Al Sharpton really stuck it to Imus didn’t he? Al Sharpton really stood up for the girls at Rutgers who were unfortunately defamed. I hope he will now take the time to go after the caveman who made these remarks:
As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.’”
I hope who ever said this Sharpton gets him fired. This kind of talk is ignorant and stupid. Whoever the Neanderthal is that said this really needs to be kept from opening their mouth in the public forum. (Sound familiar?)
Oh, this just inSharpton said this. Whoopsie. My mistake. My bad. Link
Al, I will hope you take the time to come over to My Man Mitt and apologize like Imus came on your show and kissed the Royal Hinny. Mormon children everywhere should not be forced to live in a society where they are automatically put at a disadvantage by “civil rights” leaders like yourself. Mormon kids should not have to be told they are less and they don’t believe in God because some bigotist thug hold of a microphone.
I hope Mr. Sharpton will find time to make things right and now that my children deserve every opportunity that his children do.
BTW, Mormons do believe in God.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Yet another example of where the real attacks will come from. Mormons and evangelicals have the same political enemies for the same reasons.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
This is no surprise though i guess coming from Al Sharpton, hasnt he made controversial remarks in the past?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Bryan,
Pretty positive this is Sharpton’s first controversial statement.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Now that is religious bigotry and intolerance. That is someone who will not support Romney because of a visceral hatred of Mormons. That is someone who is defaming a religion. That is unacceptable.
I have no problem with a voter who cannot in good conscience support Romney because they are uncomfortable with his religion, as long as they do it without hating Mormons or smearing the beliefs of Mormons. I don’t think such voters are religious bigots; just as someone is not intolerant of Mormons and a bigot merely because they refused to select them as their personal religion of choice – which would be just as absurd a notion as claiming that everyone who is uncomfortable with Romney because he is a Mormon is a bigot.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Whose this God guy anyway?
-a Mormon
May 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Republius,
I disagree. Most instances of people not wanting to vote for Mormons are mild bigotry. Its ignorance at best. But Sharpton takes it to the next level.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Republius,
I’d agree that the person you describe in your second paragraph is nothing of the sort of “agent of intollerance” that we see personified by Rev Sharpton.
However, I’d be very uncomfortable with people using a religious test to dictate their voting habits. Not only is it a violation of the spirit of Article 6 and some of the principles upon which this nation was founded, but history is replete with examples of why theology is a terrible basis for support or opposition to any candidate.
Furthermore, I’d be uncomfortable with the shortsightedness of such a tactic. Creedal Christians should have no doubt that the weapons used against Romney’s faith as a glass ceiling will be turned on the entire religious right. The Left sees us as the same, because in many ways political we are.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
As to #6, you fail to define bigotry. And even using my distinction, I have no clue what the breakdown would be between bigots and those who have genuine concerns but are not haters. Surely there are both out there, though the point is that Hugh Hewitt is wrong in claiming that anyone who has a concern about supporting Romney due to his religion is a bigot.
And you had better be careful about calling people ignorant when it comes to Mormonism. The religion is arguably non-Christian, which is all that some need as their political benchmark. Sure, many will claim it is a Christian religion, but I have spoken with priests and professors of theology who agree that it is a non-Christian religion and so the point is arguable and one of controversy.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
murphy (in #7), your invocation of Article VI is just another example of Romney supporters being so far over the top on this Mormon stuff. And it is amateurish constitutional analysis. If it is coming from campaign headquarters as talking points then you have a lot to worry about with respect to your guy.
The article in question clearly refers to the government keeping candidates off the ballot for religious reasons (and the only time the constitution applies is when there is government action). The article does not mean to prohibit private individual voters from selecting candidates to support based on their own criteria.
This country was founded on religios freedom – meaning you can be for or against any religion as an individual. The constitution protects government from showing religious favoritism.
