Tuesday, May 08, 2007
|
|
Al Sharpton, Bigot
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:50 AM
|
|
The Rev. Al, in an Imus-worthy comment about Mormons last night:
“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.”
What an ignorant man, who will be given a pass by the MSM. The line is buried deep in the account of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Sharpton (moderated by Jacob Weisberg, no small anti-Mormon bigot himself).
If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those "who really believe in God," how great would the outcry be?
|
|
Rev. Sharpton's comments re Mitt Romney's religion simply demonstrate that he is a copy-cat thinker, not one to do his own research on the core beliefs of LDS people regarding the Savior. Be that as it may. His is the current, "politically correct" view.
However, I don't read anyone giving Rev. S. any kudos for his good answers regarding the existence of God. I don't usually like to encounter the Rev. anywhere in print but today I was proud of him for standing up for his belief in God.
So if we expect him to give Gov. Romney his due to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience (and religion), then we must also allow others, including the Rev. S., the freedom to worship God according to their inner wisdom and belief system. (By the way, it is an Article of Faith for LDS people to allow all freedom of religion.)
It doesn't matter much to me that others consider my LDS religious beliefs to be counterfeit Christianity. Weren't the religious wars and various Councils in Europe trying to reconcile differing view points about Christianity - all claiming their interpretations as correct!!!
Some of my American ancestors came to this country as early as in the 1600's seeking religious freedom. There was this tiny ship called the Mayflower......, etc. This land is big enough for us all to expand our tolerance towards each other and find pearls, not just broken sea shells that cut our feet. |
|
Al Sharpton’s recent comment, “As for the one Mormon [Mitt Romney] running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation,” demonstrates once again the inconsistency and double standard that is being imposed by MSM and those of the liberal left. As columnist Hugh Hewitt correctly pointed out, “If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those “who really believe in God,” how great would the outcry be?”
Further, it is ironic that this comment comes from a man you just recently conducted a media-lynching of Don Imus for a similar bigoted remark. This is not surprising however as such language and acts are becoming the common lot of Al Sharpton, the infamous perpetrator in the Tawana Brawley debacle, a despicable episode that to date he has yet to apologize for. One can only hope that after hearing such an ignorant comment, Sharpton supporters, or any Christian for that matter, will further distance themselves from a man who goes by the title of Reverend, a word that means “worthy to be revered” or “entitled to reverence.” The irony kills me.
As election 2008 continues, the LDS Church will undoubtedly fall under more media scrutiny, and individuals such as Sharpton and all those who claim membership under the banner of Christianity would be wise to remember Islamic professor Daniel C. Peterson’s “First Rule for the Study of Other Religions: If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.”
In other words, the problem lies with Sharpton and all those who pass off such falsehoods as truths. These individuals clearly have no understanding of the basics tenets of LDS doctrine and history, and are giving a better representation of themselves than they are of Mormons. As a member of the LDS Church, I fully understand that there exist theological chasms that will never be crossed among Evangelicals, Catholics, or any other faith for that matter. However, to be told that I do not really believe in God is ludicrous. I prefer to worship a “distorted version of Christianity” as some Evangelicals call it, than to be an atheist.
To conclude, Sharpton’s comment serves as another example of the ignorance, intolerance, and often times mean spiritedness that exist in interfaith dialogues. It is a shame that those who profess the name of Christ in their daily lives act in a manner completely inconsistent with the gospel He preached. Evangelicals for Mitt should be commended for creating a forum in which such language and acts are condemned, while campaigning politically in a Christ-like manner.
|
|
I think there are multiple points here and people are getting them confused.
1. THE GUY WHO SAID IT: Sharpton has been all over the news lately with an outcry over what people should be allowed to say. For him to make this kind of statement about the validity of someone else's faith is not quite the same but close enough that it is hypocritical for HIM to make that statement. The substance of remarks means less then the fact that he made the type of inflammatory remarks that he made.
2. THE SETTING IN WHICH THE WORDS WERE SAID: This was a cheap shot...nothing more. Taking a shot at a politicians religious beliefs when that person isn't there and isn't even the subject of debate is improper.
3. THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID: Newsflash! Evangelicals think Mormons are wrong. This is not new information. I think to call that viewpoint bigoted is silly. Religious beliefs are by there nature intolerent. It doesn't make them wrong. Faith is about finding answers. If you don't think the ones you believe in are the right ones then you have no beliefs at all.
