It seems the man who brought down Imus has issues of his own. Questions for the debate:

1. can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?

3. Sharpton cannot be “fired” as Imus was – so how should he “pay” for his sin here?

No. Imus' comment was in regard to the perceived "ugliness" of the Rutgers women's basketball team, Sharpton's was an insult to an entire religion.

Nope, but this is par for the course from Al Sharpton, this isn't his first bigoted comment and it won't be his last.
Anyone who takes this man seriously or sees him as a leader of anyone needs to stop...That's the only way to make him pay, stop allowing him to influence us. What else can we do?

CP

1. Can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

No, see CPs answer. It’s about as good as it is going to get.

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?

Whether it's right or not, Romney is going to have to deal with the Mormon issue.

This may actually help Romney, by bringing the Mormon issue out in the open. I hope not. I really don't care for Romney. I see him as a sort of inflatable doll, would be clone of Ronald Reagan, who hopes the Christian right will hop in bed with him and think he's the real thing. Well, that was in last week's debate. We'll have to see which direction he goes in the next few weeks. With this flip/flopping bunny in the race, I'll bet Karl Rove wishes he'd gone a little lighter on flip/flop issue with John Kerry in the 2004 election. Romney's many faces will be hard to defend. Well damn, if he thinks enough potential voters object, he might ditch the Mormons and become Baptist, Independent Bible or something else easier for the Christian right crowd to swallow.

Some on the Christian right do have some questions about Romney's faith.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7050501081.html

To win, Romney needs to assure the Christian right, not Democrats like me or Al Sharpton. We aren't going to vote for him under any set of circumstances. He would be wise to issue a statement, much like the one John F. Kennedy gave before the Greater Houston Ministerial alliance in 1960. I personally think this was one of the more important speeches in American History. It's not Gettysburg Address, but it's on the next tier. It may well have put Kennedy over the top in a close election.

Romney's problems in this area are wider than Al Sharpton.



http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/66.htm


3. Sharpton cannot be “fired” as Imus was – so how should he “pay” for his sin here?

I think we should put Romney and Sharpton in a boxing ring, give them gloves and see what happens.

Not really. Making "Black Jokes" is verboten. Picking on Christians isn't. And Christian on Christian sniping is totally fine.

I dunno, is this that a big deal? I mean this is Sharpton - he's a clown. Who cares what he says?

Yeah to be fired you need a job. He won't pay for this, or hotel rooms, or his suits....

1. can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

No you are dealing with apples and oranges here. And I'll tell you why.

1. Religion is chosen... unlike race or gender or IMO, sometimes sexuality which is innate. When people hit up someones chosen's beliefs, it just doesn't carry as much weight.

2.Sharpton, and some might say, rightfully so, has a beef with the mormon religion who did not let Black be part of their church until the 70's. I don't know about you all but I think one can question the religious beliefs of such a group Sharpton's a civil's right era guy who was a advocate for civil rights, and this was a religion that was totally against the idea of equality at the time he was fighting... so maybe there is a grudge factor, as well.



http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lhm1097a.htm

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?

Yes, actually it is. From a religious standpoint, it is only speaking the truth of faith. If you are Muslim, and you have the one true God... then you can't honestly believe that the Christian has the one true God.

But this case is even more severe, because Sharpton and Romney share the same God, but many Christian believe Mormons have peversed the Christian religion. So it's like an inside quarrel.

3. Sharpton cannot be "fired" as Imus was – so how should he "pay" for his sin here?

Just got to let this dog lay on the porch. Especially since Romney does not want to bring any added attention to the fact he is a mormon with primaries coming up.

Now imagine Sharpton made his comment to a Muslim. Would that be right??




Oh I am sure you will not like Romney. He is a good middle of the road conservative who was good enough to get elected by liberals in Mass. He did a great job here as well. Now we have a Dem and taxes WILL rise.

Oh well. And by the way no one will ever flip like Kerry. He was the master of the flip flop. Only for him it was months not years.

1. Can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

If you mean a man in the public eye who is used to saying what he wants to with relative impunity (until recently in Imus' case), yes.

If, however, you mean a person taking a pot shot at a public figure's religion versus a person taking a pot shot at the way a team of college athletes regarding their gender and ethnicity, no, it isn't the same. If Sharpton had made a quip about Romney having had several mothers from a polygamous union in which his father George was allegedly involved, it might have been closer to the assumptions Imus made about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

It is a different sort of prejudice, but yes, I agree, Sharpton's remark was prejudiced. I would add that many mainstream Christian people, especially those who are ministers, probably feel that Mormonism is not a valid Christian sect, and this was what he was referring to, politically correct or not.

