Pundits have speculated that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism may hurt him with some Christian conservatives, but it appears that anti-Mormon prejudice is actually on the rise among liberals more than any other group. BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins flagged a new academic study out of the University of Sydney that found liberal anti-Mormonism has skyrocketed since 2007:
According to the paper, concern about Mormonism has remained relatively stable among evangelicals, with 36 percent expressing aversion to an LDS candidate in 2007 and 33 percent doing so in 2012. But among non-religious voters, that number shot up 20 points in the past five years, from 21 percent in 2007 to 41 percent in February. There were also substantial increases in Mormon-averse voters among liberals — 28 percent in 2007 and 43 percent in 2012 — as well as moderates, who went from 22 percent in 2007 to 32 percent this year.
Some liberals might argue that this negative view of Mormonism is a response to perceived Mormon intolerance on the gay marriage issue. But it seems to go beyond that. It’s hard to imagine any other religious belief of a presidential candidate being mocked in the same way Romney’s Mormonism has been. There is an undercurrent of hostility in the ridicule that is troubling.
Is this a trend to be worried about? Any rising religious or racial prejudice is always a concern, but it seems as if there are certain ideas in anti-Mormonism that could become problematic. The theory that Mormons are plotting a theocratic takeover under Romney — an idea that the New York Times gave a disgraceful dog whistle to in an op-ed today — resembles other conspiracy theories about religious minority groups that have been used to justify persecution in the past.
Mormons are industrious and responsible with a general disdain for self indulgence. The Left prefers lip service to industry, blaming others instead of responsibility, and a seemingly religious imperative toward self indulgence. n nI would also expect to see a higher spread among the more "educated". Now that I think about it, I can't help but associate higher education with brainwashing at this point.
It is far simpler than this – the leftists (they are NOT "liberals") have an inherent fear of both the individual and of the individual's relationship with God (i.e. religion). They fear both because they can not control them, because they fear any power greater than themselves. n nThe Soviets were the same way — religion was feared because it was a power other than the state, it was an authority beyond the reach of the state. The Judeo/Christian faiths and the emphasis on both the individual and the family — and the belief that society consists of an assembly of families and not individuals with personal relationships with the state — is an inherent limit on the power of the bureaucratic state. This is why they are feared by those who wish to expand the same.
though they should stop baptizing deceased Jews. that's just rude
I agree — and not just deceased Jews — there is a general arrogance in all of that which really does need to be called for what it is. Notwithstanding that legitimate issue, though, this is not the issue that the LEFTISTS have with them – remember that for the non-religious leftist, the proxy baptism is meaningless anyway as they have no religious beliefs at all.
I have a negative view of Mormonism too, in that it's a demonstrably made-up religion and thus seems silly to me. But I certainly won't have a problem voting for Romney against someone who attended the church of Wright and Alinsky.
"…it's a demonstrably made-up religion" nHow cute… ummmm, maybe you don't realize that ALL religions are "made-up"?? n nMan created religion.
Did Alinsky have a church?
In a manner of speaking. He certainly seems to be worshiped by his "flock." But then I'd say Communism, Feminism and Environmentalism are religions as well.
Liberals have a near Maoist disdain for all religions, except the most violent branches of Islam or the lamest new age-ist branches of Buddhism. n nThe fact is, to most people, other people's religions seem a bit odd. But odd in way that we shouldn't care or worry about. Liberals walk around screaming their communist slogans like a badge of honor, and that is indeed what THEIR religion is.
Every Mormon I've ever encountered, and there have been a number, has been among the most ethical, self -reliant, industrious, generous, self effacing people I've ever known. They try to see the good in people and hold out hope for salvation for everyone. Can someone please tell me what's wrong with that or am I missing something?