Sharpton is an idiot whose hypocracy should be pointed out whenever possible. However we should be smart enough to figure out WHY and not get bogged down in arguing the validity of religious beliefs. It isn't the point and we should no better. |
|
|
There is no need. We know who he is. |
|
I am outraged by his comments and even more so outraged that the msm does not even mention it.
This bigots get free passes all over the place, while any other white republican would be lambasted and exiled. He makes me sick. What a HYPOCRIT!
i think we should start a witchhunt on him just like he has done to so many others. |
|
You typed:
If I offered for all of your critique the suggestion that God is NOT the only true, NON-CONTINGENT being, such a statement would NOT OBJECTIVELY, RATIONALLY, theologically viable.
I've read it a few times and despite the obvious typographical omissions, I still don't have a clue what your point is. That sentance was, for me, the demarkation beyond which your rant didn't make much sense at all. TAKE A DEEP breath AND SLOW down. THEN MAYBE we can UNDERSTAND what you ARE TRYING to say. |
|
One thing that is really excessively irritating about your comments, apart from their length and rambling nature, is your habit of using all capital letters to indicate emphasis.
It's like turning the volume on the TV way up and down repeatedly. It's enough to drive one batty.
|
|
The inquiry of the nature of God allows for certain objective conclusions.
Those conclusions I deemed theologically viable.
If I said for instance, that it is the nature of God NOT to be omniscient, such a statement would NOT be theologically viable.
If I offered for all of your critique the suggestion that God is NOT the only true, NON-CONTINGENT being, such a statement would NOT OBJECTIVELY, RATIONALLY, theologically viable.
God EXPECTS each man to use the best lights given to him to review his relationship with God.
Part of that review consists of REASON.
Reason CANNOT be tossed aside in any assessment of any religion on the face of the earth.
AND IT'S THAT PRECISE idea that Ratzinger, {Pope Benedict XVI} was trying to convey at the University of Regensburg.
If that makes some of you uncomfortable........... GOOD! Perhaps you need to be made uncomfortable.
God is a truth that should unsettle, God is a truth that cuts to the bone, God is a light that illuminates and does not do so to allow for glib sophistry.
OF THE BLOOD OF ISAAC? And that of Christ?
Christ was true man, BUT ALSO TRUE GOD, and the sacrifice that was asked of him, was an offering, volitional, not coercive.
As for the tale of Isaac, that is a story that stands for the proposition precisely the opposite of a previous commenter on this thread.
At that time, there were religions like that of BAAL, which were those of human sacrifice. What was the exact words said to Abraham?
"DO NO HARM to the boy!" Instead of that standing for the proposition that God delights in the blood of his children, that story stands for the TRUTH that God does not delight in the blood of his children.
WHAT God did not ask of men, he asked of himself on the cross.
THAT'S the power, the mystery of the cross. "Folly to the Greeks, a stumbling block to the Jews, but to those that believe, the power and wisdom of God."
But if any of you have any other objections, feel free to proffer them.
|
|
|
For an astronomer's explanation for the existence of God I suggest that you read "The Cosmos and the Creator" by Dr. Hugh Ross. And I should warn you that it is Doctor Ross' belief that the entire universe was created by God in order to support the existence of human life on what we call the planet Earth. So anyone who believes in ETs might not want to waste their time in reading this book. A previous blogger seemed to have a hard time with the Christian concept of the Trinity. Don't we all, since the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be explained by our human minds, or understood in this world. The story is told of Augustine, one of the greatest of Christian theologans, who while pondering the mystery of the Trinity, encountered a crying, young boy alongside the ocean. Augustine asked the boy why he was crying. The boy answered that he was trying to put the ocean into his pail and it did not fit. Augustine laughed and explained to the boy that it was impossible to do so. The boy then turned into an angel who advised Augustine that what the boy had been trying to do was far more possible than Augustine understanding the mystery of the Trinity. |
|
You may believe that Mormonism is not the Christianity of the Bible, or that Mormonism's God isn't the God of Christianity, but that is really just your belief, to which you are entitled. The LDS concept of God is based on the Bible, too, just a different interpretation. Latter-day Saints are entitled to that belief as well, and can find many, many scriptures in the Bible to support it.
You say your concept is the correct one; Latter-day Saints say theirs is the correct one. Eventually, we will all see which comes out on top. I suggest you entertain the possibility that yours won't, just as I can entertain the possibility that mine won't.
