anti-mormons

You are currently browsing articles tagged anti-mormons.

Conservative Crank’s Paranoia of Media’s Anti-Mormon Bias Is Validated

17 October 2009 @ 12:04 am | 12 comments

As a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™, I am obligated to sniff out media bias wherever it may lie.

This finely-honed skill helped in my assertion that the Associated Press’ coverage of Elder Oak’s talk was in large part to blame for the civil-rights analogy kerfuffle this week. In anticipation of his talk, Elder Oaks gave the A.P. an interview and his talk’s text to accompany its coverage of his address. With his cooperation and a despite a very substantive talk, the A.P. reporter framed a news story based on one sentence aiming for maximal controversy.  And it worked.

The A.P.’s coverage is not too surprising.  I’ve long thought it covered the Church unfairly, (recent egregious example). But this week, it has also been interesting to see the local Utah media reaction behind the scenes.

The City Weekly jumped on the Deseret News for not covering the civil-rights analogy issue as did all the other news outlets who followed the A.P.’s lead.  In its view (and by way of Twitter, the view of other area reporters), if the D.N. didn’t follow the A.P.’s lead, it wasn’t being fair and balanced. So much for original reporting.

Most remarkable was another post at the City Weekly about an executive news producer at the local Salt Lake Fox affiliate, Fox 13 who violated the Church’s embargo with a tweet. Perhaps not a big deal but her blog about her phone call with the Church’s Public Affairs office and her feelings towards the Church as a former member and its involvement in Proposition 8 is quite an eye opener (to read a sanitized version just read the Weekly’s version, there you can click through to read the very crude and psychodrama-rich original if you dare, but beware). Quite astonishing to realize that this is someone who deals with and reports on the Church as a journalist.

Fox 13 news doesn’t strike me as biased, or anti-LDS.   I do think that it did stoke up the controversy a bit online by tweeting up the story over and over and over and over and over and over again (and no, Elder Oaks did not claim that “Mormon backlash after Prop. 8 [was] similar to treatment of Southern blacks”). But the controversy probably sent them pretty good traffic.

As for their news producer, it’s nice to see news folk let it all hang out and not pretend that they are impassive robots unburdened by the silly squabbles the rest of us mere mortals deal with. Perhaps in such a small news operation she can’t recuse herself from stories when she loathes the subjects she covers. But for her own mental health it might be for the best.

As for the City Weekly, its interesting to read some of the local inside baseball of the journalism scene. But after reading its own coverage and the tweets from other reporters, its laughable to single out the Deseret News as unbalanced. And soliciting for more LDS Public Affair horror stories to confirm your own biases? That’s not high-minded journalism, it’s called blogging. Join the club.

Even more see, “Dallin H. Oaks: Calling for fair reading, fair thinking, fair commentary“

The Obama administration defends DOMA! And who’s fault is that? Why a sneaky Mormon of course.

13 June 2009 @ 5:20 pm | No comments

A Modest Proposal for Celebrity and Other Inappropriate Baptisms for the Dead

5 May 2009 @ 8:13 pm | 10 comments

President Obama’s mother is the latest prominent name reported to have been baptized and endowed vicariously in the Provo Temple. The LDS Church is investigating the report while clarifying that any ordinances performed without a relative’s consent is inappropriate.

“The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us, and it is counter to church policy for a church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related,” said LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter.

The Politico picked up on the story and has an image of the ordinance record with another statement from the Church.

According to “doctrinal background” provided by an LDS spokesman, “well-meaning Church members sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives for temple baptism. Others — perhaps pranksters or careless persons — have submitted the names of unrelated famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. These rare acts are contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment.”

I must confess to not having as much sympathy as I probably should for those who get outraged over this. Who cares if some misguided (but well-intended) church wants to do perform a baptism, in-name-only, as a means of offering voluntary salvation for someone who has passed on? If you don’t believe it’s a true practice, does it really matter? And if Mormons are right, wouldn’t it be a nice insurance policy?

