Anti-Mormonism Rises on the Left

Legal Insurrection has an excellent run-down on the rank bigotry developing on the left against the Mormon religion.  Its all rather nauseating but very typical of the left these days – they probably don’t know much about it but they know (a) that it is socially conservative and (b) a man representing it is going to beat their guy.  So, all bets are off and there is no bottom to the gutter.

To me, Romney’s religion is a non-issue – just as much as Obama’s personal religious beliefs are a non-issue.  Living in a pluralist republic, there is simply no other way to go about it.  Unless I want to say that I’ll only vote for a Catholic of the most orthodox stripe, I must allow that people I vote for will have various differences with me.  What matters to me is whether or not, on balance, the candidate is more favorable to my views than the other candidate.  In this, Romney has pledged himself to a set of policy proposals largely in tune with my view – but not in all cases.  I just kind of have to lump it on the areas where I disagree with Romney while working elsewhere to advance those views of mine which Romney refuses.

Its not like that on the left – it doesn’t, for instance, matter that Mormons are tremendously generous with their time and money and that Mormon-majority communities tend to be clean, safe and law-abiding.  All that is thrown over the side because Mormons dare to have the slightest disagreement with some aspects of leftist ideology.  For the left it is all or nothing – you are either 100% with them or they will be 100% against you.  Romney has sinned against liberal orthodoxy and must be destroyed, and his entire religion along with him.  I hope Mormons have tough skins – Catholics and Evangelicals have been dealing with this for a long time (and Catholics for longer than anyone else in the United States).

At the end of the day, however, these are the actions of desperate, losing people.  Their cause is foundering and their man Obama seems set to lead them off the electoral cliff.  As things get worse for the left, we can expect the howls of bigotry to grow louder.  Get ready for it and learn to endure it – there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

 

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Anti-Mormonism Rises on the Left

  1. Retired Spook October 26, 2012 / 12:50 am

    Mark,

    You left the most fitting category out: Loser Watch

  2. GMB October 26, 2012 / 8:57 am

    “there’s nothing we can do to stop it.”

    You stop it by ignoring it. The same with the race card. It doesn’t stick with anyone except the most staunch progressives. They are going to hate no matter what. They are irrational, hate filled, piles of emotion and no amount of words, printed or spoken, will ever cure them.

    Isn’t that right Thomas?

  3. Cluster October 26, 2012 / 9:09 am

    This morning, the liberal media is feigning outrage over Sununu’s accusation that Powell’s endorsement may have a racial component. Really? 98% of the black population support the President, but I suppose that is all because of his policies, right?

    I am tired of the liberal children in the room dominating the conversation and that includes the media and our President. GMB is right, ignore them – but that is easier said than done.

    • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 10:54 am

      As I pointed out on another thread, Powell himself set up this observation of the racial component of his support when he added the comment that he is “still a Republican”.

      Well, if he really IS still a Republican, then the only reason to support Obama is his race. The last time around, there was a little wiggle room: Obama was new, with an emotionally appealing message, running against a tired old retread no one was enthusiastic about.

      This time, though, Obama has a track record of poor or nonexistent leadership and a list of failures, and a country that is paying the price. The only non-racial reason to vote for him is allegiance to Leftist ideology and a belief that collectivism, redistribution of wealth, and massive and controlling central government are the best ways to run the country.

      When Powell declared himself to be a Republican, which is the same thing as declaring himself to be AGAINST collectivism, redistribution of wealth, and massive and controlling central government, he left no other reason BUT skin color to explain his support for Obama.

      • bozo October 27, 2012 / 10:42 am

        Double down and let it ride! I applaud your transparency.

      • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 10:47 am

        Is that supposed to make sense? Or have you given up even the pretense of participating in a discussion and decided to just hurl your snot-nuggets with no attempt to provide context?

  4. Amazona October 26, 2012 / 11:12 am

    We have to remember that to the core of the Left, all religion is a legitimate target for attack. To the hard core of the Left, belief in any God but the State is considered lunacy.

    Right here on this blog, we are routinely treated to snide and sneering comments from our resident RRL trolls about religion, usually in the form of quotes from the Old Testament they think they can use to discredit conservatives while ridiculing Christianity. As it is doubtful than any of them has ever even picked up a Bible, it appears that the higher-ups of the RRL have selected Old Testament quotes they feel can be applied to various arguments in efforts to get gotchas on Christians and conservatives, and to make fun of the Bible.

