Dave called into KVNU’s For the People during the last part of the second hour tonight to discuss Lawrence O’Donnell’s tirade on Sunday’s McLaughlin Group on PBS. Here’s the link to the YouTube video. I promised to post it.
O’Donnell is an expert because… well, he plays a polygamist on HBO.
More on this from Utah State Senator Scott McCoy:
Recently Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney took the stage to discuss Faith in America. It was a risky move for him unfortunately precipitated by the ironclad grip that the conservative evangelical rightwing has on the Republican Party. The fallout from the speech and the heightened attention to Governor Romney’s Mormon faith has begun. I was shocked and deeply saddened to listen to the anti-Mormon tirade that spewed forth from political pundit Lawrence O’Donnell on this past Sunday’s episode of The McLaughlin Group (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYgp-JszZ1w&v3). The panel was discussing Governor Romney’s Faith in America speech and the ongoing controversy surrounding his Mormon faith. O’Donnell accused the Mormon faith of being “racist” and “ridiculous” and said the faith is “based on the work of a lying, fradulent, criminal named Joseph Smith.” I was gravely disappointed by this episode and the constant attention to faith and religion in the presidential race.
An individual’s faith (or lack thereof) is a personal affair, not a public issue open to debate in a political campaign. When faith is made a public issue, it becomes open to the very public debate (and prejudice) that we saw on The McLaughlin Group and that we see in the Republican presidential primary. Making faith a public political issue pits different faith groups against each other and drags belief into the oftentimes dirty and low arena of politics. It potentially demeans and degrades religious belief and subjects it to majoritarian rule. Making faith a public and political issue de facto creates religious tests. This was exactly what the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid in outlawing explicit religious tests and seeking to maintain a wall of separation between public affairs and religious institutions. It is as much for the protection of religion as it is for the protection of the people and government. In politics, there are winners and losers. In faith, there should be no winners or losers.
In America, we need religious pluralism and a separation of Church and State and religion and politics. The troubles that Governor Romney now faces based on his religious beliefs stem from the fact that Republican primary voters (mostly evangelicals) demand that Republican presidential candidates publicly and loudly confess their religious beliefs so that those beliefs can be measured against the approved brand of Christian doctrine. A candidate’s failure to wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve risks political isolation and rejection. Unfortunately, the Republican “big tent” has become a revival tent. Governor Romney decided to play this game by making his Faith in America speech. By doing so, he has handed the evangelical extremists and his fellow presidential candidates a can of worms and a can opener. Governor Romney can hardly make faith and religion a public issue and then play the victim and refuse to answer the questions that are begged and engage in the very public debate that he started. If (or when) Governor Romney is rejected by Republican primary voters because of his Mormon faith, then religious pluralism will be truly and openly dead in the Republican Party, and anyone from an unacceptable faith should beware.
If Mitt Romney were running as a Democrat, I don’t think his Mormon faith would be an issue. Democratic voters believe in religious pluralism and impose no religious tests on their candidates. Our track record proves as much. The highest elected Democrat in the country at the moment is a Mormon named Harry Reid. We had a Jewish vice-presidential candidate in Joe Lieberman (He didn’t have to make a “Faith in America” speech). We have the first-ever Muslim member of Congress. In the Utah House, we have a Buddhist. Democrats likely want their candidates to have faith, but past that, which faith is not important. For Democrats, in the world of politics, good positions on issues and public policy trump piety.
So, to my Mormon friends, neighbors and countrymen, I say “You have seen the ugly side of faith in America yet again and you deserve better. In the Democratic Party, you would receive better.”
I would have registered as a democrat, and encouraged my friends to as well because of this… but my strong dislike for both political parties prevents my registration with any side. Joining one of these teams would mean I am no longer on the side of our nation.
The point of McCoy’s post is belied by the opening. O’ Donnell is a Democrat, and so is Maureen Dowd, whose attack on Mormons I wrote about previously. I predict that, if Romney gets the nomination, the attacks on Mormonism will be worse than they are now. With the full force of the media siding with the Democrats, the LDS faith will get the full rectal exam.
Also, a recent Gallup poll showed that just as many Democrats as Republicans said they won’t vote for a Mormon.
Craig,
I tend to agree that Romney won’t get a pass in the GE if he gets the nomination. But the nature of the attacks will change. Now it’s about things like Jesus and Satan being brothers, in the media it will be about politically correctness. Things like polygamy and blacks and the priesthood.
Oh, don’t mind Craig. He has the Utah Republican Battered Wife Syndrome. He know, deep in his heart, that if he just wishes hard enough, those evangelicals will like him, really like him.
