Defining bigotry
Many Americans, myself included, have decried the opposition to Mitt Romney based on his religion. We thought that position was forever laid to rest with the election of John F. Kennedy. Some had opposed JFK's election because he was a Catholic. Whatever you thought of Kennedy's presidency, his religion had no bearing on his performance.
So, we were appalled when people rose objections to Romney's Mormon faith.
We were likewise appalled when objections arose to Barack Obama's race. Never mind that he was more "white" than "black", by virtue of having a white mother and was raised by white grandparents while his black father deserted him before his birth, we objected to those who rejected him because he was "African American", which he indeed was.
Then, we learn that in 2012 Republican primary elections, 91% of Mormon voters in Nevada voted for Romney.
In 2010, Mormon Harry Reid - certainly one of the most unpopular politicians in America, was re-elected over Southern Baptist Sharon Angle, in heavily Mormon Nevada. Coincidence?
In 2008, black Americans went for "black" Barack Obama by 97% to 3% over white John McCain. Can anything but race explain that outcome?
So, if you oppose Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, or oppose Barack Obama because he is "black", you are a bigot. But Mormons who overwhelmingly choose Mormon candidates over non-Mormons, and blacks who overwhelmingly choose black candidates over white candidates, are not bigots?
Sorry. I don't buy it.
A late business colleague of mine used to say "There is no part-time honesty". Be the subject minor or significant, your response is either honest or dishonest. You cannot be judged an honest person based on the importance of the subject.
Same with bigotry. A bigot is a bigot, no matter which side you're on.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment