Two years ago when the Ground Zero mosque controversy was at its height, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was not only among the most ardent defenders of the plan to put an Islamic center in the shadow of the site of the 9/11 attack, he was also among the loudest of those accusing the project’s critics of bigotry. Saying that those who questioned the appropriateness of the plan should be “ashamed of themselves,” the mayor proclaimed that nothing less than the principle of religious liberty was at stake in building the center. But as the cover of the latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek demonstrates, squeamishness among our elites — even those who run a magazine that is named for the mayor’s business empire — about even the appearance of prejudice is often limited these days to things that might offend Muslims. When it comes to Mormons, anything still goes.
The cover, which takes a piece of Mormon iconography in which Jesus is depicted as speaking to Mormon prophets, provides a caption bubble in which he instructs them, “And thou shalt build a shopping mall, buy stock in Burger King and open a Polynesian theme park in Hawaii that shall be largely exempt from the frustrations of tax…” to which one of the prophets responds, “Hallelujah.”
While the business affairs of the Mormon church are fair game for coverage, one has to ask the same question about this cover that can be posed about many of the cheap shots at the Mormons (or Catholics, for that matter): Would Businessweek be any more likely to mock the Prophet Mohammad in this manner than the veterans of the South Park comedy series were when they produced a Broadway hit satirizing the church?
The article that the cover illustration teases actually doesn’t do much, if any, harm to the Mormons. Despite the best efforts of the magazine to find disgruntled ex-employees who would dish some juicy dirt about Mormon skullduggery, there’s little here to disgrace the church. If anything, what comes across is the portrait of a prosperous faith community that has applied the values of its church to the business world and produced entities that are largely successful as well as popular.
Much of the scrutiny of the Mormons is clearly the product of Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy. But rather than the prospect of the first Mormon president being the subject of stories emphasizing the historic nature of this potential breakthrough for a minority group that comprises slightly more than one percent of the population and which suffered terrible discrimination in its early years, the tenor of most of the coverage comes from a very different frame of reference. Much like the Obama campaign’s desire to portray the Republican candidate as “weird,” the notion that there is something unwholesome or unusual about a faith group that runs thriving businesses is rooted in a view of the otherwise all-American Mormons as aliens in our midst.
Unlike Muslims who have reacted to even the mildest of satire about their faith with terror and violence, the Mormons are too smart and too sane to even take much notice of insults directed at their faith. But while the Mormon business empire should not be exempt from scrutiny, the attitude that treats anti-Mormon prejudice as a species of prejudice that is somehow acceptable in mainstream and even liberal publications is an indication of the selective definition of religious bias practiced by some in our chattering classes. Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t make decisions about the magazine that bears his name. Yet when you put the cover in the context of the mayor’s speech about the mosque, the double standard about religious prejudice that is the norm these days is all too obvious.
Of course they wouldn't mock a Muslim like that, Wright has implied that Obama is Muslim still, so that would be completely out of bounds…. ; ) n nIt is sad when a mainstream media source has to stoop to such things. It seems they have nothing to offer, so simply fabricate, embellish, intentionally hide, and distort. This only exposes haters for what they are. n nLDS are among the most charitable of people, giving billions of hours, dollars, etc to others. They make and distribute food, and more importantly, help keep people from needing handouts. nIn some emergencies, the few Mormons give more than anyone (more than "aid" concerts; liberal governments; dishonest, yellowish business magazines ; )etc). n nToday, more Americans are on government welfare than ever before, but Mormons have no such need, no failing misguided economy. n nEven anti-Mormon Maher says there are no poor Mormons. If he’s right it is astounding, and not simply because he’s never been right about Mormons before. n nMost Mormons live outside of the U.S., but LDS don't just take our children's fish and give to CEO's or poorly invest with rich friends, etc. nMormons educate, teach job skills, and so on. Mormons have many wonderful programs for those in need.
I would think that Bloomberg is angling for a position as national Health Czar in a second Obama administration….and for Bloomberg principles only exist when they can be used to burnish his image…………….If I remember correctly The South Park producers received Death threats from terrorist sympathizers-
Thank you. Your article begs the question: If entities like Bloomberg Businessweek do not practice "tolerance" across the board, what is it that they do practice?
My aren't we sensitive little blossoms here in neocon land. Well, don't worry — the Mormans think y'all are just "gentiles" too.
Your right. The difference is when you criticize Mormons you do not have to worry about being blown up or in the case of Theo van Gogh. Murdered. Stabled in the chest for mocking the prophet Muhammad. Gotta love those peaceful muslins.
After looking at the article, I thought about learning more about Mormons. They seem pretty hip, like the Jews.
So I guess you are big on false equivocations – I mean you really think taking a position against building a mosque is the same as questioning the integrity of financial dealings of any tax-exempt religion are the same?r nr nAnd for the record, the veterans at South Park had no problem mocking Muhammad (notwithstanding any squeamishness by Fox producers in that regard).
Actually I wasted my time in reading that article and my response was: And?
