Ed Morrissey says I have one standard for religious criticism for Mormons and another for black Christians. This is so patently unfair that Glenn Reynolds links. Here's my allegedly incriminating statement on Romney and the Mormon church's history of institutional racism (worse, I'd say, than ugly words from the pulpit):
The awful history of the LDS church’s treatment of African-Americans requires an accounting by any leading Mormon …
Here's my statement on Obama's need to address Wright:
It's nutty, offensive and paranoid stuff. And it is perfectly legitimate for reporters and voters to ask questions... Obama needs to be much more forceful and candid in explaining his relationship with Wright... like many people, I wouldn't sit through one of these sermons, let alone come back for more. And it would be helpful, to say the very least, if Obama told us more candidly why he did and does.
Can someone tell me where the double standard is? And is it legit for a blogger to accuse another blogger of a double standard and not actually link to the current post he is citing? How can a reader fairly judge whether Morrissey or Reynolds is being fair when they deny the reader the chance to read the full context? Or was that the point?
I should add that the record is absolutely clear that I never argued that Romney's faith should be used in any way against him in public life, and in fact repeatedly, strongly argued that it should not. I opposed him because he was one of the biggest phonies to run for president in my lifetime. And even partisan Republican voters agreed.