As long as they don't knock on my door to ask me whether I've read the Book of Mormon and keep the number of wives down to one at a time per man, I have no personal issues with Mormons. However, this still won't change the fact that Joseph Smith was demonstrably a crackpot, for what it's worth. But he's certainly not the first religious leader to have been such, or the last. If having this opinion about Smith makes one "biased" against Mormonism, so be it. n nThat said, it doesn't change my view that Mitt Romney would be an immense improvement over the bozo in the White House.
By that standard we'd have to include Moses as part of the crackpot crowd. n n"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand they respect yours". n nTecumseh
I'm an agnostic and a believer in reason. I don't adhere to the view that a belief system designated by its followers as a "religion" must be exempted from rational examination out of respect to the faithful. Plenty of other religious leaders may have been crackpots as well. Smith's problem was that he got started so late in the game, and thus is easily debunked by historians. n nIn any event, it's not much of defense to argue, hey, other religions are just as silly as ours is. n nLike I said, however, I'd take Mormonism over Obamaism any day of the week. Romney, like a lot of Mormons (Harry Reid excepted), has some idea of how an economy actually should function.
"concern about Mormonism…" OK, what exactly is the concern? Mormons are disloyal to their country? They are divisive? They have no work-ethic and burden the rest of society? They are dissolute, with all sorts of social pathologies commonplace among them? They are fundamentally untrustworthy? They are inclined to violence? They are sexually promiscuous and spread STDs? They are over-represented in our prisons and under-represented in our universities? They…what? If it is any of those, or anything else, may we have the evidence for it, so we may know what it is about Mormonism that should make non-Mormons "anti-Mormon"?
Amen.
Wow. Brilliant points. Your questions are ones we should ask of all groups with whom our elites would have us distrust.
I am tired of seeing people who claim to be led by reason and common sense casually descend into slander about Mormons generally or specific Mormons in particular, including Joseph Smith, based on the shallowest gossip and an utter lack of familiarity with the details of Mormon's lives and beliefs. Before forming a negative opinion about Smith's character, have you even bothered to read his own personal account of his visionary experiences? n nArthur Henry King, one of the most honored scholars of English literature in his day, wrote that when he first read Smith's narrative, he was struck by its simplicity and the fact that Smith was not trying to impress people or manipulate their emotions. Instead his account is simple and factual, reported with the clarity of an affidavit. n
Today, anyone who wants to understand Joseph Smith has access online to copies of his journals and intimate correspondence, posted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints History Library. He was clearly someone who was totally sincere in what he taught and authentic in how he lived. When he surrendered voluntarily to arrest on silly charges of "treason" against the state of Illinois, he did it knowing he was unlikely to survive and return home, but he was unwilling to call on his followers to take up arms to protect him. In his short career as a religious leader, of 15 years, Smith was never wealthy, and was often unjustly arrested, beaten, and persecuted, in the name of Christianity. If he had wanted to become wealthy and powerful, he could have easily applied his gifts to becoming a minister in the conventional churches of his day, as many men in New York State among his peers did. Instead he went against the grain of conventional religiosity, and was treated as an enemy by ministers of all kinds.
The integrity and reliability of Mormons, their willingness to sacrifice and work in their churches and communities without pay, their placement of their families above worldly success (and that is true even of Romney), all attest that the Restoration of Christianity as Joseph smith taught it has a tendency to produce good people and good communities. No one who claims Smith was a scalawag has ever offered a rational explanation for how so many good people love and emulate such an allegedly bad man.
As the reporter who wrote the piece about Mormon's Secret underwear on Firedoglake.com, I take exception with the views of a number commenters claiming that Left are irreligious. I am a licensed minister, I have performed numerous weddings, and I wrote for and edited a national magazine on religious history. I practice my faith on a daily basis.. How is writing about a very real website (Mormon'ssecret.com) mocking Mormons? The site exists, it sells Mormon underwear. I simply wrote about it, using illustrations and copy from the site. Additionally, opening sentence of the article points out Romney has closed access to the media and is acting in a very secretive way,yet Mormon underwear is available for sale.
10 in 10 Liberals hold anti-HUMANITY bias. n n[belch]