!), it might (or might not) be ridiculous. Just take full responsibility for your substitutions.
Sometimes, one can prove absurdity by use of absurdity. But sometimes, those attempted proofs fail, because either the alleged absurdity was not absurdity after all, and/or because the attempted proof, however it might have reflected absurdity, was a futile exercise in “non sequitur-ism.” Similarly, sometimes one can prove ridiculousness inherent to ideas expressed in texts, by substitutions-in-context to produce an ostensible “parallel” that amounts to ridiculousness (“In the beginning, rationality created tgt…‘I [tgt] am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to rationality except through me.’ ”). Sometimes, such an exercise is itself ridiculous, or worse, makes the employer of the exercise seem ridiculous.
Tgt, I know you’re proud of yourself (I’m proud of you, too, honestly). But the best of us overlook the obvious from time to time. For one thing, we (I mean you, tgt, and I) are at a point of discussion where neither of us can avoid appearing Trayvon-ish (or perhaps Barack-ish), which is truly unfortunate.
But also, tgt, in your 1:00 pm and 1:01 pm comments, you seem extraordinarily (oh, maybe just ordinarily) George Zimmerman-ish about my comment (and I presume you’re proud of that, too), to wit:
– Stalking another (me), in (cyber-spatial) proximity to yourself, who for whatever reason has caught your attention…
– …in a “neighborhood” you obviously watch closely (Jack’s blog), to a degree that is (arguably at least) the blog-watching equivalent of a residential neighborhood’s “watch captain”…
– …sure enough (or suspicious enough) of your stalk-ee’s mind, motive, and purpose (or lack thereof), beckoning to a third party (Jack) for validation of your involvement with a situation (or possible situation) which earlier you were not involved with (beckoning ostensibly out of respect for authority [Jack’s], but otherwise [and, let’s face it, in this case], “covering your ass”)…
– …interpreting what you perceive (in my comment) as “ridiculous”[ness] – something that just doesn’t have a place in YOUR neighborhood (“I ain’t gonna let THAT go on around HERE – gotta take THOSE people, who do THAT stuff, and take ‘em OUT.”)…
– …thus, including yourself in a situation, about which you have taken upon yourself the responsibility to clarify, or otherwise modify, by interacting with your stalk-ee…
– …initiating your interaction with said stalk-ee by way of a…well, perhaps not-so-engaging, perhaps rude, perhaps hostile, or at least, what would be off-putting if not otherwise provocative (in the mind of any reasonable stalk-ee)…direct communication with your stalk-ee…
– …striving to fulfill your envisioned constructive mission (heroically and unilaterally, if you should deem necessary – and note, out of respect, until now I did not say anything to suggest “entertaining delusions”), to effect a microcosmic correction of society’s ills, no matter whether the need for such correction truly exists in the situation you have involved yourself and are now attempting to control…
– …irresistibly drawn to the stalk-ee’s response to your initiative, but perhaps unsure of how to proceed with the rules of engagement which you are making up as the seconds tick, you suddenly find yourself pounced-upon by your stalk-ee and are thus left with little choice but to defend yourself in a manner which, while perhaps “fatal” to your stalk-ee, nevertheless places yourself in a position of taking advantage of the situation (and your stalk-ee) by certain means at your disposal, to exploit the stalk-ee and situation to your benefit, without receiving due justice…
– …thereby affecting the situation, due to your intervention, in a manner which leaves the rest of the reasonable, reasoning and rational world no opportunity to discern which person (stalker or stalk-ee) has the overriding right to stand his ground – but simultaneously, which leaves every opportunity for anyone who wishes to seize upon such opportunity to be ever more suspicious, untrusting, hostile, and generally prejudiced toward you, to the point that even if you’re right, you’re wrong.
All the same, George (I mean, tgt), thanks for your “shooting.” Big weekend’s coming up; I’ll just claim resurrection, if I must.
