The Washington Post proclaimed in a recent headline another historic “first” for the United States — the first female usher-in-chief at the White House. Stop the presses! The accompanying story reveals that the nominee hails from Jamaica, so it’s probably a two-fer. Oh boy.
The Post and other liberal organs are obsessed with firsts. The first female letter carrier to handle the Capitol Hill route will get a mention in the press. The first African-American anything is guaranteed at least a nod. You don’t even have to be first to get “first” treatment. The last two Supreme Court nominees have been women, joining a court that had already seated two women (one retired). Nevertheless, the femininity of the candidates was cheerily chatted up. When Barack Obama became the first black nominee of a major party and then the elected president, dignified notice of an historical milestone would have been appropriate. But you know what happened — the media went on an inebriated, extravagant first binge.
Advertisement
Funny how the first effect only works for some. If Mitt Romney is nominated and elected, he will be the first member of a highly persecuted American minority group to be so honored. Yet no one is celebrating the possibility of the first Mormon president. Anti-Mormon bias, which has proved remarkably persistent over decades, is scarcely ever condemned.
It isn’t that Mormons have not suffered. Following the religion’s founding in upstate New York in 1830, the Mormons faced immediate hostility from their neighbors. Hounded by New Yorkers, the growing community moved west to Ohio, Missouri, and Kansas. In Jackson County, Mo., Mormon leaders were tarred and feathered, Mormon homes torched, and Mormon property brazenly stolen.
County after county drove the Mormons out, sometimes threatening to kill even the children if they did not evacuate, culminating, in 1838, in an “extermination order” issued by Gov. Lilburn Boggs. Instructing the state militia, Boggs wrote, “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace — their outrages are beyond all description.” Thousands of Mormons were forced to flee, some with just the clothes on their backs, in the dead of winter. Illinois offered sanctuary for a time, but it was in that state that the religion’s founder, Joseph Smith, was imprisoned and murdered by a mob.
The Mormons attempted to defend themselves, and committed an atrocity of their own, the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 (for which the militia leader in charge was tried and executed by the Mormons). But most of the time, the group was on the defensive. Throughout its first seven decades, the sect was harried, persecuted, expelled, reviled, and chased across a continent.
The practice of polygamy stirred hostility. As a Jew though, I cannot help noticing that Mormons were also hated because they seemed to prosper economically, because they rose to the top of organizations they joined, and because they were so loyal to one another.
Outsiders can surely be fair-minded enough to acknowledge that the Latter Day Saints church gets results. Utah has the nation’s lowest levels of welfare dependency, child poverty, and single-parent homes. Its students are among the top scorers in the nation despite relatively low levels of education spending. It ranks highest for contributions to charity by the wealthy, and among the lowest for incarceration and cancer rates. Prominent Mormons established the Marriott hotel chain, JetBlue, and Bain Capital (of course). Mormon Americans invented the television, word processing, and the hearing aid, among other things. Mormons have distinguished themselves in entertainment, sports, and politics — where they have risen to prominence in both parties.
Polygamy having long since been discarded, anti-Mormon bias today, ironically, often focuses on the LDS church’s opposition to same-sex marriage. During the contest over California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to the bond between men and women, opponents sought to intimidate Mormons who contributed financially or otherwise to the initiative. While there has been speculation that Mitt Romney’s faith might suppress support among Republicans, a recent Gallup survey found that Democrats (27 percent) were more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to say they would not vote for a Mormon candidate for president.
Mormons are obviously the wrong kind of minority. Oh, they’ve been persecuted. But through a strong work ethic, self-discipline, traditional morality (yes, there’s an irony there, but get over it), and group cohesion, they have triumphed for themselves and for the country. The first Mormon president would be a milestone. But don’t hold your breath for the applause.
Don't forget John Moses Browning, the greatest gun designer of all time. I have owned or still owned or still own 4 of his wonderful designs, the 1911 45 Auto, the Browning Citori (the direct descendant of his Superposed masterpiece), the Browning 22 SA rifle, and the Browning B-78 single shot rifle.
