Anti-Mormonism Is The "Prejudice Of Our Age"

[Scott Lloyd]

This column by William Saleton of Slate.com expresses what I have felt for a long time: that anti-Mormonism is the new-age form of prejudice.

A notable excerpt:

The gap between these two episodes—clear condemnations of racism, but silence and ambiguity about anti-Mormonism—illustrates a fundamental weakness in our understanding of bigotry. We’re always fighting the last war. We hammer a politician’s connection to prejudice against blacks, no matter how symbolic the prejudice or how old, distant, and tenuous the connection, because nearly everyone recognizes this bigotry as bigotry. Denouncing it is easy. What’s hard is speaking out against a bias that isn’t so widely recognized. It’s politically difficult because challenging a common prejudice could cost you votes. And it’s morally difficult because the biases of your era are hard to see.

It is cool in many quarters to condemn racism and anti-Catholic or anti-Semite forms of bigotry; not so much anti-Mormonism.

And it cuts across the political spectrum; polls show a greater anti-Mormon sentiment among Democratic voters than among Republican ones.

It occurs to me that prejudice is like alcoholism. The only way to begin to overcome it is for the one afflicted with it to recognize he has a problem.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

There was an excellent moment this morning on the Dennis Prager show. He's a conservative jewish talk show host who strongly defends judeo-christian values, and in discussing last night's debate he had a christian caller who said she could "never vote for Mitt Romney".

He simply asked her how Mitt's values differ from hers. Listening to her stunned silence, and then hemming and hawing as she tried to think of a single value she didn't share was priceless. I was laughing out loud.

Prager pointed out that, even being Jewish, he has found much to admire in christian presidents even though they obviously have great differences in their relgions, so he couldn't see why christians themselves would be opposed to Mitt Romney just because his religious beliefs are different.

[Jaybear]

It occurs to me that prejudice is like alcoholism. The only way to begin to overcome it is for the one afflicted with it to recognize he has a problem.

The problem you face is that evangelicals genuinely and sincerely believe that embracing Mormonism, leads one away from Christ. Ergo, electing a Mormon president will further serve to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind.

This is similar to the problem Mormons have with gay marriage. They genuinely and sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that allowing gays to marry would further serve to legitimize homosexuality in the public mind.

As I am sure you won't admit you have a problem, you won't get EVs to admit they have a problem.

[Sky]

And it cuts across the political spectrum; polls show a greater anti-Mormon sentiment among Democrats than among Republicans.

I never hear about Harry Reid being criticized for being a Mormon. Why is that?

That said, I don't doubt that the criticism comes from both the right and the left.

[Zakuska]

The problem you face is that evangelicals genuinely and sincerely believe that embracing Mormonism, leads one away from Christ. Ergo, electing a Mormon president will further serve to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind.

This is similar to the problem Mormons have with gay marriage. They genuinely and sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that allowing gays to marry would further serve to legitimize homosexuality in the public mind.

As I am sure you won't admit you have a problem, you won't get EVs to admit they have a problem.

Imagine the field day the media would have and how many people would turn over in their graves if a homosexual was ellected to the white house.

Now what we really need to stir things up is a Lesbian black woman to run for president!

Of course we could start a movement to vote for the worst candidate for president just to show congress how fed up we are with the whole thing.

[california boy]

I never hear about Harry Reid being criticized for being a Mormon. Why is that?

That said, I don't doubt that the criticism comes from both the right and the left.

I am not sure how many evalgelics knew that Harry Reid was Mormon. In any event, there are two big differences. Harry Ried was not running the country. And they did not get the chance to vote for Harry Reid.

Evangelics sincerely beileve having a Mormon president is pushing this country further away from it's core christian values. It is just another sign that this country is turning away from Christ. Time to draw a line in the sand and take back this country as Christians. It is not bigotry. They love the Mormon but hate the Mormonism. Some of their best friends are Mormon so they can't be bigots.

[Cobalt-70]

Now what we really need to stir things up is a Lesbian black woman to run for president!

Better yet, a black lesbian Muslim.

[diglot]

I'm an evangelical and I would have no problem voting for Romney or Huntsman if I desired them over Obama.

I think its crazy that lots of evangelicals make a fuss over a candidate being Mormon when other republican candidates are usually just political Christians. Isn't there a saying, "Come election time, every Republican politician is a born again Christian."