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly [...] ever justified?

This sort of thing is generally said from the pulpit of a church and is not broadcast over the airwaves. You have to judge for yourself whether it is justified or not, because it speaks to whether you believe--or care--that Governor Romney's religion is or is not a true one. Obviously there is a large group of people who are Mormons and consider themselves Christian. In my experience, every Mormon I have known personally has been a nice person who tried to live according to the teachings of their church. But I have my own thoughts about the validity of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets of God.

Some Protestants feel that Catholicism is a cult, and vice versa. With some exceptions such as Pat Robertson, you usually don't hear the prejudices uttered in a large public forum, but they are there nonetheless.

I would place Al Sharpton in the same category as Pat Robertson, not Don Imus. It is different. Those who listen regularly to and believe in what these men say are the ones who will consider what they say as justified.

3. Sharpton cannot be “fired” as Imus was – so how should he “pay” for his sin here?

He can pay for his sin by being ignored by people. He is a demagogue. There are times when I have agreed with him and have found him entertaining. Perhaps old-fashioned shunning is the way to go on this one. Alternatively, I suppose that Mormons could try to sue him for defamation of character or something like it, but they would have to prove that they experienced injury as a result of what Sharpton said.

I think that Romney should be considered as a candidate on the basis of what he has done in his political life versus what he says. That should hold true for all candidates as well.

The mormon church actively discriminated against blacks until 1978, not allowing them to be baptised in the temple.

It is no different than taking a shot at the KKK for a black person.

1. Still trying to make Don Imus look good because Al Sharpton made himself look bad, eh Ted? No, this dumb remark by Sharpton trying to clarify a point while debating Christopher Hitchens (a noted atheist who wrote a book criticizing Mother Teresa) does not rise to the same level of harm. A lot of people have questions about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. What Sharpton said was intolerant, but Romney, unlike the Rutgers womens basketball team, is a public figure and this kind of pot shots from people who don't like or don't understand his religion is to be expected.

2. See answer#1. Romney's religion is fair game in a presidential campaign. If he believes in the tenets of the faith, does he share some of the religion's racially backwards philosophies? If anything, Sharpton did Romney a favor by making him an object of sympathy to social and religious conservatives who may have been wary of his lack of credentials in sharing their values. The problem is the Pat Robertson/James Dodson wing of the GOP is too big within the party to be ignored, but too small a bloc within the general electorate to pander to without alienating everyone else.

3. Isn't being Al Sharpton punishment enough?

1. Can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

Oh sure, why not? Both are examples of irresponsible commentary in the public forum. Imus' comments seem much more hurtful and mean-spirited though. On the other hand, Sharpton is guilty of claiming that Mormons are somehow not bonafide "God-believers" and linking this with political advantage. Considering Sharpton's high profile in the political world, this is all the more unacceptable.

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?

Emphatically no. Why would suggesting that someone who is obviously a devout practitioner of any faith not really a God-believer like the rest? Mix this with Sharpton's political opportunism in the moment as well as the high profile he holds politically and you have an unfortunate situation.

3. Sharpton cannot be “fired” as Imus was – so how should he “pay” for his sin here?

No deliberate payment necessary though an apology would be nice. Beyond initially calling attention to it, Romney should let it slide. Sharpton will probably be more sensitive about his commentary regards to Romney in the future. The payment comes in the form of a slow but steady degradation of Sharpton's reputation publicly. I don't respect the man as much as I did before the comment was made.

You kinda sidestepped the fact that Mormons basically said that blacks had inferior souls and couldn't be baptised until 1978.

It makes it one of the most profoundly racist organizations in America at that time, outside of the KKK?

C-Ram- Exactly which question did I side-step? You obviously have an axe to grind regards to Mormon history though the issue of how the blacks were treated is fair game and Romney should prepare himself accordingly. Sharpton's comments have very little if any to do with Romney's religious tenets however. If you want to explore the topic of this "profoundly racist organization" (you should publish a book of famous, broad-brushstroke, flagrant stereo-type one-liners!) then open a new topic and take your chances.

By the way, before tossing those bombs you should check your facts. In 1978 and many decades before there were many baptized blacks in the church. I want to give you credibly C but don't claim what you obviously don't know.

I am saying, that a black man can pretty much say anything they want about a religion that didn't allow them the priesthood until 1978, and not allowed to baptise in the temple- where do YOU get YOUR info from? You see, I really don't have an axe to grind against the mormons, and in fact, consider them one of the lessor obnoxious of organized religions- but a black person CERTIANLY has ever reason to hate the church- a church that considered them less of a human than whites until VERY recently- so, IMHO- Sharpton, though no angel himself, is in every way justified with slamming the mormon church.