    The disdain of the Left for religion is the milder side of its attitude, as it progresses into hatred and oppression when Leftist ideology is unrestrained, as we saw in the USSR.

    • James0601 October 26, 2012 / 11:55 am

      Amazona,

      I don’t know what other liberals believe, but I don’t believe in God and you will never catch me quoting the old or new testament. It’s all irrelevant to me and I will never base my opinion with regards to policy on religion.

      Also, this issue that people vote for someone only based on their ideology is a pure fantasy of yours. In an ideal world, that would be the best way to vote, but in the real world, most people vote on other things.

      That’s not to say that those people are stupid, or ignorant, it just means they value other things above ideology.

      I personally think your cartoonish view of liberals is funny and misguided. If you’d like to have a policy debate, or an ideological debate, I am willing and able to defend my positions.

      • Cluster October 26, 2012 / 12:17 pm

        James,

        I have been wanting to engage you in a policy debate for years. Let’s do it. Pick your topic, and your position and I will respond.

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 1:04 pm

        James, define “ideology”.

        You say most people “…value other things above ideology. ”

        Such as……?

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 1:05 pm

        What IS my view of Liberals, and how is it “cartoonish”?

        Do you refer to true, ideological Liberals, or just to the masses who vote for the Left without the slightest idea of what it stands for?

      • Cluster October 26, 2012 / 1:29 pm

        Still waiting James. You can choose the topic.

      • James0601 October 26, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        amazona,

        James, define “ideology”.

        without getting into the detailed definitions of this term, i’d say in one sentence its simply a person’s core beliefs about any one topic. whether that’s politics, science, or economics.

        You say most people “…value other things above ideology. ”
        Such as……?

        some people value their own personal interest over the candidates ideological leanings. For example, some people vote simply one ONE issue. They could disagree with the candidate on most other issues, but on that one issue, they agree so they vote for that person.

        Some people vote on the likability factor, or a candidate’s race, or a candidate’s gender.

        It could be a multitude of things. This false narrative you advocate that everyone if they are smart will vote on a purely ideological basis is simply not the case.

        People vote for different reasons and for different motivations.

      • James0601 October 26, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        Cluster,

        I’d start with the role of the Federal government in education.

        simply put, I believe that the federal government should set education standards and should control funding of schools and education in general.

        Individual states have no business being in education since they will all produce different standards and different results. We can’t have a state like Georgia having kids graduate with lower knowledge than kids in California.

      • Cluster October 26, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        OK, but I disagree. I think this position assumes that states and counties have less concern for education than the federal government does, which is wrong in my opinion. I think we need to put education and the state and county level and encourage competition and choice.

        1. Give parents the choice of where to send their kids to school. Schools that have high success rates will obviously enjoy more student enrollment and benefit from increased state funding.

        2. Have open competition between schools on academic achievements, ie: science fairs, debates, math competitions, etc. and financially reward the teachers and the schools who perform best.

      • James0601 October 26, 2012 / 2:20 pm

        Cluster, I don’t necessarily disagree completely, but there are a few points i’d like to digress on.

        OK, but I disagree. I think this position assumes that states and counties have less concern for education than the federal government does, which is wrong in my opinion.

        They don’t have less concern, they have much less resources. The federal government isn’t reliant on local property taxes to fund education. local counties and governments are to volatile to run the education system that’s supposed to be universal nationwide.

        I think we need to put education and the state and county level and encourage competition and choice.

        I disagree. education isn’t a business where you have to compete to have a better product. education needs to be uniform and standardized across state lines so that each child no matter where they live has the same education and standards applied to their learning.

        Give parents the choice of where to send their kids to school. Schools that have high success rates will obviously enjoy more student enrollment and benefit from increased state funding.

        Parents can send their kids to private school. if they can’t afford private school or homeschool….their kids can go to public schools which should be able to educate kids. I disagree with this notion that schools are like businesses where the best survive and the worst disappear…let’s bring all schools up to an acceptable level.

        Have open competition between schools on academic achievements, ie: science fairs, debates, math competitions, etc. and financially reward the teachers and the schools who perform
        best.

        This is fine, but at the end of the day, standardized tests need to be administered in order to make sure all children have recieved a basic level of education per the standards set forth.

      • Cluster October 26, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        I don’t disagree with minimum standards, but I strongly disagree with universal standards. Those standards tend to get watered down to the lowest common denominator, when we need to encourage our kids to reach higher levels across the board.

