(Update: For more on this issue, please see The Bloggernacle Times) Andrew Sullivan, a so called conservative blogger, who happens also to be “gay” has a series of posts over at the Daily Dish, the content of which reveals an unabashed anti-Mormon religious bigotry. He starts with this ludicrous post denying that believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are Christian. Opines Sullivan:
But Muslims also revere Jesus. And the inspiration for Mormonism’s radically innovative understanding of the message and life of Jesus – Joseph Smith’s “discovery” – is so alien to mainstream Christianity (and so transparently loopy) that I don’t consider Mormons Christians. This is not to say I don’t support their religious freedom or their right to play a full part of American politics and society. But they’re not Christians as I understand Christianity.
So, according to Mr. Sullivan since Muslims revere Jesus Christ somehow Mormons are not Christian? I’m not sure when Mr. Sullivan was anointed gate keeper of acceptable defined Christianity. Can you imagine Mr. Sullivan’s reaction were I to opine on this blog that professed gays are not Christian because they live a lifestyle morally repugnant to the wholesome and pure Christian lifestyle of Biblical as well as revealed and restored Christianity? “Homophobe” would hurl in my direction so fast it would make your head spin. Frankly, Mr. Sullivan, it doesn’t matter whether you consider Mormons, loopy or not, to be Christian. This type of religious bigotry is no less bigotry than those who hurl the racial epithet “nigger” without regard for its obscene and shameful impact on the recipient.
Not content with his anti-Christian rant, Mr. Sullivan then posts a few days later, on the distasteful topic of “Mormon Sacred Underwear” as though this were a topic fit for the national debate:
Here’s an official guide. Alas, no pictures. (If someone has some visuals, could they please send them to me?) So Mitt Romney will never have to answer the boxers or briefs question. But will he tell us whether he wears Mormon underwear at all times, including when asleep?
Apparently at the time of this post he had no “visuals” of the LDS garment (though a quick google search would produce over 200,000 hits) so, he publicly requests photos be forwarded to him, which he promptly republishes on his own site. What possible point does such a post accomplish? This is the type of National Enquirer, gutter religious story that only demeans one who so callously publishes it. Mr. Sullivan’s true motivation is clearly both a political and religious slur at Governor Mitt Romney.
In his very next post, Mr. Sullivan continues his religious jihad against Mormons with his follow up post on “Underwear Prejudice” and at the same time attempts to justify his religious bigotry:
A Mormon reader writes:
Many of us consider posting photographs of Mormon undergarments to be sacreligious and offensive. Yes, we wear these garments at all times, except during swimming, athletic, bathing, and other activities where it would be impractical. They are made from a variety of textiles, and are comfortable to sleep in, being really not far removed from long johns. Many religious groups, and not just ours, wear clothing as a symbol of religious adherence. Ours, we wear as a reminder of our commitments, but not in public view, because we are reminding ourselves, not making a spectacle. Hence, underclothing. Additionally, they are cut in such a way as to require us to adhere to church modesty standards.
My policy on this site is to publish reality, within certain boundaries of religious respect. If I can publish a cartoon of Muhammad, I can sure publish tasteful pictures of Mormon underwear. Until today, I had no idea that LDS members even wore undergarments mandated by their church. The pictures provided come from Wikipedia. Is it sacreligious for Wikipedia to publish them? I mean no disrespect. It’s a largely irrelevant issue. The racial history of the LDS church is far more pertinent to Romney’s candidacy. And none of this would be relevant at all, if the Republicans did not now base their politics on explicitly religious appeals. You wanna play by the rules of theoconservatism? Then deal with the consequences.
The reality of your site, Mr. Sullivan is well beyond the bounds of any religious respect. Yes, it is sacreligious for Wikipedia, you, or anyone else to publish these types of photographs. And, you do indeed mean disrespect. You mean to disrespect, demean and belittle, an entire religious movement as well as a prominent national political candidate solely for his religious views and practices. Why? Because you don’t like his political or religious views. So, rather than engage in legitimate and meaningful political debate on these issues, you take potshots at Governor Romney and an entire world wide religious movement.
You know from at least one LDS emailer that your conduct in these posts is extremely offensive to LDS members worldwide. Yet, rather than show the respect and decorum you claim to have you continue to belittle and demean for the sake of political gain. If anyone’s Christian conduct is in question Mr. Sullivan it is yours. These bigoted religious posts sink to the lowest common denominator. And,it is quite evident you relish in it. How pathetic!
Any credible, and respected status the Daily Dish once held as a blog of political commentary vanished today in a flurry of mainstream religious bigotry.
November 25, 2006 at 10:00 am
“But Muslims also revere Jesus.”
Yes, but Muslims don’t consider Jesus the Christ, whereas Mormons do. Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, but not Lord. With that first sentence he lost all credibility in the paragraph, the rest of the paragraph is null and void.
