Liberalism And Religious Intolerance

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 17 August 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Affiliation to a church does not make one religious.

Yet being unaffiliated to a church makes one unellectable.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Haven't seen the issue come up on a national basis yet.

Jeff K., on 17 August 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Washington Post June 2006

It’s funny that you originally claimed, without qualification, that Liberals disdain religion, and then use calls for religious tolerance by Liberals to support your point.

Liberals do. Senator Obama proved my point, in other words an exception that proved the rule.

Jeff K., on 17 August 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

I note the liberal movement to make religious people "weird" or fanatics. It is a well worn tool.

The statistics show that two groups have 30% of their members who are "less likely" to support a Mormon: liberals and Evengalical Christian Republicans. This is despite the fact that Evangelical Christian Republicans agree with typical Mormon political positions on everything, while Liberals don't. So which group is more biased?

The tool of using religious biases to win elections was used, mastered, and worn out by the religious adherents who win political offices, not by the atheists who aren't even on the bus.

The disdain of atheists for religious people is quite clear. It is one reason they often lose potential supporters. I would not call Dawkins or Maher as people who help atheists achieve the view of tolerance.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Sen./President Obama was and is a Christian. He is just not your type of Christian. If we as LDS truly believe the US Constitution to be a divinely inspired document then NO religious test for ANY political office in the US is a good place to start.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Show me an Atheist with a better idea on how to run this state/nation,

That is the point there isn't one. Lol.

[Analytics]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Haven't seen the issue come up on a national basis yet.

Then you haven't been paying attention. According to Pew:

The survey shows that a significant number of Americans would be reluctant to vote for a well-qualified candidate if he or she were a member of a particular religious group, especially a Muslim (38%). But many more express reservations about voting for a candidate without religion than one with a specific faith (52%). In all, 64% of Americans admit that a candidate's religion, or lack thereof, could lead them to vote against a well-qualified candidate from their own party.

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=621#1

Scott bemoans how awful it is that 30% of Democrats would be "less likely" to vote for a Mormon. Yet Mormons are well-represented in Congress, in both political parties. On the other hand, 52% of Americans, across both parties, wouldn't vote for an atheist, which goes a long way towards explaining why their are zero atheists in Congress. You suggest that there might be some non-religious people in Congress who are "in the closet." That proves my point--if they were to come out of the closet, they wouldn't be in Congress anymore.

The disdain of atheists for religious people is quite clear.

The disdain religious people have for atheists is even more clear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Analytics:

Apparantly the Tea Party isn't even as popular as Atheists or Muslims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=3

Pure nonsense.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Sen./President Obama was and is a Christian. He is just not your type of Christian. If we as LDS truly believe the US Constitution to be a divinely inspired document then NO religious test for ANY political office in the US is a good place to start.

I never noted otherwise. As I stated, he is the exception that proves the rule. Why does a leader of his party need to chastise his party regarding their stance on religion? Because it is so prevalent that decided to do so even as it ruffles the feathers of other leadership.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Probably not. Polls are always mere snapshots in time, but it is a well recognized fact that the Tea Party is loosing in popularity.

[Analytics]

Pure nonsense.

True. According to that article, 40% have an unfavorable opinion of the tea-party. That is much better than the 52% who wouldn't vote for atheists. Furthermore, the 40% is concentrated amoung Liberals in liberal districts, which makes tea-party types quite electable.

[Ares]

Is there an apologetic reason to continue this mostly political thread?

[Jeff K.]

Can liberals be religious and not be put in the back of the liberal bus?

How does one define liberalism (not the classical economic liberalism) and why is the percpetion of liberalism being against religion so prevalent that even a liberal leader has to chastise his party?

[Scott Lloyd]

I only pointed out that what I have read and seen, is that the majority of the anti-mormon rhetoric is coming from the conservative right. And I tried to be very careful with my word.

"Conservatives are most likely the religious folks intolerant of the LDS faith and bigoted towards mormons."

So amongst religious folks, who are anti-mormon, I would say most of those anti-mormon religious folks are Conservatives. That was my point. And never have I disputed anti-mormon liberals.

While I can't show any polling data, I don't disagree that anti-Mormon bias probably comes predominately from political conservatives. But I perceive there is enough of anti-Mormonism among liberals to raise one's eyebrows, especially considering that liberals traditionally have been the ones to take pride in their own tolerance and broadmindedness.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there an apologetic reason to continue this mostly political thread?

