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 Romney’s 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 couldn’t 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 Romney’s Mormon beliefs. The New York Times headline read, “Prominent Pastor Calls Romney’s Church a Cult.” But in the next-to-last paragraph, you find that the pastor concluded, “I’m 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 couldn’t agree more.
Instances in which Evangelicals question Romney’s 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.”
http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/newsweek20cover20mormons1.jpg
If there is a clearer example of religious bigotry, I hope never to see it. And don’t 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 Romney’s 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 You’re Sorry.” The idea is absurd. But even more absurd is that liberals in effect proclaim, “Being liberal means you never have to say you’re 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 Obama’s religious beliefs when he ran in 2008. Twenty years of sitting in Rev. Wright’s 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! Obama’s 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 can’t 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 don’t need no stinkin’ tolerance. We’re 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. Maher’s brilliant analysis of the loss was, “Wow, Jesus just f****d Tim Tebow bad!”
Few liberals dare to express Maher’s overt hatred of religion and religious people. But many share it. The Washington Post called Maher’s 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 wouldn’t think of doing so, but if he did, he’d 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. Don’t listen to what they say; watch what they do.
What little I know of LDS theology doesn’t 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, that’s what’s 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: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
Stirring up?
It's been there since the 1830s when Mormons called ALL Christians "corrupt" professing believers who embraced 100% creeds that were (and supposedly still are) an "abomination" to the Mormon god.
Tell you what Saundra...Isn't isn't about time that you & your Mormon cronies stop referencing Christians as belonging to the "church of the devil?"
That’s right, get into a nasty squabble about theology—exactly what this country needs to solve its economic mess, restore its educational system, and deal with a nuclear Iran. Pay no attention to selecting the candidate who could handle things best if Ahmadinejad closes the Strait of Hormuz and the price of oil sky-rockets. Vote only for a member of your particular church. If one isn’t nominated, stay home on Election Day.
And then bear the guilt for 4 more years of Obama, who shares the “theology” of Rev. Wright. Surely that’s preferable to an impure Republican, isn’t it? There, doesn’t that make you feel self-righteous?
The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Lucky for us that God had you born in this generation -- vs. say...the 20s or before.
You would have wimped out on that generation then that were model multi-taskers.
Hey. Guess what? They were to handle all fronts: Domestic; European theater; South Pacific theater; and all points in between and beyond.
That’s right, get into a nasty squabble about theology
______________________________________
Was not that your intention when you posted this vanity glorifying Mormonism ???
You dont have anything nice to say about Christians or Christianity..
By pushing an anti-Christian religion, you have not gained yourself any theological warm fuzzies...
Your vast socio-political ignorance slip is showing...and showing badly...otherwise you've would have already accused Mormons in Utah and Nevada of the above comment.
Doncha find it rathering interesting, Stolinsky that 94% of Mormons in both Utah and Nevada voted for Romney in 2008:
"While the former Massachusetts governor’s faith has been a flashpoint in his campaign, it was perhaps one of his strongest assets in Utah, where more than 60% of the state’s residents share his faith. Exit poll data shows Romney swept voters across the board, handily winning every social, economic, and generational demographic in the state, as well as 94% of all Mormon voters." (Susan Davis, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5, 2008, Romney Wins Utah With Help From Friends [Note: The Wall Street Journal was citing MSNBC.msn.com...]
Per the Mormon Church, Mormons make up about 7.5% of Nevada's population. But according to the entrance polls so far, a whopping 25% of those who participated in the state's GOP caucuses are Mormons. And 94% of those people went with Romney.
Source: Nevada Mormons turn out for Romney (Mark Murray, MSNBC, Jan. 19, 2008)
I'd say that with two states contributing the exact same Mormon data -- with similar data I saw posted on FR back in '08 re: the 8% of AZ Mormons...my take would be that both Idaho & Wyoming Mormons fell into the same 2008 voting patterns when it came to Romney.
Even this year, FAIR had a conference earlier this month and revealed a Gallup poll of GOP voters in Utah. It said that 85% of Utah GOP voters planned to vote for Romney; another 11% for Huntsman. Both are Mormons. That means only 4% of Utah Mormons have a non-Mormon in mind.
Source: Perception of Mitt Romney election to presidency would be similar to that of John F. Kennedy...
Hmm...what were you implying about "lock-step" identity politics' voting again?
Oh, yeah. We've already determined from what's been posted that you're two-faced in applying your double-standards.
Stolinsky, don't we take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or Stolinsky?
Here's Jesus:
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the cultural economic messes?" (No)
Did Jesus say "fear the educational system failures?" (No)
Did Jesus say "fear the nuclear" religionists?
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "uniting" behind an anti-Marxist cause, I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did the apostle Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Stolinsky: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
the candidate who could handle things best if Ahmadinejad closes the Strait of Hormuz and the price of oil sky-rockets.
______________________________________
and yet we survived when the Red Sea was closed, the price of oil sky-rocketed and gas was rationed..
President Nixon set the speed limit at 55 and the thermostats at 68 and told us to wear sweaters..
I can remember having to get time off from work in order to get in line early to be one of the 40 people allowed to pump 10 gallons at 10 AM and 4 PM on the days the last digit on my tag matched the odd even date
odd digit = odd day even digit even day etc
that happened for weeks..
Do you think this current generation wont survive ???
Vote only for a member of your particular church. If one isn’t nominated, stay home on Election Day.
___________________________________
Now you tell me...
Im a Pentecostal and I voted for a Baptist (Duncan Hunter) in the 2008 primary...
Oh why didnt I ask you what I should do
Are you calling for a return to religious monarchy?
Are you calling to keep "religion" hermetically sealed so that 0% of it bleeds over into the public square?
Well, since the mormon sect was founded as an attack on the theology of the world's Christians My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.” From LDS scriptures and the mormon church continues to send out 52,000 missionaries preaching hatred every day by claiming that the Christian faith is false, a counter-attack is called for.
I am not swayed by the uninformed opinion of a Jew [who, BTW is considered a gentile in mormon belief] on the validity of well-deserved attacks on mormonism. Take some time to discover the facts of the sect you are defending and try again.
This rant smells of a back door attempt to support the Romney candidacy against the wishes of Jim Robinson.
I actually agree with the author’s main point—it’s wrong for liberals especially to criticize Romney for his Mormonism.
However, Mr. Solinsky is COMPLETELY off point when he tries to tie opinion to the US Constitution’s proscription of a religious test. That law, LIKE MOST OF THE CONSTITUTION applies to THE GOVERNMENT as an institution, not individuals.
Part of our freedom as Americans is to hold critical opinions, based on whatever we like—including religious reasons—and vote accordingly.
The idea that somehow the forbidding of a religious test in the Constitution somehow binds commentators and voters from making judgments based on the religious views of someone is ridiculous, and actually contrary the 1st Amendment and unconstitutional itself.
If that is what you care to deduce from a simple question regarding your earlier post, then we don't have much to discuss.
Question was most certainly simple; at least you got that right
More than smell. It reeks.
You have it correct.
Oh, another person who choses to attack instead of discuss ...
Says the person who defines 'discussion' by his ability to shut it off.
LOL. Yeah, right. Silly person.
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.
