IS ANTI-ROMNEY RHETORIC IMPROPER?
[GET THE LATEST “TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER” HERE]
“Gambit,” over at Huck’s Army said the following about “Truth With Speedzzter’s” recent post “ANDY CARD'S "NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK" ON ROMNEY:”
[Speedzzter would thank the kind and sincere folks over at Huck’s Army for all of their support and for their unvarnished feedback. Such sincerity and honesty ought to be the hallmarks of the grassroots conservative movement]
Gambit’s comments are fully in line with the example set by Governor Mike Huckabee in the 2008 campaign.
Governor Huckabee did his best to honorably abide by Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment” by trying not to speak ill of another Republican. Although the elite pundits and attack “dogs” of GOP talk radio -- and even the mainstream media -- attempted to “blow up” an ad hominem fight based on fleeting fragments of hearsay (the so-called “Christian Leader” ad in Iowa, the hastily-pulled negative ad press conference, the “floating cross” Christmas ad, and the off-hand “Don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers” remark), Governor Huckabee refused to “take the bait” and stayed as much as he could on the “high road.”
Of course, not everyone traveled that same lofty road.
The internet is flooded with all sorts of negative sobriquets for Governor Huckabee: “Huckster,” “Huckleberry,” “Muck HICKabee,” “Hackabee,” “Mike Suckabee,” “Hokeabee,” “Hokeybee,” “Mike Taxabee,” “Tax Hikeabee” and a host of other unflattering, stereotypical labels attacking, inter alia, Governor Huckabee’s faith, geographic background, and profession.
Obviously, such partisan ridicule has historically been a job hazard of seeking elective office. And to the extent Governor Huckabee is aware of such name-calling, Speedzzter suspects he reacts privately with a blend of hurt, amazement, forgiveness and, perhaps even pity.
Moreover, During Governor Huckabee's active campaign, the political discourse was filled with any measure of half-truths and distortions of Governor Huckabee’s fine, Reagan-style conservative record in Arkansas. Yet, in spite of facing a well-funded hurricane of negativity and falsehoods, Mike Huckabee and his “Army” mostly “turned the other cheek” and focused on the positive message of the candidate.
Of course, no ordinary human being is perfect – Not Mike Huckabee . . . not his opponents (even the ones who falsely and pridefully believe they will become “gods” someday) . . . not his supporters . . . and most certainly, not Speedzzter.
Just as the “Body of Christ” has many members and diverse parts with many different talents, so does the GOP. And while many believe it was their sacred duty to campaign as gentle, inoffensive lambs, others sincerely believe that telling the whole truth requires stiffer measures. Speedzzter is obviously among the latter.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s radical mentor, Saul Alinsky claimed in his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals: A practical Primer for Realistic Radicals” that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
In a wholly secular environment, Alinsky probably has a point. For example, because of the power of ridicule, the stereotypical crassness of the fictional Archie Bunker and his neighbor George Jefferson may have had more actual, long-term impact on fundamentally changing American race relations than the thoughtful, soaring eloquence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But Speedzzter’s Christian readers will undoubtedly object that such worldly tactics have no place within the scope of a true Christian’s conduct.
“Truth with Speedzzter” has attempted to walk this line between mean-spirited, non-factual ridicule and entertaining, insightful truthfulness about Mitt Romney. The playful nicknames “Gucci Chameleon,” “Slick Willard,” “Bishop Romney, ” “Mitt-the-Flip,” “Flipper Mitty, ” the “Vain Bain Capitalist,” and others appearing in these posts were carefully formulated to humorously highlight substantive defects in Mr. Romney and the apocryphal heavy sales pitch that his rabid supporters offered for him.
Moreover, the approach was intentionally focused on Mr. Romney’s secular, political deficiencies, notwithstanding his proud allegiance to a proselytizing, false, deceptive and secretive cult.
