But there are signs that [Iowa's] influence on the nominating process could be ebbing and that the nature of the voters who tend to turn out for the Republican caucuses — a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians and ideological conservatives overlaid with parochial interests — is discouraging some candidates from competing there....It's distressing to see this conflation of conservatism and prejudice. It's one thing if Iowan Republicans tend to go for someone with a stronger message of social conservatism, quite another if they are hostile to Mormons. Plenty of Mormons are social conservatives, and it just happens that the 2 Mormons in the race are not social conservatives. Can we get some serious research on this point? It's a dangerous thing to allow insinuations of religious bigotry to seep into the public consciousness. I can't tell if the Times is really against bigotry or not. If you portray Iowan religious conservatives as anti-Mormon, in one way, it seems anti-bigotry. But it's also inviting us to feel hostility toward the Iowan evangelicals.
[L]ike Mr. Romney, Mr. Huntsman is a Mormon, a religion viewed with wariness by some conservative Christians....
Mr. Romney’s decision, in particular, suggests that candidates who are viewed suspiciously by the state’s religious conservatives may stand little chance there....
११ जून, २०११
Romney and Huntsman — the 2 Mormons in the Republican race — are avoiding the Iowa straw poll.
As NYT presents it, they don't see the advantage in exposing themselves to the judgment of evangelical Christians:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
But it's also inviting us to feel hostility toward the Iowan evangelicals.
Manhattan liberals don't need any encouragement here. In my last full time gig at a publishing house in Manhattan, the staff was about 75% gay.
Their favorite fantasy was that the evangelicals were massing up on the west banks of the Hudson for the final genocidal attack. They loved movies and plays on this theme, which they attended (and produced) as often as possible. How they yearned for martyrdom!
However, I think that the real liberal bitch against Iowans is their belief in self-reliance and individual responsibility. This was best captured in Iowahawk's great opus comparing the response of Iowa and New Orleans to floods: Flood Ravaged Iowans Idiotically Move On.
The insinuations of bigotry exist prinarily in the NYT editorial offices. I'm sure there's 1% of the GOP who who would "never!" vote for a Mormon, or a Catholic, or an Italian or a Jew, and so on... Same with the Dems. Conflating that with Party wide bigotry is just a sleazy NYT "concern-troll" move. Look around. Who mocks and belittles people for their Religion? The institutional Left, not the Right. If there's a grand unifying theme, it's on their side.
Then they threaded the needle of accomplishing BOTH ends. Raising the spectre of anti-mormon bigotry as well as continuing their hostility toward evangelicals in general (and Iowan evangelicals in this case).
Remember when Huckabee incited anti-Mormon bigotry in the '08 race?
I actually know evangelicals... have some in my family.
They Times is dead wrong about evangelical attitudes towards Mormons, if my experience can be trusted.
Evangelicals almost always express great approval of the success of Mormon families, not just economic success, but their success in educating and disciplining their children.
My evangelicals friends and relatives think that Mormons have great values and produce great results.
As much as it pains me to back up the NYT, I agree that there is religious bigotry within the conservative movement, and a nontrivial amount of it.
Hell, I've seen it here in these comments sections, from ordinarily rational commenters, who have referred to Romney as a member of a 'spooky cult'.
And as an atheist who has supported candidates without regard for their religion, this pisses me off. I know that in my lifetime, at least, there will never be an openly non-religious Republican candidate for any office higher than dog warden, and I can accept that. If I could wave my magic wand and make anyone President, the very religious Palin would be high on my list.
Now, Romney's not very high on my list, because he's not very conservative. But he's a hell of a lot more conservative than the outright socialist we have now; and he had a better chance of beating the socialist than McCain did. And we lost the Romney option, because Fuckabee pointed out that Romney wears funny underpants and thinks that Satan and Jesus are brothers.
And enough pin-heads out there nodded along with him to sink Romney. Now, I do think that there's much more religious bigotry on the left than on the right; but we're better than them, and there shouldn't be any.
I have never understood why the GOP allows themselves to choose their candidates based on the whims of Iowa and New Hamphshire. Two quirky and almost irrelevant States.
They need to have a process where all States are allowed a shot at the first primaries on a rotating basis.
If we can do the Olympics in a different country every four years, we can do a different rotation of States for the primaries as well.