(Ah! Now feeling better, not angry. There! I’m proud of this comment – perfect for O’Donnell to use for practice, before delivering his next televised, bigoted faith-group smear – with no less than his trademark leprechaun-ish, kind and gentle [to Obama] gotcha-smirk.)
My substitution was dead on, though if I did it now, I’d use the Fox News Anchor who was tweeting stories about Obama holding Chelsea Clinton to make sure Bill and Hillary didn’t expose his supposed dirty secret.
Your parallel with Zimmerman is ridiculous. It’s just…weird.
Lets start with the fact that I respond to speech with more speech. I don’t try to shut people down or make them go away. I don’t prejudge comments. I’m legitimately interested in what people have to say about ethics and strongly believe in improving discourse. If you make a bad argument, even for something I support, I’m going to call it out as a bad argument. Bad arguments don’t get us anywhere.
Like SMP, you can impute random motives onto me, but they are the product of your mind, not a representation of reality.
There’s no stalkee and stalker, there are just people contributing to ethical thought. I have the benefit of alot of down time, and when I have it, I like to spend some of it here. Using my speech to to try to get us on a more ethical course.
Tgt, I’m not arguing. You can call it arguing if you wish, and call it any quality you wish. I’m simply declaring what I’m going to do, and in this matter, I will not be concerned, inhibited, deterred, or coerced to say or do otherwise by others’ thoughts or speech that what I say or do (or might say or do, or am going to say or do) is ridiculous. I’m a voter for Romney now.
I don’t think you know what an argument is: reasoned statements leading to a conclusion. Well, maybe you do. There wasn’t any reason in your post.
He will, indeed.
I’ve never trusted anything from O’donnell. He uses information from a book written by a guy in a trailer in the middle of Nebraska to to attack a candidate that will actually do something,
I “trusted” O’Donnell long enough, to watch him long enough, to find out what he IS trusted for – which has nothing to do with any trust I have for him. I call him “O’Smirkell.” I watched him on MSNBC only long enough to learn and practice his smirk, in order to mock him. I haven’t watched Stewart or Colbert enough to see if either has perfected his smirk and mocked him with it. They have plenty of reason to make that mock smirk part of their material now. But I predict they won’t touch him.
The finest commentary ever written about Mormons was the South Park episode “All About Mormons”.
Wait, no, not for the first 20 minutes of story being told in sing-song with “dum-dum-dum-dum-dum” after every line.
It’s for the last 30 seconds, where Gary (a Mormon boy) says:
“All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan.
But you’re so high and mighty, you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back.
You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy.
Suck my balls.”
–Dwayne
“Come, come, ye Saints, no toil or labor fear; but with joy wend your way/
Though hard to you this journey may appear, Grace shall be as your day.
‘Tis far better for us to strive, our useless cares from us to drive/
Do this, and joy your hearts will swell. All is well, all is well.”
– Old Mormon hymn
Your article was right on point. I have written to MSNBC with similar alarm that O’Donnell is not already fired. I will forward your article to them as well. This man has no business being in front of a camera…anywhere.
This began when Mitt Romney accused President Obama of inventing a new religion of secularism. President Obama has invented no such religion and Romney had attacked the President on a contrived charge of being “the new prophet of a secular faith”. I was disgusted with O’Donnell and his religious bigotry, but I am just as disgusted with Mitt Romney hurling false accusations of Obama’s new secular faith at him. Both men should be ashamed of themselves. Neither men exhibited good character. Haven’t we had enough of religious wars in trying to bring peace to the Shite and Sunni Muslims and battling other religious extremists?
I think this started with Washington called Addams a Puritan Congregationalist. The attack on secularism as a bad thing is a separate topic and I don’t see what it adds to this post.
Only if you consider that a moral equivalency exists between Islam and Christianity.
This kind of talk leads to miss-understanding which leads to hate and violence. It is the kind talk that was allowed to exist in the media when the Mormons were forced out of their homes and crossed country and the rocky mountains on foot ;many lost their lives. MSNBC you are taking the media back 200 years.