Charen makes a good point, but she does gloss over the fact that nearly as much (if not more) animus toward Mormons comes from conservatives as from liberals. Liberals don't like Mormons because they disagree with them on social issues, but evangelical conservatives think Mormons are evil cult members who deserve scorn and hatred in this life and everlasting torment in the life beyond.
Romney is a soft frontrunner, not because he is insufficiently conservative or inconsistent (the Gingrich surge neatly deflated that particular lie), but because a significant portion of the Republican base is comprised of religious bigots.
@RJG: Whoa! big fella. You're painting with a broad brush. How do you know what the majority of conservative voters are thinking? Do you have a "Get inside the conservative voter's brain" machine? Didn't think so. Where are your statisics to support your claim?
As an Evangelical Christian, religious faith is important to me, but NOT the most important. Limited federal government, Constitutionally of laws and duties of the federal government, federal spending and taxes, and economic health plus many more. A candidate's religious association is a consideration. Sure, I would vote for an Evangelical Christian candidate given the choice, but it would not prohibit me from voting for, lets say a Mormon, with the same conservative beliefs. I don't think Romney has the same core beliefs that I espouse, but I will vote for him in the general election because he will be the GOP candidate. I would like to see a very conservative candidate represent me so I could vote for that candidate, not against the opposition candidate.
Be careful not to speak for others when you don't know what they think. It could make you a liberal or even a bigot!
Let's posit that I'm speaking generally here, and there are obviously evangelical Christian conservatives who's opposition to Romney is based solely in policy difference. But certainly there are many in that group who will not vote for Romeny because he is Mormon. Those people are bigots. They obviously have a right to their bigotry, but normal people have a right to point to them and call them repugnant because of it.
How about this..there are people who will not vote for Romney because he belongs to a religious group that believes that they are led by a living prophet who receives revelation directly from God. And ignoring the revelation of their living prophet has consequences beyond this lifetime.
Are the people who choose not to vote for Romney because of his Mormonism really "bigots"?
No it doesn't. There are evangelicals who are hate-mongers; those who hate Romney because of his religion are primarily evangelicals or fundamentalists or what-have-you.This is a perfectly reasonable analysis.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is an unreasonable devotion to a system or party and intolerance toward others, an obstinate or blind attachment to some creed, opinion or party.
One gets tired of seeing the word bigoted applied willy-nilly to any opinion that differs from the speaker's own. This same objection, by the way, could be made against those who think that anyone who thinks the US should not allow gay marriage is a homophobe, or that anyone who wants to cut the rate of growth in entitlements wants to starve children and push granny off a cliff.
People may differ on principle or in analysis, but can we at least use the English language properly? Please?
No it doesn't. There are evangelicals who are hate-mongers; those who hate Romney because of his religion are primarily evangelicals or fundamentalists or what-have-you.This is a perfectly reasonable analysis, and the commentator to whom you respond has accurately stated the facts.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is an unreasonable devotion to a system or party and intolerance toward others, an obstinate or blind attachment to some creed, opinion or party. To call evangelical Mormon-bashers bigoted is perfectly reasonable. You may think the attribution is wrong, but it itself does not qualify as bigoted.
One gets tired of seeing the word bigoted applied willy-nilly to any opinion that differs from the speaker's own. This same objection, by the way, could be made against those who think that anyone who thinks the US should not allow gay marriage is a homophobe, or that anyone who wants to cut the rate of growth in entitlements wants to starve children and push granny off a cliff.
People may differ on principle or in analysis, but can we at least use the English language properly? Please?
You, sir, are a bigot. And calling the person who points your bigotry out a bigot for doing so can not change that.
No one is entitled to your vote or your friendship. Mr. Romney will almost certainly survive without your vote, and I'm pretty sure most Mormons would be rather pleased not to have to put up with your viciousness. So I guess this will work out for everybody.
