Social Scientists: Anti-Mormonism Rising among Liberals

Does any research compare liberal attitudes toward LDS with their attitudes toward highly observant Protestants, Catholics and Jews? I’m still wondering if this hostility is directed toward LDS per se or toward strongly held religion in general.

Obviously, this question doesn’t apply to Evangelicals

This just isn’t an intelligent post; first Via Meadia asserts that anti-Mormonism is rising among liberals and then as the first count in its indictment, Via Meadia mentions the New York Times op-ed by Harold Bloom.

Sometimes it’s hard not to wonder how the proprietors of this blog can be so clueless. Whatever else he may be, Harold Bloom is no spokesperson for the left; in fact he’s despised on the left. He’s castigated “feminist” and “racial” interpretations of classic literature and he’s practically been the major spokesperson of the past two decades lamenting the idiocy of multiculturalism and political correctness. He’s hated by the left primarily because the left views him as the most eloquent and educated culture warrior that the right has to offer.

Putting aside for the moment the bizarre assertion that Bloom’s op-ed was all that disrespectful of the Mormon religion; even if it was, it would be evidence of animosity towards the LDS Church by the right not by the left.

How in the world Via Meadia thinks that the putative anti-Mormonism of a stalwart opponent of the left is evidence of anti-Mormon animosity by “liberals” is simply impossible to fathom. What it is, is evidence of the muddled thinking that too often characterizes the posts on this blog dealing with domestic issues. If Bloom’s feelings about Mormonism are evidence of the left’s bigotry towards Mormons, then Ayan Rand was a Marxist, Oscar Wilde was a heterosexual and Yasser Arafat was a Zionist.

Personally I don’t think that the tenets of Romney’s religion are all that strange. I just don’t understand why some people think that the Mormon belief that God and his son Jesus are two separate corporeal beings is so much more strange than the idea God assumed human form as the child of a virgin to cleanse the world of the sin of the first human couple who disobediently partook of the fruit of a forbidden tree.

Nor does the enthusiasm with which some Mormons baptize non-Mormons after their death seem that much stranger to me than the idea that the deity cares whether or not the animals that humans eat have cloven hooves.

I actually think that Romney makes a pretty compelling presidential candidate; his co-religionists don’t offend me any more than the co-religionists who sat with Obama in the pews of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.

But I can’t help but wonder how far Via Meadia’s tolerance actually extends. Would it, for example, be equally outraged by the criticism if the Republican candidate were an acolyte of L. Ron Hubbard instead of Joseph Smith? How about if he were an acolyte of Sun Myoung Moon?

Would Via Meadia be as tolerant of scientology as it is of Mormonism? Would it be as tolerant of the Unification Church?

I doubt it.

Bigotry is bigotry, whether from the Right or teh Left. In undergrad school in Missouri, I was constantly assailed by bigots on the right who would greet you upon first meeting them, by saying, “Well today certainly is a glorious day in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!” Then turn, look me in the face and demand, “ISN’T it?” Whether the response was positive or negative then colored everything about how they behaved. Now living in the Pacific Northwest, bigots on the Left issue the same liutmus test, saying, “”Well, things certainly will get better if Obama is reelected,” then add, “WON’T they?” to fish for a response. The size of their sneer will be in direct proportion to the degree of Left in one’s answer. I get a bit of deja vu each time, because it is clear that their narrow and limited worldview is based on the need to feel superior to another person and not in any genuine pursuit of the truth. The bigots on the Right have to swallow the terror of having a person of a different faith in the White House (anybody remember the “concerns” about President Kennedy’s Catholicism?), while the bigots on the Left have to endure the calamity of representation by anyone who fails to toe the progressive line. Once our arms gedt too tired to engage in anymore finger pointing, we may recall that Walt Kelly summed it all up for us many years ago when his character of “Pogo” said, “We have met the enemy — and it’s us.”

I think the increased animosity towards Mormons from liberals in the past few years is a byproduct of Mormon promotion of Prop 8 in California in 2008. The hateful rhetoric and behavior towards Mormons at that time was truly shocking, though news of it was suppressed by the media, of course. In some countries that have legalized gay marriage, Canada and the Netherlands (if memory serves) I read recently that movements are afoot to force all churches to perform gay marriages or face–who knows–social ostracism at the very least, and steep fines or withdrawn legal status. I very much doubt that Mormons and Catholics are going to cave on this issue, nor should they. In the meantime, it has become impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion about this topic, and we very much need a reasonable discussion because family formation really really matters to children and everybody else. There is far too much superficial thinking about this and unwillingness to acknowledge that the religious freedom implications are huge. IMHO, however, religious freedom, already under attack by Obama, is in for a rough ride, which means that Mormons and Catholics are also in for some tough times.