Regardless, the practice does sound weird to many and it does bother some people. So to give further reassurance to those unsettled by the practice of Baptism for the Dead, perhaps the LDS Church could take a page from some atheists and offer a Certificate of Debaptism.

For the nonbeliever, these certificates are just as meaningful and effective as vicarious temple baptisms. To resolve any qualms over the ecclesiastical designation of a dearly departed, simply download and fill out. It would be as easy as that.

(Incidentally, the baptism was discovered and publicized by Helen Radkey, an excommunicated Church critic who appears to have taken it upon herself to instigate controversy with the LDS Church and as many others as possible, focusing on baptisms for the dead. Not that that makes Ms. Dunham’s baptism any better.)

When Ann Coulter is too liberal – defending Mitt Romney and loving Mormons.

MORE: And when I say too liberal I don’t mean not conservative enough. Just not sufficiently whackadoo.

3 April 2009 @ 11:32 am | No comments

1. As most everyone in the bloggernacle has already posted, here is a video produced by the LDS Church explaining why Mormons value the temple so much. A nice touch is the inclusion of some non-LDS scholars explaining the historical importance of temples.



2. Variety.com published an LDS publicist’s explaination of what is required to go to the temple and how improbable Big Love’s temple scenarios is, no matter how much research they claim to have done.

By doing so, the HBO and all affiliated with “Big Love” will do all Latter-Day Saints and the public at large a huge disservice by blatantly depicting not only something that is held as being supremely sacred by Mormons around the world, but also by depicting and promulgating a lie that a practicing polygamist (like the character “Barb”) would ever be allowed into an LDS Temple. Then again, I have a hard time believing that any practicing polygamist would even want to go through a Mormon Temple ceremony; but hey, who am I to judge?

At the end of the day, I agree with the premise that HBO has the constitutional right to produce and air “Big Love” as well as this forthcoming segment.

13 March 2009 @ 10:35 am | 3 comments

A look back at HBO baiting Mormons when Big Love was announced.

9 March 2009 @ 4:18 pm | 5 comments

“The Publicity Dilemma” – The Church Responds to Big Love

9 March 2009 @ 12:38 pm | 4 comments

Despite apologies, Tom Hanks and his show, Big Love, continue to show a deliberate insensitivity to Mormons. As outrageous and offensive as I find the description of Big Love’s upcoming episode, I suppose the best thing to do is what I’ve always done and not watch it. Vocal protests or boycotts seem counter-productive and probably just what the show’s producers would like.

The Church’s Newsroom’s response encapsulates the best way to approach this controversy and the many more that will follow in “The Publicity Dilemma.” Essentially: don’t take the bait.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, Latter-day Saints in the public arena should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church . . .

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

The commentary also lists recent controversies aimed at the Church (Lawrence O’Donnell, South Park, September Dawn) and its interesting to note how many of them have long been forgotten.

UPDATE: I had forgotten that HBO’s publicists had laid out boycott bait for Mormons when it announced Big Love back in 2005.

EVEN MORE: DKL make a good point that the Church’s statement seems as much for the benefit of members as it does for the media (“don’t go overboard”). In fact, the Church’s homepage now links to it.

Rumors of General Conference Protests Debunked

3 March 2009 @ 1:14 pm | 2 comments

Apparently a bogus email has been circulating, claiming that the mother of all General Conference protests was coming next month.

An inflammatory e-mail is circulating around the country, saying Salt Lake City police officers are preparing for up to 200,000 protesters during the LDS General Conference in April, and it’s causing concern in both the Latter-day Saint and gay communities.

The e-mail begins with reference to a good friend whose dad, who supposedly works for the Salt Lake City Police Department, says police are putting in extra hours doing riot training.

“The training they are possibly referring to is this routine training that we do every year on crowd control techniques and protest,” said Detective Dennis McGowan, spokesman for the Salt Lake City Police Department.