Wow Pasta, for a guy whose screenname mocks an entire Religion, you're quite the stickler.
Steve Austin -- I don't know why they can't have all of the primaries on one day, as they do with the general election.
Take the date of the last state to hold their primary and make that the national primary day.
The idea that you could get any meaningful analysis of Iowa or Iowans from the New York Times is just bizarre.
I guess this hitjob on Republicans, Mormons, Conservatives, Christians, Tea Partiers will have to continue for a while from the NYT until the Palin emails are brought forth.
Lincolntf, I think Pastafarianism is pretty fair in its mockery of all religion in general. There are elements of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism in it.
I adopted the name partly because I appreciate the assholish humor of the site; partly to reflect that one aspect of my philosophy, that I'm not religious; and partly because I really like lasagna and fettuccine.
The problem with stripping the rights of the States to determine their own primary dates is that it would necessarily require a new Federal system that would be run, by a typical bueaucracy, from DC. Whatever grief we get from NH and Iowa, we can ignore the results if we want (a lot of candidates do). Some new Fed setup would surely suck more than our current system.
"I think Pastafarianism is pretty fair in its mockery of all religion "
"but we're better than them, and there shouldn't be any."
Actually, given the whole Prop. 8 kerfuffle, I would think that there was far more hatred for Mormons amongst liberals than conservatives at this point in time.
I mean they were the acceptable target of hate after the vote (once the protesters realized that screaming racial slurs at blacks wasn't helping their cause that is).
Lincolntf, I figured there would be a states' rights argument. But the system that we have now, with two or three very non-typical states acting as king-makers, is just awful.
Would we really need some elaborate system? We could still let the states run their own primaries; it's just that they'd have to all hold their primaries on just one day.
This would also reduce the amount of ACORN vote-in-multiple-state shenanigans that we have every year.
Just for the record, O'Reilly covered this last night.
Conclusion: Straw polls cost a lot of money and don't produce the desired bang for the buck.
Lincolntf, as I've pointed out, I vote every 4 years for an avowed Christian of one stripe or another as leader of the free world; and I'll do it again in 2012.
Until I see a large number of Christian conservatives backing an atheist Republican candidate, I'll keep this screen name without a troubled conscience.
I just Googled Pastafarian. Until now, I thought it had something to do with the love of all things made from pasta. I'm now smarter, I think.
Until I see a large number of Christian conservatives backing an atheist Republican candidate, I'll keep this screen name without a troubled conscience.
People vote for candidates who share their values. Thus, atheists are unlikely to attract Christian voters.
This isn't prejudice. You're just making that up.
I don't care about your conscience, and your name doesn't bother me. But the phrase "you're/we're better than that" always annoys the shit out of me, I think you hit my peevish bone.
Lincolntf -- here's my attitude restated:
Pastafarianism is to religious bigotry, as a Monty Python skit with Graham Chapman in a dress and speaking in a falsetto is to misogyny.
Pastafarianism, I'm going to try to enlighten you. The fact that you have chosen to aggravate people with your alleged atheism doesn't give me much hope.
Evangelicals watch and enjoy Monty Python, too. Seen it with my own eyes.
And they still won't vote for and atheist. And this has nothing to do with prejudice. Once again, this part you are just making up.
That last paragraph of yours is a doozie, meaning, you can be so naive. All around us, religious battles rage - of all kinds - and you're concerned about prejudice against Mormons? You can be a funny lady sometimes.
Maybe, when anybody becomes as concerned about the psychic shop on the corner as I am, I might whip up the proper indignation for what happens to the folks who have a state littered with temples, but right now, I'm just trying to stay alive myself.
That's not to say that I don't care, just that Gawd provides.
To AllenS at 8:03 - have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?
Shouting, are you arguing that there are no conservative atheists?
Certainly there are no conservative atheist candidates; but that's because they know they couldn't win, not because such creatures don't exist.
Or are you suggesting that there are values more important than conservatism to conservative voters? Because for me, and I would think for most rational people, a candidate's policies on taxes, spending, and foreign policy matter more than how they pray. If how they pray is more important, that that seems the very definition of religious bigotry, to me.
Frankly, I think we have an atheist POTUS right now. (The whole liberation-theology church was a politically calculated charade to help him in Chicago.) And he's arguably the worst POTUS in my lifetime. A candidate's religion is a non sequitur.