Outside his rabid supporters in the LDS religion (who are chomping at the bit for the public relations bonanza sure to come their way if a "Mormon" leads the free world), Romney only appeals to those who: (a) like plastic, prepackaged "machine" candidates; (b) Country-club GOPers who know that Romney is "shining on" the dirty rabble about those pesky "social issues;" (c) business special interests and "fat cats" who detect that Romney is really "one of them;" (d) the Eastern media elites and "beltway boys" who know little to nothing about "fly-over country" or the South and the candidates who hail from them; and (e) pragmatic lemmings who jump on the most ostentatious bandwagon parading by merely to be among the “in crowd.”
Speedzzter wouldn’t have been fully faithful to the truth without making these observations.
Mr. Romney’s heterodox faith has never been the issue with respect to his candidacy.
However, “Truth With Speedzzter” would not be fully truthful if it shrunk from veracity about the LDS religion. As has been pointed out over and again in these pages, reasoned theological disagreements are hardly bigotry. Such robust discussions are what were anticipated by the Founding Fathers when they adopted the First Amendment. Obviously, doctrinal discussions on sincerely-held beliefs do not automatically make one a "religious bigot" (otherwise, the legions of bike-riding LDS missionaries (which included Romney) would fit within that definition).
Like many roads, this First Amendment road we’re traveling together has a ditch on either side. The first ditch is marked by breezy notions of "tolerance" which cede the rhetorical battlefield to thugs who distort, mislead and practice ad hominem ridicule. This is the ditch favored by those who want to strip the public square of any meaningful discussions about faith (and about non-faith) as well as the safe harbor for the intellectually lazy.
The other ditch is populated by those with thin-skinned hypersensitivity and paranoid overreactions to any criticism or debate about matters of faith (or non-faith). This ditch is the refuge for those who are not robust enough to candidly, objectively, and authentically consider political, theological or moral questions.
The public discourse is not enriched by knee-jerk commentary from either ditch. Rather, understanding and meaningful dialogue comes from openly confronting the hard questions that the ditch dwellers punt on.
Romney has proven the unique ability to oscillate between the ditches, while stopping briefly between them to announce in carefully chosen code his fealty to “Jesus” (without any specifics, of course).
A case in point was Romney's over-blown "religion" speech last fall. It was calculated to evade and mislead. Romney's non-answers and buzz-word double-speak communicated more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped, photo-op "religion" speech ever could.
By the way, unlike Romney, John F. Kennedy stood for a lengthy period of questioning by clergy AFTER his "religion" speech.
Romney has sought to have it both ways.
He wanted to talk just enough "Jesus talk" to lure some of the voters who sincerely believe that what's in a candidate's "heart" profoundly affects governance, but he didn't want to answer any of the questions that logically flow from this same topic. He also wanted to pander to his fellow LDS cohorts by claiming to be "proud" of his particular religion, yet he shrank from any meaningful discussion of its essential tenants or his leadership roles in it.
Romney "opened the door" to pointed religious questions when he laid claim to "faith" in Jesus Christ. If he didn't want to discuss religion whatsoever, he should never have mentioned it.
This lack of candor reveals much about why Romney is ill-suited for the presidency.
More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution. The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test."
Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonated with many in the electorate, including a number of conservatives (including Charles Krauthammer) who ought to know better.
Romney did say one important thing in his over-hyped “religion speech:” "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
[Uh, Mitt . . . Do you mean those who would conveniently flip-flop on abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights to "gain" election to political office?]
Speedzzter, of course, will not casually “jettison” the belief that Romney’s secular record and underdeveloped campaign skills make him a poor choice for the presidency simply to win the acclaim of some who reject the notion of unvarnished truth in political campaigns. While some sincerely believe that this somehow makes a “bad name” for Huckabee supporters, Speedzzter humbly and respectfully disagrees.
“Truth With Speedzzter” does not speak for any “Huckabee supporters” other than Speedzzter. Hopefully, anyone who is intelligent enough to find this blog and to carefully read it ought to figure that out.
More importantly, merely dressing up a skunk in a tuxedo does not ameliorate the odor. And sugar-coating or suppressing the truth in a false shroud of political correctness is an empty, cynical tactic which is tantamount to intentional deception. We ought to be more robust in our discourse than to require such insincere, pharisaical niceties. Instead, we ought to highly value plain-spokenness and candor.
