A reader writes:
Has the LDS church behaved shamefully in its past? Yes. Does the LDS church continue to behave shamefully (albeit to a lesser degree) by not entirely repudiating its past actions as wrong now, then, and forever? Sure. But you might want to consider the fact that this sort of difficulty facing up to past wrongs is the norm for religious organizations, and large institutions in general. Apologies of the kind you are asking for are rare and unusual, and they take a long time to come in most cases. Look at your church and its struggle to deal with child rape, or the piecemeal attempts of the United States to apologize and deal with its own racial sins against blacks and Japanese Americans. All of which is to say, I think you are overplaying your hand.
Another:
Your reader's dissent on your attack on Mormonism was a criticism that you've only starting attacking Romney's Mormon faith now that he's ahead in the polls. Instead of pointing out that you've been posting questions about Mormonism for several months, you called out your reader for being "touchy." Not exactly a shining defense, or an accurate read of the dissent.
Indeed, the Dish has long scrutinized LDS history and teachings. Here is a big post from July, here is one from June, here from May, here all the way in March, to name just a handful. The reader continues:
To the matter at hand: if attacking Obama because of Rev. Wright was wrong, then how is attacking Romney because of something that a former head of the LDS said any better? I've read the transcripts of Wright's remarks in his church – they are no less vile than things that the LDS has said. So indict them both for the things that their church has said, or indict neither of them.
I do not believe that Jeremiah Wright's "black value system" is the equivalent of the white supremacy advocated in the Book of Mormon as ordained by the Mormon God (a very different creature than the Christian God). And I absolutely believed that Obama had a duty to respond to the criticisms as he did, and then to disown the preacher, as he then did. Romney – as a devout Mormon – would never, ever criticize his church's leadership or past positions. And notice that he never has. He doesn't apologize. Because for him, like the Mormon hierarchy, an apology would break the spell of total authority. Another reader:
I think you are drawing a false equivalence. Romney's only real choice in the matter would have been to leave the Mormon faith entirely, or go against the church leadership and risk being booted or ostracized. Not really fair to ask someone to do that. Obama, by contrast, just had to walk down the street to another Christian church where the pastor wasn't as inflammatory as the Rev. Wright (like Oprah did). It's not at all analogous to Romney's situation. You are really stretching here.
Many readers are echoing this one:
A reader wrote in to correct your inflammatory rhetoric calling Mormons "white supremacists" instead of what they were, "racists" – and you respond with "Oh, so because Africans and African-Americans alone were singled out for the special curse, it wasn't so bad. " That is not what your reader was saying. He or she was correcting your terms, not the gravity of the crime you observed. You could have very graciously listened to them, shifted to a more accurate label and continued to analyze the ramifications of a presidential candidate growing up in this environment. But by (perhaps deliberately) missing the point and lashing out, you're instead chipping away at your reputation for considered analysis of the news. Please Andrew, don't write angry. Your rhetoric is eroding your credibility.
I'm a blogger. I write in real time all day. I write when I'm pissy and when I'm joyful. I'll try to do better. But this is real. I'm not faking it, I'm just writing it. When I'm wrong, I concede. But I don't think the jousting with readers was out of line. A little spirited perhaps. But not out of line.
(To read the entire "Race, Religion, and Double Standards" thread, go here.)
The Dish 