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
Wise Muslims and good Muslims are always welcome. But Mr. Ellison is neither wise nor good. A wise Muslim wouldn’t have made a big stink about bringing a Koran to his swearing-in, and a good Muslim wouldn’t be associated with the Nation of Islam, CAIR, and representatives of the terrorist group Hamas.
But Mr. Ellison is neither wise nor good. A wise Muslim wouldn’t have made a big stink about bringing a Koran to his swearing-in,
Left by Jose Chung
Are you serious? Why do YOU care what book he used for his ‘make believe’ swearing in ceremony? He could have used a phone book if he wanted. Sir, he made a ‘big deal’ about it because that is his religion. Just like your religion is a ‘big deal’ for you. Let an American citizen – an elected citizen – go about his business his own way. Your God is no more important than his God – get it? God is simply a rumor anyway.
God – get it? God is simply a rumor anyway.
Tom, except what you seem to forget is that Ellison’s religion will cut your head off for expressing what you just did, you dirty infidel. Our religion won’t.
I’m a little in shock as to how any of you can take either side of that issue. The fact that the man wanted to swear on the holy text for which he is a believer – I can’t believe that anyone can stand up and say they are against this and call themselves either intelligent or tolerant.
Goode’s an idiot and so is Dan at Riehl World View for being exclusionary bigots. Personally, the idea that one swears on a bible is laughable to me, but it serves to make the masses feel better I suppose.
It seems like it’s all about “My Bible”. As it always has been. Hypocrites.
I’n not a Christian — I’m agnostic. But I fully understand, accept, and appreciate that this great nation was founded on and based on Christian principles. It’s — regardless of your faith — one of the things that makes our nation the greatest on the planet.
If you want to live under the laws of a different cultures principles…say Sharia Law…move to Iran. In the meantime, I think it’s best that we reject Sharia Law in this country, and stick with what got us here: Christianity.
This has always been a secular nation, and should remain so. It just so happens that the majority of people happen to be Christians, and have the right to be so. They also have the right not to be, if they choose.
Public swearing in ceremonies on a religous text should be done away with altogether. It was started mainly for political effect anyway. But suppose somewhere down th line the majority religion becomes Muslim, then what? That is exactly why this kind of thing should be nipped in the bud, before we get something we weren’t counting on. Affirming that this nation is by law secular by government is the best way to do that. This should be codified into law. I would not be adverse to a constitutional amendment to that effect.
One other point. If Christianity truly is the “one true religion” and the Bible really is the true divine revelation, and should be interpreted at face value, I sure as hell feel sorry for all the politicans who swear on it. Frankly, I don’t feel too good about their chances of escaping an eternity of torment at the end of days.
What is it about the Mormon religion that is a deal breaker either way for you?
Me? Nothing about Mormonism would persuade me to vote for or against anybody.