McGowan added, “You know, thanks for the opportunity, though, to get this out to everyone that, as far as our concern at this point in time, these are rumors and everyone can stand down.”

Still, the article says that 2,000 protestors were at the October conference, which was before the Proposition 8 victory when most activists decided to target the Church. It’s wise not to be alarmist but it wouldn’t be too surprising to see angry gay marriage activists joining arms with angry Evangelicals to form an especially robust protest next month.

The EightMaps.com creator doesn’t want to be found.

The map application has become an icon for the extremes to which political transparency can be taken — but whoever made it prefers to remain completely anonymous. The application is registered anonymously through GoDaddy and offers no contact information.

11 February 2009 @ 3:25 pm | 3 comments

The Blood Atonement Criminal Defense

11 February 2009 @ 10:39 am | 2 comments

I’m not sure ticking off a sizable portion of the local population is a good way to go about your criminal defense, “Defense asks for no Mormons on murder trial jury.”

An attorney for a man charged with aggravated murder have filed a motion to keep off the jury any members of the Mormon church who might believe that the only way for him to be forgiven by God is to be executed.

Sharon Sipes, a public defender for Riqo Perea, filed the motion in 2nd District Court. She says a belief among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the only way to receive true forgiveness from God after committing a serious offense is to shed one’s own blood.

Sure, some of us Mormons may be inclined to support the death penalty, especially when it comes to gang-related aggravated murder, but I don’t think it has anything to do with a supposed belief in “Blood Atonement.” Why would a criminal defense lawyer play the Anti-Mormon card in Utah?

Why Stick to the Issues When You Can Stick It to Your Opponents?

10 February 2009 @ 12:39 pm | 172 comments

Anti-Mormon Prop 8 protestEver since Prop 8 opponents woke up on November 5 and realized they had lost, much commentary has focused on the “unfairness” of the Mormon Church’s involvement. Even though activists are still seeking to enforce gay marriage through the courts, they don’t appear to want to talk about it. Instead, the post-election discussion has suggested that the Mormon Church went “too far.”

Much speculation has been made that Mormons individually donated perhaps half of the pro-Prop 8 funding.   Despite misleading reporting, as Mormon Inquiry points out, the LDS Church itself donated “less than one half of one percent of the total funds” to support Prop 8.  And that was only considering the non-monetary, in-kind support to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.  Despite false accusations and faulty reporting, the LDS Church support has been transparent and above the board.

If donations and transparency must be considered, then include the following:

So why are Mormons facing the brunt of criticism?  Is it unfair that the church was too successful in encouraging and organizing those Mormons who supported Prop 8?  Are they just a convenient scapegoat?  Despite having more money, the “No on 8″ crowd is content to direct its rage on others rather than ask themselves what they did wrong.

Aside from death threats, most of the behavior appears to be legal but is still downright creepy.  I don’t think criticism of Mormons or the LDS Church should be considered a hate crime and I do believe campaign donations should be more transparent than not.  But it’s difficult to comprehend that there wouldn’t be more outrage if gay marriage activists were being listed on web sites or black-listed.  While there has been some attention paid to this harassment it would be nice to see some investigations into who is behind it and ask them to justify these tactics.

Who knows how the courts will rule on the validity of Prop 8.  But is there any doubt that if and when the issue returns to the ballot box (for the the third time), that gay marriage supporters are now laying the foundation to discourage anyone who considers opposing them again?  

Traditional marriage may have won for now but trends suggest that may not be the case for long.   Rather than demonizing those who disagree with them, gay marriage supporters should show some patience and continue the debate.  As they have made quite clear, it’s not going away.

Kudos to GayPatriot for supporting the Coyote.

3 January 2009 @ 10:17 pm | No comments

Jeremiah Wright vs. Brigham Young

2 January 2009 @ 1:06 pm | 19 comments

Mitt Romney speaking on faith in AmericaLooking back on 2008, the Church certainly had its share of  major and controversial news stories.  Overall, the Church made great strides to define itself despite a sometimes adversarial, not always accurate media.

