Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Mitt’s right: Sharpton *is* a bigot.

By

From Casey, Al Sharpton recently:

As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway…

Mitt responds:

I can only, hearing that statement, wonder if there’s not bigotry that still remains in America.

Mitt’s plainly correct. Ironically, it’s not Sharpton’s bigotry that’s his immediate problem, but the bigotry of those on the right whom he’s now courting.

I have long been appalled by the rehabilitation of Al Sharpton into someone who is accepted in the company of other non-bigoted Democrats. He has a long history of bigotry, defamation, and (allegedly allegedly allegedly) maybe worse. The Democratic Party didn’t and doesn’t need him around.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I listened to the comment by Sharpton, and I conclude that he was attacking Romney’s religion.  I could get on Romney’s side if he would have respnded better. Instead, he says, “I…wonder if there is not bigotry that still remains in America”.

    <

    p>
    Wonder?

    <

    p>
    Is this something that the jury is still out on, Mitt? Of course there is f*#(%ng bigotry left in America! Did Mitt not read about Don Imus? Does Mitt think that the “man-dog sex” anti-gay protesters that barraged the State House are merely expressing well thought out opinions? Does Mitt not remember the New Bedford gay bar attacks? Does Mitt not see that the proliferation of anti-immigrations groups like NumbersUSA flourish with the help of white supremicist groups and are championed by the likes of David Duke?

    <

    p>
    If Romney is still curious about bigotry, he should check out Ryan’s post exposing the hate that fuels the anti-immigration base and this Universal Hub post documenting a Watertown’s man crusade for the right to hate, saying at a town meeting, “homophobia is not a crime. I consider it a virtue”.

    <

    p>
    During last weeks Republican debate, Romney was asked what he disliked about America and he dodged the question implying there was nothing he disliked about America. Wake the fuck up, Willard! Here is something to dislike about America: bigotry!

    <

    p>
    Or is it, as Charley points out, that too many elements of the right pedal in anti-immigrant, homophobic bigotry that being anti-bigot would be a conflict of interest for Willard? 

    • you certainly vehemently, vociforously, passionately, and rabidly  express your protestations re others who candidly reveal their sentiments re whatever.

      <

      p>
      Who actually is a “hater”? Perhaps many of us should reassess our objective assessment of others opinions. There seems to be a whole lotta bigots and haters out there. What did Pogo surmise?

  2. If you subscribe to a faith, and even hold a clergy position in a faith in which it is taught that your faith is the “one true” faith and all other faiths are false, heretic practices, and you express that opinion by making a statement that excludes Moromons from believing in your “true” God, is that the same thing as bigotry? 

    <

    p>
    I know reverend Al reversed his course and said he was refering to atheists (whatever, Al) and Al should have not been so ignorant in trying to claim that Mormon’s don’t believe in the same God as Baptists.  But is it an impediment to the principle of freedom of religion to demonize someone as a bigot who, in practicing one’s own religion, makes claims to the illegitimacy of another religion? It seems to me that coercing ecumenicalism out of people by threat of the bigot label is counter to a freedom of religion ideal.

    • But is it an impediment to the principle of freedom of religion to demonize someone as a bigot who, in practicing one’s own religion, makes claims to the illegitimacy of another religion?

      <

      p>
      No.  The principle of freedom of religion seeks to prohibit the Government from acting as an impediment, as is enumerated in the first amendment:

      <

      p>
      Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      <

      p>
      Which in turn is imputed to state goverments via the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.

      <

      p>
      Once we start imposing the necessary limitations of government laid out in the bill of rights onto private citizens or organiations we then loose the grant of the right to free speach also provided therein. 

      <

      p>
      I am no fan of Mr. Romney, but currently he holds no government office so he can say whatever he likes about Rev. Sharpton and vice versa.  Neither should be free from consequences that arise in the non-governmental community in response to their words or actions, but neither should be held to a standard intended only for the goverment and its agencies.

      <

      p> 

      • I was not speaking about freedom of religion in the Constitutional, govermental sense. I was speaking in terms of an american ideal, a philosophical concept, if you will. I guess to restate my question, if one personally subscribes to the concept of relgious freedom, and if society holds forth in its belief in relgious freedom, is it an impediment to the principle of freedom of religion to demonize someone as a bigot who, in practicing one’s own religion, makes claims to the illegitimacy of another religion?

        • …a constitutional concept intended to be adhered to by government to every person who wants to exercise religious freedom.  That seems to me to be untenable and couterintuitive to the concept of civil liberty.  People can practice whatever religion they like and say whatever they like** and the exercise of either right does not have to comport logically with the other.  If I practice a religion I am not doing so at the deference of another person who practices a different religion.  I owe that person nothing in terms of refraining from criticizing their actions that I find offensive simply because they are acting presumably out of adherence to their faith and I can have no reasonable expecation that my actions or statements would be so protected.  For example, if I am a Unitarian who believes in and am party to a same sex marriage I have every right to tell a Catholic who opposes same sex marriage that I think they are a bigot even though they are only doing what the Pope tells them to do.  I would, out of a sense of respect for worship, not go into that person’s church and start hurling accusations, but once you bring your religious believes into the secular world outside of your house of worship they are fair game for criticism. 

