Lawrence O'Donnell Loses His Ever-Loving Mind on McLaughlin

A sane, if highly flawed, discussion of Mitt Romney's "Faith In America" speech on the McLaughlin Group was cold-cocked into the realm of crazy-faced anger by guest panelist Lawrence O'Donnell this morning, who started off by criticizing Romney, but soon veered headlong into a radical assault on Mormonism.

The discussion was following along it's typical bland and predictable way, with Pat Buchanan praising Romney for defending his beliefs and Eleanor Clift dryly noting that Romney wasn't as robotic as usual. That's when the ball finally came to O'Donnell, who began by remarking, "This was the worst political speech of my lifetime." But O'Donnell didn't have much to say about the speech, as it turned out.

This was the worst political speech of my lifetime. Because this man stood there and said to you "this is the faith of my fathers." And you, and none of these commentators who liked this speech realized that the faith of his fathers is a racist faith. As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978 it switched. And it said "OK, black people can be in this church." He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God, in this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth.

Pat Buchanan, believe it or not, deserves credit for asking a question that was both germane to the discussion and entirely fair: "Do you believe his faith disqualifies him to be President." Well...it's clear that O'Donnell does. Forcefully, fiercely. Frankly, frighteningly! (A saner examination of the very problems O'Donnell cites can be had here.)

The conversation just went right off the rails from there. Mormonism was founded by a "fraudulent criminal," O'Donnell maintained, insisting that the speech was an "opportunity to distance himself from the evils of his religion" even as Clift cautioned that "every religion has had its scandals." That got McLaughlin defending the Catholic Church, further shouting, Buchanan blaming Christians for bringing slavery to the United States, and Clift saying that "every religion has some crazy beliefs."

Hilarious. And O'Donnell would just not let up. His kick to commercial, "Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and A RAPIST!" It makes you wonder how well O'Donnell gets along with the writers on Big Love...or how he's going to feel after he realizes how reasonable his made Pat Buchanan looked!

Comments

[clumberfeet]

Luckily I'm an atheist so no religion hates me.

[GeoNorth]

We have a BIG problem with religion in this country. It's a big problem around the world, but it's huge in the USA.

Christians attack Mormonism and Scientology because they believe in weird theories of creationism. Scientologists believe that we are here through spacemen. Mormons believe some guy who dictated his book through a hat. Christians and Jews believe that God was lonely and started the universe. They all believe that they're right and you're wrong. Judeo-Christians and Mormons believe in a vengeful god. They believe that their god is all powerful, but possesses the pettiness of a child.

Spirituality is a personal thing. It's quite okay to discuss your spirituality with someone else. It's quite another thing to leave your spirituality to be defined by another person.

Have you ever tried to have a spiritual discussion with someone deeply entrenched in their faith, especially Christians? They are quite fond of quoting the Bible, a book that was compiled about 1600 years ago for political purposes. It's a book that is riddled with inconsistencies. They will quote one verse, but when you ask about a particularly insidious verse (see Levidicus) they will discount that.

You could be the most righteous, moral person on the planet. You could be acknowledged as such by consensus. But if you don't believe in an anthropomorphisised God, you might as well be robbing banks.

Most of these pious clowns don't care about much except that you belong to their club.

Religion has no place in Government for just this reason. Kennedy's religion speech in 1960 got it right. Romney's speech this week got it all wrong.

There should be a separation of church and state. There should be room for people of all faiths. That would include atheists and deists, but apparently ol' Mitt doesn't think so.

[misterbrown]

Some of these posts are simply shocking.
From mcartri who approaches his examination of the Mormon faith with an “objective mind” then concludes that O’Donnell’s comments, including the adjectives “ridiculous” and “demented,” are absolutely accurate. Not exactly what one should demand of an objective observer.
To another poster who insists we can get the truth about Mormonism only from antimormon web sites.
First, if you readers and posters really, I mean really wanted to understand this religion, you would go to an active Mormon. Why does he/she embrace the faith in 2007? Why?
Why not go to PLO or North Korean officials or other passionately anti-American parties to find out what you need to know about the USA, why people embrace their citizenship here. But if you have already chosen your angle or bias I suppose those other sources will do just fine.
I am a Mormon. I served a 2-year mission. I’ve studied my faith for most of my 41 years. The very worst thing about my religion, I’ve concluded, is that the membership is composed entirely of people, imperfect people. That said, it appears I know more than any of the non-Mormons on this page. So I’m happy to answer questions from those who genuinely want an informed answer, not those used simply as jabs and cheap shots aimed only at advancing their foregone conclusions!
To the point – O’Donnell was factually incorrect, visibly wielding his axe to grind, and clearly needing to resolve some profound inner turmoil or imbalance.
How did Romney’s faith damage employees and clients of Bain Capital? How did it damage the 2002 Olympics and the related organizations he headed? How did it damage the citizens of MA during his tenure?
This entire food fight about his religion is simply an opportunity to vent, ala O’Donnell, critics’ unresolved, unsatisfied bigotry, biases, and even hatred – in this case directed at Mormons.

