In going on Paula Zahn's CNN show this evening, was Al Sharpton's goal to quell the controversy surrounding his comments about Mormonism, or to inflame it? If the former, he failed miserably. If the latter, he succeeded admirably. Far from retracting his earlier allegation that Mormons aren't real believers, he repeated it, adding an allegation of racism for good measure.
Let's recall Sharpton's original statement, that in going on the Zahn show he presumably was seeking to explicate. Debating Christopher Hitchens recently, Sharpton said:
" And as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway. So don't worry about that. That's a temporary, that's a temporary situation."
Discussing those comments on "Paula Zahn Now" this evening during the 8 PM EDT half-hour, Sharpton and Zahn discussed the fact that until 1965 [according to CNN], or 1978, according to Sharpton, the Mormon church did not accord blacks full status. That engendered the following exchange.
View video here (Related) . (Related)
CNN HOST PAULA ZAHN: Prior to 1965 -
THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON: I think it's 1978.
ZAHN: Well, our researchers are using a different date. But prior to that date, when blacks were finally considered equals within the church, did you find the Mormon church racist?
SHARPTON: I think that's that by self-definition. If prior to '65, '78, whenever it was, they did not see blacks as equal, I do not believe that as real worshippers of God, because I do not believe that God distinguishes between people. That's not bigotry, that's responding to their bigotry.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net (Related)
May 9, 2007 - 21:47
Who cares? The fact that an idiot like Sharpton gets as much attention from the MSM as he does validates everything written here about the MSM.
Nortonalec
May 9, 2007 - 21:48
And I don't think any pro-abortion, pro-gay, race baiting, riot instigating individual believes in God either, but thats just me, Reverand.
Crazies to the left, and Whimps to the right
May 9, 2007 - 22:16
Whats awesome is that his mormon comments had little to do with his debate with Hitchens, he was just trying to score democrat brownie points I suppose. He also attacked Hitchens for Hitchens continuing support for Iraq. Sharptons a joke, next time there is a debate about religion Atheist vs. religous... guy.. a better religous person should be chosen.
May 9, 2007 - 22:25
Sharpton:
"because I do not believe that God distinguishes between people."
Sharpton:
"And as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway"
Well, God may not distinguish, but bigots like Al Sharpton do!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it."MM says... (Related)
May 9, 2007 - 22:33
What is funny Shapie Marker must have forgotten about teh many godless people he has used for many good works. Perhaps Sharpie is being used now.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
May 9, 2007 - 22:34
If Sharpton was a white conservative evangelical and said on TV that say, Muslims weren't worshippers of God, what would be the outcry?
Of if he said, some Catholics weren't true believers, like Kennedy or Kerry, who support and even propose and enact legislation to further abortion rights, what would be the outcry??
One other note; On CNN.COM the caption or teaser for Paula Zahn wasn't the usual one that Conservatives get when saying controversial things (they "defend themsevles". No Sharpton was going on PZ to "Set the Recrod Straight!!" No Bias there.
I just noticed the caption that said "what did Sharpton mean?" Instead of Bill Bennett, "Bill Bennett said......" Sharpton gets the benefit of the doubt, Bill Bennett got the assumption of guilt.
May 9, 2007 - 23:04
There is no controversy about the words of an idiot!
Rev. Al appears regularily on all 3 cable networks. Does anyone know how much he is getting paid per appearance?
May 9, 2007 - 23:46
What about Harry Reid? Isn't he a Mormon as well? Where's the uproar over his election?
May 10, 2007 - 00:00
Well Cheswick, it seems that you have not learned the first principles of unbiased reporting. The exclusionary rule for liberals and minorities clearly explains that any negatives for these protected groups are to be minimized. The pile-on rule for conservatives and white men clearly explains that the first rule obtains balance only if the neutral attributes of these repressive groups are put in a bad light and all negatives are highlighted. Thus the omissions of the first are balanced by the additions of the second.
Clear?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
May 10, 2007 - 00:00
This is all the proof that I need that the msm knows that Dims do not take any Religion seriously. Unless it can get them votes; then they fake it.
No comments:
Post a Comment