Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious bigotry, alive and well today
May 4, 2007 - by Saundra Duffy-Hawkins
“I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States!” There’s a lot of that kind of hateful rhetoric going around since Mitt Romney decided to throw his hat in the ring – as if Mormons are some kind of hideous evil monsters. The loudest anti-Mormon shouts, sad to say, are coming from America’s so-called “Christian right”. How can Mitt Romney hope to get a fair shake in this spiritually polluted atmosphere?
There was another man running for President who faced the same dilemma – John F. Kennedy – only he was the target of anti-CATHOLIC bigotry. In his 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, JFK said the following: “. . .I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end - where all men and all churches are treated as equal - where man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice - where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind - and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their words in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.” John F. Kennedy Library & Museum (Speeches, 1960). By the way, if you listen to the audio version of JFK’s speech, you will hear the hurt and frustration in his voice and the unfair treatment surely must have caused many a sleepless night.
Fast forward to 2007 where JFK might as well have been “whistlin’ Dixie”. The hostility toward Mormons today, in my opinion, is even worse than that suffered by JFK. Although it is said that JFK lost about a million votes to religious intolerance, Romney stands to lose even more if the anti-Mormon evangelicals hang together.
According to Media Matters for America - “. . . a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” - FOX News is not reporting accurately on the level of evangelical hostility to the Romney run. Media Matters for America points out that among evangelical leaders rejecting Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson (National Day of Prayer and Focus on the Family, respectively), the Southern Baptist Convention (collectively), Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network), and Dr. D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida). “Among many conservative evangelicals – who comprise a significant part of the Republican base – Mormonism is considered an un-Christian cult.” Media Matters for America (2007)
While stumping in Florida, a man in the audience stood up during the Q&A portion and said the following to Romney: “You, sir, you’re a pretender. You do not know the Lord. You’re a Mormon.” Media Matters for America (2007). This is the kind of un-American, disrespectful treatment Mitt Romney will apparently have to endure throughout the entire campaign – as if just being a Mormon is reason enough to open the floodgates for free flow of pent-up hatred and vindictiveness.
For the record, the Mormon bashers know full well that the official name of Romney’s church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and the members should rightfully be called “members of the LDS Church” but the words “Mormon” and “Mormonism” have an aura of negativity so they prefer to use the “M” word as if it were dirty.
Less than five minutes cruising around the official LDS website (LDS.org) will show anyone who’s interested that the Church is a Christian organization, with Jesus Christ at the Head. There are no paid clergy – all are volunteers. Humanitarian aid is legendary. Members of the LDS Church believe in strong family values; they are patriotic, they are law-abiding upstanding citizens of their community. Many LDS young men right out of high school go on two-year missions – you know, the guys on bikes – and during their mission they don’t date, read newspapers, go to movies or watch TV; but rather they dedicate two years of their lives to serving others. Many women go on missions as well, and couples, only theirs is 18 months in length but the obligations are basically the same. Most members do not shop or go out to eat on Sundays – reminiscent of the good old days when shops and stores were closed in obedience to the Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. If they can help it, LDS Church members do not work on Sundays, either, preferring to spend the day at church and with their families. Church members are encouraged to store up a year’s supply of food and water so they will be able to care for their families in the event of an emergency. The LDS Church believes in self-sufficiency and self-reliance but in the event of a financial hardship the Church distributes food and supplies through their welfare (Bishop’s Storehouse) program. Members of the LDS Church do not drink alcohol nor do they use illicit drugs; they do not drink coffee and tea. A Mormon in good standing, therefore, will not be found in a drunken stupor puking her guts out at 3 a.m. anywhere in the world. Furthermore, members of the church are encouraged to dress modestly, be polite and courteous. And members of the LDS Church are faithful tithe payers. Come on, people, what’s not to love?
