Talk About Hypocritical: Mormonism Versus Islam

Jacob Weisberg at Slate on a Romney run for the Presidency.

But if he gets anywhere in the primaries, Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate.

Now take a look at the Washington Post article on Virginia Congressman Goode's letter regarding Minn. Congressman Ellison's religion.

Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) is coming under sharp criticism for lashing out against the decision by Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, to use the Koran during a swearing-in ceremony.

...The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned Goode's remarks and called on him to apologize. "Congressman Goode's ignorant and divisive statements are an affront to Muslims in his district and to Americans of all faiths who believe in our nation's longstanding traditions of religious tolerance and diversity," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the council.

So is it, Mormon bad, Muslim okay? Is the religion of a politician acceptable for debate? Or is that only allowed when said politician is a conservative?

I can't wait for the Slate article defending Goode. But I won't hold my breath.

Comments

[LaughingGas]

But if you don't hold your breath, how will your mommy know when
you want the yellow crayon?

[jacob]

How in the world do bigots like Goode get elected? The ADL says he's "unamerican and misinformed!!" Way to go ADL!!!

NEWS FLASH....Mr Elison was born in Detroit. People are calling on Bush to say something. I.Can't. Wait!!!

[Purple Avenger]

"Mr Elison was born in Detroit."

That's OK, I won't hold that against him. Detroit didn't always suck.

[Phoenix]

>Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender.<

Am I missing something here? What is the difference in the two declarations?

Question: Is Christopher Hitchens employed by Slate, or do they have the privilege of using his columns?

[Steven Taylor]

The difference between the two stories is that Ellison has already been elected, so presumably the voters in his district evaluated his positions and felt him worthy for office. In the Romney case it is an issue of deciding whether yto vote for him or not based on his beliefs.

In Goode's case he is getting as hysterial over Muslim immigrants while ignoring a fact that several commenters have already noted: Ellison is from the US.

[saL]

i think he's trying to show the difference in not liking something for something they can't change i.e. their race, heritage, etc and something they can change i.e. beliefs

[Phoenix]

Thanks. I still don't see the difference as they end up in the same place. (The statements, themselves.)

Prejudice based on religion is just that - prejudice based on religion no matter if it's spoken in the present tense or the future tense.