As to the shortsightedness of the issue, I am not worried. JFK was fine. What is required is for the candidate to make their religion and the way it influences their decision making palatable to voters. The burden is on Romney and every other candidate of faith. And I am someone who views faith as an asset in a candidate.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Republius. . .Just wondering, as a non Christian: What’s the difference between bigotry and just “concern?” When my neighbor told me she didn’t want blacks to move next door because, as she actually told me, “I’m not racist but I just spent a lot of money on an enclosed deck and I don’t want the property values to go down,” was she racist or just acting out of finacial concerns? When do actions based on someone’s race or religion switch from “concern” to outright bigotry? Because I presume if it’s ok to vote against someone out of concern for their Mormon beliefs, then voting against Jews and Buddhists and possibly even Catholics is acceptable as well. Or are Catholics now Christian enough to vote for.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Republius,
the only legitamite claim of being nonChristian is the nicean creed. any measure of our belief/worship of Christ on more simple terms is far away in favor of being Chritian. The name of the church is the church of Jesus christ of latter-day saints.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Republius,
I’m fully aware of the letter of the law with regards to Article 6, and how it is fully within the legal freedom of any citizen to use whatever standard they please to in their voting. However, I simply cannot see how someone who uses the doctrine of the triune nature of God as a political litmus test (for example) is acting in good faith with some of the principles in the Constitution.
This is separate from the question of “Is a candidate competant to serve” or “Would a candidate’s religious beliefs interfere with his/her ability to govern”. THOSE are entirely legitimate, and Romney has fielded these several times.
FYI…I don’t get my “talking points” from campaign headquarters. In several posts of yours, you’ve given quite a bit more credit than is due to the Romney campaign’s coordination of blogger activities.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Doesn’t not voting for Romney due to religious concerns legitimize everything the leftists say about Evangelicals?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The other day Al Sharpton said that he was ready to fight for a certain cause by means of civil disruption if necessary. My question is, WHEN IS BILL OREILLY GOING TO STOP HAVING THIS JACKASS ON HIS SHOW???
May 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Jake,
Any en masse boycott of Romney by evangelicals based on purely theological grounds would be every Lefty pundit’s dream. It would confirm their bogus accusations of evangelicals as “agents of intollerance” (thank you McCain). It would drive a political wedge between mormons and the greater religious right, where the two groups previously stood shoulder to shoulder against the moral rot in our society. And it would legitamize this form of attack for use in future elections.
Make no mistake. The Left sees all religious conservatives as the same, and any theological attacks against Romney’s political candidacy will come back to bite us. We are better than this.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
As a concerned Christian/Mormon (depending on who you ask), I think it’s best not to delve into the hair splitting involved in defining Christianity on this site. It will just erupt into a subjective flame war on doctrine/tenets mostly irrelevant to the present distress which is politics.
Just keep your eyes open and realize that Christianity has changed much throughout the millenia. The only religion which seems to have changed the least is Islam, and that is not a good thing.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
murphy,
Romney has said “we NEED to have a person of faith lead this country.”
How do you reconcile that belief with Article 6?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Argo,
A particular brand of faith is not prerequisite for the position of president, however, anyone who believes they can operate the United States of America likely has a wellspring to draw their faith from such as religion. It comes with the territory.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Here’s my latest take on the controversy:
You can’t run for Superintendent! You’re a Mormon!
May 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Argo,
Fair point. Taken by itself, that phrase is not very welcoming to athiests.
If you’re asking my opinion, I’d say we NEED someone who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the religious right to resist the moral decay in our society. We NEED someone who is in favor of a culture of life, we NEED someone who is supportive of traditional marriage, monogamy, and family values. We NEED someone who places the utmost importance on hard work, honesty, and personal responsibility. We NEED someone who is willing to call good good, and evil evil, instead of the other way around.
So often these qualities are represented in the beliefs and faith of the religious right. However, I can easily imagine voting for athiests who stand for these same values. I can also easily imagine voting against people of faith (cough, Sharpton) who stand against some or all of these values.
If you asked Romney for his longer-than-5-second answer, I imagine it would sound somewhat like this. What Americans NEED is someone who shares these values.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“And you had better be careful about calling people ignorant when it comes to Mormonism.”