November 25, 2006 at 10:01 am
Hypocrisy at its finest. People like Mr. Sullivan who proclaim to be “Christian” certainly do not live up to the standard He set for us.
November 25, 2006 at 10:49 am
I thought James Taranto had an interesting take on Sullivan. (See the item “Rubbernecking and Romney.) He leads off the item this way. “OK, we’ll admit it: We still look at Andrew Sullivan’s Time magazine blog. Up until 33 months ago, we found his stuff generally sensible, if sometimes overwrought. But 2/24 changed everything, and now his blog has become more of a guilty pleasure, something to gawk at morbidly like the site of a horrible accident.”
In the same post, Taranto points out that Sullivan thinks Madonna (the singer) is a better Christian than “Christianists”–his name for people like Romney.
November 25, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Who is this blowhard and why do we care?
November 25, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Here’s the wikipedia entry on Andrew Sullivan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
It say’s he’s a gay conservative blogger jounralist but also that he’s a practicing Catholic. That’s a surprise — generally the online Christian asshole community draws from Evangelical ranks. I guess he brings a little diversity to the pool.
Given how much Catholics and Mormons have in common, being outsiders to (and often targets of) the informal Protestant establishment in America, it’s sad to see someone who ought to know who his political friends are taking potshots at Mormons.
November 25, 2006 at 5:27 pm
This sort of thing is inevitable. Not wanting to make excuses for Sullivan, but the Church is going to receive increased scrutiny, both positive and negative, as Romney moves closer to a Presidential nomination. That fact is, “Mormonism” is still viewed by many as a curious cult. The temptation to see Mormon underware was simply too irresistible for Sullivan not to call for photos. Given that he belongs to a despised minority himself, Sullivan should have had more sense than to post the photo. Sorry Andrew, it ain’t International Male.
November 25, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I took him off my blogroll. Not interested in reading his opinions anymore. He’s blinded too much by his crusade against “Christinaists” to see beyond their “fundamentalism.”
So sad.
November 26, 2006 at 8:53 am
Sherpa: Nice to see you again. Excellent point–one of several Mr. Sullivan conveniently tries to ignore.
Connor: Indeed–their own impossibly high standard ignored.
Bradley: Thanks for the Taranto link–interesting read.
PDOE: Good question!
Dave: Thanks for the Wikipedia link, and of course your always well chosen word selection in describing his rather shallow end of the pool.
Steven B: Scrutiny–even negative–is appropriate. But there is a grand canyon between what I consider negative scrutiny and Mr. Sullivan’s anti-Mormon rants. As you correctly point out–he should not have posted the photos. For him to feign ignorance of garments or their photos in this day and age is ludicrous. Both are plastered all over the Internet and have been for over a decade.
Dan: I’m glad to hear that. I never included him on a blogroll–but did occasionally read his blog–but no longer–at least for legitimate content.
November 26, 2006 at 12:37 pm
[...] I posted about Andrew Sullivan’s Anti-Mormon Bigotry over at The Messenger and Advocate. Well, it’s now spreading to some pretty surprising mainstream blogs. It has hit Instapundit, Ann Althouse as well as the Moderate Voice. I’m quite surprised at the Moderate Voice’s post. While I don’t necessarily believe all these folks are anti-Mormon bigots–I am troubled and disappointed by their liniking and/or posting what are clearly anti-Mormon and religiously bigoted posts, such as posting photos of the Temple Garment. Just how a temple garment photograph is somehow relevant to Mitt Romeny’s political candidacy somehow escapes me. [...]
November 26, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Andrew Sullivan is not anti-Mormon. He clearly thinks Mormonism is weird, but has no problem with a candidate being Mormon as long as he or she does not try to rule in the name of God. Sullivan is anti-theocracy and sees Romney repeatedly speaking as a theocrat/christianist.
November 26, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Steven B. Sullivan may very well be anti-theocracy–but if you’re posting people wearing nothing but the temple garment–you’re anti-Mormon in my book.
November 26, 2006 at 1:44 pm
As a gay man, Sullivan clearly has an axe to grind over the gay-marriage and gay-rights issues. What better target?
November 26, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Andrew Sullivan is a big, gay moron.
November 26, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Not to be a party pooper, and I generally enjoy reading posts here, but I have to say that I’m surprised at the comments on this thread attacking Andrew Sullivan. What he did was wrong, and his dismissive attitude is incredibly offensive. But why are we as “Christians” engaging in rude anti-social behavior by calling him names?
More stories on missionaries in Ghana, please
November 26, 2006 at 8:48 pm
ECS–Thanks for bringing a dose of Christian conduct to this thread. I appreciate your comment and your perspective. I will be posting again soon on Ghana–as soon as I get another email from the mission field, which should be in the relatively near future.