I mean, the KKK have never done anything to ME, but I could understand how a black person would feel about them, and may take some verbal pot shots at them- don't ya think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_Mormonism

Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the succession crisis, leaders of one Latter Day Saint movement denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, began to exclude blacks from priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. This practice continued until 1978, when after years of internal debate, church leaders declared they had received a revelation from God discontinuing the practice of discrimination on the basis of race.[1]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...promoid=googlep

CR may be close to right vanguard. Prior to 1978 Mormons did consider blacks inferior. At that time there were about 1000 black Mormons. Why even that many? I guess masochism cuts across all racial lines. Geez, they even let black members baptize dead relatives - curious to say the least.

There is oddly enough a Black Mormon page. Here is their estimate of Black Mormon population.



<snip>

Even the sympathetic Black Mormon homepage tells us the church thought blacks were cursed from the time of Cain.



http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

I don’t know whether or not Romney is a racist or what percentage of Mormon people are racists. Although Sharpton did not specifically addressed the racist past of the Mormons, this question will come up, among Republicans if Romney gets close to the Republican nomination and in the general election, if he gets the nomination.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Romney is going to have to address the Mormon issue. He’ll have to address the church’s racist past and the issue a statement of belief in separation of church and state. Kennedy’s heroic 1960 statement in Houston probably helped him beat Nixon.

I don’t like Romney, but I doubt there is a “macaca” moment in his life or likely to be one. Still he must meet the Mormon question openly, honestly and head on. If he doesn't, he's raised a lot of cash for nothing.

Edited to add:

The Glenmary Research Center reported this for the year 2000.



http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/findings.htm

The 20,000 to 30,000 estimate of Black Mormon represents only one-half to three-fourths of one percent of all Mormons. This is not a terribly impressive number.

Ted, stop looking for an excuse to make bigoted statements about African-Americans. Just make them. You don't have anybody to answer to regarding what you post on this board. If you want to be a bigot, just be one. Don't wait for a "GOTCHA" moment by Al Sharpton. BE A MAN! Profess your bigotry loud and clear and unfiltered. What if Al Sharpton is a hypocrite? Is it now acceptable for Imus to refer to the Rutgers women as "Nappy headed HOs?"

For your second question, I have to wonder, why is it not acceptable to question someone's beliefs? We are not talking about their race, or their gender, or sexuality, you know, the things we cannot change....EVER. We are talking about the thoughts in their head. We should ALWAYS question those things. Take Bush for example, he has a position on Gay Marriage because of a couple chapters in the Book of Genesis.

And for your final question, I have to ask, how has Sharpton sinned? And against whom has he sinned? And why are you seeking "payment?" Did he sin against you, Ted? If you want to pay Sharpton back, then go out and be the best bigot you can be. That will show him.

C-Ram -


No, a black man should not be able to say pretty much anything he wants. Where did you pull that criteria from? Obviously, between your last two posts you finally did some homework on your own. Your most recent comment about the priesthood is correct although I believe you've got the idea of temple baptism for the dead and actual baptism for the individual muddled. Members, black or white, never have been baptized in the temple. Where do YOU get YOUR info from?



I'm sure Sharpton has his feelings about the Mormon doctrine. This does not give him a pass to call into question whether or not Mormons are real God-believers. Don't hold a black man to this different, lower standard of discourse, Cruise. Al is suppose to be a champion for the minority - this should be in every case.

<snip>


BoF -


Fair enough, BoF. Your post is well thought out excepting the numbers worldwide. I believe church membership resides more in the 12 million member range (see LDS.org). My beef with this thread revolves more around the apparent desire to give Sharpton a pass on his insensitive comments. If Sharpton wants to discuss his issues with Mormon doctrine then he should have at it. This however is another topic. Sharpton made a highly insensitive comment about a group of practitioners who hold a belief in God foremost in their lives. Though CR would give Al this liberty, I would not and have to believe that any other fair-minded person would agree with me.

What say you?

I am quite aware of the difference between baptism for the dead, and individual baptism etc etc- I just didn't want to go down a huge doctrinal debate, I didn't need to do any research about the preisthood- having been down that road in my life many years ago, I don't need a whole lot of research, having been an insider at one point- pretty much every religion on the planet is practised some in my family, somewhere- and to me, Mormonism is pretty good, I have no beef with it.

However, I could see a black man could hate it completely, I am just seeing that side of it.

There is no such thing as an insensitive comment towards an organization that has called you less of a human than they are.

I got this from one of my favorite webpages, www.religioustolerance.org.