Christopher nails it at 7:50 AM.
Also, Sullivan's sustained detraction of Mitt Romney probably influenced someone's opinion at the NYT.
Lincolntf, I don't like the "we're better than that" phrase either. How's this instead: We need to hang together, or we'll hang separately.
Pastafarian, you need to find something to do today.
Raining where you are? Me too?
Perhaps there is a gym near you where you can work off the tension. Sitting around dreaming up ever more arcane forms of bigotry is not good for the heart.
Whoa! I wouldn't go that far, Jess.
It's hot and getting hotter here in NC. Wife has been in France for a week, during which time I've only minimally weeded our veggie garden. She'll be back Tuesday.
It's going to take at least a solid half-day of work. I will be putting that off for as long as possible. If I'm still hanging around here at noon, tell me to get my ass in gear.
You can be an atheist and become President. You just have to pretend to believe in God some way. Just like you have to pretend to like babies and care about old people.
But it applies to both parties, not just Republicans. Other than being a former member of the Church of Hate Whitey, Obama is probably a closest atheist.
Wife has been in France for a week, during which time I've only minimally weeded our veggie garden.
You can overthink this task.
I mulled it over and over this week. When I finally got my ass out there, it only took about 45 minutes.
Use a hoe. Just be careful not to take out the good with the bad.
Shouting, I'm stuck in the house all day with the kids, and a bottle of Glenfarclas. So get used to me.
One other point:
If the values determined by one's religion are so important to a voter, than how can it be that both Orrin Hatch (Republican-Republican, UT) and Harry Reid (Douchebag, UT) are Mormons? I mean, if two Mormons can be in complete disagreement about just about every important policy position, isn't it entirely possible that a Christian voter might find himself in complete agreement, policy-wise, with an atheist candidate?
Bias and prejudice against Mormons is disturbing, but Mitt is doing what he is doing for strategic reasons too. From corn subsidies to kissing Iowan's asses, it is a quirky place.
I hope Herman Cain wins there over Bachman and people elsewhere realize he really is a good candidate.
Romney's candidacy is problematical to conservatives without reference to his Mormonism. If Romney articulated a clear and consistent conservative message and had a history of adhering to conservative principles when he was in office, he'd be a lot better off poll-wise. The number of conservatives who'd not vote for him on account of his religion, while present, would be statistically insignificant.
Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman (who?) is a total nonstarter because he isn't known.
Shouting, I'm stuck in the house all day with the kids, and a bottle of Glenfarclas. So get used to me.
You won't be around very long if you really hit that bottle.
Who's taking care of the kids after you nod out?
Athiesm, Religion, Moromons? Big problems in the world...war, famine, etc., no easy answers...how about we all burst into song!
It is like Kumbaya, but for people with a sense of humor.
Ann, you are making a serious errors of logic. Conservatives are bigoted to the core, so nothing the NYT insinuates could be morally wrong. Even if they are wrong in a particular instance, they are cosmically right.
See, simple.
Romney's problem is not being a Mormon. His problem is how easy it is for him to act like he has good morals, but then deceive voters by saying whatever they want to hear about ethanol, cap and tax, and a single payer medical system. Religion, whether Mormon or another is used as a training ground for lying and doing it smoothly under cover of a morality schtick. I do not trust Romney or Huckabee. But I tend to trust a Christian that draws fire because she might actually believe the Christian revelation.
Shouting Thomas --
"People vote for candidates who share their values. Thus, atheists are unlikely to attract Christian voters.
This isn't prejudice. You're just making that up."
The only value Christian and atheist voters don't share is religion. How again is this not religious prejudice?
"And they still won't vote for and atheist. And this has nothing to do with prejudice. Once again, this part you are just making up."
Please explain exactly what values an atheist holds that causes them to avoid voting for one.
Please explain exactly what values an atheist holds that causes them to avoid voting for one.
The atheist doesn't believe in God.
So, I guess liberals and athiests get a pass on their virulent anti-religious bigotry from the NYT?
Shouting Thomas --
"The atheist doesn't believe in God."
I honestly had a hard time believing you thought that was a true answer to why evangelicals aren't religiously bigoted.
You just proved yourself wrong.
Lincolntf,
Hire a couple of kids from the neighborhood. Then, go buy a twelve pack.
EDH --
"So, I guess liberals and athiests get a pass on their virulent anti-religious bigotry from the NYT?"
As with any other portion of the population, only *some* of them do. The rest, no. In fact, right here on Althouse's blog, I have jump the ass of atheists displaying religious bigotry.
"Please explain exactly what values an atheist holds that causes them to avoid voting for one"
The atheist doesn't believe in God.
She asked for a reason we wouldn't vote for a religious person, not for a definition of atheism. :)
In fact, right here on Althouse's blog, I have jump the ass of atheists displaying religious bigotry.
Yet another reason to create Diversity Camps for much needed re-education.
The persecution of atheists must stop!
Diversity is our greatest strength!
Shouting Thomas --
"Yet another reason to create Diversity Camps for much needed re-education.
The persecution of atheists must stop!
Diversity is our greatest strength!"
So, since your arguments have fallen flat, you resort to a comedy routine?
Certainly there are no conservative atheist candidates; but that's because they know they couldn't win, not because such creatures don't exist.
There are no liberal atheist candidates either, at least not any that will admit it. They couldn't win, either.
There is some anti-Mormon bias among some evangelicals. Huckabee tried to use that last time around. But there is LOTS of anti-Mormon bias among the left- Andrew tried to stir that up last time around. The Prop 8 ads and protests directly targeted Mormons.
So the NYT is doing what the left likes to do- highlight something they know lefties are against in the name of reporting what "conservatives" are against.
Another example is the way left bloggers will use Bobby Jindal's given name when talking about him. Not to make fun of him, you see, but to point out to redneck republicans that he is Indian.
Romney as frontrunner provides a simple tactic to the NY Times. Play up the divisions between evangelicals and Mormons. If an ugly spectacle emerges, a damaged Republican candidate will face Obama and many independents will sour on Republicans in general.
You can hate the NY Times for exploiting the situation, but the problem is not the Times. Situation reversed, the right would try to sow divisions on the left. Or, if you prefer, haters gonna hate. The problem is those exploitable divisions are all too real.
Ironically, Christian evangelicals oppose Mormonism because LDS drew the line in the sand some 200 years ago by declaring that Christian churches -- all of them -- do not interpret the bible correctly. Joseph Smith then declared himself to be the new prophet of God and the the Book of Mormon was written.
But we must understand that the very existence of some 38,000 Christian sects in the US will always arouse inter-league rivalries -- and evangelicals are Republicans, so the NYT will always stir the pot.
MayBee --
"Another example is the way left bloggers will use Bobby Jindal's given name when talking about him. Not to make fun of him, you see, but to point out to redneck republicans that he is Indian."
To which the 'redneck republicans' respond in confusion "I know that. I voted for Bobby(R)."
This country must be governed according to the Constitution, not the New Testament
I like the Bible as much as the next guy- I own a copy- but thump it in church on Sundays, not on the campaign trail
Also, I have travelled in Utah, and the local people there are as nice as can be- maybe America needs more Mormons
if you think about it, the phrase 'I don't believe in God' acknowledges the existence of God
I'm an Evangelical. Two degrees, and another in the works, from a couple of their flagship institutions and a lifetime of involvement in their churches are my credentials.
And I would like to take this opportunity to say that I'm biased against Iowans.
I'd say I'm biased against New Hampshirians, but as far as I know I've never met one and don't know what they are like.
No Name --
"if you think about it, the phrase 'I don't believe in God' acknowledges the existence of God."
Oh, bullshit. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.
The Gray Lady shows a surprising ignorance (or, equally likely, bigotry) about IA.
It's noted for the relatively high (for the Midwest) number of Catholics in it, high enough to affect its politics. They just assume it's Midwest, so it's monolithically Conservative (remember, this is the state that inflicts Tom Harkin on the rest of the country) and Evangelical.
Steve Austin said...
I have never understood why the GOP allows themselves to choose their candidates based on the whims of Iowa and New Hamphshire. Two quirky and almost irrelevant States.
The Demos do it, too. This is why William Jefferson Blyth III is not First Serial Rapist today.
IA only became important after it inflicted Jimmy Carter on us.
Pastafarian said...
Steve Austin -- I don't know why they can't have all of the primaries on one day, as they do with the general election.