@WigWag–

Scientology was developed by L. Ron Hubbard on a bet. Bit of a difference between it and Mormonism there–Joseph Smith at least probably believed what he was saying.

The Mormons need to behead a few “progressives”
and the MSM will find civility very quickly.

Another over-the-top post. Obama’s not a muslim or a “crypto-muslim.” Romney is indeed a mormon and has no doubt heard worse slurs in his long career. He’s a big boy and can take the heat.

If this episode demonstrates anything, it’s why Americans should shun candidates who talk about their views on supernatural phenomena and any other displays of religiosity.

Religiosity is irrelevant when we choose our generals, CEOs, judges, doctors, university presidents and other leaders to whom we entrust awesome powers. It’s irrelevant to anyone’s qualification for political office.

The media and so-called liberal pundit class care not one iota about religious bigotry. Normal, clear-thinking people must continually remind themselves of this irrefutable fact: ALL liberals, leftists, progressives, MSM members, feminists, environmentalists, greens, social justice types, UN lovers, PC supporters, multiculturalists, antiwar activists, PETA members, One-worlders, and Democrats only care about one thing, and absolutely one thing ONLY: the advancement of worldwide Socialism/Marxism/Communism. Causes are supported only to the extent that they advance that goal and for NO OTHER reason. Period. Dot.

Meade writes: “Obama has himself been opportunistically maligned as a crypto-Muslim by political opponents seeking to cash in on religious bigotry.”

What a total load of [profanity removed]. Obama has been given a pass on his Muslim background–most importantly by McCain’s making it off limits for his campaign, despite Obama’s numerous documented lies about his ties to Islam (claiming he did not engage in Islamic prayers when several childhood friends and teachers said that he was avid about attending prayers, etcetera).

The idea that Obama has been unfairly maligned over his religion is ludicrous.

Regarding the above fifth point – the charge that having a polygamist as an ancestor is a disqualifying characteristic – since this silliness erupted it has always seemed strange to me that one particular fact rarely seems to enter the discussion: If (for some reason) polygamy in one’s family tree makes one utterly unpalatable to the electorate… how does one explain Barack Hussein Obama, who was born into polygamy? The minds of liberals are obviously far too subtle for me, I who must rely on things like logic and non-contradiction.

I am not a Mormon but I grew up in a town that was started as a stop on the Mormon trail. It was a small town at first, but it grew into a fairly large town. Although it is associated as an industry town (and that industry was financed by Mormon bankers), it does and did have some other vital components that were more government related. Mormons have been ensconced in every aspect of this town’s government for over 100 years. They pretty much ran the law enforcement agencies and court systems as well as the local government for most of the town’s history, If there were ever a town ripe for a Mormon theocracy it would be this town. The name of the town is Las Vegas.

One more point: Mr. Obama is presudent of the United States, and its people. He is president for six million Mormons. Just as President Bush, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, sought to defuse animosity toward the Muslim community in the US, President Obama has a duty in the interest of justice and equality and domestic tranquility to denounce religious bigotry toward Mormons, just as he would be expected to denounce it if directed toward Jews. His failure of leadership in this moral sphere demonstrates that he is a partisan of certain factions in our nation, and does not even conceive of himself as having a duty to all citizens.

By the way, I think a candidates faith should be relevant, but not in the way some on the left are doing it. I would place several limits on this type of discourse.

1. Nobody should be held responsible for deeds or beleifs of their faith many years ago, if those deeds or beleifs have since been officially repudited by that church. They should only be responsible for what their church beleives today. (eg: You cant still blame episcapalians for henry the 8, catholics for the medieval popes, or the jews for killing christ, since those religions have long since repudiated those deeds.
2. Dont bring up some strange practice or doctrine unless it could actually affect the candidates public policy positions. So if a religion had strange ideas about the trinity, strange underwear, had some strange saints, strange rituals, or whatever, those are purely personal beleifs that would probably not affect public policy, or affect anybody outside of that faith, and should not be relevant to a candidate. But if a church still beleived in polygamy, still beleived that government should treat other faiths differently than their own, that apostates can be punished by the state, beleives america is evil, or beleives that white or black people are evil, beleived in redistributive social justice, banning abortion, or expanding the faith using force rather than persuasion, those beleifs would have public policy implications. In that case it is legit to question a candidate about them, and inquire whether the candidate would restrict those beleifs to his personal life, or whether he might try to impliment them as policy.