Study: Prejudice against Mormons much more intense than against blacks, women; Update: New Globe piece on Mitt’s illegal landscapers

posted at 6:18 pm on December 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

Pathetic. I hope he knocks it out of the park on Thursday night.

Key findings of the study include:

# Bias against Mormons is significantly more intense among the public compared to bias against women and blacks. The bias against Mormons is even more pronounced among conservative Evangelicals. Their bias against Mormons rivals their bias against atheists.

# Only about half the nation claims to even know a Mormon or to know that Romney is Mormon.

# The extent of the bias against Romney is moderated if the individual already knows that he is Mormon. That information seems to demystify the Mormon religion, making people more tolerant of the religion. Those who do not know Romney is Mormon exhibit much greater bias upon learning of his religion.

That last bullet point suggests a certain wisdom to giving the speech, but note well from elsewhere in the release: “[S]imple appeals for religious tolerance do not win over support for Romney from the respondents.” As feared.

In other news, he just launched a depth charge on a scandal that was creeping up silently behind him.

Update: Here’s that scandal in the making he just torpedoed.

Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney’s use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company – until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.

Two of the workers confirmed in separate interviews with Globe reporters last week that they were in the country without documents. One said he had paid $7,000 to a smuggler to escort him across the desert into Arizona; the other said he had come to the country with a student visa that was now expired. Both were seen on the lawn by either Globe reporters or photographers over the last two months.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Do you question their morality, or suitableness for public office? Do you feel you can trust them to make moral decisions as evangelicals would?

paulsur on December 4, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Is there a problem with how Mitt Romney has led his life? Are you better than him? This sort of holier-than-thou thinking is a huge turnoff.

What is weird to me is that from the comments on this thread from MB4, Vanceone and others, you would think that evangelicals are out there protesting in mass, on television infomercials half hour after half hour, and preaching from the pulpit (and street corner), that Mormons are bad and Mitt Romney is worse. I just don’t see it.

nailinmyeye on December 5, 2007 at 4:03 AM

Open up the vault. Obviously “protesting in mass” and so forth is hyperbole, but the deeply held anti-Mormon sentiment is impossible to ignore. All of this occurred way before the Huckster’s ascendancy and it came mostly from Fred supporters.

Buy Danish on December 5, 2007 at 8:16 AM

P.S. I used to work for NIKE.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Then you do have a sole.

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Conflict of Interest Alert —

It appears that at least two of the study’s authors, Brett Benson and Jennifer Merolla, have Mormon connections. Brett Benson is a graduate of Brigham Young University, which has an enrollment of more than 90% Mormons. It is therefore reasonable to suspect Benson is himself Mormon. Jennifer Merolla is a Duke graduate, but her university – Claremont Graduate University – recently received $5 million to start a Mormon studies center.

That’s not to say that their study is not fully legitimate. I haven’t really looked at it carefully and can’t say for sure. But what I am saying is that we should be careful to look at the study with some skepticism.

Outlander on December 5, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Outlander on December 5, 2007 at 9:13 AM


The study, I thought, was dubious to begin with, not giving the questions asked, or the methodology, just calling it an “internet poll.”

This moves toward sealing it for me.

nailinmyeye on December 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM

First of all, someone else through in the word hate, that is not the evang. word for the Mormon’s attack on the Christian religion.
For 2,000 years the Christian church has been attacked, and often did not fight back (particularly lately). Transvestites disrupting services, Christ in Urine, Christ being called a polygamist, changing the way our true Prophets were portrayed, these may be not important to people who do not carry a strong faith, but they are important. The arrogance of a denomination to attack the basic Christian teachings, and then feign shock that those teachings are defended, is almost laughable…if it wasn’t for the millions that have died defending those doctrines. I noticed when I defended the evang. doctrines by quoting examples of Mormon prophets (none of my quotes were ever disputed) they called me a bigot. But when Mormons knock on your door and offer their version, it is okay…well to evang. it is not okay. When you say polygamist you think of young Elizabeth Smart, just recently a 14 yr. old child bride, abused, or in 1843 a religious leader, starting a church takes a 14 yr. old bride, promising to seal the salvation of the family that gave her up.
Here is how they speak about it in SLC, Desert news, just a snippet. Desert News this in in SLC own backyard, so much for family values.
Why should evang. not defend our faith, against a doctrine from a man who married upwards of 33 women, and as young as 14? Do you really think the evang. are going to follow someone like that, instead of Christ?
And don’t give me that “it is banned”, it is still a canonized doctrine sec.132, 61 and 62. If it is so bad, remove the doctrine…but you can’t, or your prophets won’t.
There are other doctrines, the salvation by the death and resurrection of Christ for one that is worth defending.
So Mormon’s here is a shocker…try to steal our doctrine and you will have a battle, just like you dislike it when someone distorts your beliefs. My suggestion is to call Christ, “Bob” that way you can worship “Bob” anyway you like. Call the trinity the “Threesome”, your prophets you can call them “Wise Guys”, and divide the Mormon Bood (Bible) into the “First book” and the “Smith Book”. That way you don’t have to say every noted Hebrew and Greek scholar is wrong in the interpretation of the Bible.
And stop whining, you are the ones trying to corrupt. You are now being called out in the open for it.
This is referring to doctrine, that seems to get lost by the “victims”, personally Mormon’s are like any other family some great, some not so great. Business, some great, some not so great. A smile, and a warm greeting is alway nice, never met someone successful who could not do that.