But if you are determined to display your invincible stupidity to the world, don't be shocked when people point it out. And really don't accuse people of a hate crime when yours was the first.
Nothing I've written is vicious, much less does my writing even approach a hate crime.
You clearly disagree, but I think you should couple that disagreement with something resembling evidence, an argument, or anything more than insults and self-satisfied moral preening.
Well, I guess the argument is over once one side levels charges of "bigotry", huh?
Ideology (religious, philosophical, political) all comes down to truth vs error.
I've discovered rather late in life (why did it take so long?) that ever since the Fall of man, few arguments ever deign to discover the truth of a matter but rather exist to justify or excuse the actions of beliefs of the individual, usually in an effort to conceal or subvert the truth.
Few seek the truth, and fewer still actually find it.
I never said hatemonger, I said bigot, and calling a bigot a bigot is not the same thing as bigotry. I'm willing to admit there are lots of evangelical Christian conservatives who will vote for a Mormon and interact with them in civil society in spite of religious differences, those people aren't bigots.
...And RJG rises above the fray by caricaturing a whole group of people and showing them to be the hate mongering-bigots that they REALLY are! BRAVO RJG!!!
Your devastating use of snarky sarcasm and block capitals notwithstanding, I did not say "a whole group of people" were "hate mongering-bigots," but I would say that about the people in that group who won't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.
If a Democrat refuses to vote for a Mormon, you claim (without evidence) it's because of same-sex marriage. If a Republican refuses to vote for a Mormon, you claim (without evidence) it's because of bigotry.
Actually, those of us who grew up in the inner city discovered plenty of evidence as to how bigoted some Democrats can be:
As an active Mormon, I'd like to think that my lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney isn't because I think he's a secret cultist or something.
Anti-Mormonism is a poison in politics, but so is the constant insistence by some Mormons that opposition to Romney be deemed anti-Mormonism until proven otherwise.
The charitable thing to do is to assume the good faith of one's opponents until they prove otherwise. This is also the statesmanlike and beneficial thing to do.
I don't like Mormons much. I admit that. I've been to Utah and seen how they set their system up and was glad they didn't run the whole country.
But this is America, where you can have your weirdo religion if you want. I class them along with Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Cults, but harmless cults. Full of nice people and all that, sure. Still weird.
That having been said, and I speak as a Deist here, I object to them calling themselves Christians. They are not. You do not get to retcon the Bible and come up with what is basically "Jesus 2 - The Jesusing" and get to say you're in the same club as the Presbyterians. Otherwise the term means nothing.
And probably the most annoying thing about Romney so far has been all the people talking about "anti-Mormon bigotry". Don't we have a right to think other people are weird anymore? Suddenly we're bigots? Gotta draw a line somewhere. Otherwise all you Romney people better never talk about how weird Aum-Shonriki or Heaven's Gate or Jonestown were. Because that would be religious bigotry.
And comparing them to the Jews ticks me off too. Jews are awesome and have a rich cultural and philosophical history on top of inventing monotheism. The history of the Mormon religion, by comparison, looks more like a creepy reality TV show. I think I get the sympathy but it's misplaced.
I consider any religion founded after the first millennium suspect.
Nebuchadnezzar:
Regarding "Jesus 2", are you talking about Mormons? Or Lutherans? Or Anabaptists? Or are you talking about Paul versus James? It seems your knowledge of differing doctrinal stances would create a veritable "Clone Wars" of Jesus 2 interpretations. Your somewhat histrionic conflation of Mormons whose opinions vary widely (note Harry Reid and Mitt Romney) with groups that have no deviation from their own hive mind, is flawed to say the least. Mormons interpret life and their application of God's priniciples on a personal basis, it is one reason there is such variety in the LDS Church.
Objection noted. I think that if you recognize Christ as God, and as the one savior of mankind, you're Christian, just like I think that if you believe in a hands-off deity not worth bothering too much about, you're a Deist. But, having made the best argument that can be made that Mormonism is within the bounds of Christianity, some people continue to disagree, that's their business.
Follow
