Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

"Methodic” seems merely to be another word for “methodical,” which in turn seems to be a good quality for someone in charge of stuff.  Also, I’m not sure that not easily being fazed is a disqualification.  I’ve never heard anyone say someone should be President because he has a really great double-take.

But I seem to recall that we aren’t supposed to get into an argument with someone who sells salad dressing by the gallon, or something.

Agreed that Redford’s offhand comments are bigoted, hateful, and should be condemned.

What should also be condemned are the written comments of conservative icon Father Richard Neuhaus.  Neuhaus said that people should vote against Romney because having a Mormon as president of the United States would “almost certainly” give “greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism,” thereby “help[ing to] advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion.” http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=787

The same reasoning, obviously, would sanction religious bigotry by Christians against Jewish candidates (because the election of Joe Lieberman might provide stature to the idea that Christ is not savior), or by Catholics against Protestant or Eastern Orthodox candidates (deniers of the Pope’s position as head of the Church).

Father Neuhaus (who is obviously Catholic) does recognize one form of religious voting test as illegitimate bigotry: “Does this line of argument mean that anti-Catholicism should have prevented the election of JFK? No. Anti-Catholicism is, in my judgment, an unreasonable prejudice.”

Got that?  Father Neuhaus runs a magazine that is deservedly viewed as quite intellectual in conservative circles.  Voting against candidates who belong to the same religion as Father Neuhaus is bigotry.  Voting against candidates from other religions is legitimate.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=787

Now, where can you point me to media condemnations (or, for that matter, condemnations by the conservative thinkers) of Father Neuhaus’ religious bigotry??

So when you see Mitt Romney, he’s already been practicing how to deflect blows and stay on message. But it’s plastic.

Compared to, say, actors.

While I agree that such a statement directed at a Jew or Christian would be immediately labeled as bigoted I have to wonder…

What if Romney were a Scientologist?

And from that the obvious question arises.  When you look closely at the two religions, which is more far fetched?

Redford’s comments were directed at specific attributes of the Mormon faith. While one can dispute the validity of the concerns Redford thinks those attributes raise about Romney’s politics, pointing out aspects of Mormonism is not “bigoted.”

Further, we can and should be concerned with the religious beliefs of candidates. While many politicians may profess religious faith for political gain (Obama? I hope so), some are true believers. And, frankly, it is against the tenents of every single major religion to fully seperate political beliefs/action from ones religious convictions. Hence, which fantasy book a given candidate follows, and what it says, should concern the American people.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won’t be disappointed.

dcuser - you take Father Neuhaus completely out of context.  He didn’t advocate voting against Romney because of his Mormanism, he stated matter of factly that if Romney is elected it will give greater prestige to the LDS church, which is a reasonable reason for a voter serious about religion to not vote for Romney.  He never wrote antyhing bad about Mormanism except that most Christians believe its a false religion - that’s not bigotted, its a fact.  And the present situation IS much different than 1960, mainly because, as Neuhaus points out, no one worries that Romney is going to take orders from Salt Lake City if he’s elected, as was commonly thought of JFK.  I think that’s much different than smearing all Morman’s as “plastic”, which a personal attack, not a comment on Morman theology.  If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, I guarantee that Father Neuhaus will support him over a pro-abortion democrat, whether it’s Hilary or Obama.

"He never wrote antyhing bad about Mormanism except that most Christians believe its a false religion - that’s not bigotted, its a fact.” - jdb

Protestants believe Catholicism is a false religion and Catholics believe Protestants are of a false religion (ask the Irish).  Evangelicals believe Hinduism is a false religion.  Muslims believe Christianity is a false religion.  Atheists believe religion *period* is false.  So what is Neuhaus’ point exactly?  That the only person worthy of the presidency is someone from our own individual religion?  Or is his point simply that Mormons are abhorrent?

I’ve voted in good conscience for presidential candidates in the past whose religious views didn’t mirror my own, and I didn’t think for one moment about inadvertently making their religion look good.

“Don’t vote for Romney, it will make his religion look good!  And we can’t have that!  Mormons must be despised and shunned!” The selective bias here is disgusting.

"Mitt Romney doesn’t have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won’t be disappointed.”

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

THIS IS COMEDY HOUR, RIGHT?

“What if Romney were a Scientologist?

And from that the obvious question arises.  When you look closely at the two religions, which is more far fetched? “

CHOICE (C) - THE ONE THAT BELIEVES THAT A MAN WALKED ON THE WATER, TURNED A STICK INTO A SNAKE, AND THAT THE WINE AND WAFER ARE ACTUALLY TURNED INTO THE LITERAL BODY OF CHRIST.  OOPS, SORRY, THAT RELIGION WASN’T IN THE TEST.

ALL YOU ANTI-MORMON BIGOTS ARE SO FUNNY.  YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW “IRRATIONAL” YOUR OWN RELIGIONS ARE.  YOU ARE JUST AFRAID OF MORMONISM BECAUSE IT THREATENS YOUR BIG BUSINESS.  MORMONISM DOESN’T HAVE A PAID PROFESSIONAL LAY CLERGY.  SEE, SALVATION IS FREE IN MORMONISM. 

ANTI-MORMONISM IS DRIVEN BY PASTORS AND PRIESTS WHO ARE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR GRAVY TRAIN TO A CHURCH THAT DOESN’T PAY PEOPLE FOR SERVING IN IT.