I call a spade a spade. This isn’t about whether Mormons are Christians according to some arcane definition. This is about people who believe the wacknut propaganda they reach in Jack Chick pamphlets and their equivaneltns.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Henry- the problem is that people sometimes do believe ‘wacknut propaganda.’ There are religious leaders who don’t have open minds. Ignore this and you’ll wind up getting hurt in the end. That is why I was hoping Romney would have come out and addressed in a public forum, because he is being put on the defensive. That is my biggest problem with his campaign so far, he has let others define him.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Tommy,
What is the use in Romney addressing his religion when nobody is paying attention? Case in point: Romney has addressed the question of the interaction between religion and politics many times, yet many of the politically active folks on this blog have no idea.
If you’re expecting Romney to get behind a podium and apologize or explain away his theological beliefs cafeteria style, get used to disappointment. Anyone who has sincere questions about his faith could easily head on over to http://www.mormon.org.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I don’t question his faith. The fact is, though, there are going to be questions about it and by Sharpton going out and defining him, he is letting a lot of people make gather their first impressions from him.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
That’s right, but if people are curious and google it, some of the first things that come up on any religion are inflammatory sites.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Tommy,
You think religious conservatives are going to give heed to Sharpton’s opinion? Give me a break.
How many leaders of the evangelical movement have openly voiced their willingness to vote for a mormon candidate, dispite theological disputes? You will find the answer instructive.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
One thing Romney may have to address is the fact the LDS didn’t allow blacks to hold the priesthood until 1978. That’s pretty recent for those looking at civil rights issues. I can understand it (I was active in the church at the time) but I do know it was always one of the first things brought up whenever I mentioned to someone black what my religion was.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Casey,
Romney’s father was very active in the Civil Rights movement. He marched with Dr. King. He walked out of the 1964 Republican convention because of Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This stuff came up in Mitt’s senate campaign, and dissipated when people looked at his family history. I hardly think anyone is going to get away with calling him a racist.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Murphy, I’m not necessarily meaning Sharpton alone, but if other black religious leaders, who can be very exclusive, take the cue from Sharpton, then you might have problems. I’m saying, do it before they do. This election is going to get ugly, you need to define every potential weakness before you let your opponents define them for you.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Tommy,
Your #29 is a perfect example of my first paragraph in #23. Romney has addressed the issue of civil rights multiple times…did you watch his interview with Leno? Guess not! See Matt’s #28.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Yes, I watched his interview, and I’m not talking about racism.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Tommy, you’ve completely lost me. I neither understand why you think now is a good time for such a speech (given the lack of interest), nor do I understand who you think the audience of such a speech would be.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Matt, I’ll be honest I was a child when Romney was governor so I don’t remember any of that. I just know that in the mid 70’s I found it uncomfortable trying to insist that I wasn’t racist when the church I belonged to didn’t accept blacks into the Priesthood. 1978 wasn’t that long ago. (Well, not for me anyway – I’m old, old, old.)
May 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Casey,
I hope when hey address this someone will also address why Jesus would only let Jews get Baptized, and why Moses only let the the house of Aaron work in the temple.
I am tired of the exclusiveness.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
May 8th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
This is really asinine on Sharpton’s part, but, well, Sharpton is a pretty asinine person. It would be nice if we could just keep religion out of politics. I’d espouse my own religious views — or lack thereof — but if you think I set off a firestorm about abortion last night, you wouldn’t want to see me on religion.
Still, Sharpton’s a facetious schmuck.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Sharpton is also a shrewd politician, so this isn’t surprising on many levels.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Sharpton, a shrewd politician? He’s anything but shrewd. He’s blunt, but he’s also not a very intelligent person. He keeps the illusion of popularity because the media eat his statements up and black activists love his victim’s creed.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
He’s shrewd because he knows how to play to his audiences and the media in a way that gets people by the droves to follow him. Few politicians can do what he does and get away with it. He didn’t go from being a Mahalia Jackson backup singer and road manager for James Brown to the top African American leader and darling of the media (both right and left) without knowing a thing or two about the ways of the political underworld. I wasn’t complimenting or denegrating him, just making a comment. On his politics, there are very few people I could disagree with more than the good Reverend.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Sharpton = Falwell. Both are big mouth men more interested in getting in the news than preaching the word of G-d.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Jason,
“hope when hey address this someone will also address why Jesus would only let Jews get Baptized, and why Moses only let the the house of Aaron work in the temple.”