The 12.5 million members was worldwide membership of the LDS (I keep wanting to type LSD ) according to their 2005 report. The 4 million figure I gave was for the U. S. If the figure for total U. S. Mormons is 5.7 million rather than 4 million, it makes the 20,000-30,000 Black Mormons reported by the Black Mormon Homepage even less significant. That would mean the 20,000 to 30,000 Black U. S Mormons would make up only .35 to .5 tenths of 1 percent of total U. S. Mormon population. Another way of putting it is that one member in 190 to 285 is Black. This is at best a token representation, considering the amount of time, money and energy Mormons put into “missionary” work - not to mention the absurdity of riding around on a bicycles in coats and ties without helmets. I've seen this in the 100 + degree days of summer in Texas.

Note: In the context of Romney's campaign, I think U. S. membership is more important than global figures.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_intr.htm#stat

Here is the link to the original 2005 LDS Report.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display...1-602-8,00.html

Edited to add:

If the Mormons had 1000 Black members in the U. S., when the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, that means they have added approximately 750 to 1000 Black members per year for the past three decades. What I don't know is what percentage of these new members is attributable to births in the Black Mormon community and the number resulting from "missionary" work. This is just a hunch, but I'm guessing that while the LDS church has officially accepted Black members as "equal" since 1978, there has not been a massive evangelical push for Black members, at least, in the United States.

I'm wondering how many of the 20,000 to 30,000 Black Mormons live in the Salt Lake City area.

How are these comments insensitive? He didn't attribute any unflattering characteristics to mormon people, he simply implied that they were wrong in their beliefs. Like droop said, religions are beliefs which makes them open for criticism.

1. No we can't. It's too different types of comments directed at two different types of people. Imus comments were directed at student athletes. Al's were directed at a public official. Imus' comments were based on sex and race; Al's were based on beliefs. Imus' were an expression of sexism and possibly racism; Al's were an expression of skepticism.

2. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here.
If you're asking if comments criticizing the veracity of a religion are ever socially acceptable, I'd have to say yes. Look no further for examples than at the plethora of jokes at the expense of scientology ("Help me, Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise, use your witchcraft to get the fire off me") that no one bats an eye at. (that is except for Isaac Hayes, who coincidentally would have been a much better example of a hypocritical black men in case you're looking hypocritical black men exhibit A)

If you're asking if the comments criticizing the veracity of a religion ever have a rational basis, I'd have to say yes on that one, too. I think most religions qualify as examples for that.

3. I don't really see him as committing any "sins". He's actually doing the opposite. The bible is pretty clear about religious acceptance. You aren't supposed to accept other gods or false prophets. Al Sharpton is simply saying that Mormon's are following an "other" god. So it seems to me that he's doing his duty, according to an interpretation of the bible that is.

Al Sharpton has numerous sins I just don't see this as being one of them. If you want to get me to jump in on an Al Sharpton bashing thread, then start with the part he played in the Newark New Jersey Mayoral Race of 2002. I'm not concerned with how he'll "pay" for his sins. It would be enough for me that people to stop putting a microphone in his face.

tonyman -


You don't see the insensitivity in claiming that those who really believe in God will insure Romney doesn't win? Wow... There was no implication about wrong beliefs. The implication was that Mormons don't believe in God.



Al's statement was not directed at just a public official but rather an entire religion. Expression of skepticism? Please tell me where the skepticism was? He presented his comments as statement of fact - a form of religious bigotry.



Wow! A high profile politician/minister/charlatan gets a free pass to talk openly about other religions not worshipping the "right" God within the context of an upcoming election, going on to suggest that this will motivate "real" God-believers to vote against the candidate, and there stands tonyman saying "nope, don't see anything wrong with that. I mean heck it was his Biblical duty."

tonyman - You know, I at first didn't think Sharpton's comments merited too much attention until I read the Sharpton apologists on this thread. The bigger outrage is not his comments but rather this convoluted argument that he should be able to say these kinds of things (and more) against a minority, a minority group that Sharpton - if he were really concerned about respecting the minority voice - should be actively defending at every turn.

Vanguard- I think, what you see here, is a "quip" or "slam" by a person, of a minority, that has been actively treated as something less of a human than a white person.

Why is it wrong to slam someone that has wronged you?

Is it wrong for the Jews to say bad things about the nazis as well? Would it be insensitive for a jew to make an insensitive remark about a Catholic for instance- considering the church turned away from thier plight in Germany, and also tortured and burned them for centuries as 'Christ Killers"?

I think you have to put any comment in context here- you have a church that denied them heaven based on thier doctrine against blacks- I think that church, and it's followers, become fair game to pretty much ANY "insensitive" remark based on thier treatment of blacks throughout the years.