Many (mostly us conservative nutjobs) have described 2008 as the year that “journalism died” in the aftermath of the presidential campaign coverage.  The unbalanced coverage of the religions of Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama did not help.

While Gov. Romney was relentlessly asked about his personal beliefs and expected to answer for his Church’s long-abandoned practices of polygamy and excluding blacks from the priesthood, there was virtually no scrutiny of the religious beliefs taught at Sen. Obama’s church.  I’m not even sure how much a candidate’s personal religious beliefs should be questioned.  But a media that seemed so concerned with a candidate’s “lack of curiosity” showed zero interest in the theology of Trinity United Church of Christ.  Even putting religion aside, Sen. Obama was never held to account for the radical anti-American, racist, and conspiracy-mongering politics preached there by his self-described spiritual mentor.

Following the news, you would not be faulted for believing that Romney’’s Mormon Church was exactly the same as it was 120 years ago while Obama hadn’t been a member of Rev. Wright’s church for the last 20 years.

For a little objective evidence, consider a study released by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life on media coverage of religion during the primary campaigns.  It’s difficult to compare the two directly as the focus on Romney’s religion was relentless, starting two years before he announced his candidacy, while the Obama religious coverage spiked for a few weeks in March and April.

But here are some interesting tidbits from the Pew study:

  • While only 2% of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion, “more than one-third (35%) of all religion-related campaign stories focused on Romney, a Mormon.”
  • “when Obama gave a speech to quell concerns over the controversial statements of his former pastor, both the campaign and the press steered the emphasis toward the race angle of the story. . . For about every 50 news stories that primarily focused on race, only one took a distinctively religious angle.”
  • “Nearly one-third (30%) of Romney’s media coverage in 2007 focused on his Mormon faith. No other candidate even came close to receiving the same amount of attention to their faith that year.”

Interestingly, they did both give highly-touted speeches in response to controversies about their churches.  However, while Obama’s speech was well-received and was able to brush off further questioning by resigning from the church, Romney’s speech did little to stop the questioning about his, and may have even fueled more.

Of course, a serious Mormon candidate running for national office is a novelty that should be expected to garner media attention.  But the relentless coverage turned the question of how Romney’s faith would affect his campaign into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

From the day he entered the race on Feb. 13, 2007, Romney’s affiliation with the Mormon church dominated his media image more than anything else. On Feb. 18, 2007, during a Florida campaign event, Romney was heckled by an attendee who announced, “You do not know the Lord … you are a Mormon.” The moment was captured on video and replayed frequently over the course of the next 24 hours, gaining a thorough treatment on cable news shows.

Media analysis of the heckling incident kicked off what would become a pattern over the course of Romney’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign: Journalists often expressed sympathy for a candidate subject to anti-Mormon sentiment while simultaneously fueling the fire by suggesting his religion could be an impediment to his electability. For instance, on the Feb. 19, 2007, edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello noted that Romney’s courteous response to the heckler earned him a standing ovation, but she also predicted that “Romney’s faith will dog him.”

Nothing Romney said seemed to satisfy the pondering whether his religion would hurt him. The media kept asking him but never seemed to listen.

In contrast, much of the media seemed painfully hesitant to touch Obama’s faith and church while eager to clarify any mischaracterizations, even by the candidate himself. I’m sure there are various reasons for this but unfortunately I think it will be a long time until a Mormon candidate will get the kid-gloves treatment like this:

NY Times Ad Defends Mormons

5 December 2008 @ 3:09 pm | 21 comments

Here’s one thing the internet still can’t provide: advocacy ads printed in the NY Times.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has placed a full-page ad in the New York Times today assembling various religious leaders to denounce the recent attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of Proposition 8. You can see the ad at its companion site NoMobVeto.org.

