Washington Post dredges up 150 year old Mormon massacre
The Washington Post column dredged up the history of the Mormon Massacre of settlers that took place about 200 years ago.
Sandyha Somashekhar wrote in the WaPo:
Hundreds of the victims' descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call "the first 9/11."
There aren't many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism - and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country's first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.
Polls have shown that evangelicals have rallied to Mitt Romney and that anti-Mormon prejudice is more of influence in liberal circles.
But why let facts stand in the way of a narrative? Furthermore, Somashekar later dismisses the relevance of the massacre by stating that none of this may make a difference in the polls since this is, after all, a place "where people teach their children to hunt raccoons and relatives are referred to as 'kin.'" and "it is so conservatively Christian that former governor Mike Huckabee once derided its politicians as 'Shiite Republicans,'" and are "skeptical of the president's faith believing their choice this fall is between a Mormon and a Muslim."
Where does a critic start with this column?
Do people in Texas or elsewhere rail about "Remember the Alamo" when deciding to support Hispanic politicians? Do Hawaiians recall Pearl Harbor when deciding whether so support candidates with Japanese heritage (some of our most impressive politicians have been Japanese-Americans).
But southerners must be so benighted and ignorant that they would judge a Mormon candidate by some action that took place 150 years ago and that is shrouded in mystery.
By the way, do deep South southerners really all teach their children to hunt raccoons and refer to relatives as "kin"? Has Somashekhar learned about southerners by just watching episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies? Southerners are more likely to teach their children the values and ideals that made America great; to teach them that America is an "exceptional country," that patriotism is a virtue and not a disgrace.
Anti-southern prejudice is alive and well in America. Sadly, it is an acceptable prejudice in much of America. I wrote years ago why the South should be a model for the rest of the nation and should never be subject to the prejudicial views that so many liberals seem to hold towards the region.
Thomas Lifson adds: This calls to mind the front page Washington Post article years ago that casually referred to evangelicals as "poor, badly educated, and easily led" as if it were absolute unquestionable fact. In point of fact, evangelicals have more ediucation and higher income than the American average.
Presudice dies hard at the Wasdington Post.