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 10:07 AM

The distinction remains, anti-Mormon-ism.

It is the dogmatic Mormon doctrines that non-Mormons hate.

Truth be told, it is the young members themselves who resent the very Mormon things that separate them from whatever is the most powerful and popular to be–BUT their resentment is counter-balanced by their gratitude for being “special”.

That Mormons, Baptists and Muslims exhibit great faith is the virtue for which God blesses. But God admonishes his children to be WISE, not foolish, and Jesus himself showed and spoke God’s will for humanity. Evangelicals do not presume anything beyond what God revealed in the holy Bible. However, Mormons and Muslims BOTH REQUIRE passage to god via a prophet that fulfills the warning of what to beware as deceiving and false in nature.

Stating facts candidly is not anti-truth, only anti-ignorance or anti-bigotry or anti-deception.

The faith element significance is in a PERSONAL life. Manipulating the faith of the innocent for greed is a fate worse than death. So Romney had better beware in his TH. TX Aggie “speech” that won’t discuss Mormonism. Mormons do have great faith, but they do not have the monopoly on great faith, and that they place their faith in the arm of man is their own doing. It is Mitt, himself, who WANTS to discuss his church without addressing Mormonism. Nothing new. Mormon families are no better, no worse than any other denomination’s families. Mormon families are strictly structured in heirarchy wherein any deviance is wrong; to be different is wrong in that world.

There is nothing incriminating in seeing through a false ploy. Perhaps we will see how how sophisticated such smart and wealthy Mormons like Mitt are he simultaneously expresses pride in his very heritage that he eschews. During the European Enlightenment, such convoluted logic was regarded as insanity. Parade your dear family as your platform; rather than respect THEIR privacy; and further mold their existence for your own power-grab within your pyramid of godhoodliness. We understand. That does not mean that we agree to embrace a two-faced forked-tongue politician who cries foul over his essence being exposed. Actually, though, it won’t be that America votes against Mitt the Mormon. IF Mitt is the Republican ticket, it will be his esoteric tight-assed manners against WORKING CITIZENS that tip the undecided vote for the Democrat. True, Mitt will carry the Mormon vote just as Hillary will carry the hard womens lib vote and Obama will carry the black supremist vote. The associative element of WHO votes for the candidate and WHY they vote for a candidate influences the undecided.

As per Buy Danish’s mirror image,

Open up the vault. Obviously “protesting in mass” and so forth is hyperbole, but the deeply held anti-Mormon sentiment is impossible to ignore. All of this occurred way before the Huckster’s ascendancy and it came mostly from Fred supporters.

You blame Fred Thompson supporters for anti-Mormon sentiment. Refrain from incriminating logic. You refer to anti-Mormon-ISM, not anti-you-or-I sentiment. Keep that distinction clear. That Mormons attack any scrutiny with the battle cry of “anti-Mormon persecution” will not hold water.

maverick muse on December 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Mitt is running for President, not some kind of LDS Pope.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 10:45 PM

I agree, but for the first time, that I know of, we have someone running for office that has a sworn allegiance to a “living Prophet”. Can you say for sure that he would choose the U.S. over his Prophet if the two were in conflict?
And what evidence?
(remember at 31 he accepted that blacks were second class Mormon citizens, unworthy of being the same stature as him, of course his beliefs changed when his prophet said “it” changed)

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Geer noted that Romney’s address, scheduled for Dec. 5 at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, is not without risks.

Is the speech tonight or tomorrow?

saiga on December 5, 2007 at 10:18 AM

silly post about a silly survey

Note that there is no definition of “bias” that was allegedly found by the survey – it’s completely meaningless without one.

corona on December 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Is the speech tonight or tomorrow?

saiga on December 5, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Thursday morning

bnelson44 on December 5, 2007 at 10:29 AM

PS, buy danish’s slur on Fred:
To what do you actually refer? Your inference is unfounded.

Fred Thompson’s support comes from those who agree with his consistently conservative platform that is well documented and readily available for all to consider.

Neither Fred nor his campaign veer off the consistently conservative course.

Mentally healthy and well balanced Americans resent divisive campaigns supplanted by mere emotion vs. logic and wisdom.

maverick muse on December 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Let’s summarize here: Mainstream Protestants are wimpy, pseudo Christians with dying religions, Catholics are hypocrites who profess support for the Pope’s edicts while doing exactly what they want, Evangelical Christians are rednecks obsessed with abortion, Mormons are a suspicious cult founded by some guy with a lot of wives, Jehovah’s Witnesses are dedicated kooks. If I’ve slighted anybody, please tacitly fill in ommissions. I do not want to seem PREDJUDICED or anything like that. God forgive me if I have!!!!!

jeanie on December 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Misspelled “prejudiced”, sorry!! Caught in the moment!

jeanie on December 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I am an evangelical Christian, and I don’t hate Mormons. On the contrary, the Mormons I know are very kind, likeable people. As a Christian, I do believe that their doctrine is incorrect, and I would never become a Mormon.