The ad begins:

We’re a disagreeable lot. We differ about a great many important things. Most, but not all of us, are religious believers. We likewise differ on important moral and legal questions, including the wisdom and justice of California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless we’re united in this: The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church, or other religious organizations – and even against individual believers – simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.

This is the latest of efforts to rally behind the Church’s as it has faced backlash in its support for Propostion 8 (also, see AboveTheHate.com and its open letter to President Monson). There has been speculation that the Church’s involvement with Prop has been a “fiasco.” But such handwringing seems to be from the perspective of those who think a boycott of Sundance would hurt Mormons.

Instead, the Prop 8 aftermath appears to have won the Mormon Church new appreciation among social conservatives. Whether that is momentary or incremental remains to be seen. I don’t think that’s necessarily a gain for the Mormon Church, but it is among those religious conservatives who were too religiously blinded to realize the Church should be a natural ally in many causes.

Did Church critics really want to push the Mormon Church closer to the religious right?

UPDATE: The LDS Church expressed appreciation for the ad:

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times. This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

Mormon Church Responds to Proposition 8 Passage

5 November 2008 @ 12:46 pm | 24 comments

Mormon Church Responds to the passage of Proposition 8.  It covers defending the integrity of marriage, church involvement in politics, bigotry on both sides, and members who opposed the Church’s position.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position.   No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong.  The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.  Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved.  In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society.  While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position.   Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances.  As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

As politically cliched as it sounds, there will have to be a lot of healing after this.  Although Prop 8 passed, there’s not a lot to celebrate.  I feel like the Church and supporters of traditional marriage were forced to enter into a tough fight and everybody got badly bruised.

In short, we preach unity among the community of Saints and tolerance toward the personal differences that are inevitable in the beliefs and conduct of a diverse population. Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.

Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve “diversity” by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no one’s value will be contradicted by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of BYU visiting professor Louis Pojman’s observation in a recent Universe Viewpoint (October 13, 1998, p. 4) that diversity can be used “as a euphemism for moral relativism.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Speeches, 9 February 1999 [emphasis added]

3 November 2008 @ 10:17 pm | 1 comment

“The Wrong Way to Win Gay Marriage Rights”

So, in these desperate final weeks, the new campaign team for No on 8 has adopted a tough, closing message that may yet salvage victory for same-sex marriage. The message? The people behind the ban are Mormons . . .

This Mormon support is so vast that it’s a political vulnerability for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. In polls, Americans register a low opinion of the Mormon religion (In a 2007 CBS News survey, the religion had a 25 percent favorable rating; the only faith less popular was Islam) The church’s history on marriage — it ended polygamy in 1890 — is a complicated one. So Mormons are a tempting target. But by raising the issue of Mormon support for the ban, supporters of same-sex marriage, who have spent decades battling religious prejudice, are now in the awkward position of profiting from religious prejudice.

There is rough justice in that. Perhaps too rough. It’s unlikely that the progressive groups would ever single out their political opponents’ religion if the religion in question was Judaism or Catholicism . . .

In its final days, the campaign in California feels less like a debate over the nature of marriage and more like a low-down discussion of which is creepier: gay sex or Mormons?

3 November 2008 @ 10:04 pm | 1 comment

Protestors at the Oakland Temple

27 October 2008 @ 6:32 am | 36 comments

Some emails circulated last week reporting ugly incidents at the Oakland Temple. But I haven’t seen any corroboration of the incident(s).

Sunday morning, however, there was a protest at the Oakland California LDS temple. From the news account, it sounds like it was peaceful.

About 50 protesters came to the Mormon Temple in Oakland this morning to speak out against the religious group’s support for an anti-gay marriage ballot measure.

“I can’t believe that a religious group that preaches truth and love is asking their members to campaign and donate to take away my civil rights,” said Jill Shearer, 40, of Oakland. Shearer grew up in San Ramon and was raised Mormon. When she came out as a lesbian, she said her family still kept her close . . .