          <

          p>
          ** Any and all permissible limitation to such freedom is incorporated by reference

    • Like on the ConCon. Now we are back to the end justifies the means.

      <

      p>
      It all comes down to whose ox is being gored doesn’t it?

  3. I’m not sure I want to sign on as a defender of everything Al Sharpton says, but I think a lot of people are misinterpreting what he said (or tried to say).  I think this quote from Sharpton was in a debate with Christopher Hitchens about the existence of God.  It looks like he was trying (very awkwardly, like Kerry’s mangled joke about Bush and Iraq) to say that it didn’t matter what atheists think about Romney — because the God believers (who are mostly non-Mormon) won’t be supporting him to begin with.  Context matters — and the Youtube thing is heavily edited to remove the context.

    • I appreciate you letting us know about the censorship of context and chop shop editing on YouTube, since I’m currently waiting for my search of “Sharpton” on YouTube to load, and now I guess I shouldn’t really bother what with all the Sharpton haters probably having posted their content indistinguishable from those who actually left the context in.

      <

      p>
      The one thing NO one seems to have said is that the comment Sharpton made was not directed at Mormonism or Mormons in general, but simply at Romney.  I think whatever people think of Al Sharpton, I don’t think he would basically tell Romney he’s not a Mormon if he defines himself as one.  So when he said “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God”…

      <

      p>
      Translation.  “As for ROMNEY, those who really believe in God [Anyone who actually respects and fears God, who would abide by God’s wishes, regardless of selfish considerations, as opposed to Romney, natch.]…”

      <

      p>
      NOT, “As for Mormons, those who really believe in God [Non-Mormons, since we all know Mormons don’t believe in God.]…”

      <

      p>
      Anyone who is familiar with Romney knows he’s nothing more than a pandering whore.  Pro-choice one moment, anti-choice the next.  Pro-gay one day when it’s “in”, anti-gay when it’s not and doesn’t suit his current political aspirations.  He clearly doesn’t base his convictions (or lack thereof) on what God tells him to do, he bases them on what he thinks will help him politically.  And this is the person Al Sharpton is taking so much heat for after saying he doesn’t believe in God?  GIVE ME A BREAK!

      <

      p>
      And for Mitt of all people to talk about bigotry as if it’s something he has never taken part in himself is truly the biggest joke of all.

      • You can make it mean anything you want. At least within your own mind and like minded people. Kinda like the Holocaust denyers. Fact becomes fiction, reality becomes fantasy. I’ll believe what I please, please don’t confuse the issue with fact. But fact is now relative.

        <

        p>
        No matter what: Al Sharpton is a good guy and Willard is a scum bag.Just because.

        • … but I am sure that Romney doesn’t believe in God, not because he identifies as Mormon, but because if he does believe in God, then he must know he’s going to hell for the misery he’s putting so many people through… and if anyone wants to call ME a bigot for saying that, go ahead.  I really don’t feel bad about it.

  5. The man is a joke and I doubt anyone takes him seriously, also it looks like Romney merely played it up to have an avenue to attack Sharpton the rights least favorite minister.

    <

    p>
    That said Sharpton was right on the money, first of all Mormons do not believe in the same Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) concept of God so therefore they don’t believe in God with a capital G they do believe in god but not in God.

    <

    p>
    More to the point politicians in general are only ‘religious’ when it serves their needs, most of them worship the Almighty dollar and the power that comes with it, but Romney specifically in my view has flip flopped on so many issues of faith in public life that I wouldn’t be surprised if he once was not so devout a Mormon and then came back to that church with full vigor when he wanted to run for public office,

    • Al Sharpton is a joke, almost a cartoon character, but sadly the mainstream media treats this guy like he is a credible leader.  He’s constantly on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, even Fox News Channel.

      <

      p>
      People seem to forget his role in the Tawana Brawley hoax — which, incidentally, he has never apologized for — and his history of making anti-semitic attacks, namely, calling Jews “diamond merchants” who seek to hurt black children, among other things.  He also played no small role in helping incite the tragic Freddy’s Fashion Mart shootings and fire that killed several innocent people.

      <

      p>
      The man is an embarassment, but the media outlets that give him a forum are perhaps even worse. 

  7. I’m no fan of Reverend Bacon, but in this case I think he is right: Romney has misquoted him to gin up controversy and draw attention to his campaign. Sharpton was drawing a distinction between Hitchens and atheists like him on the one hand, and people who, “really believe in God,” by which he meant, as I interpret it, Democrats and others committed to justice in the spirit of Martin Luther King. Here is an excellent report on the debate by NYT blogger Sewell Chan.

Archives