The Values Voter blog said it well:
The same ought to be said of one who steps into the political ring as a commentator.
The comments herein are motivated by clear, unchanging “core guiding principles.” Whether or not they are agreeable to any readers is a matter of personal judgment. However, to the extent that readers become “hung up” on the style and miss the substance of this allegedly “crazy” blog, they are wholly missing the “forest for the trees.”
Speedzzter vehemently opposes Mitt Romney’s election to any national office for entirely secular reasons. But, to be unequivocally clear, Speedzzter does not “hate” Mitt Romney.
In fact, Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s deficiencies and his notorious problems in taking consistent, values-based actions.
Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s documented undependability on critical social concerns.
Speedzzter is saddened that Mr. Romney’s vanity and selfishness apparently prompted him to repeatedly fall from the high road and into the gutter of expensive attack ads, half-truths and distortions.
Speedzzter is also saddened by Mr. Romney’s apparent disrespect for his opponents and his inability to be collegial.
Most certainly, although not directly relevant to Mr. Romney’s pursuit of higher office, Speedzzter is further saddened that Mr. Romney has been deluded by family tradition, personal pride, and the false “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:3,4) into dogmatically adhering to a false, deceptive religion.
In closing, the secularists and the "toleration fascists" are right insofar as they point out that building an electoral coalition requires attracting voters from many different (and conflicting) faiths (including a few voters who reject all faiths). Thus, the successful candidate will focus on common ground RELEVANT TO WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES (i.e. specific policies based on moral values).
Therefore, all candidates and even their camps of boosters, supporters and fans are better served by comparing and contrasting what each candidate would do as president, rather than battling over their respective theological motivations and quirks.
However, no participant in this process should be expected to “check” all religious values, opinions, beliefs or motivations “at the door” to participate in building the coalition or expect to be immune from any meaningful discussion of them. And no one should be expected to “jettison” all humor and rhetorical panache in making the case for, or against any particular candidate.
The Christian readers of this post will generally agree that all of us, including intentionally provocative bloggers such as Speedzzter, will have to give an account of “every idle word” in the final Heavenly judgment (Matt 12:36). To that extent, no man can truly and objectively judge whether or not the words printed here are proper or “idle.” (The secular readers are undoubtedly lost and wholly confused at this point) Speedzzter is most certainly an imperfect “sinner” who is wholly dependant upon the “saving grace” of Jesus Christ and subject to His judgment.
However, one of the aspects of living in a community of faith is voluntary submission to the counsel and discipline of the “Body of Christ.” Therefore, to the extent that Speedzzter’s literary flourishes have been in poor taste or have offended any “weaker brothers,” Speedzzter apologizes and requests constructive direction.
But “Truth With Speedzzter” will never apologize for being unequivocally truthful or advocating as passionately and effectively as possible on the basis of strongly-held, heart-felt convictions.
[GET THE LATEST “TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER” HERE]
“Gambit,” over at Huck’s Army said the following about “Truth With Speedzzter’s” recent post “ANDY CARD'S "NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK" ON ROMNEY:”
“[T]his blog's author is getting what he deserves. In fact, he's making a bad name for Huckabee supporters with all of his Romney-bashing and other crazy blog posts. He is letting his hatred of Mitt Romney cloud his writing, and not adhering to "vertical politics" at all.”
“Please sift through some of his posts and realize that defending him is not the answer. It would only make "good" Huckabee supporters look bad with him. Please be careful what you say in his blog, that's full of negativity (both from himself and from Romney supporters).”
[Speedzzter would thank the kind and sincere folks over at Huck’s Army for all of their support and for their unvarnished feedback. Such sincerity and honesty ought to be the hallmarks of the grassroots conservative movement]
Gambit’s comments are fully in line with the example set by Governor Mike Huckabee in the 2008 campaign.
