No Disrespect
Ann Althouse, who has long been one of my personal favorites in the blogosphere, has a rather pointed takedown of Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is really on a bender over his personally-coined word "christianist" and, in this case, Mormons in general, Mitt Romney specifically. Althouse takes him to task over it:
"I mean no disrespect."
Says Andrew Sullivan, chided by a Mormon for his post about Mormon undergarments. Here's the post. Do you buy "I mean no disrespect"?
ADDED: And here's an earlier post. Sullivan is so sure of himself on the subject of religion. He seems to think he knows just where it's right to dish out contempt about religion. But his contempt is mostly for religious people who he thinks are too sure of themselves. [ADDED: But that is exactly his character flaw.] In this case, it seems that Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage makes it morally upright for Sullivan to attack Mormons:
Mitt Romney will surely provide a fascinating glimpse into the Christianist mindset in the coming two years. He will be the candidate for the Christianist right, but he's not a Christian. And many Christianists may well recoil at the man's Mormon faith…. I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for Romney's plight. Live by fundamentalism; die by fundamentalism.
I wonder how many people "recoil" at Sullivan's sanctimonious pronouncements about "Christianists." He's become so devoted to that word of his. Does he not notice how snide and hostile it feels even to people who are not fundamentalists?
The best part of the post is in the updates. Especially the last one:
AND: Glenn Greenwald is such an idiot. Am I supposed to respond to this foolishness? Glenn, you moron, in case you didn't notice, Sullivan is mocking Mormons in general. That's what bothered me. I don't object to the word "Christianists" if it is used fairly to refer to something that is the equivalent of "Islamists." I use the word "religionists" myself. See here, here, here, and here. Words like this mean something and have a place. The key is to use them in the right place. I criticize Sullivan when he shows a hostility toward ordinary religious people who aren't trying to bully their way around the political world. There are distinctions to be made here. Why not take a little trouble to try to understand the person you are criticizing before you write, you disreputable slimeball? (And your writing is putrid.) [But I do love the pathetic jealousy of your post title.]
Now, frankly, I find Greenwald to be one of the most turgid writers blogging today. He never fails to find a way to say in 3,000 or so words what could have been said in, oh, say, three short sentences. And he's punctuation challenged in figuring out where to break sentences. That he also gets caught engaging in blatant sockpuppetry is just plain funny. I've said before that Althouse can deliver the definitive smackdown when she chooses. She delivered two at once here.
Not that I mean any disrespect or anything.
Blogosphere | Gaius Saturday, 25 November , 2006
By Arlo, Sunday, 26 November , 2006 @ 11:33 am
Both parties are off on a tear with this religion stuff. Romney seems to be really hankering to make religion a big part of the 2008 primaries.
Heres what I don’t get: Ronald Reagan is beloved by the religious/religionists/whatever the appropriate term is. Reagan never went to church and I don’t recall him saying anything religious. How did we get from that to now where politicians keep upping the ante on how religious they are?