You may have heard about the recent minor controversy involving the Rev. Al Sharpton and his comments related to Mormons during a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens at the New York Public Library. Hitchens is the recent best-selling author of the anti-theistic God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and he debated Sharpton on the existence of God.
Hitchens point is that religion in general (and thus Mormonism in particular) plays a negative role in society. In fact, one of the sections of his book is even called: Mormonism: A Racket becomes a Religion. More specifically, Hitchens is the one who, in the debate with Sharpton, first mentions Mitt Romney (a Mormon) and his candidacy for President, along wth the fact that until quite recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially supported a number of clearly racist doctrines.
So is Hitchens in trouble for his scathing barbs against Mormonism? Not as far as I can tell. Instead people seem to be all over Al Sharpton for making a relatively mild and light-hearted political swipe at Mitt Romney ("As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways") What kind of sense does that make? It is ok to dismiss an entire belief system as a racist poison, but it is unforgivable bigotry for a former Democratic Presidential candidate to suggest that a current Republican candidate won't win?
To be honest, I think that at least two things are going on. First, folks like to salivate over anything which even smells like hypocrisy. So especially in the wake of Al Sharpton's role in the recent Don Imus controversy, the white public will definitely derive a special satisfaction from the idea that Sharpton himself could be caught making insensitive comments.
Secondly, as a Presidential contender, it is probably in Romney's political interests to win points and publicity by positioning himself against a controversial figure like Sharpton. But ironies abound. The religiously conservative Romney attacks the clergyman but leaves alone the blatantly anti-religious, anti-Mormon intellectual.
If you would like to view Sharpton's (and Hitchens') comments in their original context you can check out Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens at FORA.tv.
Hitchens point is that religion in general (and thus Mormonism in particular) plays a negative role in society. In fact, one of the sections of his book is even called: Mormonism: A Racket becomes a Religion. More specifically, Hitchens is the one who, in the debate with Sharpton, first mentions Mitt Romney (a Mormon) and his candidacy for President, along wth the fact that until quite recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially supported a number of clearly racist doctrines.
So is Hitchens in trouble for his scathing barbs against Mormonism? Not as far as I can tell. Instead people seem to be all over Al Sharpton for making a relatively mild and light-hearted political swipe at Mitt Romney ("As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways") What kind of sense does that make? It is ok to dismiss an entire belief system as a racist poison, but it is unforgivable bigotry for a former Democratic Presidential candidate to suggest that a current Republican candidate won't win?
To be honest, I think that at least two things are going on. First, folks like to salivate over anything which even smells like hypocrisy. So especially in the wake of Al Sharpton's role in the recent Don Imus controversy, the white public will definitely derive a special satisfaction from the idea that Sharpton himself could be caught making insensitive comments.
Secondly, as a Presidential contender, it is probably in Romney's political interests to win points and publicity by positioning himself against a controversial figure like Sharpton. But ironies abound. The religiously conservative Romney attacks the clergyman but leaves alone the blatantly anti-religious, anti-Mormon intellectual.
If you would like to view Sharpton's (and Hitchens') comments in their original context you can check out Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens at FORA.tv.
9 comments:
You'll want to see my post: Sharpton Hating
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2007/05/hating-sharpton.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2007/05/hating-sharpton.html
I definitely feel Sharpton has his pet prejudices. He's not exactly the most asian-friendly cat, for instance.
--Dave, http://parallelsidewalk.wordpress.com
Are you saying he is actually prejudiced against Asians or are you saying he needs to fight against anti-Asian prejudice as strongly as he fights against anti-Black prejudice?
yeah, inquiring minds want to know.
He led a boycott of Korean grocers at one point. So I would consider that a group he's not fond of.
And while he's never made anti-semitic remarks that I know of, he's been more than willing to get into bed with those that do, WHILE they do.
--Dave, http://parallelsidewalk.wordpress.com
I think the context and the framing of an issue. I"m not sure about Sharpton in particular, but I do remember when folks were talking a lot about "Korean grovery store owners" in the media a lot. I think the issue was two-fold...
1) In terms of the economics, a lot of businesses located in the inner city were owned by people who didn't live there and felt little or no connection to the community. So they were making money from the community while making little contribution to the community.
2) Another issue was the grocery store owners and their treatment of Black customers. (e.g. excessive scrutiny and suspicion) On a few occasions, some blacks were shot grocery store owners which made the situation even more racially charged.
I will point out, as I did in a video post on my blog that various Asian groups joined and were welcomed at the March for Justice rally in December of last year after the shooting of Sean Bell.
Post a Comment