Governor Huckabee did his best to honorably abide by Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment” by trying not to speak ill of another Republican. Although the elite pundits and attack “dogs” of GOP talk radio -- and even the mainstream media -- attempted to “blow up” an ad hominem fight based on fleeting fragments of hearsay (the so-called “Christian Leader” ad in Iowa, the hastily-pulled negative ad press conference, the “floating cross” Christmas ad, and the off-hand “Don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers” remark), Governor Huckabee refused to “take the bait” and stayed as much as he could on the “high road.”
Of course, not everyone traveled that same lofty road.
The internet is flooded with all sorts of negative sobriquets for Governor Huckabee: “Huckster,” “Huckleberry,” “Muck HICKabee,” “Hackabee,” “Mike Suckabee,” “Hokeabee,” “Hokeybee,” “Mike Taxabee,” “Tax Hikeabee” and a host of other unflattering, stereotypical labels attacking, inter alia, Governor Huckabee’s faith, geographic background, and profession.
Obviously, such partisan ridicule has historically been a job hazard of seeking elective office. And to the extent Governor Huckabee is aware of such name-calling, Speedzzter suspects he reacts privately with a blend of hurt, amazement, forgiveness and, perhaps even pity.
Moreover, During Governor Huckabee's active campaign, the political discourse was filled with any measure of half-truths and distortions of Governor Huckabee’s fine, Reagan-style conservative record in Arkansas. Yet, in spite of facing a well-funded hurricane of negativity and falsehoods, Mike Huckabee and his “Army” mostly “turned the other cheek” and focused on the positive message of the candidate.
Of course, no ordinary human being is perfect – Not Mike Huckabee . . . not his opponents (even the ones who falsely and pridefully believe they will become “gods” someday) . . . not his supporters . . . and most certainly, not Speedzzter.
Just as the “Body of Christ” has many members and diverse parts with many different talents, so does the GOP. And while many believe it was their sacred duty to campaign as gentle, inoffensive lambs, others sincerely believe that telling the whole truth requires stiffer measures. Speedzzter is obviously among the latter.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s radical mentor, Saul Alinsky claimed in his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals: A practical Primer for Realistic Radicals” that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
In a wholly secular environment, Alinsky probably has a point. For example, because of the power of ridicule, the stereotypical crassness of the fictional Archie Bunker and his neighbor George Jefferson may have had more actual, long-term impact on fundamentally changing American race relations than the thoughtful, soaring eloquence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But Speedzzter’s Christian readers will undoubtedly object that such worldly tactics have no place within the scope of a true Christian’s conduct.
“Truth with Speedzzter” has attempted to walk this line between mean-spirited, non-factual ridicule and entertaining, insightful truthfulness about Mitt Romney. The playful nicknames “Gucci Chameleon,” “Slick Willard,” “Bishop Romney, ” “Mitt-the-Flip,” “Flipper Mitty, ” the “Vain Bain Capitalist,” and others appearing in these posts were carefully formulated to humorously highlight substantive defects in Mr. Romney and the apocryphal heavy sales pitch that his rabid supporters offered for him.
Moreover, the approach was intentionally focused on Mr. Romney’s secular, political deficiencies, notwithstanding his proud allegiance to a proselytizing, false, deceptive and secretive cult.
Outside his rabid supporters in the LDS religion (who are chomping at the bit for the public relations bonanza sure to come their way if a "Mormon" leads the free world), Romney only appeals to those who: (a) like plastic, prepackaged "machine" candidates; (b) Country-club GOPers who know that Romney is "shining on" the dirty rabble about those pesky "social issues;" (c) business special interests and "fat cats" who detect that Romney is really "one of them;" (d) the Eastern media elites and "beltway boys" who know little to nothing about "fly-over country" or the South and the candidates who hail from them; and (e) pragmatic lemmings who jump on the most ostentatious bandwagon parading by merely to be among the “in crowd.”
Speedzzter wouldn’t have been fully faithful to the truth without making these observations.
Mr. Romney’s heterodox faith has never been the issue with respect to his candidacy.
