Posted by:
fiyero
(
)
Date: May 01, 2012 12:39PM
Apologies if this has already been discussed here, but my TBM mother forwarded me a ridiculous piece of garbage today that really had me laughing. Read the article, and then my take on it is afterwards:
__________
Mitt Romney's Underwear | Bob Lonsberry
Friday, April 13, 2012
Mitt Romney's Underwear
Let's talk about Mitt Romney's underwear.
A caller to the radio mentioned them yesterday. He was a sick-sounding man, with an odd cackle, and he over and over asked, "What about Mitt Romney's magic underwear?"
He clearly felt he was making some sort of a point.
And he was.
That he was an idiot and a bigot.
But let's answer his question.
What about Mitt Romney's magic underwear?
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is a Christian religion founded in 1830 in upstate New York. Some Mormons do wear a religious garment under their outer clothes. Presumably, Mitt Romney is one of those Mormons.
***You may not copy entire articles.
Read more:
http://www.wham1180.com/pages/boblonsberry.html?article=10037569#ixzz1stNY8wwS............................
OK, I have to tear this apart. The logic (or lack thereof) in this piece is hilarious.
Other cultures wear religiously symbolic clothing: Yes, I agree on that, but not much more. My take on the rest is as follows:
"Roman Catholic religious have worn sacred garments for 1,700 years."
OK, priest and nuns, etc., but not any of my Catholic friends. Is it fair to compare the sacred vestments of the clergy with a lay member Catholic, or even a Catholic politician like JFK? Did JFK wear religious underwear or outerwear on a daily basis while he was president? I think not. That would just be weird.
"In the Judeo-Christian tradition, specialized articles of religious clothing, of one type or another, have been worn for at least 4,000 years. Some of these have been visible, as a sign to the world, and some have been worn under other clothes, as a reminder to the wearer."
The argument here is that magic underwear or other religious clothing is mainstream and not weird in any way, and should not be disparaged right? So then, what are some similar examples in the J-C tradition that enhance this viewpoint? "one type or another" is not exactly descriptive. Also, I can think of many examples on my own, but these are all outerwear. What astounds me is that the key element to the comparative nature of this argument, "some have been worn under clothes" is completely glossed over, almost as if being swept under the rug. If Mitt's religious underwear is not weird, than please explain why this is so. Does this mean that many of my co-workers and neighbors in the J-C tradition are wearing specialized items of religious clothing under their business suits or t-shirts and True Religion jeans and I've just never known or noticed? I am not aware of anyone other than temple-going Mormons wearing hidden religious clothing unless we are to count the gold chain with a cross that has slipped out of view behind a jacket or a WWJD bracelet that has temporarily retreated behind a cuff. Until someone can make the point that more than 1% of the US population is wearing hidden religious clothing, then I have no choice but to consider this "weird" from my viewpoint.
"The point of all this is that religions around the world have various types of religious garments. If you do the math, most believers on earth belong to a religion that commands its followers or leaders to wear religiously significant clothing. Mormons are part of that majority."
No, I believe the essential point the author is trying to make is that Mitt Romney should not be considered weird for wearing magic underwear, and that dismissing his religiously significant underwear is offensive. I did the math, and it doesn't add up. Of course there are many religions and cultures throughout the world that wear under or outer wear that could be considered strange to my cultural viewpoint. If I am to be honest, I find Muslim burkas and sikh turbans a bit weird. I find the beards and clothing choices of Hasidic Jews and the Amish equally as weird. The way I see the point is that Romney will be representing the United States of America, not the "united countries of the world." It may be true that most believers in the world might wear some sort of religiously symbolic clothing, but in this country, it's a fringe group and I cant immediately change my perception that it's just a bit weird to me.
"Mormons are part of that majority. And Mitt Romney is a Mormon. And he lives his religion."
Ex-squeeze me? A-baking powder? So Mormons are now part of "that majority?" The only majority that Mormons are part of is the global community of the religious weird. In this country, they have no majority except in the state of Utah or other pockets of the inter-mountain west. How do most Americans view the state of Utah I ask? I'll let the reader ponder on that one. This article fails to make any of its intended points, and after reading, I only find mormon garments to be right up there with Sikh turbans, Islam burkas, Hari Krishna robes, and Jewish yarmulkes. I know they are sacred to those that wear them, but as an average WASP joe in this country, I don't really understand the significance. In fact, it's even a bit weirder because unlike the other aforementioned examples, the author fails to provide any example of hidden religious clothing that would make Romney's underwear preference seem any less weird.
"Promises which, like the garment that represents them, are sacred, and should not be made fun of. At least not by decent people."
OK, I understand that I must respect the traditions and viewpoints of others, so I won't make fun. Just don't expect me to "magically" view your sacred underwear as anything but weird.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2014 07:06PM by Susan I/S.