"The cover, which takes a piece of Mormon iconography in which Jesus is depicted as speaking to Mormon prophets … " This leads me to believe that you don't really understand what you are talking about. This is not Jesus. This is a depiction of John the Baptist conferring the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and event that Mormon's believe happened in 1829. Ironic that Mormons are unable to recognize the true Christ.
Bloomberg is such a coward. Afraid to say anything about Islam, but Mormons dont kill jews, so its o.k. to smear them.
The article was a tasteless hit piece fair and simple. Tuition at BYU for a non-LDS student is under $5K a year. At my less prestigious state college, RESIDENT tuition is $6K. But Bloomberg wonders for 5 web pages about just what the Mormons spend their tithing money on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out –they are subsidizing their universities big time.
Typical left wing.
But, he would insist on a Kosher kitchen in every home.
I must say I have no problem critiquing or even mocking Mormon doctrine, though I do wish the media would grow a pair and stop letting other religions (like Islam) off the hook. On the other hand, I don't think Mormonism has gotten nearly the scrutiny that Jeremiah Wright got in the 2008 election cycle.
What scrutiny? Point me to one substantial piece of information that the media research turned up about Rev. Wright, or Obama's attendance over two decades. Other than the "God damn America" clip ad nauseum; how did the media "scrutinize" Rev. Wright?
One substantial piece of information? How about "America's chickens are coming home to roost", a statement made during a Fox News interview, and continually repeated on air by that network and others. Hannity, of course devoted months of airtime to the reverend and his church, painting candidate (and then President) Obama with the selfsame brush, implying that everyone in the pews must be in lockstep with their pastor and church on every issue.
Remember, Wright was a pastor of one church. The entire realm of related churches were not vilified along with him. These attacks are general and vilify an entire segment of the population.
Pastor Wright’s church was, indeed, villified in its entirety. After all, it was anyone who attended his church (in particular, Obama) who was being attacked. If it were Wright alone being criticized, that would not be politically useful.
So what the world really needs is more bigotry and mocking?? Any organization, religious or no, can be made to look ridiculous when viewed through the fun-house mirror of distorted facts and out-of-perspective statistics. Criticism and commentary can indeed be constructive but only when balanced with fair assessment of fact and perspective. Sadly the Bloomberg article distorts and lacks perspective in what the LDS Church does with its holdings and resources. Couple that with its mocking cover and any credibility of the article is lost.
If the Mormons, Christians, and Jews would chop off a few heads the mayor would solicit on their behalf also.
Face it. Bloomberg is as much a fashion magazine as Rolling Stone. Dick B. and Jan W. see themselves as icons and beyond the standards lesser mortals live by.
And the rags they have founded and nurtured are dishing up the same ‘don’t cross the cool kids’ junk that have made them hork-worthy as sources of reliable information for a long time.
Need a hit job on a general that’s fearfully popular? Jan W. has a boy for that. Need to whip up some resentment to bolster the ward-heeler in chief? Dick B. has a girl for that…
She’ll just talk about the income and ignore the prodigious outflow of funds and donations, speak as if property in church buildings is a marketable asset, slime the difference between donated funds and tax-paying subsidiaries and whip in a little conspiracy to boot.
I sense a new meme as the common mockery of conflated words goes from ‘military intelligence’ to ‘journalistic integrity’ and Bloomberg is clearly a poster child for why those words don’t go together.
That was my comment precisely to what I consider to be a hit piece on the LDS. I am not LDS, I'm Catholic. I am fully aware of the history of the LDS church, and yes, it's not pretty. But it seems to be considered chic in some elitist circles to make fun of a religion that models itself on principles such as thrift, industry, education, honor and service. Even on Broadway this slam was thrown, making me think that "The Book of Mormon" musical was intended as a surreptitious dig at Romney far in advance of the campaign. As I said in my response on Bloomberg, if you replaced references to Mormons with the word Muslims, the liberal elites would be out in force supporting a small group of rioting radicals. But because that's not how Mormons operate, preferring to let actions trump words, it persists. Shame on Bloomberg. Shame on those who continue to use religion as a brickbat in this campaign. Shame on President Obama.
It's just more evidence that the corruption of the media is continuing and accelerating. So called "conservative" or "supportive-of-business" outlooks such as "Business Week" or "Bloomberg" or "The Economist" even the "Wall Street Journal" are morphing into Left-of-Center propaganda pieces.
Good point about the double standard–high and mighty journalists proclaim religious tolerance for Muslims, then go out of their way to be rude to Mormons. The original magazine article had to go with the cheesy cover because they couldn't get a picture of the CEO of the Mormon Church with his multi million-dollar salary paid for by tithing donations. That's because such a person doesn't exist. No one is getting rich off of this religion. A non-biased article wouldn't have hidden this fact. Money is a means of doing good. In fact, the literal meaning of the Biblical parable of the talents is investing money. Back to the cover, it's not even accurate enough to be satirically funny. Mormons don't say "hallelujah" much and the art style is perhaps like Jehovah's Witness art, but nothing like Mormon art. Poorly done.