        There is also no sense in propping up failing schools. Education is a business – a business of turning out a highly educated and well round child. Schools should not be day cares, and school choice helps the lower class more than any other other group of people and it is imperative that those lower income kids get the opportunity to attend successful schools. That is best way to lift them out of poverty.

        In regards to funding, if you take the money away from the federal level and disburse it amongst the states, the states will be flush with required funding. In addition to that, I would means test it – so the educational funds from richer counties in the state would be allocated to the more poor counties, giving them the resources they need to compete.

        Competition improves EVERYTHING James – from people, to product, to service.

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        “… i’d say in one sentence its simply a person’s core beliefs about any one topic. whether that’s politics, science, or economics. “

        Agreed. So one can have a political ideology, a religious ideology, etc.

        You say “…this issue that people vote for someone only based on their ideology is a pure fantasy of yours. ” and “This false narrative you advocate that everyone if they are smart will vote on a purely ideological basis is simply not the case. ”

        Well, I do NOT say that “… people vote for someone only based on their ideology..” so this is hardly a fantasy of mine. I do say that if one is smart he WILL vote according to his political ideology instead of on an issue, or even a few issues.

        There are several reasons for this.

        One is that an individual may feel strongly about an issue, and appeal to voters because his position on that issue, and will still be constrained by the political ideology of his party and its coalitions, so his stance on these issues is nothing more than wishful thinking and, possibly, a calculated effort to gain votes by aligning himself with a popular issue.

        One is much the same as the former, in that when you vote for an individual you ARE voting for his party, his party’s political ideology, and his party’s coalitions.

        And one is that in the overall scheme of things, single issues are of much less import than the basic decision of how best to govern the nation. Issues come and go, and are often based in emotion, while the form of governance of the nation is the fundamental issue of an election.

        I suppose you can roll the dice and hope that the single issue that has caught your attention is also part of the political system of government you want, but that seems pretty random to me. I would prefer to vote on the system of government and then address issues within that system.

        And if you think about it, the chances of a single issue gaining traction once an election is over is highly dependent on the political ideology of the winning party, so if you are ignorant of or indifferent to the underlying political ideology of the person or party you are voting for you can easily throw away your vote by voting on an issue that is not going to be important to the party or acceptable to the coalition.

        And finally, regarding the importance of understanding and voting on the basis of the underlying political ideology of a party, the winning party gets committee chairmanships and other perks of power that are the real engines of governance. So a vote on an issue can easily give the party you don’t like seats such as Speaker of the House or Chairman of important committees.

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 5:42 pm

        Regarding education: There is a myth that private schools must cost more than public education. Yet districts like the District of Columbia spend $10,000 a year or more per student, an amount which would pay for many existing private schools and would encourage more private schools.

        A voucher system, in which parents can decide where to spend the amount per student allocated by the school district, will force public schools to rise to the level of private schools.

        A guaranteed income always leads to slackness and mediocrity, and this is true of education as much as it is of manufacturing, service industries, etc. Having to compete for funds forces schools to up their game, to provide more.

        No one understands the needs of a community better than those who live there. In education, as in everything else, one size does not fit all.

        How could we apply national standards? Bush tried it and is still being attacked for it.

        Right now there is a wide range of educational excellence even with federal funding. Your argument might be better if at this time students in DC were as well educated as those in Ogden Utah or San Bernadino CA. But they are not. Supporting a system is reasonable only if the system is working.

        And government control in schools results in time being wasted on things parents don’t find important and students don’t find helpful, mostly in the areas of social engineering. When a charter school opened up in Jefferson County, Colorado, promising to teach the basics, it had a multi-year waiting list by the time it opened its doors.

  5. bozo October 27, 2012 / 10:55 am

    Interesting that Mark would quote G W Bush to describe liberals – “you are either 100% with them or they will be 100% against you” which literally means all you Benghazi-gate flagellants are guilty of aiding terrorists according to Republicans circa 2004. Neo-Condi Rice supports Obama’s version but means she’s just supporting another black person, according to Ammo’s logic.

    EVEN THE MORMONS practice that bit of extremism known as “with us or we’re against you.” But, no, it’s LIBERALS who are the unbending ideologues.

    • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 5:04 pm

      blowzo

      ” But, no, it’s LIBERALS who are the unbending ideologues.

      nah, more like commies.

Comments are closed.