And, taken in context, I think the comment is even more appropriate, because, how can a black man believe that a church of poeple that had the beliefs about black poeple that they did for over a century- how can one even believe that those poeple even follow a true god- given Sharptons (ever so public proffesions of faith?

Of COURSE he doesn't believe in the Mormon's belief is correct- after all- they said he was cursed by god- simply for being black.

The bottom line is this- Mormons racially discriminated against blacks for over a century, therefore- any black person that is a public figure, can of course, slam, and make fun of, and try thier best to publically denounce this religion.

Those who will vilify Mormonism for excluding blacks in their membership and religious observances in the past need to remember that it was only relatively recently in our nation's history that the majority of mainstream, mostly Protestant churches allowed people of color into their churches and membership. That is part of the reason why there was a civil rights movement, and for some churches, it took longer to recognize its significance and rightness.

I can remember my father being angry at the Presbyterian Church where I attended Sunday School in the early 1960's when the minister famously allowed black couples into the membership. He called the minister a "n----r lover." Never mind that he didn't even go to church.

The fact is, hypocrisy, willful spiritual blindness, and ignorance have been present in religion over the centuries, and it takes people who are willing to stick their necks out and, in this case, assert that Jesus did not discriminate on the basis of color to their brethren in order to effect change.

Further, it is not Mitt Romney's fault that the Mormon church had this practice before he had the ability or position to do something about it.

Sharpton was criticizing Romney's religion and, by extension, Mitt Romney. We have to judge for ourselves whether this is fair in the same way we have to determine whether it is fair to judge Hillary Clinton on the basis of her being the wife of William Jefferson Clinton.

I would not have said what Sharpton said. But I wouldn't have swift-boated Kerry, either.

I agree it is a "quip" (there, we agree on something! )



Is there a statute of limitations on "legitimately" slamming someone who has wronged you?



No, it would be wrong for the Jews to say bad things about Germans and especially in the context of a political season. To wit, the conversation would go something like this: "Mr. Jewish man, how do you feel about this individual of German descent running for office?" -"Well, us Jews shouldn't have to worry about him winning! After all, the Nazis were horrible people!" Cruise, do you see the difference?

Your view would have everyone claiming "legitimacy" in slamming someone based on some slight from the past. Remember, my earlier post conceded that Romney may have to explain his stance on the Mormon doctrine. I do not have an issue there. This is not permission however to speak in such a derogatory manner about Romney. Sorry, we may just not agree on this one.



Wow, that's quite a lot of lattitude granted one man.



Not the point. Sharpton pulled a cheap political maneuver by using his pull as a minister to sway those who look to him as a religious leader. He played into the very elements of religion that you yourself despise, CR - all in the context of denigrating a man who has done nothing to him. I have problems with that - Sharpton's legitimate complaints about Mormon doctrine notwithstanding.

While all this thunder and lightning about the Mormon Church and its history of racism and Mitt Romney's role in all of it and whether or not Al Sharpton is a big ol' hypocrite or not has its entertainment value, I have one question to ask:

How many of you have actually seen or heard the debate between Reverend Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, where the offending remarks originated?

Here's a link: http://www.slate.com/id/2166143?nav=tap3

If you don't want to spend 90 minutes watching the debate you can use the "open tools" feature to access key points.

Context is a good thing.

Leave it to you to divert attention... blame the morman church for being racist, not Sharpton for making a questionable comment.

In my opinion, it wasn't the worst thing Sharpton has said. I do find Sharpton's response interesting:


Umm... seriously. This man will stop at nothing. If it were ME, I'd say "hey- I didn't mean to offend anyone, and the statement was taken from context. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but frankly I didn't mean to say anything derogatory about mormons or any other Christians". Did he say that? nope. Instead- he made a comment about a conspiracy theory. What a maroon.

THEN he follows it up by saying that Mormons don't believe in God the way he does, but they do believe in God. That probably can be said for all Christian denominations in some sort. I personally don't buy into the Mormon church, but as a public figure I wouldn't make an inflammatory remark and follow it up with half-hearted statements that in my opinion made it worse. But that's Al Sharpton. The fact that anyone in the black community (or any community) follows this guy is beyond me.

From CNN.com


Funny enough, here in the South... Pentecostals and often times Southern Baptists are seen as "fringe" elements of Protestant Religion. Who is he to talk? Mormons believe some dude lead folks to Salt Lake, Baptists believe that dancing is a sin. Whatever man. Shouldn't throw stones if you ask me...

I think this sums it up:


Want a Democrat's view?


Well... dangit, then why won't Sharpton just say "hey man- I didn't mean it that way. I'm sorry!" ? ? ? ?