However, “Truth With Speedzzter” would not be fully truthful if it shrunk from veracity about the LDS religion. As has been pointed out over and again in these pages, reasoned theological disagreements are hardly bigotry. Such robust discussions are what were anticipated by the Founding Fathers when they adopted the First Amendment. Obviously, doctrinal discussions on sincerely-held beliefs do not automatically make one a "religious bigot" (otherwise, the legions of bike-riding LDS missionaries (which included Romney) would fit within that definition).
Like many roads, this First Amendment road we’re traveling together has a ditch on either side. The first ditch is marked by breezy notions of "tolerance" which cede the rhetorical battlefield to thugs who distort, mislead and practice ad hominem ridicule. This is the ditch favored by those who want to strip the public square of any meaningful discussions about faith (and about non-faith) as well as the safe harbor for the intellectually lazy.
The other ditch is populated by those with thin-skinned hypersensitivity and paranoid overreactions to any criticism or debate about matters of faith (or non-faith). This ditch is the refuge for those who are not robust enough to candidly, objectively, and authentically consider political, theological or moral questions.
The public discourse is not enriched by knee-jerk commentary from either ditch. Rather, understanding and meaningful dialogue comes from openly confronting the hard questions that the ditch dwellers punt on.
Romney has proven the unique ability to oscillate between the ditches, while stopping briefly between them to announce in carefully chosen code his fealty to “Jesus” (without any specifics, of course).
A case in point was Romney's over-blown "religion" speech last fall. It was calculated to evade and mislead. Romney's non-answers and buzz-word double-speak communicated more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped, photo-op "religion" speech ever could.
By the way, unlike Romney, John F. Kennedy stood for a lengthy period of questioning by clergy AFTER his "religion" speech.
Romney has sought to have it both ways.
He wanted to talk just enough "Jesus talk" to lure some of the voters who sincerely believe that what's in a candidate's "heart" profoundly affects governance, but he didn't want to answer any of the questions that logically flow from this same topic. He also wanted to pander to his fellow LDS cohorts by claiming to be "proud" of his particular religion, yet he shrank from any meaningful discussion of its essential tenants or his leadership roles in it.
Romney "opened the door" to pointed religious questions when he laid claim to "faith" in Jesus Christ. If he didn't want to discuss religion whatsoever, he should never have mentioned it.
This lack of candor reveals much about why Romney is ill-suited for the presidency.
More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution. The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test."
Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonated with many in the electorate, including a number of conservatives (including Charles Krauthammer) who ought to know better.
Romney did say one important thing in his over-hyped “religion speech:” "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
[Uh, Mitt . . . Do you mean those who would conveniently flip-flop on abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights to "gain" election to political office?]
Speedzzter, of course, will not casually “jettison” the belief that Romney’s secular record and underdeveloped campaign skills make him a poor choice for the presidency simply to win the acclaim of some who reject the notion of unvarnished truth in political campaigns. While some sincerely believe that this somehow makes a “bad name” for Huckabee supporters, Speedzzter humbly and respectfully disagrees.
“Truth With Speedzzter” does not speak for any “Huckabee supporters” other than Speedzzter. Hopefully, anyone who is intelligent enough to find this blog and to carefully read it ought to figure that out.
More importantly, merely dressing up a skunk in a tuxedo does not ameliorate the odor. And sugar-coating or suppressing the truth in a false shroud of political correctness is an empty, cynical tactic which is tantamount to intentional deception. We ought to be more robust in our discourse than to require such insincere, pharisaical niceties. Instead, we ought to highly value plain-spokenness and candor.
The Values Voter blog said it well:
A person who is willing to say anything to get elected and who has no core guiding principles is the most dangerous type of politician. Because even if they agree with you on every point today, they're likely to change on every issue as soon as they feel they need to in order to accomplish a political objective. They're ideologically unstable - as undependable as the weather. I'd actually prefer dealing with someone whom I can predict - even if they didn't totally agree with me.
The same ought to be said of one who steps into the political ring as a commentator.
The comments herein are motivated by clear, unchanging “core guiding principles.” Whether or not they are agreeable to any readers is a matter of personal judgment. However, to the extent that readers become “hung up” on the style and miss the substance of this allegedly “crazy” blog, they are wholly missing the “forest for the trees.”