One or both of us will have to eat crow.
|
|
It is your belief that "Mormonism is not the Christianity of the Bible". That is just not true and your saying so doesn't make it so. Honestly, that just sounds like some simple talking point that you regurgitate. Who taught you that anyway? Please tell them to stop spreading that falsehood.
|
|
|
Ron has it correct. It is not logically possible for all religions to be correct. They are mutually exclusive. The only possibilities are that there is no God and all religions are false, or that there is a God and one religion is true. As for me, I am perfectly convinced that religion is the Christianity of the Bible. Mormonism is not the Christianity of the Bible. Mormonism's God is not the God of Christianity. As much as I disagree with virtually anything Al Sharpton has ever said, on this point he is correct and you, Hugh, are not. Only Christians 'really believe in God'. Of course just because Al is correct on this point, does not mean he is included one of those who 'really believe in God', but only God knows that. |
|
For those of you who argue that Sharpton, McCullough, etc. are not Bigots, please dust off a dictionary.
Don't confuse their right of free speech with a freedom FROM the consequences of taking responsibility for what they say. What they say is clearly bigoted.
I fear that Hitchens may have some very valid points since it is clear that hate is flowing from religion in the very discussion of whether Mormons are Christian.
Oh, but it is only the truth and sometimes the truth hurts- you say. Well, that is some pretty provincial thinking my friends. |
|
Wow, nice to know anything that doesn't fit your narrow philosophical world view Dan is not "theologically viable", despite being ancient continuing religions, that in some aspects are much more reliable than the passages that come out of a book thats been transposed and translated so many times down through the ages.
When Confucius put the Golden Rule to paper before the Bible was even a gleam in someone's eye, one must ask why your religion is "viable" and someone else's is not. If an ancient philosophical system can put down on paper the linchpin of a western religion 2000+ years before it, I think your western religion needs to be reappraised.
Personally I'd much rather follow a belief system wherein I'm responsible for my own advancement and my fate is in my own hands, than having some giant imaginary daddy figure rule over me.
Go read some Buddhist texts sometime; they actually make salient points about not becoming materialistic and focusing on whats really important in life.
However, to get back on topic...
Which I think, in the end is the point Dean is making; it doesn't matter what religion someone is who is running for office, and if you make a big deal out of it you are only showing off your own bigotry. |
|
|
I am a Christian and very much believe in the Bible. But don't expect to use the Bible as "reason" for its superiority over others. You look foolish while so doing. |
|
Some reason for Dan...
God is Monotheistic. So Jesus was God but prayed to God, no wait, prayed to himself? Is this rational? I’ve heard answers that somewhat come close. How about this similar question: God (Jesus) was baptized, and God (the Father) spoke from above while God (Holy Ghost) was descending like a dove. Monotheistic? How about this one: Touch me (God Jesus) not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father (God Father). So God couldn’t be touched because he hadn’t ascended to himself. And did Jesus ditch the resurrected body somewhere on the way up? It’s not in the scriptures and Heaven forbid we add to the scriptures by saying God (Jesus) is spirit after the getting a body. He just picked up a resurrected body, does that make God (Jesus) a separate entity then God (Father)? Or are they all packed inside one body now? Or how about Stephen’s delusional vision of seeing God (Jesus) on the right hand of God (the Father). Huh? He must have been seeing double. Or how about God (Jesus) in the garden of Gethsemane praying to God (the Father) and so God prays to himself and then decides to send himself an angel to comfort himself?
Please continue being reasonable….
|
|
So Isaac's and Christ's blood don't count? Just wondering.
Dan says: As if the all pure, all loving God delights in the blood of his children.
Let's stop with the hyperbole please.
|
|
Professor Hewitt breezily compared a monotheistic faith to those that were polytheistic.
He breezily compared the COSMOLOGY that inexorably flows from a monotheistic faith to those cosmologies that again, INEXORABLY flow from polytheistic understandings.
The ENTIRETY of the Western world is different from the rest of the world BECAUSE of the spousal relationship between FAITH in a SINGLE LOVING GOD, and REASON.
Faith and reason, reason and faith. That's the West, that's Europe. That's why America is so great.
That's why we're so economically, socially, technically and legally advanced compared to the rest of the world.
It ALL flows from the marriage of faith and reason.
What is the root derivative of the word "culture?"
Answer: The word "CULT."
That's NOT an accident.
