Religion and politics, the bane of cocktail party chatter, offer some insight into those imprecise terms “liberal” and “conservative” in news from the great state of Utah.
The second largest newspaper there, the Deseret News, frequently supports a kinder and gentler treatment for the nation’s illegal immigrants.
That tenor seems to flow from the paper’s Mormon roots.
But it does not settle well with the paper’s readers, “conservatives” who fear the state’s growing population of Hispanics and who do not mind telling the paper’s editor what they think.
Joe Cannon, editor, has probably heard it all during his lengthy tenure as a newspaper man, but even he admits that angry callers and letters marking him a “liberal” catch him by surprise.
Take a look at Cannon’s “liberal” resume, and I suspect that most folks who know Cannon would laugh at that moniker when it gets stuck to him.
But such is the nature of politics and the immigration debate.
It, like most hot-button issues facing American voters, seems to push people to the limit of labeling. And the religion angle only muddies the water more.
If you oppose the death penalty, you become a “liberal.” But what if the faith you pursue requires that?
If you support government “social programs” you become a liberal, even though your faith leads you in that direction.
If you support the right to life, you become a conservative, even though your faith may require that direction.
And so it goes.
Cannon writes frequently about a range of issues related to faith. You can read some of those by following a link below.
I wonder how you might label Cannon after reading his work and learning about his background.
Resources:
- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/business/media/20deseret.html/...
- http://www.deseretnews.com/site/staff/2713/...
Mac,
We need your wisdom on NPR and the Juan Williams firing. Its still timely. Please give us a new post.
My wisdom is rarely acknowledged and even more rarely sought! If I was a gambling man, and I am, I would bet that I know who posted this request. But alas, I also am vane! So, Juan is on. Mac
Thanks for the post. The article you reference contains a lot of interesting points, and I have read other items in a range of publications that also make those points. But the immigration issue seems to have deeper roots than all things economic. It's a tough nut to crack, and at its core is how to deal with "illegal" immigrants, even though the legal ones become targets of discrimination. In the 21st century, fences seem so "old." And random profiling seems so totalitarian. There must be better ways. I would agree that a dose of tolerance on the front end might help. But I expect I will hear from others, quickly, that tolerance lacks value. Best- Mac
I just read an interesting Washington Post article by Ezra Klein that presents an argument for letting MORE immigrants into the country. Klein says immigrants take jobs no one else wants, their jobs help create other jobs, and they have to pay taxes and social security on income. Okay, they don't taxes and social security if they are paid "under the table," but immigrants do purchase food, clothing, cars, gas, cleaning supplies, furniture, cars...all the things that have sales tax and all the things that help the economy. If somehow people could stop being frightened by immigrants and try to understand the positive, we'd all be better off.
Post new comment