In her March 18 column, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing and nasty indictment of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney based on his Mormon religion. She trots out various Mormon practices and beliefs many consider strange, and slams Romney for not addressing them.
If a Presidential candidate was Jewish, a similar column could have been written about how Jews have strange views of the coming of the Messiah and are disproportionately wealthy and dominate so many visible professions and businesses. Yet, the New York Times would never print such a column. It would offend their readership and would invite protests by the Anti-Defamation League. (Full disclosure: I have been honored by the ADL).
But Dowd was too clever by half: she avoids offending Jews by quoting other Jews decrying the fact that some Mormons gave post-death "baptisms" to Holocaust victims. She closes the piece with the end of a lengthy quote from Elie Wiesel: "Poor Anne Frank. As if she didn't suffer enough." This is a standard journalism trick to let others say what you think.
Similarly, she seeks to avoid being compared to similar bigoted attacks over a half century ago against the Catholicism of Presidential candidate John Kennedy. She trots out Romney's opponent, Rick Santorum, as a follower of Opus Dei but says it is okay because he wears his religion "on his sleeve."
Dowd has crossed a line of unacceptable bigotry by castigating a candidate because of his religion. No amount of quotes from other people (including saying that many "others" consider Mormonism a "cult") makes it better. Holding one person accountable for all acts by their religion is as absurd as holding all Muslims responsible for extreme Islamic terrorists, all Jews responsible for the Jewish Defense League and all Germans for the Holocaust.
Our national strength is our diversity. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, we will succeed when we judge people by their character rather than their skin color (or, if we can extrapolate, religion).
What Dowd fails to mention is that Mitt Romney isn't the only prominent Mormon. Indeed, Mormons contribute mightily to American success. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has been a national figure for nearly a decade. The CIA actively recruits Mormons for their language skills, high intelligence and disciplined lifestyle. Mormons are also very family-oriented and live wholesome lives. In short, they are often model-Americans.
Yet Dowd uses her perch as a columnist for a leading newspaper to attack a candidate not for anything he has done, but for the fact that his religion has some seemingly unusual practices and beliefs. (Guess what? All religions seem weird to outsiders).
It is wrong and un-American to attack a candidate on the basis of religion, sex, race or ethnicity. If a major media outlet had attacked Sen. Joe Lieberman or New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for being Jewish, Obama for being black, or even Barney Frank for being gay, there would be outrage. Yet the Times published this xenophobic column.
To Dowd, the Holocaust lesson was not about the dangers of her type of vitriol, but about protecting the sensibilities of Jews when it suits her purposes. Well, this Jew says it is unethical and un-American to slam a candidate on the basis of the beliefs of and act by those in his religion. Calling it a "cult" doesn't excuse it either. For shame on Dowd and the Gray Lady - the New York Times.
Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream."
Follow Gary Shapiro on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GaryShapiro
Running for office is tough and I appreciate any one who does it- they are sacrificing.
If enough of us push back on unfair attacks on candidates we can focus on big issues and solutions.
The comment section on the Huffington Post is usually not an exception. People often say things about Mormons that if they were said about Jews or Muslims would immediately be called out as innappropiate. Hopefully, the comments on this article will be an exception.
“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.” – Doctrine and Covenants 134 : 9
They would have to work for the people (not businesses, special interest groups or corporations) (Mosiah 2: 12).
They could not do anything to oppress any people, religion, races, gender, etc. (Mosiah 2: 13)
They could not over tax the people to overly support themselves. (Mosiah 2: 14)
They would be humble. (Mosiah 2: 15)
They would encourage people to work together (Mosiah 2: 18, 26)
They would ensure that children have food, shelter and are properly (not religiously) educated (Mosiah 4: 14-15)
They would encourage welfare programs to care for the poor without judgment or prejudice (Mosiah 4: 16-19)
They would lower or taxes for the poor, or not tax them at all (Mosiah 4: 24)
They would tax the middle class and up fairly to cover the cost of government, keeping the government out of debt without overburdening taxpayers (Mosiah 4: 27 & Mosiah 7: 15)
They would get us out of all the unnecessary wars and only declare war in defense of US soil (Alma 48: 15)
Looking at Romney’s platform, it should be clear that he is a Republican running for office, not a Mormon aiming at the White House.
JFK was a smart man, he faced this very thing, therefor you do not reveal a thing new in the political landscape you instead point out that history can and often does repeat itself.
JFK was smart enough to vet such questions quickly and directly to the public. Something Willard Mitt Romney has yet to do. He barely even touches the subject of faith and when he does he never mentions his faith by name.
Leaving this vet to those that belive with him, the media, is his own poor judgment to repair. Not yours sir.
Unfortunately, with Mormonism and Mitt Romney, many people have used Romney's candidacy to attack his religion. Romney's candidacy has given people who express anti-Mormon views a chance to broadcast their hatred and ignorance across various media outlets.
One which fellow members cannot solve.
You seem to be able to bump your gums as well as anybody else in your pontification of your particular point.
I beg to differ that a similar column could have been written concerning the Jewish faith, but I beleive it is not similar enough. Now then if you take into consideration of "extra reference" required, you could at least include that one by Mary Baker Eddy.
Extra manuals, Book of Mormon, Science and Heatlh, revered discoverers. Now your talking similar.
While it may be wrong
The doctrine of “sola scriptura” was first taught by an Englishman named John Wycliffe in the 14th century and it was not until the Reformation in the 1500’s that the 66 books of the current Protestant Bible became the “sole authority” for Reformed Christians. They were the “cult” according to the “orthodox” Christianity of the time - the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman church claimed that the Bible, their traditions, and the pronouncements of the Pope were all authoritative in Christian doctrine and practices. It still maintains that doctrine today:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/dates.html#ss
Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches even today use Bibles containing seven additional books of the Apocrypha. These additional books were part of Martin Luther’s first German translation and every other Bible published prior to that time. The Apocryphal books were even included in the 1611 first edition of the King James Version.