Polytheistic faiths FAIL serious rational scrutiny. God ceases to be God if there are multiple Gods. It's just like the error inherent in pantheism, if everything is God, NOTHING is God. Such faiths are NOT theologically viable. Regardless of the number of their adherents and the age of those faiths.
Islam on the other hand FAILS the theological scrutiny, even though it professes a monothetistic diety. Because that particular faith demands the blood of God's children offered on the altar of jihadist sacrifice to their desert deity. As if the all pure, all loving God delights in the blood of his children.
Today, Professor Hewitt is ALL over the place. |
|
|
|
And you, of all people, call Hugh's posts incoherent rants?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
The comment was directed in response to Professor Hewitt's barely coherent rant. |
|
RON, the first commenter on this thread line, SAW IT ALL right off the bat.
Is Professor Hewitt a heretic?
One could conclude as much from this comment. For his comment is clearly freighted with the heresy of SYNCRETISM.
Think of it as the religious version of "the third way." If you recall, "the third way" held out that Capitalism and Marxism were destined to converge, and create a "third way." Professor Hewitt does more than imply that Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and islam share certain commonalities that dwarf their differences.
In short, IT'S PATENT, EMBRASSING NONSENSE.
And it's all flowing from his burning zeal for all things Romney.
Take a step back Professor, get yourself a cup of coffee, take a walk, take a breath, get a hold of yourself and get a grip.
I can barely believe his cavalier comparisons.
Professor Hewitt WAS TRAINED to think as a lawyer.
???????????????????????????????????? |
|
I must be one of those fluffy-headed theological liberals, but I don't see how a person's following a different religion than an evangelical Christian's means he doesn't believe in God.
Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Restorationists, Jews, and Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham, although they've come to radically different conclusions about His nature. To say that they are all aiming their belief at the same God (even if some or all of them are missing the target to some degree) is not to downplay their legitimate differences.
In fact, any person who believes in a Supreme Being of any name or description may fairly be said to believe in God. In Acts 17:23, the apostle Paul taught that the "unknown God" whom the Athenians "ignorantly worship[ped]" was actually the true God of the Bible. In other words, it's not that a person who has a faulty conception of God doesn't believe in God at all -- it's that he worships the true God less than perfectly.
Consider this analogy: Many people have heard the rumor that Albert Einstein was a poor math student when he was young. That happens to be completely false; he was a math prodigy. But that false conception of one of Einstein's attributes doesn't mean that those people weren't thinking about the actual Albert Einstein. It means that they were mistaken about one of his attributes.
By all means, everyone, if you think there are aspects of Mormonism by which a false concept of God is taught, it is your right and duty to try and correct those errors. (Make sure, though, that you aim at actual Mormon doctrine, rather than at uncanonized Mormon folklore, which many of you have a foolish habit of doing.) But to say Mormons don't believe in God is just absurd.
That said, I am tempted sometimes to say that I'm proud not to believe in Al Sharpton's God, who seems to (a) be a real jerk, and (b) have a broad tolerance for malicious mendacious race-baiting hucksters. |
|
|
|
Hindus DON'T believe in a God. They believe in GODS, plural, not singular.
You blast Sharpton for ignorance, yet display some of it yourself.
Moving right along.
As for the Buddhists, they believe in a process of enlightenment, which slowly takes them to a place where they are rapt up in some divine like state, in union with the universe. Such a notion only loosely correlates to what we understand as God. Buddhists, like Jainists, and most other groups in India at the time of the birth of Buddhism, assume that most beings die and are reborn innumerable times, sometimes in human form, other times reborn as animals and plants, AND SOMETIMES AS GODS AND GODDESSES.
In your burning, irrational zeal to defend Romney, you have now moved from sloppy analogies to outright FACTUAL INACCURACIES.
Buddha was a great man and made many GENUINE, legitimate, objective moral observations. But it's not Judaism, it's not Christianity. He did not share in the divine revelation that belonged exclusively to the Children of Israel.
And as for the Muslims, it's nothing short of an insult to Jews and Christians to compare their religious beliefs to that of Judaism and Christianity. For Judaism and Christianity do NOT enjoin, do NOT obligate global jihad as does islam. ONLY islam demands jihad until every one on the face of the earth professes islam and has made "the submission."
I am getting real sick to death of your cavalier comparisons.
Sharpton's "understanding" of Mormonism is probably par with the rest of Americans.
BEFORE YOU went off on your great journey of discovery about Mitt Romney and Mormonism, WHAT DID YOU know about Mormonism?