Speedzzter vehemently opposes Mitt Romney’s election to any national office for entirely secular reasons. But, to be unequivocally clear, Speedzzter does not “hate” Mitt Romney.
In fact, Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s deficiencies and his notorious problems in taking consistent, values-based actions.
Speedzzter is saddened by Mr. Romney’s documented undependability on critical social concerns.
Speedzzter is saddened that Mr. Romney’s vanity and selfishness apparently prompted him to repeatedly fall from the high road and into the gutter of expensive attack ads, half-truths and distortions.
Speedzzter is also saddened by Mr. Romney’s apparent disrespect for his opponents and his inability to be collegial.
Most certainly, although not directly relevant to Mr. Romney’s pursuit of higher office, Speedzzter is further saddened that Mr. Romney has been deluded by family tradition, personal pride, and the false “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:3,4) into dogmatically adhering to a false, deceptive religion.
In closing, the secularists and the "toleration fascists" are right insofar as they point out that building an electoral coalition requires attracting voters from many different (and conflicting) faiths (including a few voters who reject all faiths). Thus, the successful candidate will focus on common ground RELEVANT TO WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES (i.e. specific policies based on moral values).
Therefore, all candidates and even their camps of boosters, supporters and fans are better served by comparing and contrasting what each candidate would do as president, rather than battling over their respective theological motivations and quirks.
However, no participant in this process should be expected to “check” all religious values, opinions, beliefs or motivations “at the door” to participate in building the coalition or expect to be immune from any meaningful discussion of them. And no one should be expected to “jettison” all humor and rhetorical panache in making the case for, or against any particular candidate.
The Christian readers of this post will generally agree that all of us, including intentionally provocative bloggers such as Speedzzter, will have to give an account of “every idle word” in the final Heavenly judgment (Matt 12:36). To that extent, no man can truly and objectively judge whether or not the words printed here are proper or “idle.” (The secular readers are undoubtedly lost and wholly confused at this point) Speedzzter is most certainly an imperfect “sinner” who is wholly dependant upon the “saving grace” of Jesus Christ and subject to His judgment.
However, one of the aspects of living in a community of faith is voluntary submission to the counsel and discipline of the “Body of Christ.” Therefore, to the extent that Speedzzter’s literary flourishes have been in poor taste or have offended any “weaker brothers,” Speedzzter apologizes and requests constructive direction.
But “Truth With Speedzzter” will never apologize for being unequivocally truthful or advocating as passionately and effectively as possible on the basis of strongly-held, heart-felt convictions.
Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney
posted by Editor at 17:28
7 Comments:
Wow, that was impressive!!! Your lengthy, mostly rational explanation of how bigotry is not bigotry was a sight to behold! Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves. An individual who disagrees with another is not a bigot, but one who accuses anothers personal faith or opinions as being false, wrong, etc. definitely is.
As a member of the "Mormon" Church, I believe that God has the power to call modern-day prophets. Members of the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Pope is the Vicar (Embodiment) of Christ on Earth. However, since no Evangelical Church (to my limited knowledge) believes it has a leader called of God as was Moses or Peter, the case could be made that these Churches are "false."
Fortunately, you'll find very few Mormons willing to make that case because of their belief that, even though not all religions can be 100% correct (otherwise they would all agree on every aspect of doctrine), there is much good and truth found in all religions.
In conclusion, bigotry can embody the attacking of another's religion (even if he served as an unpaid Bishop for many years, seeking to serve others as Jesus Christ did, does, and would), while religious tolerance and Christian charity usually embodies looking for the good in others, disagreeing in non-offensive terms, and seeking common ground.
"An individual who disagrees with another is not a bigot, but one who accuses anothers personal faith or opinions as being false, wrong, etc. definitely is."
How does that make sense? The logical fallacy in it is "false dichotomy." The Anonymous "Mormon" apparently claims only two alternatives are possible -- (a) disagreements without anyone being "wrong" or holding to something that's "false" or (b) abject bigotry.