Exactly. I'm sure there is money to be made from the rush of media, but a national primary or a small number of Super Tuesdays make much more sense.
(which, of course, is why it will take a political cataclysm to make it happen)
MarkG said...
Other than being a former member of the Church of Hate Whitey, Obama is probably a closet atheist.
A closet with picture windows the size they had at Berchtesgaden.
So, since your arguments have fallen flat, you resort to a comedy routine?
You beat me to the punch on that one.
I can't compete with your comedy routine.
I also agree with Christopher at 7:50.
If Romney were to win the nomination, look for the NYT and others to start running "mormons are weird!" articles as well as bring up the Prop 8 battles.
Shouting Thomas --
Still awaiting your answer - what exactly are the values evangelicals have that atheists don't that causes them to avoid voting for an atheist.
Other than religious bias.
Still awaiting your answer - what exactly are the values evangelicals have that atheists don't that causes them to avoid voting for an atheist.
Atheists don't believe in God.
Good. You acknowledge it's religious bias.
"I'd say I'm biased against New Hampshirians, but as far as I know I've never met one and don't know what they are like."
Whenever I visit someplace new, I notice the driving. Inevitably, a few bad drivers stand out and then I think: "Gawd, this place if full of retards." I'm just terrible that way.
Just as Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence threatens to destroy the fragile democracy in Iraq, so too religious enmity between Mormons and Evangelicals will tear the fabric of our Republic.
vote Democrat!
Good. You acknowledge it's religious bias.
We can keep doing this all day.
Believing in God is a value.
I'll get in touch with my representative today, and see if I can't get atheists some relief from the terrible discrimination they suffer.
Are you over 15 years old?
Evangelicals wildly prejudiced against members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints? So says the NYT, so it must be true. Right?
1. The importance of Iowa (and New Hampshire) in presidential politics is not a good thing.
2. I know some Mormons who are very good people and some who are jerks. On average they are good citizens.
3. Evangelicals who focus on scripture to denigrate Mormons, would do better to focus on scripture which would keep them from being assholes.
Shouting Thomas --
"We can keep doing this all day.
Believing in God is a value."
A value which turns them into religious bigots, apparently. If they and I share all values except that one, and they vote for a religious person who differs greatly except for that one, it's religious prejudice that determines their vote.
But lets not forget how evil those Mormons are.
(or better put, as evil as any other religious group:
"the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.")
And did I mention how bad their music is?
Marie is a hottie. Don't you dare speak badly of her.
Personally, I support all people acting with some civil restraint and tollerance in public. We all have biases and prejudices. So what.
I just found that all the Andy Griffith Shows are on Netflix. The model for American civic behavior is in those shows. Go watch it.
I was raised as a Catholic, but I am currently an agnostic. My life experience has taught me that I was and am frequently wrong about many basic things. Therefore, I suspect that my disbelief in God is proof of his existence......The NYT writes about Romney's Mormon faith in a different way than they write about Reid's faith. Voting Democrat is the supreme redemptive act. Reid has said some things about Obama that had arguably racial overtones. The Times gave him a pass. If Romney had said them, there would have been a long sidebar about the Mormon Church's history of prejudice and the need for Mormons to confront and overcome their racism. The best way to do this, of course, is to vote for Obama.
Most people don't like Mormons because nobody wants to elect anybody who is stupid enough to want more that one wife at a time.
I mean you gotz to be a glutton for punsihment.
Plus Mitt gives off that weasel vibe.
Don't what it is but it makes your skin crawl.
Huntsman took a position in the Obama administration and that disqualifies him right there and then.
Its weird about Mormons. Everything everyone said above is true. Mostly good people, with some bad thrown in.
But, in the west, they are just a little bit different than other westerners. Part of it is that they are more communitarian, while the rest of the westerners tend to be more individualistic. The communitarian side comes out in different places. For example, for a long time, Utah didn't have much of an unemployment or welfare system. Why? Because those in need were expected to get it from the Church.
A lot of us who have large LDS populations in our midsts have a love-hate relation with the Mormons. They can be almost as cliquie as the Jews, and as judgmental as the worst evangelical. But, if you espouse and live similar values, you are most often fairly well accepted, and often you can go for months without thinking that the guy or gal next door at work is LDS.
Which is really to say that Mormons, one on one, or in small groups tend to be exceedingly nice, upright, industrious, people. The problem seems to be more when you get a bunch of them together.