My apologetics-related reason for beginning it was to discuss a disturbing penchant for anti-Mormonism among a group who, according to their own historical self-definition, ought to be above that sort of thing.

I have no interest in discussing politics on this board. I do have an interest in identifying and condemning anti-Mormonism wherever I see it.

[thesometimesaint]

Scott Lloyd:

All of us have our own little hypocracies. However if it doesn't really effect how I treat others. I'm willing to let God be the "Decider".

[frankenstein]

Is there an apologetic reason to continue this mostly political thread?

Yes,

What can LDS do to stem the tide of anti-mormonism among religious conservatives, conservatives who mostly likely only deciding disagreement with a right leaning LDS political candidate is the fact that the political candidate is LDS.

[frankenstein]

Is there an apologetic reason to continue this mostly political thread?

Yes,

What can LDS do to stem the tide of anti-mormonism among religious conservatives, conservatives who mostly likely only deciding disagreement with a right leaning LDS political candidate is the fact that the political candidate is LDS.

There is no need to focus on "liberals" (whether a real group, or a label used to sear ones conscience against another with whom there is disagreement) because a "liberal" would most likely be deciding on political basis rather than a religious basis, for example, guns, free speech, security, corporate ties, unions, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd:

All of us have our own little hypocracies. However if it doesn't really effect how I treat others. I'm willing to let God be the "Decider".

Not sure I fully get your point here, sometimesaint, but unfairly disparaging an entire religious faith community or refusing to vote for a qualified candidate merely due to one's own ignorance and prejudice is letting hypocrisy affect how one treats others.

[thesometimesaint]

Scott Lloyd:

I agree. That is why I've said that show me someone with a better idea as to how to run this country. I'll vote for them irrespective of their religion.

[Jeff K.]

I think most here have that view.

[Analytics]

Can liberals be religious and not be put in the back of the liberal bus?

How does one define liberalism (not the classical economic liberalism) and why is the percpetion of liberalism being against religion so prevalent that even a liberal leader has to chastise his party?

I'd suggest that the liberals in the front of the bus are the ones who have political power, 100% of which profess belief in religion.

When Obama "chastised his party", was he speaking as a back-of-the-bus liberal, begging the mainstream liberals to allow him a place in the “front of the bus”, or was he speaking as the mainstream, criticizing folks on the fringe?

Several liberals consider Obama to be a center-right politician, and consider the mainstream Democratic Party to be just as conservative as the Republican Party was during the Eisenhower administration. So if you define Liberal as being the intellectual elite who are too Liberal to be elected to public office—even in highly liberal districts—then I can see your point. From this perspective, I can see how the ultra-liberal true-liberals put all 429 members of Congress who affiliate with religions “in the back of the bus”. It's a largely irrelevant bus with no political power, but there it is.

On the other hand, if you consider elected Democrats to be liberals, then no, believers in God drive the bus, and have the front seat, middle rows, and the back.

[Jeff K.]

You seem to confuse leftists with liberals. There is a difference you know.

Obama was clear, he was chastising his party for putting religion down. This is one thing you cannot spin...

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty...

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

[Scott Lloyd]

I think most here have that view.

No argument from me on it.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Hippy Punching.

The practice common among establishment centrists of ritualistically denigrating progressives in order to win over imaginary swing voters and David Brooks. Sometimes misinterpreted as a boneheaded political mistake, it's actually a sign of deep and unselfish commitment to pleasing owners and professionals even at the cost of losing elections

[Jeff K.]

On the other hand, if you consider elected Democrats to be liberals, then no, believers in God drive the bus, and have the front seat, middle rows, and the back.

I know many conservative democrats, one is them is a senator for West Virginia. A practicing Catholic who has often been disdained by his own party.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Hippy punching.

You lost me on that one.

[Analytics]

You seem to confuse leftists with liberals. There is a difference you know.

Obama was clear, he was chastising his party for putting religion down. This is one thing you cannot spin...

"Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans....

Look. I concede that in general, "liberals" are less religious than Republicans. However, the idea that Barack Obama’s professed faith puts him on the back of the Democrats' bus is patently absurd.

And the fact that Democratic political candidates don’t court Evangelists as much as Obama thinks they should doesn’t change the fact that it is impossible for an atheist to win an election in America.

Furthermore, part of Obama’s point is that alienating the politically irrelevant secularists is a small political price to pay for grabbing a few politically powerful Evangelists. He’s essentially acknowledging my point—American voters are very prejudiced against atheists, so in order to win elections, Democrats need to pander to the religious.