Obviously there are more alternatives.
As Speedzzter wrote in his first post on the LDS Religion's apparently reflexive incantation of "bigotry" whenever anyone discusses the peculiar doctrines of their cult:
WHAT IS BIGOTRY AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO FAITH?
Certainly, an advocate can be so irrationally wedded to an opinion to the point of being unable to consider any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. When such opinions are held without any reasonable, objective justification, then a proper charge of bigotry will often lie. But to immediately reach for the sword of "bigotry" at the first hint of disagreement over matters of thought purposefully chills the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth. It inhibits the search for common ground by poisoning future discourse.
Of course, matters of faith have objective and subjective components. And as the skeptics accurately point out, no matter how historical, scholarly and reasoned one's faith in supernatural systems becomes, faith inherently involves at some level . . . well . . . FAITH -- a BELIEF in something. Obviously, to suggest that all "belief" is bigotry grossly devalues both concepts without justification.
Thus, the true tests of bigotry are: (1) whether the basis, reasonability and intellectual viability of the belief is outweighed by generally-accepted facts or universally-held values; (2) whether the conduct flowing from the belief lacks objective value for others or for one's own self-regulation; (3) whether the conduct flowing from the belief degrades social composition; (4) whether the the conduct flowing from the belief places others in a false light or at a disadvantage unreasonably related to the task, privileges or immunities at hand.
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/05/could-al-sharpton-be-right-about-mitt.html
The LDS church actively recruits converts from other religions. Inherent in that activity is the message (even if it's hidden in a haze of public relations gibberish)that something is "wrong" or "false" in the competing faiths!
Joining a religion simply isn't as "neutral" as choosing between a Chrysler or a Toyota because of, inter alia, the conflicting eschatological claims among the various faiths.
In fact, historical LDS doctrine (from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young themselves) taught that ALL CHRISTIAN SECTS WERE IN APOSTASY!
(There's not really a "non-erroneous" "we're all OK" version of apostasy, because inherent to the concept is an abandonment of the truth)
Just like Mitt Romney, the LDS church cannot have it both ways.
It cannot escape scrutiny though screaming "bigot" every time someone REASONABLY criticizes one of their weird, unbiblical, heretical doctrines (as tested from the vantage point of 2,000 years of orthodoxy) and then attempt to aggressively "cherry-pick" millions of "converts" from established churches without being guilty of exactly the same "sin."
The bottom line is that reasoned disagreement is simply not "bigotry." Much like when George Orwell wrote "the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless" and is "bascially impossible" to operationally define.
"All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
The "bigotry" charge ought to be subject to the same level of "circumspection." Unfortunately, adherents to the LDS cult apparently enjoy using it as a "swearword."
Fortunately, Speedo is not as smart or insightful as some Huck suppoters who realyze that blogs like this do nothing to persuade voters to Huckabee. Only evangelical Huck supporters will find this intelligent, insightful political commentary. Fortunatley, Speedo simply can't help himself and the religious bigotry becomes more evident the more he writes.
Consequently, I no longer need to waste my time responding to this blog (you will notice a marked decrease in the number of comments :-)). Please, do Romney a favor, post more often! You are everything we try and make Hucksters appeared to be. Keep up the good work!
Bags.
I presume that if "Bags" is telling the truth, "Bags" will encourage his LDS ward to vote for "Truth With Speedzzter" on Real Clear Politics every time they have the chance.
Hey, "Bags" might even get the little guys on the bikes to spread the word about this site as well!
"Bags," of course, misses a critical point: identifying the shortcomings of that open and notorious "flip-flopper" known as Willard Mitt Romney is a wholly separate issue from pursuading anyone to do anything whatsoever for Mike Huckabee.
