To understand where O’Donnell is coming from, read his post on HuffPo.

Basically he’s pointing out Romney’s utter hypocrisy in (1) claiming his Mormon faith is relevant to being President of the United States and (2) refusing to answer questions about it. You can’t have it both ways. You just can’t.

Before we start parsing this one, we should remain rational enough to admit that Jews, at the hands of Nazi Germany, experienced a level of bigotry much greater and with more devastating impact than having Lawrence O’Donnell railing on Mormon’s on an irrelevant talk show. One could also argue Muslims, at the hands of other Muslims and many American’s have experienced a much greater level of bigotry (when is the last time you heard of anyone freaking out because a Mormon was on the plane with them?).

The comparison you try to draw here is quite self-serving, and a disservice to the LDS faith. Also, it’s a bit whiney.

Perhaps an analogy.

I think the beliefs of the Church of Scientology are obscenely stupid. I’m happy to explain why to anyone who asks me. And if a Scientologist were trying to be president of the USA, I’d say (even on a talk show) that this person should be kept far away from the levers of power because a person who believes such obviously false things does not have the judgement or reasoning capacity to run a country.

Am I a bigot?

It seems to me that bigotry is something different. The essence of bigotry is that I see a [ black person | American | man with a wooden leg | Taurus | steel worker | Southerner ] and I automatically assume that this person possesses certain qualities by virtue of their being a member of this group. Such assumptions usually come from stereotypes and other half-baked notions, and are very often wrong.

But Scientologists really do have all those crazy beliefs, don’t they? So I’m not making unfair generalities about supposed characteristics — I’m objecting to beliefs that they actually have.

And they could change those beliefs if they wanted to, couldn’t they? (Unlike the colour of a person’s skin.)

I’d say that while my attitide toward Scientologists is certainly unpleasant, it’s not bigotry.

But having said that — I don’t have a blind, unreasoning hatred of the organisation or the people, and their beliefs are just as well-supported as other religions I could name.

After listening to this poor soul offer his hatefully ignorant invective, I was immediately struck by the fact that we have yet to see the iceberg breaking through the surface, let alone seeing the proverbial tip. This is not about bigotry, this is about hatred.

We must prepare ourselves spiritually because, it is my belief that, we ain’t seen nothing yet. This is about what we are all going to face. We are all going to be facing situations which will test our faith in Christ and our membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I sincerely believe that some of us may be required to defend our faith in ways we have heretofore never really considered.

The adversary knows all too well that the truth is the only thing standing in the way of his lies. He is not going to relinquish his hold on mankind without a fight, and I do not mean a “war of words.” I believe many will find themselves in a position where they will be required to defend the truth with their very lives. While I am uncertain just how much I might be able to endure to show the Lord my absolute love for, and faith in Him, I pray that I will have the faith of Abinidi.

…if a Scientologist were trying to be president of the USA, I’d say (even on a talk show) that this person should be kept far away from the levers of power because a person who believes such obviously false things does not have the judgement or reasoning capacity to run a country…..

Of course, the same argument might be applied to any religious group, if we could demonstrate that such religion contains irrational or superstitious beliefs!…(Mormonism isn’t immune to this…..)

Lets imagine that instead of voting for a particular candidate for president, we were human resource managers interviewing job applicants. The things we would want to know about the applicant would be their skills, experience, competence, and reliability. If at the end of an interview, we were to ask them if they were scientologists, and then choose whether or not to hire them based on that fact, it might be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

In other words, one’s own personal beliefs do not generally address other aspects of our person, such as our skills, experience, reliability, or competence; especially as candidates for public office.

……I automatically assume that this person possesses certain qualities by virtue of their being a member of this group……

For example, “all scientologists should be kept out of public office, because they are incompetent, ‘obscenely stupid’, and ‘crazy’?”

Furthermore It is one thing to state that we feel that certain specific beliefs held by “scientologists”, or any other religious group are irrational, inconsistent, or superstitious. It is quite another thing to imply that all scientologists as a group, are irrational or incompetent or stupid. The former may or may not be true, but the latter is clearly a “universal” statement of prejudice rather than a “particular” statement of fact. In other words, a particular premise does not imply a universal conclusion.

But Scientologists really do have all those crazy beliefs, don’t they? So I’m not making unfair generalities about supposed characteristics — I’m objecting to beliefs that they actually have.

So, are you merely “objecting to their beliefs”, or are you in fact “making unfair generalities?” (One does not necessarily follow from the other.)

Prejudice and bigotry aren’t defined by a “blind, unreasoning hatred…” there are plenty of “positive” prejudices too. Prejudice is primarily defined by bad logic.

Yeah, I agree that even positive prejudice is still prejudice.

For example, “all scientologists should be kept out of public office, because they are incompetent, ‘obscenely stupid’, and ‘crazy’?”

Read again. I haven’t applied these terms to Scientologists. It’s the beliefs that are stupid and crazy. There’s a difference; sane people can believe insane things. Just add a social support network, and communal reinforcement does the rest.

Even so, I wouldn’t vote for someone who held such beliefs. The job of president requires judgment and the capacity to think critically. Someone who thinks that we were brought to Earth by Xenu (or that God lives on Kolob) just doesn’t have the reasoning capacity to lead the country. This isn’t City Dogcatcher we’re talking about here. The president has to work on solving problems, negotiating international relations, determining the direction of the national science program, and loads of important things. That’s going to require a grounding in reality.

Now substitute ‘Mormon’ for ‘Scientologist’, and you’ll understand the hubbub. Sure, there are a lot of people who just ‘don’t like them dang Marmons’, but I don’t think O’Donnell fits into that camp. He’s expressing the view of a lot of people who think that religious beliefs, including LDS ones, are just plain insane, and not a basis for good government.

Unfortunately, since the American electorate is allergic to atheists, I suppose I shall have to vote for some kind of moderate who tries to use the good bits of religion that actually help people. Kevin Rudd, the Australian PM, is one such person, and I’m pleased with what he’s doing so far despite the god-talk.

You have to admit that waiting until 1978 to grant Blacks equality in the LDS was way overdue.

The talented and cuddly Christopher Hitchens has, I think, the right take on this.

This Is Not a Test: It’s perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views.

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment.

Great stuff.

Before we start parsing this one, we should remain rational enough to admit that Jews, at the hands of Nazi Germany, experienced a level of bigotry much greater and with more devastating impact than having Lawrence O’Donnell railing on Mormon’s on an irrelevant talk show.

Agreed. Let’s also admit that Africans who were enslaved and brought to America experienced a level of bigotry much greater and with more devastating impact than having Lawrence O’Donnell railing on Mormon’s on an irrelevant talk show.

In addition, it is important to admit that Native Americans (killed, driven from their lands, and discriminated against) experienced a level of bigotry much greater and with more devastating impact than having Lawrence O’Donnell railing on Mormon’s on an irrelevant talk show.

Also, we can admit that…I dunno…I’m running out of straw men.

This isn’t City Dogcatcher we’re talking about here. The president has to work on solving problems, negotiating international relations, determining the direction of the national science program, and loads of important things. That’s going to require a grounding in reality.

Funny…Romney seems more than capable of doing those things. By all accounts he did a decent job running Massachusetts, he turned the Olympics around, and was a spectacularly successful businessman turning around and building large companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, etc.

An applicable article:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695242228,00.html

I can’t be the only one to notice that Michael L. McKee is absolutely aching to shoot someone.