November 27, 2006 at 10:28 am
This could get very – interesting – if Romney does well in the polls.
November 27, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Thanks ECS, I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.
November 27, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Sullivan’s ire is drawn by Romney’s push to have the same-sex marriage issue in Mass decided by a referendum. If Romney had pushed for same-sex marriages, Sullivan would be his biggest booster and would express as much offense towards the posts he made as many people have expressed here.
Because Romney is opposed to same-sex marriages (or rather, state recognition of same-sex marriages), any club at hand will work, and if the measure actually passes, just wait for the real venom to flow.
November 27, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Sherpa, Thanks also for your reminder. Points well taken from you and ECS on the tone of our commentary.
Half Canadian–Yep–I’m pretty certain that the same-sex marriage issue has turned Mr. Sullivan against Mr. Romney and by extension his religion. I’m hoping–though not hopeful that there won’t be more venom–I’m just not so sure.
February 14, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I hope that the majority of the American public will be moderate enough that the rantings of anti-Mormon Romney backlashers will do more to harm the critics themselves than those they criticize. Any good-natured, well meaning American with common sense will be able to see that criticizing Romney on the basis of his wearing temple garments is a dirty, bigoted personal attack, and not relevant to the public dialogue on the national issues.
I think that the best way to counter the anti-Mormon backlash is not to slam them back with apologetic counterstrikes, but to appeal to the moderates and show them just how unfair and fallacious the anti-Mormons attacks really are. I think that this blog post does a good job of that. Just because Sullivan doesn’t define us as Christian doesn’t mean that that’s reason for the general public not to, and just because it’s allowable in our Western society to publish pictures of temple garments on the internet doesn’t change the fact that it’s very disrespectful and bigoted to do so.
March 28, 2007 at 11:51 am
Sullivan obviously does not like Mormons (LDS), he has lots of company – that is nothing new.
As to his specific charges, the LDS religion has a very different view of who and what God (and Christ and the Holy Ghost) is (are) as compared to “mainline” denominations. As a result Sullivan is technically correct, the members of the LDS Church are *not* Christians as *he* (Sullivan) ‘defines” the concept. Primarily because his understanding of who or what Christ is, is not consistent with revealed scripture. Big Deal.
What we (LDS) claim to be is the restored Church, we claim to be different, we claim to be the *only* correct Church. Those statements are going to, by definition, raise the hackles of everyone else. We must be prepared for the natural reactions of others to our claims. (Particularly as our membership grows large enough to be noticed from a political viewpoint.)
I believe that living the commandments, striving to do good, and serving our fellow men and woman will do more than anything else to further God’s work. My advice is to simply ignore people like Sullivan, develop a thick skin (quit worrying about photos for example), and concentrate on doing God’s work.
Romney will likely not be elected President of the United States because we (LDS) are – by commandment – a peculiar people, and it is highly unlikely (according to the median voter theory of winner take all elections) that a majority of voters in the U.S. would ever want to vote for a peculiar candidate (regardless of his or her religion).
April 3, 2007 at 10:46 pm
[...] already been a great deal of negative and anti-Mormon bigotry exhibited in this campaign. See here and here. I’m sure the potential for it to get worse is always [...]
May 5, 2007 at 12:43 am
Having been longtime convert LDS, I believe that anti-Mormons who exclude us as Christians using misrepresention provide the LDS great advantage. Those who cannot see through the deception should remain Protestant or Catholic and are not yet ready to drink the milk necessary for the beginning of conversion to the Gospel.
November 18, 2007 at 9:59 pm
But Andrew Sullivan is ONE of MANY voices in the far right Christian community saying this. That you single him out reveals a lot about YOU. Many strict fundamentalists have been saying that they cannot support Mitt Romney for president because he belongs to the LDS Church, and that they are not Christian. One pastor last week was on television calling them a cult.
How offensive, equating the good Mormon people with real, evil cults. And remember, Christianity was seen as a cult by the mainstream Roman Empire once too.
You can NEVER truly be a fully, happy Christian and continue to be so hateful. I pray for your Christian maturity and that you begin to accept your Mormon brothers and sistsers, as well as your gay ones, as siblings in Christ.
December 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Wasn’t Romney the one that started it all by courting the Christian right vote? What did he expect from the biggest repository of bigotry in the nation’s political spectrum? Mormons should go out in force and say they are not one of THOSE Christians.
January 24, 2009 at 4:16 pm
If you use Christian to mean anyone that says they believe in Christ then Mormonism is Christian. Historically it is not. It differs widely from Christian teaching over the centuries — which is precisely why Smith claimed to have the only correct version. Mormonism is poltheistic, historical Christianity is not. Mormons claim that people can become gods, historical Christianity would be horrified at the thought. Depending on the context you are using it is right both to say that Mormonism is Christian and that it isn’t.