I am 95% sure I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he is Mormon. The reason I am probably not going to vote for him is the documented flip-flopping on issues.

Bottom line, I vote for people based on their stances on issues important to me, not on their religion. If I voted based on a candidate’s religion, I would vote for Mike Huckabee, as we are from the same denomination. However, I am 100% sure I am not voting for him.

Jodella on December 5, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Yeah, that’s what I’ve always thought. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and I don’t recall ever comparing “our” bible to anyone else’s bible. They made us study a thing called catechism in the lower grades. The meaning of certain bible passages in high school. The only comment I remember hearing about other religions was in 6th grade. “A person doesn’t have to be Catholic to go to heaven”. That’s it.

jaime on December 4, 2007 at 8:23 PM

The Catechism is essetinally a reinforcement of Biblical teaching which includes references to various theological councils, authors, etc. It is designed as a neccesary enhancement to and keystone sumary of the Bible.

As a general rule, Catholics don’t tend to waste time comparing our Bible to that of the Protestants, it’s just a background numerical fact that doesn’t get much play because it doesn’t have much theological or moral usefullness. Now, as to the content of the books which protestants are missing, that does get mentioned, but most don’t specifically reference which book it is and whether or not the KJV lacks it.

BKennedy on December 5, 2007 at 12:06 PM

As I mentioned before it is because of competition.

Given that evangelicals love evangelizing in Roman Catholic nations, this is the worst kind of hypocrisy. What goes around, comes around.

rightwingprof on December 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM

*blinks* Did I just see maverick muse try to blame the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping on LDS doctrines? Is he or she serious? Incredible! And right2bright is, once again, applying a religious test to the presidency: anyone but a mormon is okay by her, it appears. After all, the “Mitt will take orders from SLC!!!” hysteria applies to any other LDS candidate who would be LDS, right? Like when Orrin Hatch ran in 2000, or let’s say the Dems ran Harry Reid? So this, folks, is a clear example of someone saying that being a Mormon disqualifies them from public office.

I’m sorry, but what, other than bigotry, can you call that? There’s no proof that LDS doctrines are harmful for society (rather the reverse), unlike some legitimate concerns for Muslim candidates. There’s no evidence that even if right2brights nightmare becomes true and the LDS church DID “issue orders to the president” that those orders would harm anyone.

I’d be far more worried about Huckabee’s explicit “Vote for me, I’m a Christian pastor” bit. He really admits he talks to God, and will govern based on that. Isn’t that sort of “cutting out the middleman” as it were? Right2bright, let me see you bashing Huckabee far, far more than Romney, since your main concern is much more of a concern with Huck than Romney.

And Huck’s “conversations with God” make him liberal, it appears. Which, to me, is far more frightening than some fantasy that the LDS church is salivating at the thought of somehow controlling the government.

Vanceone on December 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM

I do not want to seem PREDJUDICED or anything like that. God forgive me if I have!!!!!

jeanie on December 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Let me get this right:
Liberals want to take our money and open the borders
Conservatives want to starve people, and protect big business
Sears are overpriced
Wal-mart wants to destroy the U.S. with offshore products
Mary Kay products are run by greedy people
Shacklee are a front for some religious group
do you see how that works? I receive something from MoveOn and I toss it and say they are idiots…that makes me prejudice?

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Vanceone on December 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM

This is your idea of an honest Mormon? I already stated that Huck is disqualified if he runs as a minister.
Remember my quote “you can’t serve two masters”? Please show some integrity. I am consistent.
You have quite an imagination, I never said he took orders (could you show me that?), my question still stands.
Allegiance to his prophet over the U.S., or the U.S. over his prophet? (keep in mind he already made that choice with disallowing blacks the status that Mitt could obtain).

Does your canonized policy provide for polygamy? Section 132? (number 61 & 62).
Brian David Mitchell ( a prophet), Elizabeth Smart’s abductor, was following the principles embraced by Joseph Smith and later Brigham Young. Please, be honest in your faith. You may find it repugnant, but Smith and Young found it right in Gods eyes.
Your church is right in turning their back on this abhorrent policy (Hinckley states that that Mormons do not practice it), Smith was run out of Missouri for such a thing, but then I question…why do they keep it as canonized law? Why not just say Smith and Young were wrong. As long as it is there,it can become a “vision” again.
And as for your feigned “we are LDS, not Mormons”, tell your official website managers to remove the word Mormon. They seem to interchange the LDS with the word Mormon.
More “victim”….we are not Mormons, don’t insult us? (you might want them to remove your official website…

right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 3:35 PM