How exactly does it "divert attention" to present the actual forum where the supposedly offensive remarks were made? I know logic and you aren't always the best of friends, Aevans176, but even you can't be that afraid of allowing people to craft an informed opinion. Stop getting all of yours from right-wing radio and Faux News.

It comes as no surprise that you'd prefer to let your knee-jerk reaction and well-established hatred of all things Al Sharpton to bothering with being informed as to what the man actually said.

After all, your mind is already made up. Why trouble it with facts?

Good job NT. You didn't debate one thing that I said. You seem to have a better time insulting me. I'd love to meet you in person. I make a legitimate statement about your post, but you find it imperative to insult me directly. I guess we settle these things differently in the South.

I listed numerous quotes, other people's opinions, and asked questions about why Sharpton didn't come forward and make an apology. I don't even listen to Right-Wing radio. Funny enough, the only talk I listen to at all really is Rickey Smiley on the drive to work. Whatever man... I got those quotes from CNN.com. You gladly can actually debate them if you'd like.

The point I'm attempting to make is that most people feel this way about Sharpton. Want some more opinions?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070509/cm_huffpost/048027
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/200...y_bigotr_1.html

I figured you have Google. If I can find these in exactly 5 seconds... umm... well...

Hey man, you're the one who called my posting a link to the Hitchens/Sharpton debate trying to "divert attention." That wasn't exactly a Valentine's Day card.

I don't insult you, Aevans176. I disagree with you and you take it as an insult. There's nothing "legitimate" about dismissing a link you don't want to be bothered with as an attempt to divert attention. If you hope to have your points debated seriously, don't be so cavalier in blowing off mine and not expect similar treatment of yours.

As regards "meeting me in person" that's an event whose chances of occurring fall somewhere between slim and none. Let's not and say we did.



No. Not really. I don't need the opinion of others to confirm what I already know: Al Sharpton shoots from the lip. This time though he winged himself in the foot.

How "most people feel" about Sharpton carries no weight with how I feel about Sharpton. What the masses believe is many times wrong and often idiotic. Sharpton is not MY leader. I didn't vote for him or anybody else to be a "Black leader." He hung that tag on himself and others have run with it and made it legit. My idea of someone who has qualities that make him or her a "leader" is you don't have to puff your chest out and say you ARE a leader. How you carry yourself, how you live your life and leading by example are the things you do that make someone a leader.

I'm not defending Al Sharpton. I'm just not interested in joining the ideological lynch mob looking for some Don Imus "payback" either.

Here is the debate between Sharpton and Hitchens. It's very much a theology v. science discussion. Sharpton's roundabout Romney comment only partially addressed the Mormon church's history of racial segregation, but posters seem to spend a lot of time on the church's racist history, for some reason.

Hitchens starts by arguing God has to be a wicked being to want to know every thought, every thing you do. He says he met God in North Korea. In North Korea God may strike you dead, but at least he does not follow you to the grave and tortures you in death. Sharpton responds with the religious conviction of Civil Rights leaders. Hitchens counters that there is nothing inherently ethical about religion, bringing up the Mormon church and popular biblical interpretation before the Civil War with major faiths believing God gave slavery two thumbs up to illustrate his point.

In other words, not only do religious/spiritual persons acknowledge the existence of God, but they also claim to know God's mind. That's just too much for Hitchens. This "knowledge" religious leaders are privy to, is what gives them a right to tell others what think, how to dress, what to eat, whom to have sex with and how to have sex with them, etc. At one point he essentially calls the Catholic church's anti-contraception policy a manifestation of evil. Hitchens finishes by pointing out that several people in MLK's circle were secularist socialists and Communists.

Finally, we get to Sharpton's comment. He says we shouldn't define God by denominational convention and "as for that one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway". I take this comment in one of two ways:

This is a classic denominational confrontation between Christians, or real Christians are anti-war. (Sharpton originally mentions Saddam and chides Hitchen's persistent belief in WMD.)

If it's the former, it would not surprise me. Before graduating high school our evangelical pastor had a meltdown on stage. A family that regularly volunteered for Sunday school programs had left the congregation to become Jehovah's Witnesses. The pastor was beside himself, shaking their farewell letter in the air, making dire warnings about eternal hellfire when we are led astray.

Sharpton may call himself a liberal, but he's still more religious than the average churchgoer. That's why, in my view, any religiously-backed activism sucks in the end. Yeah, you and I may agree on health care, the war, etc., but I don't want to hear WWJD. In the end, religious interpretation is subjective, fallacious, deceitful, and more prone to manipulation than arguments based on "immoral relativism".

The second possible interpretation is not as religious as the first, but there's still an element of denominational expectation; that good Christians oppose the war. And that, by itself, is also a fallacious argument.