The ones who are really Christian (and not just political Christians) turn out to be nuts anyway (e.g. Bachmann)

[Mudcat]

I don't think Anti-Mormonism is actually the prejudice of this age. I actually think anti-Islamic sentiment is.. at least as far as Americans are concerned.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem you face is that evangelicals genuinely and sincerely believe that embracing Mormonism, leads one away from Christ. Ergo, electing a Mormon president will further serve to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind.

This is similar to the problem Mormons have with gay marriage. They genuinely and sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that allowing gays to marry would further serve to legitimize homosexuality in the public mind.

As I am sure you won't admit you have a problem, you won't get EVs to admit they have a problem.

Perhaps a definition is in order here. This one, from Wikipedia, is sufficient to the moment for my purpose here:

Prejudice (or foredeeming) is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy, or "judging a book by its cover". The word prejudice is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people or a person because of race, social class, ethnicity, age, disability, obesity, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. It also means beliefs without knowledge of the facts^[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."^[2]

So prejudice then, by definition, is forming judgment without an adequate knowledge of pertinent facts, and there is an element of irrationality present.

Applying that definition to Jaybear's argument then, we must ask in the first instance, regardless of whether one approves of gay marriage, if allowing it would serve "to legitimize it in the public mind." It could be reasonably concluded that such is a goal of those who are seeking to have it permitted by law, else why bother? After all, under the status quo, homosexual domestic unions are already permitted pretty much everywhere.

Let us ask, then, whether it is rational to conclude that electing a Mormon such as Romney to the presidency has as its goal "to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind."

Has Romney stated his intent to use the presidency as a platform for proselytizing his religious faith? Not to my knowledge.

Is it the objective of the Church as an institution to promote Romney's election so as to "legitimitize" the faith? The Church has assiduously avoided taking any position in the campaign.

Do Mormons as a culture want to elect Romney so as to "legitimitize" their faith? Perhaps some do. But I don't think a case has been made that this is an overarching and monolithic goal. I'll postulate that Mormons who support Harry Reid would probably want to re-elect Obama.

Is it rational to conclude that a Romney presidency would "lead one away from Christ?" How would it accomplish this? Even Pastor Jeffress has admitted that Romney is a good and moral man. It would seem, from an external perspective at least, that Romney's values do not conflict in any meaningful way with those of most Evangelicals.

And, in any case, is that the reason we elect a man as president, to lead people to Christ? During last week's controversy, somebody made the cogent point that we are electing a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. Why would electing Romney as president be any more egregious than, say, Bill Clinton, who was casual or indifferent in his attitude toward religious faith?

Moreover, many people who say they would not vote for a Mormon as president manifest marked ignorance about Mormonism, a textbook example of prejudice. Mormons who oppose gay marriage, on the other hand, understand quite well what it is and why it is being promoted.

I have to say that, based on prejudice having the criteria of irrationality and forming judgments without adequate knowledge, Jaybear's comparison fails.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[frankenstein]

I have to say that, based prejudice having the criteria of irrationality and forming judgments without adequate knowledge, Jaybear's comparison fails.

irrationality is not a requirement, and the Slate article used both prejudice a bigotry. Based on websters definitions (which should carry more weight that wikipedia) one can be a bigot without being prejudice. So I would tend to say that concerning Jaybears comparison, some LDS are both prejudice and bigots, while other LDS can rightly be labeled bigots but are not prejudice.

And I say as commonly used, and I would say as that Slate article uses the term prejudice, Jaybear's comparison stands.

Edited October 13, 2011 by frankenstein

[Ron Beron]

There was an excellent moment this morning on the Dennis Prager show. He's a conservative jewish talk show host who strongly defends judeo-christian values, and in discussing last night's debate he had a christian caller who said she could "never vote for Mitt Romney".

He simply asked her how Mitt's values differ from hers. Listening to her stunned silence, and then hemming and hawing as she tried to think of a single value she didn't share was priceless. I was laughing out loud.

Prager pointed out that, even being Jewish, he has found much to admire in christian presidents even though they obviously have great differences in their relgions, so he couldn't see why christians themselves would be opposed to Mitt Romney just because his religious beliefs are different.

Sometimes our greatest allies are Jewish including Dennis Prager and Mike Medved.

[Storm Rider]

This column by William Saleton of Slate.com expresses what I have felt for a long time: that anti-Mormonism is the new-age form of prejudice.