So, for example, I was in a law firm in SLC a decade ago. The lawyers were predominantly non-Mormons, and the lower down you went in the firm, the more Mormons you would see. The Mormon attorneys I worked with were a dream. But, everyone once in awhile, the line would be drawn. For example, two people made partner, and we crammed everyone into the conference room to celebrate. Trays went around with champagne and fruit juice, and everyone staked out their affiliation by which they took - including one guy who took champagne, even though he didn't drink. And, from my experience, my biggest problem with Mormons is their internal peer pressure to conform, to the edicts of their religion and to their common mores. When, you get away from that, they tend to be great people.
Am I the least bit scared of having a Mormon as President? Not in the least. I wouldn't be happy with Mitt Romney this time around, but not for his religion, but rather for his unwillingness to draw the lines that I think need to be drawn.
Oh, and someone above mentioned that both Sens. Reid and Hatch are Mormons. More to the point (since Sen. Hatch is one of the big backers of "Patent Reform", and, thus, in my mind, has sold out to Crony Capitalism) is that both of my Senators are LDS. Our junior Senator here in Nevada is Dean Heller, who used to be my Representative. I have joked that the only things that he has in common with Reid are their sex, state, and religion (and maybe NRA membership). Heller, so far, seems quite conservative to me in the right ways.
Most people don't like Mormons because nobody wants to elect anybody who is stupid enough to want more that one wife at a time.
To be realistic though, in my experience, there are no people around more anti-polygamy than the Mormons I know. They may have polygamists in their family tree, but would be willing to burn any now days at the stake.
Why? It all revolves around the fact that the church is run and based on prophecy and divine revelation, and not all prophecies and divine revelations are equal. Only the designated prophet (i.e. President) can be followed in his prophecies. So, when the mainline LDS church banned polygamy, it was done based on prophecy and divine revelation. Those who broke way to continue to practice it, declared their own Prophet. Since the differing prophecies are mutually exclusive, one has to be right and the others apostates and pretenders.
In the mainline Church's defense, part of the original justification for polygamy was that in the 19th Century, they had a lot of single women and widows who lacked eligible husband material, due to the rigors of settling such an inhospitable region. A lot of the extra wives were Duty Wives, widows with children, who needed to be supported. (Not all of course - one of the benefits of being able to support a Duty Wife was that you could have additional wives who had not been widowed first). But, after Utah, etc. had been settled, the number of males being killed dropped off, and there was no longer the surplus of females to take care of. Of course, the relevant revelation also conveniently paved the way for statehood...
Pastafarian - "Now, Romney's not very high on my list, because he's not very conservative. But he's a hell of a lot more conservative than the outright socialist we have now; and he had a better chance of beating the socialist than McCain did. And we lost the Romney option, because Fuckabee pointed out that Romney wears funny underpants and thinks that Satan and Jesus are brothers."
There were other factors. But the evangelical bigotry in Iowa towards Romney was one reason we got dimbulb McCain. Pastor Huckleberry spent minimum time in Iowa, mainly talked about Jesus, and was the runaway winner as thrilled organized evangelicals flocked to him.
Bigger than the Fundies skewing the process was the liberal and progressive Jewish media carrying McCain as the sainted, beloved by all War Hero who opposed the evil Bush-Hitler - for 8 years of uncritical adulation. McCain was ashamed of what America had come to symbolize under Bush-Hitler in the eyes of others. Interrogation "never worked", he personally knew, he wanted Gitmo closed..and his God General Petraeus and He devised "The Surge". And the economy needed to simply be fixed by gift of 500 billion to the homeowners that bought bigger houses than they could afford - explaining renters, people in affordable houses needed nothing like that because they "were coping".
Little did sainted, beloved War Hero McCain realize he was just propped up by media as a suitable loser to their true love, the Black Messiah. Once he got the nomination, the Messiah was set - all the hero, great leader stuff McCain was accustomed to being buttered up with was pulled from underneath his feet.
Then he was rather accurately portrayed by media -finally - as a rather stupid, vain, erratic man without a clue on the economy - given to incoherent ramblings. The liberal, progressive Jewish media of course did not extend their newfound honesty to Black Messiah. Who was adulated even more.
