Dan at Riehl World View points out the naked hypocrisy in two recent articles in regards to the religion of political candidates. In his post, Dan points to an article in Slate titled: Romney’s Religion: A Mormon president? No way, which includes this:
Romney’s religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender.
Okay. Sounds like you’re saying that a person’s religion — in this case the Christian-based faith of Mormonism — is fair game in considering a political candidate.
The article, written by some guy named Jacob Weisberg, also offers this:
Nor is it chauvinistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves.
Hey, I agree 100% percent with you on this statement. Except for the religious views you are talking about and the ones I’m thinking of. But we’ll get to that a bit further down.
So, Slate seems to be very clear in this article in claiming that a person’s religious faith and their religious views are very important — Weisberg uses the term “deal breaker” — when considering them as a candidate. Well, as long as they are Mormons, anyway.
Now, consider this completely opposite view on the same topic in the the Washington Post, which criticizes the remarks made by Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. in regards to Muslims (specifically, Keith Ellison [D-MN], also known as Keith E. Hakim, Keith X. Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad) winning political offices:
Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) is coming under sharp criticism for lashing out against the decision by Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, to use the Koran during a swearing-in ceremony.
…The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned Goode’s remarks and called on him to apologize. “Congressman Goode’s ignorant and divisive statements are an affront to Muslims in his district and to Americans of all faiths who believe in our nation’s longstanding traditions of religious tolerance and diversity,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the council.
Dan concludes his post by asking:
So is it, Mormon bad, Muslim okay? Is the religion of a politician acceptable for debate? Or is that only allowed when said politician is a conservative?
_____________
I come down on the side of Slate in that I believe that a person’s religious beliefs are a deal breaker, and should be discussed and heavily considered when voting. Where Slate and I differ though, is that I beleive that the religion we should be discussing is Islam, not Mormonism.
Good Richard’s Almanac summarizes why I believe this is important:
Islam is a tyrannical religion whose objective is to set up a substitute justice system; Sharia law. Islamic courts are already in place throughout Europe where parties can “settle out of court” then resolve their dispute in a Sharia court.
Thank goodness that Slate has already determined that it’s not “chauvanistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves”. Because that’s what I’m saying. Islam is and always will be a deal breaker when considering who to vote for.
as opposed to the principles of Liberty, and so does CNN. [IMG Tyranny Phobia] Of the fact that Islam is a totalitarian religion, there is no doubt. Why an organization such as CNN seeks to promote oppression and subjugation is beyond me. Also… MSM: Mormon Bad, Muslim Good at UrbanGrounds
Left by Good Richard's Almanac on December 22nd, 2006 at 5:41 am