I’d meant to comment on Lawrence O’Donnell’s spittle-flecked rant against Mormons and Mormonism on this weekend’s The McLaughlin Group but, fortunately, Jason Linkins has saved me the trouble over at The Huffington Post (hat tip: memeorandum):
Pat Buchanan, believe it or not, deserves credit for asking a question that was both germane to the discussion and entirely fair: “Do you believe his faith disqualifies him to be President.” Well…it’s clear that O’Donnell does. Forcefully, fiercely. Frankly, frighteningly! (A saner examination of the very problems O’Donnell cites can be had here.)
The conversation just went right off the rails from there. Mormonism was founded by a “fraudulent criminal,” O’Donnell maintained, insisting that the speech was an “opportunity to distance himself from the evils of his religion” even as Clift cautioned that “every religion has had its scandals.” That got McLaughlin defending the Catholic Church, further shouting, Buchanan blaming Christians for bringing slavery to the United States, and Clift saying that “every religion has some crazy beliefs.”
Hilarious. And O’Donnell would just not let up. His kick to commercial, “Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and A RAPIST!” It makes you wonder how well O’Donnell gets along with the writers on Big Love…or how he’s going to feel after he realizes how reasonable his made Pat Buchanan looked!
The post includes a video link if you’d like to see for yourself.
This isn’t the first instance of a looney explosion on O’Donnell’s part. But I think the incident does highlight the reality that there’s a certain segment of the population that does have very strong anti-Mormon feelings for one reason or another and that’s not likely to go away in the near term. At bottom, it’s the reason I think that Mitt Romney is unelectable.
But it does bring up some broader questions. The Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests for office-seekers by the government. It emphatically does not prohibit your using such tests when you’re in the voting booth casting your vote. You’re free to use any sort of criteria you care to when deciding for whom you’ll cast your vote.
Should religious beliefs be completely off the table? Are there some religious beliefs that are on the table? Some religious sects that are beyond the pale?
Clift had it right. Of course Mormons have some crazy doctrine. Crazier than ritually eating the flesh of your dead savior? Crazier than cutting off the end of your penis? Crazier than walking in a big circle around some rock in Mecca?
Only agnostics and atheists get to talk about religious craziness. The 95% of Americans who are religious all have a crazy aunt in the attic. And since those of us who are not believers have little choice but to vote for one sort of believer or another, I think we have to shrug tolerantly and think, well, then, let’s just pick the best of the nuts available to us.
Which is not significantly different from the choice presented to all American voters in any given election. Pick your nut and hope for the best.
I find it difficult to dismiss Mr. O’Donnell’s rant altogether. I spent quite a bit of time around Mormons over the last thirty years. The point is not that the religion had racist and other troubling beliefs and principles, such as their disingenuous claim to be Christians to further their missionary activities. The point is that their church still actively engages in these activities. That is their “crazy aunt” in the closet.
I see nothing troubling about acknowledging these facts. And as you said…
You stated that very well. I thought Romney’s speech was extremely well written and delivered. Overall I find Mr. Romney’s logic twisted. Of course I fell that way about most of the candidates. When it comes time to vote I will hold my nose and vote party and principles and vote for the Republican nominee.
I hope you do not mind the comment. I just came across your blog, brilliant!
Depressing, isn’t it?
No, I thought your comment was great, pgwarner. Stop by again. I know quite a few people who feel much as you do, probably for similar reasons.
Religious beliefs should not be off the table, but refusing to vote for someone based solely on religious beliefs should be reserved for a belief system that is so beyond the pale that they must be rejected from the polity. I’m thinking cannibals and white supremacists. Mormonism does not meet that high standard unless we think Harry Reid should be harassed for his beliefs.
The key point is that, from Lawrence O’Donnell’s point of view, Mormonism, which only reversed its position on people of black African descent in 1978, is such a religion. I have no idea what he thinks of Harry Reid.
Romney is the source of most of his problems. He has tried to stake out a position as the candidate most appealing to people who identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. Many Christian denominations simply don’t believe Mormons are Christians (different book, different stories, different creeds). They appear to have been willing to look past that until someone “more Christian” appeared. Meanwhile the media is calling these Evangelical Christians bigots, cementing their opposition to Romney. It’s a mess. His strategy is based on Iowa and he probably can’t win Iowa now.
Polls have shown opposition to Mormons on the left as well, where they are believed to be “too Christian.” The irony is that Romney may not be Christian enough to compete with Huckabee, but in a general election he would probably appear “too Christian” anyway. (Not to mention Romney’s speech did not appear to save a place for atheists/non-believers)
It’s true that Mormons were rather late to the civil rights movement. But then, so were Southern Baptists. If we want to judge denominations by that standard it’s the Quakers who would win, hands down. I’ve often wondered why there are so few African-American Friends. Quakers put their lives on the line in the pre-Civil War battle against slavery. And they continued to do so in Jim Crow days.
Michael, social issues are probably as or more important in determining choice of denomination than doctrinal issues are. That’s why, as they climb the socio-economic ladder, it’s pretty common for African Americans to become Catholics, Episcopalians, or Lutherans.
The Society of Friends doesn’t plow that particular field.
I posted last before reading Dave’s response . . .
Mormon racial beliefs through 1978 are odd. Perhaps membership in LDS should be treated like membership in sports or social club that at one time discriminated, but in which a large number of our political and business leaders joined.
I accept claims by Mormons that racial issues were not central (and were perhaps even unknown) to their experience as members. Romney’s father marched with MLKJr, which means a lot to me. I don’t think its reasonable to believe Romney would discriminate on the basis of race; I think its reasonable to believe he might on the basis of faithlessness.
O’Donnell was just plain wrong about the pro-slavery thing. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, was actually outspokenly anti-slavery, and ran for President on a platform to get rid of slavery.
What continuously amazes me is that generally reasonabe people can turn so rabid at the mere mention of Mormonism. I was shocked by the man who would not shake Mitt Romney’s hand because of his belief. I was shocked at O’Donnell’s diatribe. I continue to be shocked that only a Republican Mormon has to answer for his religion (which, despite its weirdness, still tries to follow the same ten commandments as mainstream Christianity, AND despite assertions that Mormon Jesus is somehow different, the different Mormon Jesus’s words are the same as the Christian Jesus’s words in the New Testament). What if he believed Frankenstein was God, but that his teachings were exactly like those of Jesus–wouldn’t he still act the way Christians would want him to? At any rate, O’Donnell was insane about Mormonism, and his participation in Big Love should have disqualified him anyway. Nice blog, by the way.