“They have their right to make their cause known, just like the Yes on 8 folks do,” said Rand King, 60, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is a member of the Protect Marriage Coalition. “They obviously want to portray us as haters of them. We’re not at all. We just want to protect traditional marriage.”

Fortunately, as the temple was closed, patrons didn’t have to face the protestors but I wonder how the Visitor Center handled the situation.

You can see more photos of the protest at this Flickr stream. Of note are the Osama would vote for Prop 8 sign and the “Latter-day Bigots” sign.

Targeting Mormons on Proposition 8

21 October 2008 @ 10:45 am | 35 comments

The Daily Kos does not appear to be a champion of free speech.

Last week Daily Kos removed a post criticizing the site for its anti-Mormon bigotry.

Now it is rallying its followers to target Mormons who have donated to the Proposition 8 campaign. Once identified, the plan is to dig into their backgrounds, with the hopes of harassing and discrediting their efforts.

As a matter of fact, the No on Prop 8 folks told me recently that the “Protect Marriage” campaign has raised $30 million dollars–over half of it from the Mormon Church. Now, I have nothing personally against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They most certainly have the constitutional right to worship in their own way. They have the right to minister in whatever way they see fit and to marry whomever they see fit in their churches based on any qualifications they choose. And they will be well within their rights.

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity . . .

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do . . .

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

Unfortunately, the media has played along with this emphasis by making Mormon donations to support Proposition 8 a major issue (never mind the millions big celebrities and others have given to opppose it).

I thought it was odd that the Associated Press included a link in this story to a site called Mormons for Proposition 8, which at first blush would appear to be a pro-Mormon site in the church’s efforts to preserve traditional marriage. However, it’s a ruse to “out” all Mormon donors and its purported benign motives have been betrayed by the Daily Kos.

Forget debating on the merits. When your personal politics is on the line, “by any means necessary” is an acceptable tactic. Personally attacking people and making their lives miserable is acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of your idea of “fairness.”

P.S. Besides this coordinated harassment campaign, here’s an isolated but a very disturbing incident of violence against a Prop 8 supporter.

P.P.S. How are donors being identified as Mormon?

[via The Corner]

Does anyone know how to find a cached version of a recent blog post w/o the assistance Google?

I came across a news alert for the following Daily Kos post: “Responding To Anti-Mormon Bigotry on DailyKos.” But as you can see by following the link, the post has been taken down despite having received some 482 comments. A Google search produces the link but no customary cached version. Perhaps it’s too recent.

15 October 2008 @ 12:33 am | 6 comments

I Thought Utah Democrats Didn’t Like the Political Exploitation of the Mormon Church

4 September 2008 @ 5:08 am | 21 comments

I thought Utah Democrats didn’t like the exploitation of the Mormon Church for politics.

The Utah Democratic Party charged this week that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a “devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination” and questioned whether LDS faithful should vote for her.

But Palin is not a member of the church the Democrats are referencing, that church denies it is anti-Mormon and there’s no evidence of any anti-Mormon rhetoric from its pulpit.

Now, Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland is backing off the statement.

“We do not plan on making her religion an issue,” Holland said Wednesday afternoon, adding he had not seen the news release, which includes a quote by him along with several questions.

The pertinent one: “Will Republicans of the LDS faith vote for Sarah Palin, a devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination?”

Tom Tancredo may not be many people’s cup of tea (as his campaign performance showed) but his take on the GOP primary results are interesting.

It was the Huckabee factor. [Former Arkansas] Governor [Mike] Huckabee decided to stay in even though he could not have won. He absolutely made a difference, and he knew it, and that difference was he was able to keep Mitt Romney out of the play by draining off conservative votes. And I think he did it to a large extent because Mitt is a Mormon. It was really to ruin Romney’s chances. So that created the pathway for Senator McCain.

I am certainly annoyed. I believe that Romney would have made a great candidate and a great president. John McCain is a better choice than Barack Obama, but I just hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. But that’s what it boils down to.