Can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?
No. I don't think anyone has mentioned Hitchens making similar "anti-religious" arguments in the thread yet. I suppose that's because we expect atheists like him to be inherently evil, and dismissing 95% of the world's population is par for the course for evil atheists.

Can anyone who regularly goes to church honestly say their pastor/reverend/priest/whatever never warned members of the congregation about Other False Christian Religions? I'd like to think that religious leaders, especially liberal religious leaders, are as un-phased about denominational differences as I am, but I doubt they are.

Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?
Are Sharpton and I supposed to care a candidate has strong religious beliefs and curb our words accordingly? What is the expectation behind this question?

Sharpton cannot be "fired" as Imus was–so how should he "pay" for his sin here?
Is being a biased Christian a sin? Religious arrogance may no longer be promoted like it used to be, but are we surprised that it's still with us?

Look, if you want to sack Sharpton do it for the right reason. The same reason I sack the Religious Right. One, nobody gives a damn what Jesus whispers in your ear when you bow your head in prayer, and two, your religious beliefs lose sacred status the moment you use them to advance political goals.

vanguard,
Think about what you wrote, we are saying the same thing. Saying they don't believe in God implies that they are wrong in their beliefs, because mormons believe that they do believe in God.

I think that it would make things less confusing if different religions used a name for their God instead of just using "God" all of the time. This is what I meant by Al implying they had wrong beliefs. Let's call Al Sharpton's god, god A. Let's go further and say that Sharpton believes that god A is the one, true God. Sharpton was saying that mormons don't believe in god A. They believe in god M. Since Sharpton thinks god A is the one, true God, then mormons who believe in god M are therefore wrong in their beliefs and do not "really" believe in God since god A is the only real God.



vanguard,
You're right, his comments were directed at an entire religion. But that actually reinforces my point about it being an expression of skepticism. He's being skeptical of their faith in Joseph Smith being a prophet of god A. I tend to think of bigotry as being based on irrationality per the houghton mifflin definition Looking at if from Al Sharpton's point of view, it's a pretty rational skepticism given the whole institutional, doctrinal racism of the church.



vanguard,
He isn't special, every politician (that isn't in office), minister, and charlatan should feel free to criticize any religion they please. There's nothing wrong with religious criticism of that capacity in and of itself.

Religions are belief structures and therefore are open to criticism and debate. Anyone can talk openly about other religions. He didn't denigrate them, he just said they were wrong. What would be the difference between him saying that mormons don't believe in the right god and if he had said that islamic extremists don't believe in the right god, or racist protestants of the earlier 1900's didn't believe in the right god, or scientologists are wrong in their beliefs? I'll tell you, there's no difference because they are all belief structures and people's beliefs are open for criticism.



vanguard,
I don't think the argument is convoluted at all. It's simple, but just in case, I'll clean it up and restate it here for you:
A. non-intrinsic traits are open for criticism
A. beliefs and behaviors are non-intrinsic traits
B. religions are beliefs and behaviors
conclusion:
Religions are open for criticism

For goodness sakes, he said they are wrong. Where's the inhumanity, the indecency, the insensitivity in that?

The KKK, NAMBLA, and smokers are minority groups too, so by your logic he should be actively defending them? Just because a group is in the minority doesn't mean they need sticking up for from Al Sharpton. And he didn't disrespect their voice- whatever that means- he simply said that they are wrong. I think you are obfuscating the concept of a minority here.

I'm not an Al Sharpton apologist. I think Lesly summed up how I feel on this issue perfectly


There are tons of good reasons out there but this isn't one of them.

tonyman -


Yes it is the same thing and no it's not. It's one thing to call into question a difference in faith practice it's another to suggest that Mormons really don't believe in God - the one commonality that virtually all religious people share. Al also knows by suggesting that a Christian organization really doesn't believe in God he emboldens those like-minded Chrisitians to act against Romney. I consider it an abuse of his power - I'm sorry you don't feel the same.



No, according to your explanation, Mormons have differences in belief about the nature of God NOT about whether God exists. This nuance is very important and Al understands this all to well.



Again, Al abused his power. I don't begrudge his differences with the Mormon faith. I have an issue when he, without any critical review and in the public eye, facily dismisses an entire population of believers as not really believing in God. Though I am Mormon, I would have an issue with anyone doing this about any religion.



Don't confuse the issue. He can spout off about anything he wants regarding the Mormons as long as he doesn't cross certain legal boundaries and as long as America (coorporate or otherwise) wants to countenance his commentary. If he carries an expectation that his commentary is free of inconsistency or mean-spiritedness then he is open to my commentary about how his commentary is exactly that. I am appealing in the public realm for like-minded people to take notice of this insensitivity and nothing more.