Since moving to Utah last spring I have been very interested in the way that LDS members have been reacting to the Romney candidacy. Originally, I had expected that much like the Olympics coming to Utah this event would be greeted with open arms and seen as an opportunity for the entire country to take a closer look at mainstream Mormons. Instead I’ve sensed a profound fear that church doctrine might come under too much public scrutiny and ultimately result in embarrassment for the Church and its members. Instead of lashing out against your critics with such terms as “Bigots” and “Theocons” LDS members might find it more useful to embrace the criticisms as an opportunity to dispel misperceptions and falsehoods. I have long held that if an individual’s religion is truly a central part of his or her life then it should affect all aspects of life including their political orientations and dealings. I truly believe that the idea that an individual needs to put away their religious beliefs when voting is completely wrong and disingenuous. As I recently wrote in an essay at LincolnsBLOG.com, I can’t imagine that very many members of the LDS Church would be willing to vote for a candidate for Governor that also happened to be a member of the fundamentalist Mormon sect run by the polygamist prophet Warren Jeffs. Does this make these LDS members Bigots or Theocons? Ironically, the LDS Church as far more in common with the beliefs of Warren Jeffs then do fundamentalist Evangelicals have with mainstream Mormonism. I personally would not vote for Huckabee because he was a Baptist Minister. It is my religious beliefs that religious leaders have no place in politics, even leaders of my own faith. Does this make me a Theocons or Bigot? Or am I simply allowing my faith to play a complete roll in my life. There will always be those that will oppose your religious beliefs. As a Christian I must ask myself; is it better for me to compound the hatred brought against me by lashing back or defuse it by embracing it in love?
Rich Okelberry – Managing Editor LincolnsBLOG.com
If that fundamentalist was a proven leader, and not part of actively breaking laws then I don’t think I would oppose them if their political values were more in line with mine (i.e. interested in governing for all the people vs. their own political party or special interests that go against public interest). We have voted in people that have sex outside of marriage, so the difference between that and a polygamist is that polygamists are at least married to the person (but right now that is against the law, so they are out by default). It is ironic that adulterers are socially accepted and quickly forgiven, but polygamists (assuming they are married to legal adults) aren’t (well, unless you happen to be Bill Clinton anyway).
Likewise, I wouldn’t be against voting for an atheist or agnostic either if they kept politics outside of my church services and personal worship. I have known plenty of these that would be preferable leaders to our current crop of moralists that wear their religion on their sleeves while throwing the public interest under the shelf.
If a leader can serve the nation well, and not mess with the principles this nation was founded on, then they should be in that position, regardless of their faith vs mine.
But Richard Okelberry is probably right, this opinion is in the minority. Most people latch on to illogical or irrelevant aspects of another’s personal faith or lack thereof, and cannot look past it to see the great leader.
JM,
I’m not exactly sure what an evangelical is, as we use the term in politics, but I probably qualify as one.
Politically speaking, it does anger me that the Evangelicals within the republican party serve as the “gate keepers” to the presidency.
It will be a sad day if Mitt Romney does not get the nomination based on his faith.
The comparison between an evengelical voting for Mitt, and a Mormon voting for a FLDS member, is worthless.
Mormons do vote for people they do not agree with religiously! President Bush for instance had more per capita support among Mormons than Evangelicals. Every presidential election in the modern history of this country Mormons have voted for people who not only disagree with them on doctirne, but have voted for people who believe that they (mormons) are part of a satanic cult!
As mormons we vote for members of other religions who hate us!! We are the model of religious tolerance in voting.
For those of us who have lived in the south, we understand that among a significant part of the evangelical community there is nothing short of a seething hatred for the LDS people.
I have experienced this hatred personally and can tell you it is a very ugly horrible experience. We are fools to assume that these same people will judge a man based on his accomplishments. Of course this is not everyone, but many people would be surprised to know just how many people it really is.
I am extremely fed up with the Republican Party. However, there is NO alternative. The democrats may be tolerant on religion, but they are weak on economy defense, and a host of other issues.
If only Mitt could run on a third party ticket! He wouldn’t win, but it would send a powerful message.
Hey Mike,
Even when you remove your persecution complex glasses I bet you might have had experienced some “seething hatred” from a few nuts. The thing with that type of idiototic behaviour is that it is blazenly obvious, 180 degrees out phase from the way non LDS kids are marginalized in good ol Happy…..I mean Cache Valley. And by the way, IMHO your full of it when you state, “Mormons do vote for people they do not agree with religiously!”….why the record breaking numbers of support for Mitt from Provo, Logan and other stronghold of Mormonism. I am not saying that the same is not true with Baptist support for Hucky. To me their really isn’t a dime worth of difference between them…..I would have an easier time supporting my favorite Aggie/Mormon/Senator (yes Dingy Harry) then twidle dee and twidle dumb
Why was an actor on this show? Was he to be seen as an expert on Mormonism? I once played the King of Japan in the Mikado, but I wont be speaking on Asian-American issues anytime soon.