So what on earth is their beef, the anti-Mormon zealots? Why is there such disdain for the LDS Church and its members? In Hugh Hewitt’s book, “Mormon in the White House?” he states his thesis that the fierce anti-Mormon sentiment among main-stream Christians stems from one or two or all three of the following factors (in order of importance):
1) “It is just too weird.
2) “A Mormon president will supercharge Mormons’ missionary work.
3) “If there is a Mormon in the White House, Salt Lake City will call the shots, at least on the biggest issues.” Hewitt (2007, p. 221-227)
Hugh Hewitt has written an exquisite book about the Romney campaign and overcoming the “Mormon problem.” It’s a good read and I highly recommend it. Of the three problem points listed in the previous paragraph, Hewitt believes – unless some unforeseen blunder destroys his chances – none of the three is insurmountable for Mitt Romney. (Plus, he has the best hair.)
Well, I’m no Hugh Hewitt, not even close; he’s an icon on the conservative radio talk show circuit. Hewitt could talk circles around me (I’ve seen him in action in Sacramento); he’s brilliant; he’s well educated, well read, no doubt a genius, plus he’s kind of cute. I’m basically a “nobody” – an overweight grandma – but after having researched for this paper, I have come to a totally different conclusion as to why there is such in-your-face angst over Romney’s religion of choice: It’s all about money, power and control (in that order). I think they’re (the evangelical religious bigots, that is) scared half to death and are revving up their attacks, not to save souls, but to save their reputations (which if tarnished would lead to financial ruin).
As I said, all one must do is browse around the LDS official web site to see what the LDS Church believes and stands for. Any reasonable person would conclude that Mormons are not evil monsters at all. In fact, they are God fearing, Christ believing, Holy Ghost following people going about doing good. “You will know them by their fruit” and the LDS has plenty of fruit and they are willing to share.
Earlier, I stated that some high-powered ministries have publicly condemned Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson, the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson, and Dr. D. James Kennedy – just to name a few. There are hoards of others. Sunday after Sunday, preachers, evangelists, reverends and ministers from all Christian denominations pound the pulpit with anti-Mormon rhetoric. I heard the message loud clear when I was a Baptist and when I tiptoed through evangelical/Pentecostal territories. Was I ever miffed when I later learned for myself the Gospel truth about the LDS Church.
Just think about it, please. If Dr. D. James Kennedy, for example, who wrote the book, The Wolves Among Us, were to admit he’d been wrong in labeling the LDS Church a “cult” that leads unwary ignorant people astray (to hell), what would become of his multi-million-dollar ministry? Suffice it to say, there’s big money to be had by sale of books, tapes, CD’s, videos, and other anti-Mormon propaganda, not to mention speaking engagements and world-wide religious crusades. We’re talking trillions, all told. I realize the anti-Mormon aspect of these ministries is but a small portion of the business, but if the truth came out, that they had been using falsehoods about the LDS Church as a cash cow, their entire empires could tumble.
The ABC News program 20/20 aired on March 23, 2007, exposed the lavish lifestyles of some of the top evangelical preachers – million dollar mansions and personal jets. ABC News - 20/20 (2007) (Again, the LDS Church has no paid clergy.)
It’s nothing new. Severe harassment and persecution has been the lot of the LDS Church since it’s inception in 1820 when a 14-year-old boy named Joseph Smith saw visions and communed with heavenly beings. Rather than discuss the spiritual aspects of the LDS Church, however, let’s stick to facts of history. Taken from a college-level early American history textbook, Joseph Smith, upon experiencing the visions and visitations, believed “that God had work for me to do, and that my name should be for good and evil among all nations, kindreds and tongues.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 292). The textbook continues, “They were met with hostility virtually everywhere they went . . . . As the movement gathered momentum, hundreds of people joined the church; entire congregations of churches of other faiths joined . . .” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 293)
During the dark time of American history when slavery was flourishing and when Native Americans were forced from their lands, the pioneers of the LDS Church also suffered at the hands of unscrupulous politicians, governmental leaders, and angry hate-filled mobs. “In the face of relentless persecution, Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, had led his flock to Illinois. There they had established the town of Nauvoo, which by the mid-1840’s had become the largest city in Illinois with over 15,000 people. . . In June 1844, a mob of non-Mormons broke into the jail where Smith was being held and killed both him and his brother. . .The Mormons abandoned Nauvoo in the spring of 1846 as anti-Mormons pounded the town with cannon, destroying the Great Temple. In a well-coordinated migration, 15,000 Mormons moved in stages to the Great Salt Lake.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 334-335) Many walked all the way and many died along the way, including innocent babes.