How sad.  This liberal ingrate gladly worships at Castro’s feet, but says Romney’s plastic?  Oh boy...the Hollywood elite is indeed the new emperors without clothes.

"Hence, which fantasy book a given candidate follows, and what it says, should concern the American people.”

Very well then, let’s see what the LDS’s “fantasy book” says about religion and government:

“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”

...

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134

Read it all.

JDB (11/11 12:19am) says:

“dcuser - you take Father Neuhaus completely out of context.  He didn’t advocate voting against Romney because of his Mormanism, he stated matter of factly that if Romney is elected it will give greater prestige to the LDS church, which is a reasonable reason for a voter serious about religion to not vote for Romney.”

Ok, JDB, let’s try a few more varieties of this:

1) Harvard University, 1920:  “If we let Jewish people into medical school, then lots of Jews will become doctors, and since that’s a high-status profession, it will make more people want to convert to Judaism, which is an incomplete religion.  I therefore deem it reasonable to do whatever I can to keep Jews out of medical school.”

2) Iran, 2007:  “If we let Christians serve as Mayors, then Christianity, which is a perversion of Allah’s revelation to the prophets, will become more respected, causing more people to become Christian and convincing Christians not to convert to Islam.  I therefore deem it reasonable, as a member of the Council of Clerics, to help defeat Christian candidates wherever possible.”

Do you honestly not see why these sorts of actions are bigotted?  Must be nice to be in the majority !  (Bet you’re glad you’re not in Iran!)

I’m just waiting for Redford to warn us all of the danger that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid poses to the nation as a consequence of being a Mormon.

Although ... “They are very adept at not being fazed and speaking fluently and gracefully.” Well, that particular bit of adeptitude doesn’t seem to manifest itself in Harry’s case.

I see this as more of a cultural stereotyping than religious bigotry.  Sort of like saying all New Yorkers talk fast, or everyone in Hollywood is a vacuous liberal that thinks people care what their opinions are on politics.  Of course the media would make a bigger deal out of it if a Republican said something similar, but IMO it’s the kind of thing from which people should just ignore and move on.  Coming from Redford especially, the guy simply isn’t relevant anymore.

Ah, give ole Sundance a break.  He’s just feeling snarky because LFL is bombing at the box office.  We are all so plastic because we can’t recognize what brilliance his movie is.

Rather enjoyed this conversation.  But I direct you to another article that might ‘splain a little of Brother Redfords attitude. 

http://coltakashi.livejournal.com/

As I note in my own blog, coltakashi.livejournal.com, it is ironic to hear Redford criticizing Mormons for being inauthentic, when his own career is based on creating and selling the illusion of reality.  The term “plastic” is one that has been applied by some critics towards some of Redford’s own performances.  Why the news media should take his political opinions any more seriously than those of Julia Roberts is a mystery.  Redford is not a politician or a crusading reporter, he just plays one in the movies.

I am, as a fan of Richard John Neuhaus and his journal First Things, saddened by his statement that the side effect of giving legitimacy to Mormonism is sufficient reason to vote against a presidential candidate who is otherwise well qualified.  Would not such “legitimacy” be well earned if a Mormon were elected president? 

Indeed, why isn’t that legitimacy already present with the election of Mormons as governors and members of Congress from Oregon, Oklahoma, Florida, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Michigan, Massachusetts, Arizona and California?  Mormons are internationally known scientists, prominent authors, serious scholars, and military leaders.  I myself served twenty years in the Air Force.  Aren’t I a legitimate American as well as a Mormon? 

A little over a century ago, Mormons were prohibited by Federal law from voting, serving on juries or being elected to office, in blatant violation of the First Amendment. The Senate tried to block the seating of a Mormon elected from Utah, Reed Smoot.  Apparently the sentiment of the founding fathers, stated in Article VI of the Constitution, that religion is not a reason for denying a person Federal office, is not widely shared today, even among some of those who have frequently stated the case for religious expression in the public square. 

The only threat that Mitt Romney represents is to those who engender falsehoods about the Mormons and their beliefs. If Romney becomes president, he will become a neighbor known personally to every American, and the lies that are so beloved of those afraid of Mormonism, afraid of its growth and the conviction and unflappability of its members and the widespread leadership experience of its people and their personal international experience, are going to be exposed as falsehoods.  Americans will know that Mormons are good people who respect and care about their neighbors, who worship God and look to Christ for their eternal salvation, and a barrier that was erected by professional clergy to prevent people from investigating Mormon beliefs will come down.  The ministers who are afraid their own churches cannot compete against Mormonism when seen in its true light are already panicking.  And perhaps the members of their congregations will realize that they have been lied to for years. 

So anyone who says “Vote against Romney because he will legitimize Mormonism” is simply saying “I am afraid of what people will do when they find out the truth about who Mormons are.”

This is especially ironic coming from Father Neuhaus, who monthly in his journal First Things points out how religious ministers, including Catholic priests and bishops, have become enamored of modernism to the point of losing track of the priority of the gospel.  Mormons resist the drift toward placing popularity and ideological fashion above principle.  Mormons are potentially among his allies in pulling for the voices of religious people being allowed to ring in the public square and influence, through democratic processes, the course of public policy, even though Mormons are by no means monolithic in their views on subjects other than religion, such as politics.  Neuhaus weakens his own movement by anathematizing some of his staunchest allies.