McCain's Veep "shortlist" undoubtedly has more than just Huckabee and Romney on it. It is Speedzzter's position that there are dozens of fine conservatives that would be a better pick than Romney. (Tom Coburn,(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9341.html), Mark Sanford (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25806), Sarah Palin (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/590869/possible_john_mccain_vice_president.html), Tim Pawlenty, just to name a few)
As Steve Kornacki wrote in the New York Observer:
“Gay rights, tax cuts, gun control: Over and over in this campaign, Romney’s convenient changes of heart—whether in his actual policy positions or just in the way he talks about issues—have been well-documented. On literally every subject in which he was vulnerable to criticism from conservatives, Romney shifted his attitudes before entering the campaign, meaning he has never been in position—as McCain has often been—to have to defend an unpopular view.”
Thus to deflect scrutiny from his own “flip-flopping” record, Romney “went negative, early and often.”
Romney as the Veep nominee would be a disaster.
He’s flip-flopping political novice who used his huge personal fortune to attack fellow Republicans.
He overwhelmingly alienates at least 1/3 of the GOP base.
He lost in many of the Red States where the GOP must win. (Romney didn’t win any place that McCain was uncompetitive so he adds virtually no regional balance to the ticket.
He stands for almost nothing solid (he’s grossly flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to social conservatives).
He is the perfectly-coifed poster child for almost every negative stereotype the electorate holds about the GOP.
If Five hundred million dollars worth of free media from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other GOP “attack radio” stars couldn’t “sell” Romney to the GOP base (who were primed and ready for SOMEONE to rescue the GOP in 2008), why would he “sell” any better among the more moderate (and more skeptical) general electorate?
NONE OF THE FOREGOING HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROMNEY'S RELIGION, "BAGS!" (Except perhaps for perhaps how little influence his LDS faith had on informing his secular values and actions)
(BTW, one could construe comments such as "Hucksters" as "bigotry" under the prevailing LDS standard)
The funny thing is that evangelicals/huck suppoters write all these blogs attacking Romney when I know of hardly any Romney supporters who think that McCain is going to choose Romney. While there is no chance he chooses Huckabee, there are lots of conservatives he can choose from besides Romney. Huckabee, on the other hand, is the only candidate who had higher negative ratings among conservatives than even McCain himself. That is why you will hardly ever find any blog on realclearpolitcs attacking Huckabee but you see the daily Romney attack blogs like this idiot.
I see how you left out my first line in my post on Huck's Army:
"Romney supporters are very immoral and unreasonable and I dislike a lot of them."
The fact is, I dislike Romney a lot, but I do not believe that attacking Romney and his supporters is the answer. Your method of "fight fire with fire" will only get you burned in the end. Do you ever wonder why other pro-Huckabee blogs never get the same amount of hate-filled rhetoric from Romney supporters that your blog has attracted? Yes, sometimes certain crazy Romney supporters will still write negative things on other pro-Huckabee blogs, but if you don't attack them, they have very little reason to attack you.
Also, Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army do not "turn the other cheek," like you claim we do. We do fight back and we do defend Mike Huckabee where ever we find unfair and biased treatment of him on the Internet or in the media. It's just that MOST of Huck's Army don't resort to name-calling, negativity, attacks, and other methods of "horizontal politics." You will never win the minds and hearts of those that disagree with you by attacking them and saying "they're wrong and I'm right."
I appreciate your support for Mike Huckabee, "Speedzzter." But I hope you stop your negative, cynical, and immoral ways. I know nobody's is perfect, but if you continue down this road, you will only cause more harm than good, for yourself, for Huckabee, and for Huckabee supporters. We must try to lead by example and help spread the message of Mike Huckabee in preparation for 2012 or 2016. Stop worrying about Mitt Romney, he is merely another unethical politician and just a distraction.
Gambit, it's not fair to say that "Romney supporters are very immoral and unreasonable and I dislike a lot of them."
Undoubtedly many Romney fans are extraordinarily "moral" and reasonable. They are just blind to the deficiencies in Mitt Romney's record of flip-flops and inconsistency on important issues.
There is no reason to "dislike" them either. Whether or not one supports a particular political candidate should hardly be personalized to such an extent that we would "like" or "dislike" someone because of it.
I also don't see anything obviously "immoral" about the posts on this blog. Perhaps you'd care to explain?
Post a Comment
<< Home