In virtually any other context I really don't have an issue with what Al said. In light of the fact that he said this in reference to a political candidate, delivered in the public eye, as a self-proclaimed minister of the Christian God, and active politico, his commentary takes on a whole different twist.

<snip>


No, IMO you are obfuscating the concept of a minority here. Do you really think I meant any minority? You know, like folks who play minature golf? You know as well as I do that there are certain minorities not only deserving of certain legal remedies but also minorities who are historically persecuted simply because they are different (i.e., ethnicities, women, the disabled, and religious groups like the Mormons).



I retract my suggestion that you are a Sharpton apologist. I am really not arguing against him any longer (though he is conveniently the whipping boy for this thread). I am frustrated by those who would say (you included), "Hey man, it was the truth so what's wrong with that?" There is a season for everything, tonyman, and there is a time to exercise a modicum of sensitivity when referencing fellow-Christians. This seems to have escaped Al.

Why, because while not racist it is biggoted, which is one of the root causes of racism. While I think as a species, the majority of humans are accepting of a tone of acceptance for other races, I see far too many examples of the religions of the world not embracing the concept of acceptance of other religous beliefs, or the lack thereof.


As far as I can tell, to the religous, your individual interpretation of what is justified in the name of your religion, varies greatly, and is covered by the cloak of "freedom of religion". Justification appears to be in the eye of the believer, I guess the best I can ask for is consistancy.


Apparently he does have a radio show, perhaps he should have that rug pulled from under his feet. I would like to see him get as much negative airtime on the news netwoks as they devoted to the Imus issue, and then they should boycott him, not allow him to use their outlets as a medium for the dissamination if his particular brand of filth.

No the “bigot” is Ol AL – that is clear. And lots of others who say far worse and get away with it. I don’t feel any of my statements are bigoted.





He questioned the entire Mormon community as well as Romney and I thought it was disgusting and every bit as insulting as the “nappy” remark. Is Romney any less “right” here than they were?

Idiot Sharpton didn’t “sin” he just made the kind of remark at Romney he blasted Imus for and that is simply hypocrisy. And he will get away with it.

If Sharpton's offense is insulting an entire religion, may I ask why this thread is in the Race Issues forum?


Of course he's not. It's called my religion is better than your religion. (I'm assuming you're referring to Romney's religious beliefs and not the Mormon church's former racist beliefs.)

Because Romney is white and this may have had something to do with this crude, nasty, and un called for slander. And the Imus event of course.

Although if Romney was a left wing Democrat Al may have said nothing.





I am talking about his religious belief in god, as I am sure you are aware, which Al slandered much the same way Imus did to the girls.

..and their belief in....

not being hoes?

Lesly is absolutely correct to say this has nothing to do with race issues and is instead one of the least coherent attempts at the reverse-racism card I've seen in quite a while.

The comment by Sharpton was foolish and unjustified, but not racist and sexist like Ol Don.

OK but since Romney is white perhaps it had a racial component – or was it just Al’s brand of nasty politics???

In any case it was as bad, as the Imus remark and this man is a hypocrite for going after Imus and then doing something very similar himself – wouldn’t you agree???

Ted all of the Republican candidates are white. Does this mean that anytime Sharpton attacks one of them it's reverse racism?

BTW: To parody the Geico commercial again, "does having three question marks make your question any more of a question??????????????????????????"

Agreed. But it was biggoted in my opinion.

Is biggotry better when it's not racist or sexist? Hmm... that would make anti-semitism just peach, wouldn't it?

Bigotry is a problem no matter who its directed towards.

But is that what we're discussing here?

Lesly makes a good point that this "they don't really worship God!!" talk is a bit of a foregone conclusion with issues involving religion.

Sharpton didn't attack the man's character so much as deride his philosophy, I'm not even sure that's bigotry so much as ignorance and rudeness.

1. can we equate this by Sharpton to the one by Imus? Why? Or Why not?

Idealogically, yes. Literrally, no. While they both made bigoted comments, Imus was joking (Albeit extremly rudely) and Sharpton was making a serious attack. Also, you could percieve either of their comments being worse. Race and religion aren't the same thing, however.

2. Is saying this about a religious person as Romney clearly is ever justified?

No, that is irrelevant. Would it have been any different if Sharpton said something about a Satanic candidate?

3. Sharpton cannot be “fired” as Imus was – so how should he “pay” for his sin here?

An apology to Romney and his family would be nice.

Kind of a late update here but I can't let this slip by. A Brownback aide provides an example supporting the idea expressed in this thread that religious elitism is alive and well.