And Jesus said only Jews are to be baptized when? First, this is not a religious website. Second, have your facts straight before you say such things.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Now…
I am no big fan of the of the LDS faith..
However, I disagree with Al, I am confident that the LDS church believes in God..
I am active in scouting and the LDS church works closely with scouting I am very sure we would not work with them if they did not beleive in God…
May 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
This has nothing to do with LDS.
However, it does regard to Romney.
I hope this is taken out of context:
“There is no work more important to America’s future than the work that is done within the four walls of the American home,” Romney said. He also criticized people who choose not to get married because they enjoy the single life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501081.html
May 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Somebody please tell me that was taken out of context
May 8th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I agree with him. the home is the fundamental unit of society.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Here’s the context:
“If there ever was a time for great Americans, great and good Americans, Americans who are willing to cross into the deep waters of life, it is now.
“You cross into the deep waters by marrying and raising good children. There is no work more important to America’s future that the work that is done within the four walls of the American home.
“You cross into the deep waters by driving yourself in your education and in your avocation beyond the safe and comfortable, to reach new insights, to make contributions, to serve.
“You cross into the deep waters by serving in your church, in your community, in the military, in government or in volunteer service.
“I am optimistic about the future of America because I have seen the spirit and heart of the American people.”
May 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
What a bigot.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I get what he is trying to say, I think, but he is treading on thin ice here.
I’m single, and don’t take to people judging my life very well, if that was his intent. By his quote, I understand that he is encouraging marriage and child raising in a home. That’s fine, but we live in a free society, where it is a person’s choice to get married. I’ve been down that road before, and maybe I’ll eventually get married, but I have serious problems with those who lay judgement upon others in this fashion.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Tommy,
Just imagine how different America might be if more of its elected leaders believed in and lived by the sentiments Romney expressed at Regent (Justin’s #46). Scandal, corruption, broken families…these would be exceptions rather than expectations.
I look forward to having a President who has the vision casting and values that I’m proud to teach my children, rather than shield them from.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Tommy (in #48), you are being far too sensitive and ready to take offense.
How did we get to the point where a politician who encourages the rearing of families is “treading on thin ice”?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Murphy:
I was engaged at 17 years old and I was going to have a child. The child was stillborn, and it didn’t last. I do not regret the lessons it taught me about life. It breaks my heart, but it was something that made me strongerI think our leaders should be moral people, and not do anything to embarrass the country. However, I don’t want anyone telling me how I should live my life, and don’t appreciate being judged or critisized for it.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I have chosen to remain single for now and enjoy my life while I can. I will consider marriage when I meet someone that I can spend the rest of my life with, and they feel the same way. Until then, I’m going to live a litttle while.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
there are a variety of people, and we include them all
I have friends who are single and I don’t judge them for that
May 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
and I’m sure mitt can say the same as (53)
May 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Tommy,
I’m sorry if you don’t want anyone telling you how you should live your life. I’m also extremely sorry for your loss as a young man. But frankly, I think you need to get a little thicker skin.
If the leaders of our country spent all their time fretting about not wanting to offend any constituents with their counsel, where would we be? Millions of smokers would demand that they not be judged by leaders who encouraged them to quit smoking. Millions of fatties would cry foul at leaders who encouraged regular excersize. I cannot believe that we have arrived at the day and age where politicians are criticized for counseling Americans to focus on raising healthy families.
