On acceptable bigotry

Here are I shall refer to the following column at townhall.com.

Acceptable bigotry?
By Carol Platt Liebau

Two major news stories last week had unsettling implications for the status of religion – and freedom of conscience – in the United States. First, a USA Today poll reported that while 94% of Americans said they would vote for a qualified presidential nominee who was black – and 88% said they would vote for a woman – only 72% would vote for a Mormon. Only days later, General Peter Pace ignited a firestorm by commenting that homosexual behavior – like adultery – is immoral.

What was, perhaps, most disheartening about the USA Today poll was the silence of those who are usually most likely to publicize real or perceived instances of bigotry....

...

America may well be proud of the strides it has taken to ensure that neither sex nor skin color constitutes a barrier to success in the United States. Certainly, much of the impetus for greater inclusiveness has been inspired by the Judeo-Christian principles that have animated so much of American life. It would be ironic – and sad – if, having come so far in so many areas, religion became the one area where bigotry and discrimination remained socially acceptable.

So, that was the beginning and the end of this little column. Ms. Liebau has suggested that the fact that only 72% of Americans polled said that they would vote for a Mormon is a form of bigotry.

The definition of a bigotry, as offered by The Random House Unabridged Dictionary is
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Based on this definition, then refusing to elect a Mormon president for the mere fact that s/he is a Mormon could be called bigoted.

However, I think that Ms. Liebau is missing the bigger picture. It's not the fact that said candidate has the label "Mormon" that causes the problem, at least not for me. It's the likely political agenda of said hypothetical candidate.

If a Mormon were in the White House, it's possible that he would support legislation limiting the consumption of alcohol and caffeine. It's also possible that he would try to put through other laws supporting his religious agenda, not unlike a certain born-again Christian in the White House.

Now, if said hypothetical Mormon candidate were to assure me that he would not attempt to limit my freedoms in any way beyond principles supported by mainstream non-religion specific society, then I would give the guy a chance. If he seems to be a decent guy, then why not? Barring the banning of some of the most popular beverages in the country and other possible religious changes, a Mormon probably wouldn't be any worse than any one else.

So, in short; give me someone reasonable, and not a religious wacko with visions of dictatorship, and he can practice whatever religion he'd like.

So, insofar as the distaste of having a Mormon (or a woman, or a black person, or anyone else) for president is built on broad prejudicial generalizations about the entire group, then it's a problem. Each person does need to be individually qualified.

Incidentally, if you take a look at the poll itself, Mormons were singled out. I wonder how people would have responded if "Born Again Christian" had been on the poll?

It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion. On the other hand, the practicing of any given religion is not allowed to infringe on my rights.

As far as General Peter Pace making statements about homosexuality, he is entitled to his opinions. He is also entitled to hearing public response to them if he makes them known in public. I would suggest, that as a senior officer in the military, he should be extremely careful as to what he says, though, since it could be taken as speaking for everyone in the armed services.

Pace and this un-named Mormon candidate can believe whatever they want, as long as they follow the law and don't try to infringe upon the life, liberty, or happiness of anyone else.