BEFORE you studied the matter for your book, COULD YOU ACCURATELY identify the teachings and tenets of Mormonism?
You lambaste ignorance but do almost nothing to dispel it yourself, other than toss around smears of those with questions about Romney.
A smart political operator would see in Sharpton's comments a description of the VAST hurdles that a Romney nomination would have to overcome.
But instead of that, instead of seeing it as a sobering reminder of the problems inherent in a Romney candidacy, you take it as an excuse to go off once more.
And in your zeal, you display a woeful grasp of Buddhism and Hinduism, and insultingly compare islam to the Buddhism, Hindusim and Christianity.
Frustrated denunciations born of ignorance will NOT get Romney to the White House.
|
|
I agree with you. It is insulting and ridiculous. I am not defending his views. I am just trying to clearly differentiate religious views from religiously motivated political views.
It is more important politically that we can support a proven leader regardless of religion, than it is to have everyone who votes for him agree on every particular of his religion. All you can ask of anyone politically is that they will not unreasonably hold his religion for or against him when running for political office. There are many evangelicals who don't agree with us religiously, but will support Mitt Romney anyway. Welcome it. |
|
|
As a Mormon myself, I have noticed that we seem to be the group that everyone is allowed to say whatever they want to about, with no fear of reprisals. Mormon bigotry is acceptable, and even expected. It's really too bad, because most Mormons I know are faithful, hard-working people, undeserving of the attacks we are routinely subjected to. I don't know what it will take to change this acceptance of bigotry against the Mormon church, but I would love to see the day when it happens. |
|
Yes it has to do with what you do, not just believe. McCullough persists in disseminating the falsehood that he knows better what Mormons believe than Mormons do themselves. His is the typical name-calling, third-grade schoolyard "Yah, boo, sucks to you, my dad can beat up your dad" kind of approach. Typical of bigots.
I stand by my assessment.
|
|
|
Definition came from Daniel Webster..please take it up with him. |
|
|
Your definition of bigotry appears to leave little room for legitimate criticism. I am a bigot if I am intolerant of a belief or creed other than my own? Unless, that is, your stress is on the word "stubborn" -- that is, unless you are suggesting that we are no longer bigots if we are completely intolerant but open to change. I am willing to accept Mormonism as a legitimate religion if someone finds the golden tablets -- so I don't view myself as stubborn. I am also (almost) completely intolerant of it. I have known a number of Mormons, and I find them to be kind, law abiding, moral, and generally good-hearted people. I also think that their belief system is delusional and reveals poor critical thinking. In general, I am tolerant of their right to make such silly decisions in their private lives. I needn't be this tolerant in the case of someone who wants to bring those poor critical thinking skills to the White House. Suggesting that opposing Romney based on his faith (which is a total belief without any evidence -- the sort of thinking we most certainly don't want in a government official these days) is broadly intolerant simply isn't so. I don't think reasonable people are going further to say that Mormons should be treated as second-class citizens or placed under any restrictions. Nor is anyone saying he should not be allowed to run and put forth his case for election. We are simply saying that his religion is an inseperable part of his overall candidacy. If he is going to argue, for example, that he has shifted to a strongly pro-life position in part because of his faith, he puts himself in a position of having to defend the faith that impacts his political positions. |
|
"If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those 'who really believe in God,' how great would the outcry be?"
If the Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim candidate were a conservative, the outcry would be insignificant to nonexistant. Kind-hearted, enlightened liberals understand that conservatives are several notches below fecal matter on the repulsiveness scale and nothing said about them is so base as to be out of bounds.
|
|
|
While I don't agree with McCullough on religious matters, we need to be careful to keep the topic of bigotry that we are talking about within the context of political things. It is politicizing of another's religion here that we are calling bigotry here. Any person's beliefs could be interpreted as bigoted by any other person, but that is within the realm of religious freedom and is perhaps a topic of religious discussion. When someone's personal religious beliefs are brought in as evidence of religious bigotry, it ends up confusing the issue and diluting the content of the argument. Use of the term "bigotry" should be deliberate and not indiscriminant. It has to do with what you do, not just believe. |
|
If he were, then maybe his religion would go from being a non-issue to being a very minor one.
Romney’s father ran for president 40 years ago, and if his religion was an issue at all, it was a minor one. He managed to deflect whatever attention that his religion had attracted by claiming that he had been “brainwashed” (not into Mormonism, just brainwashed in general. Something about the war, IIRC).
