« News from Iraq | Main | Interesting Development: Mormons are Christians »
Andrew Sullivan’s Bigotry
By Trenton | July 5, 2007
Andrew Sullivan, in his post for today, wonders if Orson Scott Card would vote for an Islamist over a liberal Christian because they, too, are serious about their religion.
It’s a nonsensical question.
He misses Card’s point completely. Card says he would NOT vote for a Mormon who is not committed to his faith, and would instead choose a faithful Baptist in his place. But Sullivan still finds some grounds for criticism. Based on what, he doesn’t let on. It seems to me that Card is being conciliatory, trying to find some common ground. But Sullivan won’t have any of it. Mormons are wrong. End of Discussion.
If we were to view his post in a political light, Sullivan’s question might be if a Republican paleoconservative would vote for a radical communist who is committed to his ideology over a neoconservative. This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that if Card would vote for a committed Baptist (with whom Card shares many beliefs), he might also vote for a committed Islamist (with whom he shares very few beliefs). More likely would be Card’s preference to a Liberal Democrat over a radical Communist. But the contrary Sullivan won’t give Card the benefit of that doubt. Why? Because Card is a Mormon. And Mormons are stupid and wrong, right Andrew?
Sullivan is an insufferable bigot.
Topics: Religion and Faith |
July 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am
You may have missed the point. I get the impression that Andrew Sullivan considers Card’s piece to be arguing that any strong, rigorous religion is better than liberal religion; naturally he wishes to argue against that.
I’m not sure whether Card is saying that, but I do know this: Card’s piece is definitely bigoted against atheists. So you can hardly call it conciliatory in general.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
You may be right, but that doesn’t square in my mind with Sullivan’s summary of Card’s statement: “any faith is better than no faith in an increasingly atheist world,” which then causes Sullivan to ask, “Would he vote for an Islamist over a liberal Christian as well, I wonder?”
Liberal religion is still religion, is it not? In Card’s mind, I would imagine it is still better than atheism.
Card was being conciliatory towards Mohler, trying to find common ground with him. That’s where I was going with that.