[Bocababs]

Wow...so the Politics of 2000 are not over yet....!!! This country should argue over WHY religion is such a dominant force in our political discussion but with prevailing winds of kinder words and letting in....yes...even the atheists that live in the U.S.

[43P04T34]

We need MORE of this from the media!

Let's DISCUSS what matters!

Give Larry a show like MSNBC did for Olberman. People are TIRED of having baby food offered up by the media.

[Maxbyte]

Wow! O'Donnell lost his mind and then some.

Tough call for a moderator: do you have security toss him out a window and hope he learns from the experience, or do you just waterboard him on the air?

O'Donnell's vehement hatred of Mormons is so devoid of the teachings of most religions that I hope the guy doesn't consider himself a Christian.

The Humanitas Prize O'Donnell received in 2000 was for that which “communicate(s) those values which most enrich the human person.”

Well, strip him of that one. But "Jerk of the Decade" would work. Oops! Wait a minute, Bush has the Jerk award locked up. Nothing left for O'Donnell except "So Bigoted he makes Buchanan look and sound like a great humanitarian."

Too bad O'Donnell is so righteous. There isn't much left for the rest of us.

O'Donnell previously refused to say anything at all about Islam because he said, "They will kill me." OK, that's good. And now we know that a good way to make O'Donnell shut up about his ugly inner self is to put the certainty of death in him. Interesting aberration of the 'human' genome.

[SpaceCadet]

Thisis the dumbest and most dishonest rants I've ever seen on Huffington Post. It attacks O'Donnell for making negative comments about the Mormon religion without admitting that EVERYTHING O'Donnell said was absolutely true.

O'Donnell was right: John Kennedy ran on his record so criticism of his religion was out of bounds. But Romney is running _on_ his religion so therefore pointing out its ugly racist and misogynistic history is totally appropriate. So is criticism of Huckabee's particularly whacky version of more orthodox Christian beliefs since he's running on his religion as much as Romney is.

[UnrulyWoman]

Religion is the human response to the idea that a higher power created and/or influences the world.

Spirituality is the individual's relationship with that high power.

Religion is, by its very nature, corrupt and fallible, because humans are corrupt and fallible.

Spirituality is pure.

I don't care about a candidate's religion. We have a self-proclaimed born again Christian in the White House who has refused to enact on legislation that ends war, takes care of children and families and protects the environment - all of these are MANDATES in the teachings of Jesus.

I care what a candidate values and what a candidate does.

[SILVANUS]

What planet are you on? O'Donnell was fairly dead on.
All religions are cults.
Spirituality and Love are a different matter.
Religion is mind control.
Spirituality is being-in-God.

Religion benefits preachers and politicians and that's about it, unless we really need a home for the guilty and irresponsible ones, which religion preys upon.

[hegemony57]

Ummmmm .... I think crazy is about right when summing up the "Book of Mormon"

[mellene]

All of these religious types whether Repub or Dem need to speak out as to what they personally believe in. If they're anti-gay, anti-black etc. then they had better say so. We don't need another administration who only supports a very few in our culture but pretends to be the president for all people like Bush did. Get the truth out now.

[Dogger]

We don't need to determine whether Romney's church affiliation renders him unfit to hold office when his political affiliation has done that already.

[magicmary]

I think the religious need to get over themselves. And yes, they need to take ownership of the dreadful things done by their religions in the past if they are going to be a proud member of their faith. They need to be honest with themselves about what it is within their faiths that caused people to be racist or burn "witches" or in other ways support their intolerances, violence or perverted acts. Like not letting priests marry because it's assumed JC wasn't (who knows, really?) Enlightened religious leaders - and there are a few - need to shepherd their idiots of which there are many.

I prefer what a wise man once sang, "Imagine no religion, it's easy if you can. Nothing to kill or die for. A brotherhood of man." I'm with you on that one!

[Shakespeares]

Hey Jason, you're no Hannity. Good luck trying to shape readers opinions before the video on the next issue. Seems like it didn't work too well this go round.

[gopindrag]

""Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and A RAPIST!"
Jason I see where you're coming from, the truth is offensive. The truth is the real offender here. And he who speaks the truth is a bad man.
Jason, WTF? Romney put his religion front and center, embracing the faith of his fathers, and nno one's going to challenge its anti American history, its racist teachings, its rapist history? Again, Jason, W___ the F___?!