...Religious Bigotry, alive and well today, by Sandra Duffy.
“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?
Sandra touches on many reasons why bigotry is alive and well in mainstream Christian sects across America. She forgot to mention the reason behind the bigotry. Most Christians think that Joseph Smith made it all up.
I've been deeply involved in Evangelical Christianity and with The Church of Latter Day Saints. As an atheist, I cannot tell you which mythology is right. Both seem made up to me. I think the real issue comes down to competition. Christians view Mormons as corrupting souls, condemning them to an eternity in hell.
Romney has no chance. A large segment of Christian voters will simply will not give him the slightest consideration. Romney being a Mormon is... a deal breaker. It could only be worse if he were a Muslim or Atheist.
7 comments:
I think that many conservative Christians view Mormonism as a cult. From this perspective, it is easy to understand why they would reject a Mormon president. Of course, you are right to point out that things would be far worse for a Muslim or an atheist.
I don't much like the idea of a Mormon president, but I can't say that it bothers me any more than an evangelical Christian president. As you point out, it is all mythology.
Much of the religious right would reject both an atheist or a Mormon on the basis of religion, but in terms of strategy there's a big difference between the two rejections: the religious right is a big part of Mitt's target audience, so their distrust of his religion is a bigger problem than it would be for an atheist candidate (who would probably hardly be trying to win over the religious right).
Some Evangelicals are supporting Mitt because they see him as sharing their values, but he has an uphill battle dealing with the fact that many Christian denominations actively teach that Mormonism is a dangerous cult. Just have a look at some interesting Gallup Poll results:
"Americans who are more religious (as measured by frequency of church attendance) and those who are Protestant have highly negative views of the Mormon religion. The differences in views of Mormons among groups defined by their church attendance are significant. There is a net negative view of -21 points among Americans who attend church weekly, contrasted with a net positive view of +10 among those who seldom or never attend church."
There's some percentage of population in this country that will never vote for for Obama because he's black or Hilary because she's a woman. That doesn't mean either of them can't win the White House. I think Romney's chances are as good as either of them if he can court enough of the Republican Base to win the nomination.
I'm one of those Christians who probably wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president. You feel that both religions are based on myth which makes perfect sense for an atheist, but I would argue that while much of the historical aspects of the Bible are supported by archaeological evidence, there is no such supportive evidence for the Book of Mormon. You have to accept the historical context for the development of Christianity even if you dismiss the miraculous, but Mormons have yet to produce a single compelling piece of evidence to back up the historical claims of Joseph Smith. I would hope that someone like yourself who honestly investigates and compares religions would not grant Mormonism equal footing with Biblical Christianity.
In 'God Is Not Great' Hitchens quotes from court records dating back to a trial in Bainbridge, New York, in 1826. In the course of this trial a man was convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter". That dude was Joseph Smith.
Apparently he was into dreaming up fraudulent gold digging expeditions and claimed to be in possession of "necromantic" powers.
The "discovery" of the Book of Mormon happened about four years later and sounds very much like yet another hoax - one that actually caught on.
Jim you make an interesting observation, and yes there is no question that the historical record is stronger in the case of the Judeao-Christian tradition. Of course I'm referring strictly to historical markers as opposed to more dubious archaeological claims relating for example to Noah's ark.
Some historians and archaeologists with Christian leanings attempt to extrapolate from historical findings in order to lend credence to the biblical narrative from the "God in action" standpoint. Kerkegaard was highly skeptical of the historical approach as a path to faith and I think he's right on that score. Just because you find the remains of what appears to be an ark, doesn't therefore infer that a flood was created by a wrathful God. However if the leap of faith is set aside, I would still say that there are markers that lend some support to the thematic descriptions of the bible relating for example to regions, ancient cities, rivers etc.
c.I. Hanson,
I think Romney has miscalculated. He stands a much better chance with secular voters than he does with evangelicals. They think he is a cultist. I do not think he will get more than a handful of votes from the evangelical camp.
Darwin’s Dagger - I agree within a secular setting – I do not think your theory holds true within the evangelical camps. The latest poll results back this up. Romney cannot with their vote.
Post a Comment