A notable excerpt:

It is cool in many quarters to condemn racism and anti-Catholic or anti-Semite forms of bigotry; not so much anti-Mormonism.

And it cuts across the political spectrum; polls show a greater anti-Mormon sentiment among Democratic voters than among Republican ones.

It occurs to me that prejudice is like alcoholism. The only way to begin to overcome it is for the one afflicted with it to recognize he has a problem.

I agree with you, but might phrase it differently. There is a high degree of bigotry over religious affiliation in the country; it can be with the LDS Church, Islam, etc.

Mormons appear to have a difficult row to hoe. First, if they complain they are accused of having a persecution complex. Second, most of those who say they would not vote for a LDS are ignorant of LDS beliefs or doctrines. EVs, in particular, as a whole are devoid of any real understanding of LDS beliefs or doctrines. They are not alone, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. all fall into the same box.

Comparing this issue to that of homosexulity is a red herring. No LDS who is running for office is attempting to convert the nation, demand acceptance of their lifestyle, or any comparable. A politician states their political positions and voters accept or reject them. Basing that decision on their religious/church membership is simple bigotry.

[why me]

This column by William Saleton of Slate.com expresses what I have felt for a long time: that anti-Mormonism is the new-age form of prejudice.

And it cuts across the political spectrum; polls show a greater anti-Mormon sentiment among Democratic voters than among Republican ones.

One reason for this is related to the value sentiments of the mormns. They are more intune with Republican supporters. However, values within mormonism tend to cut across the political divide since values focused on charity, love, kindness, respect, modesty, honesty, sharing etc, should be and are generally universal values.

[why me]

Sometimes our greatest allies are Jewish including Dennis Prager and Mike Medved.

The more conservative media personalities would be attracted to mormon values, especially the value on self-reliance. Also, religious people in general who are not chrisitan would find mormon values attractive. Certainly muslims would find very little wrong with mormon values or beliefs. And the same for religious jews.

[why me]

I think that the problems of antimormon prejudice comes from ignorance of what mormons believe and the social issues that many mormons support. However, not many can find fault with who mormons are.

[california boy]

I am afraid that I am going to have to strongly disagree with you as well. Let's take a closer look at your first statement.

Applying that definition to Jaybear's argument then, we must ask in the first instance, whether or not one approves of gay marriage, whether allowing it would serve "to legitimize it in the public mind." It could be reasonably concluded that such is a goal of those who are seeking to have it permitted by law, else why bother? After all, under the status quo, homosexual domestic unions are already permitted pretty much everywhere.

Where did you get the false idea that gays want marriage to somehow "legitimize it in the public mind." their lives? Have you heard that as a goal from any mainstream organization fighting for gay marriage in this country??? Quite frankly, I don't know how you could have missed this. Organizations that are fighting for gay equality believe this is a civil rights issue. They beleive that separate but equal is not an American value. The believe that all Americans should be treated equally under the laws of this country. Perhaps you might want to familarize yourself with the Prop 8 trial. It clearly lays out why people are supporting gay marriage in this country.

You do realize that those opposing gay marriage are in the minority in this country. It is not reasonably at all to concluded that "legitimize it in the public mind." their lives" is a goal of those who are seeking to have it permitted by law And where did you get the false idea that "homosexual domestic unions are already permitted pretty much everywhere."

Let us ask, then, whether it is rational to conclude that electing a Mormon such as Romney to the presidency has as its goal "to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind."

Evangelics use this rationality to opposing Mitt Romneys canidacy in the exact same way that Mormons use the rationality gays want marriage to "tlegitimize it in the public mind." to justify their prejudices against gays.

And now for your second statement.

Is it rational to conclude that a Romney presidency would "lead one away from Christ?" How would it accomplish this? Even Pastor Jeffress has admitted that Romney is a good and moral man. It would seem, from an external perspective at least, that Romney's values do not conflict in any meaningful way with those of most Evangelicals.

Will preventing gays from marriage make gays more moral? No. Will allowing gays to marry make straight people more moral? No. Yet many Mormons feel out of ignorance that allowing gays to marry will increase immorality. How can preventing a group of people from marrying make this country more moral??? Yet Mormons insist this is a moral issue. What is the moral goal for preventing gays from being married? How is that going to make anyone more moral??

Will preventing gays from marrying bring gays closer to Christ? No. Will allowing gays to marry "lead straights away from Christ?" No. How would that happen?