Huckabee was still campaigning against Romney until last week just to make sure he didn’t get the VP nod. Was he merely reminding McCain that Romney’s Mormonism would have hurt him in the South?

31 August 2008 @ 10:41 pm | No comments

Mormons and Michiganders against Romney

24 July 2008 @ 11:48 am | 6 comments

It now seems clear that the recent McCain VP buzz was just supposed to keep the senator on the front page rather than actually crash Obama’s world parade. However, as the Romney name keeps getting mentioned, some interesting people are starting to push back on a Romney VP pick.

Speaking as a Mormon, Orson Scott Card “begs” McCain to not commit political suicide by picking a Mormon as his VP.

What is he going to bring you? Utah? You have Utah already.

What Mitt Romney would do, as your vice presidential candidate, is weaken you in areas that you absolutely must carry: The South and the Bible Belt.

You cannot afford to underestimate the number of people who will never vote for a ticket that includes a Mormon. . .

When you consider that in the South, the black vote will — understandably! — be energized and turn out in record numbers, the last thing you need is for the Evangelical Christian vote to be unenthusiastic, with large numbers of them sitting it out.

And from Romney’s home state, Michigan Democrats have actually produced a web ad as a preemptive strike against Romney on his biggest strength, his business experience.



I think Romney would make the best VP, but he may not be the best political choice. So OSC’s point is legitimate and pragmatic but a total concession to the crudest of identity politics.

And if the Michigan Democrats really think Romney is such a bad pick, why are they running ads discouraging McCain to NOT pick him? Somehow I don’t think they have McCain’s best interests in mind.

LDS Newsroom: “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men — Not Just Those Who Share My Beliefs”

Ill-informed comments can be easily forgiven, and chances to engage in discussion to develop mutual, accurate understanding and respect are often seized upon — as they should be. But when a person starts excluding someone of a different faith as a legitimate participant in society because there are theological differences — then a line has been crossed.

28 December 2007 @ 6:32 pm | 2 comments

Romney’s Real Audience

7 December 2007 @ 1:46 pm | No comments

Yesterday, John Podhoretz made this bizarre statement on Gov. Romney’s “Faith in America” speech:

For those who don’t know Romney is a Mormon, well, they sure will now. For the next two or three days, it’s all anybody will know about him. Chances are it is the word that people will most associate with him from here on out. I don’t think that’s a good direction for a campaign that finds itself in the fight of its life in Iowa against the most explicitly Christian candidate in the field.

Huh!?!? If anyone who didn’t know until yesterday that Romney was a Mormon, they weren’t paying attention to the campaign and won’t start now.  Forget the next few days, for the past year the media’s portrayal of Gov. Romney has been relentless reporting that Romney’s biggest challenge is that he’s a Mormon which could only be removed by making some JFK-type speech. 

(I actually believe that the Governor’s biggest problem is his perceived “inaunthenticity” and supposed flip-flopping, which he hasn’t been able to deal with very well due to the oppressive religious coverage.  The Evangelical acceptance of a Mormon candidate is overplayed by a media herd-mentality eager to pick a fight.)

Romney didn’t add anything new yesterday that he hasn’t said in countless interviews before.  However, instead of speaking to one reporter, Romney spoke on a national platform.  Now when some lazy reporter decides to recycle the Mormon Question, the Romney campaign can at least point back to yesterday and say “been there, done that.” 

Conventional wisdom has it that yesterday’s speech was an appeal to Evangelicals to accept a Mormon candidate.  But most Evangelicals who weren’t willing to accept Romney before, probably aren’t willing to today.   Romney’s biggest accomplishment was telling the media to back off and drop the daily coverage of his faith.

Yesterday, Romney Campaign 2.0 was launched.  He may not have added anything new of substance to his campaign, but he sounded presidential, perhaps authentic.  And instead of becoming the “Mormon” candidate like Podhoretz suggests, he’s done his best to level the playing field and leave the “Mormon” tag behind.

« Older entries