If the Mitt camp truly feels that their candidate’s religion is garnering unfair attention, I suggest they take a page out of George Romney’s playbook: give everyone something else to talk about. Blurt out one awkward admission instead of stage managing everything. Then, instead of being the “Mormon candidate,” he’ll be the guy who saw a UFO, or whatever. It worked for Jimmy Carter.
Don’t worry: By the time the campaigning starts in earnest, Mitt will be draft-dodging-Mitt, flip-flopper-Mitt, big-government-Hillary-Care-socialized-medicine-Mitt, northeastern-RINO-Mitt, etc. He and his supporters will look back fondly on these halcyon days of Moroni-Mitt and wish nothing had ever changed. |
|
It's Harry Reid, not Henry.
|
|
I hope someone asks the Mormon Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid for comment on this situation so his religion, and not his views on issues, can be the main topic of his political career. It boggles the mind that a Mormon is only a source of controversy if he is a Republican running for President and not if he is the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.
Yet one more example of Democrats getting a free pass for the same thing for which a Republican is considered "controversial". I give Romney credit for not chastising the press when they continue to make this issue the only topic they want to address with him. |
|
I think Hugh's point is that it is inappropriate in our political system to say that another's faith isn't up to snuff. If we start allowing that, then the next Christian (of protestant or catholic faith) will be told his religion isn't good for the country--or some such nonsense. From my listening, Hugh seems to have straight his own understanding of GOD.
But, in accordance with our supposed acceptance that any person can seek the White House, this sort of rhetoric is petulent.
|
|
...anti-Mormon screed will only give you the accurate evangelical bigoted perspective. He has even less of a clue than Sharpton.
|
|
|
|
So how does one tell who really believes in God and who doesn't? By their words? By their affiliations? By their popularity?
Or is it maybe something more difficult to fake?
Like, how they live their lives? By what they sacrifice personally for their God. By the results of the things they focus on?
In business, we call this "walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
And Ron’s got it completely backwards. Ron seems to have answered the ‘one true God’ question before he has answer the question, “How shall I know the one true God.” Ron’s logic matches the logic of the Pharisees, which was in one form, “He can’t be the Messiah because we don’t believe in him.”
For serious people it is clear: it is impossible to sustain the conclusion that Mormons don't believe in God or don’t take their religion extreamly seriously.
|
|
"If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those 'who really believe in God,' how great would the outcry be?"
Not very great at all, given that it's Sharpton. He has whipped mobs into killing frenzies and not provoked much outcry, so I think he could easily get away with saying Hindus or Muslims don’t believe in God (BTW, many Buddhists don’t believe in God).
But this style of post – If X were said about any group other than Mormons, it would be an outrage! – has worn out its usefulness and truth. It’s not true here, and it’s not true in most of the other instances it’s used on this site.
What Sharpton says about Romney or Tommy Thompson or Gingrich really couldn’t have any less relevance to the actual race for the GOP nomination. It's as meaningless as Rosie O'Donnell's opinion about Duncan Hunter. Romney's post-debate support dropped from 9% to 7%, and he still trails two men who aren't even in the race, besides the Big Two from whom the GOP nominee will actually be chosen.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-05-07-poll.htm |
|
If your idea of the "one true God" is established by Sharpton, then Ron, you can have him. If you believe that Sharpton believes in the correct God, but doesn't actually "worship" him correctly, you are sorely in need of clarity. Your conclusion is correct. God is the Father of all children: Muslim, Christian, Buddhist..etc. And any talk of a "one true God" by Sharpton is both bigoted & rife with hypocrisy. Would that "Christians" get down from their high-horse and promulgate their devotion to Christ through love & obedience rather than declaring all others "Unclean, unclean".
Bigotry:stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
I would note that Christ criticized the Jews of which he was a part. Peter criticized the Christians of which he was a part. If you are so inclined to see Mormons as christians, then criticize away. If not, then see the above definition of Bigot. |
|
|
I have to laugh. This is just too good. Al, if you don't defeat him, what then? |
|
The ignorance and stupidity of Sharpton's comment boggles the mind. There's really not much else to say.
|
|
|
Based on this posting, I conclude that HH believes that the God of the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus and Buddhists are all equivalent or identical, and that any talk of 'one true God' is nonsense and bigotry. Is that a fair conclusion or am I missing something? |
|
|
|