Joseph Smith at one time was tarred and feathered by a mob. No jury, no trial, no judge – and they had planned to castrate him, too. On October 27, 1838, the then governor of Missouri issued an “extermination order”: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary . . .” Far West History (n.d.) Please note that the order called for exterminating “Mormons” making no distinction between men, women and children, and indeed women and children were subject to the extermination order.
In an event known in LDS history as “the Haun’s Mill Massacre”, precipitated by the extermination order, 30 to 40 LDS families were surprised by some 200 to 250 militia. After the smoke cleared, seventeen LDS people lay dead including a ten-year-old boy. Thirteen LDS members were wounded including a woman and a seven-year-old boy. “A few Missourians returned the next day and took plunder.” LDS FAQ (n.d.) No Missouri militiamen were killed but three were wounded. Just a few years earlier, the LDS folk who died that day had been members of other churches - Congregational or Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian.
In l976, Governor Bond of Missouri officially rescinded the extermination order and presented apologies for the “unfortunate developments” it caused. Quoting from Governor Bond’s Executive Order: “WHEREAS, Governor Boggs’ order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and . . . Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering rescind Executive Order Number 44 dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs. . .” Far West History (n.d.) The individuals who harassed, abused, and even murdered Mormons in cold blood were never tried for their crimes.
I read Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and it really touched my heart. There he was, suffering for the Lord in jail, and these religious leaders with highfalutin titles on the outside wrote an open letter (“A Call for Unity”) in which they criticize King’s tactics and basically blame King for the racial turmoil of the time. Though you can tell King is upset and hurt by the attack – made worse because he’s stuck in jail and can’t confront the religious leaders face-to-face – his response is gentle genius. “I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 881)
King has a few choice words for the Church, too: “If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 880)
King signs off with “Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood”.
There’s an eerie commonality between what JFK and MLK endured at the hands of the religious bigots of their day and what Mitt Romney is facing today. I hope and pray that Romney will be able to fend off these undeserved attacks from the religious hypocrites with the same grace, dignity and God-inspired resolve displayed by the other two.
A few popular bumper stickers read: “Honk if you love Jesus” and “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” or “Jesus is my co-pilot”. Yet, apparently, these same bumper-sticker Christians are the ones waging war against Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency solely on the basis of his chosen faith in a Church that bears the name of the Savior of the world.
References
ABC News - 20/20 (2007). Philanthropic donations come from your heart, but where do they end up? Ex-money manager says "enough!" to secretive Christian Ministry spending. Glenn Ruppel & John Stossel. United States: ABC News.