This is a free country, and you are absolutely free to do whatever you like. But asking politicians to conduct themselves under a gag rule for fear of giving advice that someone resents is just silly.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Here’s a link with a fuller quote.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/152185.aspx
“Over the years, I have watched a number of people live out their lives in shallow water. In the shallows, life is all about yourself – your job, your money, your rights, your needs, your ideas, your comforts. In the deeper waters, life is about others – spouse, family, friends, faith, community, country. In the deep waters, there are challenging ideas, opposing opinions, protracted battles of consequence. You are, of course, giving a great deal of thought to your career. The economic environment may be more turbulent and competitive than my generation has known. Some of you will be tempted to stay near shore, where there are no big breakers and where you will never make any waves. Others will push beyond the sandbar, pursuing new frontiers, exploring new ideas, driving to achieve, to learn, to influence, to contribute. If there ever was a time for great Americans, great and good Americans, Americans who are willing to cross into the deep waters of life, it is now. You cross into the deep waters by marrying and raising good children. There is no work more important to America’s future that the work that is done within the four walls of the American home. You cross into the deep waters by driving yourself in your education and in your avocation beyond the safe and comfortable, to reach new insights, to make contributions, to serve. You cross into the deep waters by serving in your church, in your community, in the military, in government or in volunteer service. I am optimistic about the future of America because I have seen the spirit and heart of the American people.”
I think his main point was to criticize those whose entire life is consumed with self. I don’t think he was saying everyone has to get married any more than he was saying everyone has to be a politician or join the military. Just that marriage is one good and important way to enter the deep waters of using your life to serve others.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I’m a smoker too. Not a fatty though, I’m still in good shape, and exercise regularly. Thanks for your kindness
I want them to lead by examples. The article said he was criticizing those who don’t want to get married. I couldn’t really tell if that was what he was saying. I hope he isn’t one that would criticize those who don’t get married. Promote healthy lifestyles is fine. Don’t look down on those that aren’t, or judge them.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Kevin W, thanks for describing in your second paragraph what I could not. Dead on the mark.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Kevin, thanks for clearing that up for me. I read the article, and wasn’t sure exactly what he was saying.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I can understand it clearer now. In the article it said he was “criticizing them”. You’re reply is reassuring, at least if he’s nominated I won’t vote Democrat!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Tommy, this may be a simple case of misunderstanding. As you can see from the direct quotes, Romney was not “singling out” (forgive the pun) single people for criticism.
Some time ago I ceased to trust anything from the MSM which wasn’t a direct quote in full context.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Yea, things can be taken out of context. I just needed that cleared up, and when I first read what he said, I wasa looking at it to see if that’s what he was saying, so I was confused by it.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
good night to all
May 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Geoff,
When he didn’t allow he gospel to be preached to the gentiles.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Just for the record. . .Drudge Report links to an article where Sharpton says he was referring to Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating, and not Romney when he made the religion comment. Just passing that on. . .I’ll leave it up to everyone here to decide whether to take him at his word on that one.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:18 am
“Just for the record. . .Drudge Report links to an article where Sharpton says he was referring to Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating, and not Romney when he made the religion comment. Just passing that on. . .I’ll leave it up to everyone here to decide whether to take him at his word on that one.”
That makes unequivocally, positively, absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I’m missing the boat here, someone please speak up, but it sounds like Sharpton was trying to say he was referring to Christopher Hitchens when he said, “As for
the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” There are two really big difficulties with trying to say that he was referring to Christopher here, namely because:
a) Christopher was an atheist, so he would not be considered Mormon. Of course, then again, Sharpton doesn’t think that Mormons believe in God, so maybe this would actually make sense to that pea brain he uses. But still that leaves…
b) Christopher is not running for office.
He must think we are as dumb as him, if he honestly believes we would fall for his explanation. A second grader could see the difficulties in the logic behind it.
I wrote a blog on this subject because it offended me so much. I had always thought Sharpton was dumber than a pile of rocks, but then I realized…
That’s an insult to the rocks.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 9th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Read his quote — is Christopher Hitchens “that Mormon running for office?”
And I agree with everything Tommy’s been saying. I don’t want my President to be my counselor or my daddy. I want a President who will protect my right to live my life as I please. He doesn’t need to be giving me advice on how to live it.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:43 am
You guys don’t seem to understand that he was giving a speech to college graduates. He wasn’t talking down at the local YMCA or the local bar – he was talking to college graduates who were ready to head out into the world. You (almost always) give advice on “how to live life” in those kinds of situations. At least every graduation I ever went to, that was what the speeches were about. “Now is your chance to take on the world, now is your chance to change things, now is when you volunteer and give back to the community, blah blah blah.” It was not a political arena, and he did not give a political speech (vote for me because I’m the best guy for the job!) He gave an inspirational speech on how to live a life that would touch others.