Yet Mormons also use this irrational argument to justify their prejudice against gays.

Moreover, many people who say they would not vote for a Mormon as president manifest marked ignorance about Mormonism, a textbook example of prejudice. Mormons who oppose gay marriage, on the other hand, understand quite well what it is and why it is being promoted.

Just as evangelics would not vote for a Mormon president manifest marked ignorance about Mormonism, so do Mormons manifest marked ignorance about what gay marriage is about. The parallels are striking.

[Jaybear]

Let us ask, then, whether it is rational to conclude that electing a Mormon such as Romney to the presidency has as its goal "to legitimize Mormonism in the public mind."

...

I have to say that, based prejudice having the criteria of irrationality and forming judgments without adequate knowledge, Jaybear's comparison fails.

Actually, its your analysis that falls for the simple reason that the proper question is whether its reasonable to believe that having a mormon president would have the effect (whether intended or not) of advancing the legitimacy of Mormonism in the public's mind.

Can you possible imaging the horror to evangelicals if a second grade teacher is allowed to read a book in class about Heather who has two mommies and a Mormon President.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jaybear

[Sky]

Must this thread delve into another discussion about homosexuality? I guess it’s inevitable since much of the criticism of the Church from the political left has to do with this issue. You’d think that the religious right would be more enthusiastic about electing a Mormon president because of the Mormons involvement in getting Prop. 8 passed. I guess it doesn’t work that way.

For the record, Mormons don’t hate gays. At least this Mormon doesn’t. We are taught in church to love everybody but to abhor sin – and I try my best to do that. I personally think we as a people are making strides in our treatment of our brothers and sisters who deal with same-gender attraction. But if this improved treatment includes accepting gay marriage, then unfortunately a lot of people are going to be disappointed.

I came across another article in the Wall Street Journal that I found interesting. It relates well to the article cited in the OP. http://online.wsj.co...4205029400.html

[Bob Crockett]

I never hear about Harry Reid being criticized for being a Mormon. Why is that?

That said, I don't doubt that the criticism comes from both the right and the left.

This post is yet another example of how conservatives can approach politics with blinders.

Harry Reid has been criticized for his religion. But, Reid is not a presidential candidate. Once one becomes a presidential candidate, issues such as one's religion become much more significant.

The simple fact is that Mormons are considered by most Christians to be member of a cult. I know this because I try long jury trials in California and I hire jury consultants. On occasion I represent, or sue, Mormons in business transactions. I rely upon these jury consultants to give me the pulse of Californian jurors, and it is always the same -- "admired, but a cult."

[Scott Lloyd]

irrationality is not a requirement, and the Slate article used both prejudice a bigotry. Based on websters definitions (which should carry more weight that wikipedia) one can be a bigot without being prejudice. So I would tend to say that concerning Jaybears comparison, some LDS are both prejudice and bigots, while other LDS can rightly be labeled bigots but are not prejudice.

And I say as commonly used, and I would say as that Slate article uses the term prejudice, Jaybear's comparison stands.

Prejudice and bigotry are closely related in meaning, almost synonymous, by any normative definitions of the words, and both carry connotations of irrational belief and obstinacy. That you claim they do not strikes me as odd.

I selected a Wikipedia definition for no reason in particular, other than convenience. I could have used most any popular dictionary definition. By the way, did you know the name "Webster's" is not copyrighted? Anyone who publishes a dictionary can put the name "Webster's" on it. I have two dictionaries at my desk from separate publishers (Merriam Webster and IDG Books Worldwide) and both have the name "Webster's." Both dictionaries use the term "irrational" in their definitions of prejudice, and both equate bigotry with prejudice in their definitions of bigotry.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

So much for the intelligence of the average California(or any other states) jurors.

[Scott Lloyd]

Must this thread delve into another discussion about homosexuality?

That was not by my choice. It seems that whenever the topic of bigotry against Mormonism is brought up, Jaybear will inevitably try to drag Prop 8 and the Gay agenda into the discussion.

[LeSellers]

It seems that whenever the topic of bigotry against Mormonism is brought up, Jaybear will inevitably try to drag Prop 8 and the Gay agenda into the discussion.

He's not alone.

Lehi

[Vance]

This post is yet another example of how conservatives can approach politics with blinders.

Harry Reid has been criticized for his religion.

WOW!!!

1 example, and from a blog no less.

Color me IMPRESSED!!!