Ayers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2004). American Passages - a history of the United States - Volume I: to 1877 (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2005). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Current Issues and Enduring Questions - a guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (7th ed., pp. 867-882). Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Far West History. (n.d.). The Extermination Order and how it was rescinded. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm
Hewitt, H. (2007). A Mormon in the White House? 10 things every American should know about Mitt Romney. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. (1960, September 12). Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.jfklibrary.org
Lds Faq. (n.d.). What was the Haun's Mill Massacre? Retrieved April 28-2007, 2004, from Brigham Young University Web Site: http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=57
Media Matters for America. (2007). Fox News whitewashes evangelical hostility to Romney's faith. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200702280002
I think you seriously underestimate the depth of anti-Catholic feeling in the US pre-1960, or the degree to which, in the pre-Vatican II world, Catholics in the US were seen and saw themselves as very distinct from the rest of the population. By then not any less loyal Americans (the old charge of dual loyalty had already lost much of its bite by the time Kennedy spoke to the Houston clergy), but with a separate education system and with distinctly different cultural values. I think that if you were able to carefully interview people, you would find that most Protestants born before 1930 for sure, and likely those born before WWII, grew up and remain suspicious of Catholics would have been almost as uncomfortable with their child marrying a Catholic as with the child marrying a jew. Don't get me wrong, I think such prejudice is wrong, but it was quite real.
“Hm...Is that how you choose a **President**! By their underwear?”
It has happened. Clinton was elected because he wore briefs.
The persecution I experienced caused me to study in great detail the history, people, behavior and beliefs of an organization -- calling itself a "church" -- that could seemingly happily inflict so much pain. This will be my only post on this topic, but:
I would never vote for a Mormon Presidential candidate. I know far too much about the organization, its methods and aims to ever entrust a Mormon with that kind of power. Your Catholic analogy doesn't hold Holy water. Mormons are a very different kind of phenomenon, as America will learn if it makes what I consider the mistake of electing Romney.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You personally know Mormon elected officials? Wow! You are breathing rarefied air.
I don’t know any elected officials of any sort of any religion.
I have no fixation creepy or otherwise as to the type of underwear that Mormons or any other faith wear. As a Methodist I wear briefs, and that is I might add, not an official position of my church.
My father was atheist, and my mother a devote Catholic.
Although, my father’s Protestant relations attempted valiantly to be respectful of Catholicism they weren’t entirely successful.
My brother married a Methodist girl in a Methodist ceremony. None of my Catholic relatives attended, and they shunned my mother and us for a few years. They refused to accept the marriage as even being valid.
Well...By the time I was growing up, Catholic prejudice was waning, and I personally experienced little of it.
My 2 brothers and I were very distressed by the religious upheaval in home due to my older brother’s marriage. Although I attended Villanova, an Augustinian university, I was not then practicing Catholicisms. I have been a faithful member of another Christian religion for 25 years.
It has happened. Clinton was elected because he wore briefs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very cute! :)
“They Shoot Mormons Don’t They” pingaling.
My Southern grandmother, born during Reconstruction, was a yellow dog Democrat (despite being quite conservative and a teetotaler). She only voted other than for the Democrat twice in her life: against Al Smith in 1928 ("damned wet Catholic" in her words) and against Kennedy in 1960. (She would not say whether she voted for the Republican or some third party candidate - only that she had split her ticket and voted against Smith and Kennedy)
It's hard to know whether that was in his mind at the beginning, like Bill Clinton becoming President, or if he just took advantage of the opportunity when it presented itself later.
Cordially,
I have uncles who have huge issues with the Catholic faith.
I come from a long line of Anabaptists who were treated very badly during the 15th century.
Today I think most of them know some Catholics and have come to the realization that Catholics aren’t so bad. But the prejudices are still out there.
Have you informed the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?
Thanks for posting. I’m a Protestant, but I’m not any more fond of Mormon-bashing than I am of Catholic-bashing, both are just wrong. In a nation that is supposed to adhere to the Second Amendment, we ought to be prepared to vote for someone who fits our values and stand on the issues, regardless of their faith.
this does not sound Unitarian to me, course Methodists were quite different back then too.
So, are you consistent? Would you say: "Anyone who wouldn't vote for someone just because they a Muslim is a loon? Anyone who wouldn't vote for someone just because they are a Satanist is a loon?"
All of these are religious minorities.
BOOKbump
You don’t know that Teddy Kennedy is Catholic? That Harry Reid is Mormon? That Hillary Clinton and Bush are Methodist?
Where have you been hiding?
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.