Under the circumstances, giving the regular “stump speech” on lowering taxes and fighting Jihadists would have been completely inappropriate. His remarks, however, were exactly what should have been said, given where and to whom he was speaking to.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 9th, 2007 at 6:43 am
“I think his main point was to criticize those whose entire life is consumed with self. I don’t think he was saying everyone has to get married any more than he was saying everyone has to be a politician or join the military. Just that marriage is one good and important way to enter the deep waters of using your life to serve others.”
I agree. And — if Romney is telling the truth that he believes that — it’s just one more reason why I can’t stand the man. “Shallowness” is wanting to bring out your own full potential in a personal way that government can’t choose for you. “Deep water” is collectivism, where we’re all obligated to one another, where I owe my neighbor help even if I don’t know him, or, God forbid, don’t care about him.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Libertarian,
When Romney talks about deep waters vs. shadow waters, in the main he is trying to encourage young people to stretch themselves in such a way that their own lives, those of the people they love and the community/world at large become better. For example, if a new college graduate (and the deep/shallow water speech is a commencement address) has the ability to pursue an exciting career, he or she shouldn’t waste his or her life as a postal clerk. He is encouraging the graduates to strive for greatness and involvement instead of settling for mediocrity and meaninglessness. (After all, it’s easier to smoke weed and sit on a couch all day than to develop meaningful relationships and a great career.) You are reading “collectivism” in his speech where none exists.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I think you’re all missing his real point. Look carefully at his wording. He’s not saying just that Romney doesn’t believe in God. He says the people who really believe in God will be voting against Romney. That means, by implication, that anyone who votes for Romney doesn’t really believe in God. Sharpton has said this sort of thing before, trying to implicate thew entire religious right as false believers.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:10 am
good point Jeremy.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Some of you have a dream candidate in mind that’s completely unelectable. Trust me, the guy who goes around saying that he doesn’t care whether Americans get married and have kids or not, its all the same to me, that guy is a sure loser. I wouldn’t vote for him.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:29 am
As I understand this, Hitchens used Mormons witholding the priesthood
from blacks before 1978 as an example of how religion is bad and we
shouldn’t believe in God. Sharpton then replied that this is a bad
example because Mormons are not believers in the true religion,
although he admits they do believe in God (but not really).
Though there is a Mormon candidate for president, he will be defeated
by the true believers and all this buzz about Mormonism will soon go
away. He can only hope.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“I think you’re all missing his real point. Look carefully at his wording. He’s not saying just that Romney doesn’t believe in God. He says the people who really believe in God will be voting against Romney. That means, by implication, that anyone who votes for Romney doesn’t really believe in God. Sharpton has said this sort of thing before, trying to implicate thew entire religious right as false believers.” – Jeremy
That’s funny – that’s exactly the same conclusion that I came to, after Not-So-Sharp-Sharpton clarified his statement with the AP. I wrote about it on my blog but basically it comes down to Al saying that anyone who really believes in God will vote Democrat and will defeat the Republicans, and therefore, if you vote Republican, you must not really believe in God.
What I can’t believe is that people still give this guy the time of day. Stunning…
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 9th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I just want to share with you an email I sent to Bill O’Reilly the other day:
Dear Bill,
I am a huge fan of yours and I respect you and agree with you nearly 99 per cent of the time. I know that you have had Al Sharpton on your show quite a bit and you have given him the chance to prove himself as a reasonable, intelligent, responsible and honest human being. However, he continues to prove himself instead as the race-baiting, self-serving and self proclaimed civil disrupter that he really is. When will you stop inviting him on your show? Just the other day I saw him interviewed by a reporter and he insisted that if he did not get his way regarding some issue, he was prepared to resort to civil disruption. Personally I am getting tired of seeing him on your show and it is merely a venue from which he can sound off his big-mouthed garbage.
Thank you,
KT