Hell, I've seen it here in these comments sections, from ordinarily rational commenters, who have referred to Romney as a member of a 'spooky cult'.
Well, Duh! He does belong to a Spooky cult, just recently Romney came out as a believer in man made global warming.
An Atheist couldn't win because of the public personalities that represent atheism. Rob Sherman in Chicago as an example.
Or that mother of all atheists, Madelyn Murray O'Hare.(who died for your sins)
They are as warm and cuddly as the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Atheists sue for all sorts of idiotic reasons.
A Parochial school bought by a Public school sued to have all Christian references sandblasted from the building.
A lawsuit to remove a cross dedicated to World War II soldiers.
A suit to remove a cross from the city logo of a town called
Los Cruces. (the Crosses).
The endless Christmas nativity /Public spaces brouhahas.
The recent one involving a federal judge threatening arrest of anyone praying at a graduation.
And on and on and on .
How many times do you run across some Athole's comments,especially after a tragedy,
deriding peoples beliefs in 'SKY Fairies" or "imaginary bearded white man in the sky"
These all come to relect on atheists no matter how kind and enligthened or BRIGHT (remember that one?),they are.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Atheism is an ISM with beliefs just as any religion , why is the Government establishing it? Why does the government ignore the portion after the comma.
ampersand - "Well, Duh! He does belong to a Spooky cult, just recently Romney came out as a believer in man made global warming."
The proper distinction is Romney accepts that the Earth is on a warming trend, and that man probably plays some factor in it. How much of a factor, he doesn't know, and scientists, if similarly honest, don't know either.
That is different than the Global Warming alarmists that believe in Climate stasis and any change from stasis is dire and must be 100% Man's fault. (Particulary white male human's fault).
And it is different than the social conservatives that believe it is all a hoax and the Earth would have no problem with 60 billion people all driving SUVs because Jesus would keep the weather fine and all the endless resources a comin'!
But, in the west, they are just a little bit different than other westerners.
You are correct Bruceski. One must see the basement of a western mormon aka Nephite to get an understanding of the creatures: say 10,000 jars of honey, a few dozen barrels of oats, cases of de-caf Pepsi, and the shrine to the Angel Moroni, not to say a dozen or so lil' blonde starseed- receptacles-to-be running around.
Actually in old school LDS doctine circa King Brigham's day, unless the LDS male had at least three wifeys, he would not make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Thus the Mittster's a...mere polliwog (that is, unless he's got a few nephite maidens tucked away in some Rancho like near Cedar Citay)
ampersand --
I agree with your general sentiment: there are butt-wipes in every sect of every portion of the population.
That being said, if you don't want to be lumped with Phelps, don't lump me with Murray.
Fair enough?
Another conservative atheist here.
Back on topic:
Dear NYT, shuddup about Romney & Huntsman. I want to hear more about Palin's emails. Priorities!
Hey Pasta! Did you read my response to your query to me on the horror thing?
Sorry to OT everyone.
FWIW, Iowa's Secretary of State is Mormon (and supports Pawlenty).
Pasta,
Frankly, I think we have an atheist POTUS right now. (The whole liberation-theology church was a politically calculated charade to help him in Chicago.)
I hate when people do this to atheism. For the last time, he's a NewAger. His participation in Wright's church is one part of the evidence. Just ask Juliette Lewis.
And he's arguably the worst POTUS in my lifetime.
And that, my friend, would be the LQF.
I'm an atheist who could be POTUS:
I don't believe in believing.
It is stupid for Romney to avoid the straw poll. It just shows he doesn't have the backbone to withstand scrutiny. Pawlenty is looking better by the day. God, I hope DeMint decides to run.
Wow the Amazing Cracki a Bill Maher kinda guy.
Which is to say...Demo. I don't care for Miss Palin but she's a churchie AC
You'd think the New York Times might cover the anti-Mormon bigotry at the Newsweek editorial desk.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/268884/newsweek-portraying-romney-dancing-lunatic?page=1
Or the anti-Semitic bigotry at the Time editorial desk.
http://bigpeace.com/robmiller/2010/09/07/the-decline-and-fall-of-time-magazine-this-weeks-anti-semitic-cover/
But of course they would rather do a story on Christian bigotry.
It's not because they are worried about anti-Mormon bigotry. It's because portraying Christians as bigots is something secular liberals love to do.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा