Former US Senate Candidate Kurt Evans: “Catholics & Mormons prone to cronyism than.. Protestants.”

I’ve been writing this blog for 9 1/2 years, so as you might expect, I’ve run across some crazy things in the comment section.

I’ve read comments that have made me gasp. I’ve read comments that have forced me to report things to state or federal law enforcement. (And trust me, it got that kid’s attention when he was visited by the FBI).

I’ve read things that are flat out crude & offensive, and at times, I’ve been forced to ban people when they refuse to behave.

Suffice it to say, I’m fairly unshockable when it comes to the things that people will write, especially when they think they do so on an anonymous basis.   Yet this week, a discussion started that made me seriously question the upbringing that someone received to create a world view of that nature.

What’s even more scary is that this person has run for statewide elective office, and has indicated that he intends to do so in the future.

Kurt Evans is best known for running for the US House in 1996, and the US Senate in 2002 as a libertarian, where he received three thousand votes, which came to .91% – almost one percent of the votes cast. With less than a thousand votes separating US Senator John Thune & Tim Johnson, Evans is widely held as the spoiler in the race, preventing Thune’s win.

Evans had both entered and exited the US Senate race this election, vowing to run again in 2016.  Which is why I was floored when he started traipsing down the trail of making some statements which seem to stand as outright bigotry:

crony_catholocismAs you’ll note, when Troy Jones gave him the opportunity to explain it away. He confirmed it.

Other commenters accused him of being bigoted, which he claimed not to be.  But then, at the prompting of Bill Fleming not only did he confirm what seems to most of society as a pretty bigoted statement regarding Catholics, he doubled down:

Double_down_evansSo, there is was, in black & white. Kurt Evans, a former Candidate for Congress & the US Senate came out and stated “I believe authoritarian Catholics and Mormons are generally more prone to cronyism than traditional libertarian Protestants.”

Bigotry is defined as treating or viewing other people with fear, distrust or hatred based on their race, religion, etc. He may claim not to be bigoted, but to say people of any religion are prone to dishonesty or chicanery, such as saying they’re “prone to crony capitalism” is nothing but bigotry, in it’s most raw form.

I’m not sure what’s scarier – that he ran for office before, he’s involved with the education of children now, or that he’s already stated that he’s running for US Senate again in 2016?

In any case, should he choose to seek the electorate’s favor once more, at least people have an idea what’s contained in the package he’s selling.

37 Replies to “Former US Senate Candidate Kurt Evans: “Catholics & Mormons prone to cronyism than.. Protestants.””

  1. Roger Cornelius

    How could Evans even arrive at that conclusion? Did he do a study or was he citing any sources that confirmed those conclusions?

    Political cronyism knows no boundaries, whether it be religion, political party or skin color.

    Didn’t Geraldo over at FOX “News” recently say that dark skinned Democrats were more corrupt than Republicans?

    Reply
  2. Lee Schoenbeck

    I think you need to correct one thing about Mr Evans. I think he is most famous for the restraining order the SDSU basketball player had to get against him. And when you think about what it takes mentally to get into that special club of dementia, none of the rest of what he’s said since is all that surprising

    Reply
    1. Kurt Evans

      Lee Schoenbeck writes:
      >”I think you need to correct one thing about Mr Evans. I think he is most famous for the restraining order the SDSU basketball player had to get against him. And when you think about what it takes mentally to get into that special club of dementia, none of the rest of what he’s said since is all that surprising”

      This comment is especially disappointing because Lee has heard my side of that story in person.

      I don’t generally treat or view Catholics with “fear, distrust or hatred,” but apparently at least one of them (Pat Powers) views and treats me that way.

      I’ll have to address the rest of this later. Good night.

      Reply
        1. Kurt Evans

          Lee Schoenbeck wrote:
          >”!!!!!! I’ve never met you or heard your ‘side of the story in person’.”

          Yes you have, Lee, on November 30, 2004, when I testified before the LRC’s Criminal Code Revision Commission. I believe you were the chair.

          Reply
  3. Anonymous

    PP- I believe you did misquote him in your article, I never saw that he used the word “capitalism”.

    Reply
  4. Natew

    OOOH OMG OUTRAGE. Who cares. Everyone is looking for a bigot so they can feel sanctimonious. Everyone is a bigot somehow in someway so who cares. Maybe his life experiences have been very negative with Catholics? You know Catholics used to murder people who disagree with them, lets not let history pass us by…

    Reply
  5. Troy Jones

    Nate,

    Even if he had horrible experience with Catholics and Mormons, it is wrong to project that experience on everyone who is Catholic.

    Just because one is robbed by a Black guy, it is wrong to say Blacks are prone to robbery and then treat all Black’s as if they are criminals. It is by definition bigotry. I could make similar analogies across all demographics.

    The fact Kurt didn’t retract his initial statement about Rounds and Jackley when there is no evidence of his charge and especially not that it was motivated by religion (remember what he claims they did is taught by the Catholic Church as “grave matter” which makes the link even more ludicrous) tells us he makes judgment of distrust about Catholics just because they are Catholics.

    His bigotry is deep-seated.

    Reply
  6. anonymous

    Rounds and Jackley likely could not care less about Evans’ opinion. He is not a worthy topic of a blog post.

    Reply
  7. Anne Beal

    Sicilians and Colombians, they’re all Catholics…….don’t know anything about Mormons though

    Reply
    1. El Rayo X

      Anne, if you’re interested in Mormons, you might check with Rev. Billy Graham. Two weeks after Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination for president, Rev. Graham removed Mormonism from his list of cults on his website. As far as I know, Rev. Graham is still cool with Mormons.

      Reply
  8. Anonymous

    One of the few Rhoden supporters, is a religious bigot.

    Jason Ravnsborg’s campaign manager made comments of a racist tone about DNA and breeding.

    Well just as long as no one took a picture of Ravnsborg’s Minnesota campaign vehicle.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Hi Stace!

      Who are you accusing in Rhoden’s camp? That is an outrageous accusation with no facts.

      You do know that William Beal thoroughly discredited the attack on Mr. Crow on here right? and I don’t think that is Jason’s campaign manager he mentioned another name once.

      It was discussed earlier that the MN plated car is a rental.

      Get your facts straight, but I guess you have never cared about that before.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Those Rhoden people aren’t very sharp, are they? Kurt Evans is a Rhoden supporter this post is about him being a religious bigot.

        Reply
  9. Troy Jones

    Anne,

    I can’t resist. The Pope and Bishops who selected the Books of the Bible (new and old testament) 350 years after the Resurrection were also all Catholics. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Kurt Evans

      Troy Jones wrote:
      >”The Pope and Bishops who selected the Books of the Bible (new and old testament) 350 years after the Resurrection were also all Catholics.”

      The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 recognized the books evangelical Christians had always considered infallible and wrongly added the so-called “deuterocanonical” books to the list. The Bishop of Carthage presided over the synod. The pope wasn’t there.

      Reply
      1. Kurt Evans

        Troy Jones wrote:
        >>”The Pope and Bishops who selected the Books of the Bible (new and old testament) 350 years after the Resurrection were also all Catholics.”

        I replied:
        >”The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 recognized the books evangelical Christians had always considered infallible and wrongly added the so-called ‘deuterocanonical’ books to the list. The Bishop of Carthage presided over the synod. The pope wasn’t there.”

        I’m wondering whether Pat Powers and Troy Jones consider that comment proof that I’m a bigot.

        Reply
  10. Anne Beal

    There was an interesting TV show about the Amish Mafia. Never heard anything about a Mormon Mafia

    Reply
  11. mhs

    It’s crony kookism Anne. Run a fake campaign, become a consultant to other kook candidates(Howie) . Run a fake campaign to raise cash from out of state kooks, keep the cash (BozScam). Run a fake caucus of one, run on a fake record, fake scorecards of other candidates to send to kooks, etc, ad nausem (Nelson). Hubble is at least honest in that she’s just a kook, unless she has hidden agenda involving aliens that is yet to be revealed.

    Cronyism at it’s worst.

    Reply
  12. Kurt Evans

    One point many people seem to have missed is that Jackley made his announcement the morning after a debate in which Rounds was hammered repeatedly for being soft on Obamacare. It’s hard for me to believe their Catholicism has nothing to do with their mutually beneficial political relationship, but it’s even harder to believe no one else finds the timing of that announcement suspicious.

    Reply
      1. Kurt Evans

        William Beal wrote:
        >”I’m surprised you ‘bumped’ this post…”

        It’s probably going to be part of my Google bio for the rest of my life, and comments on it are probably about to close. I wanted to make a couple of points.

        Reply
  13. Troy Jones

    Kurt,

    Look up the logical fallacy “argument by incredulity” as your argument fits.

    This is a really goofy argument.

    Reply
  14. Kurt Evans

    I’d written:
    >”One point many people seem to have missed is that Jackley made his announcement the morning after a debate in which Rounds was hammered repeatedly for being soft on Obamacare. It’s hard for me to believe their Catholicism has nothing to do with their mutually beneficial political relationship, but it’s even harder to believe no one else finds the timing of that announcement suspicious.”

    Troy Jones replied:
    >”Look up the logical fallacy ‘argument by incredulity’ as your argument fits.”

    The fallacy is called argument _from_ (not “by”) incredulity, and it doesn’t fit for multiple reasons. I’ve never directly asserted that Jackley’s announcement was an act of cronyism, and I’ve never said I couldn’t imagine any other possibility.

    I’ve indicated how the situation looks to me, and you’ve argued for an alternative hypothesis. I find your hypothesis unlikely, but I’m not explicitly condemning it. You’re condemning mine. The burden of proof is on you.

    Reply
  15. Troy Jones

    Kurt,

    Your statement with regard to the canonization of the Bible isn’t necessarily bigoted but it does indicate some inaccurate understanding of history and how the Catholic Church operates.

    1) “Wrongly included the deuterocanical books” is a matter of perspective. Catholics include those books as they were part of the Jewish canon during Christ’s time on earth and were stricken after the destruction of the Temple. Jews struck them as they offended the Roman Empire because of their nationalistic perspective and divine “chosenness” of the Throne of David. So, if you consider it wrong to keep what was Canon while Jesus was on earth and influenced by the Roman Empire, Catholics disagree.

    2) There are as many Councils/Synods where the presider is the Pope as by an appointed representative by the Pope. The Pope doesn’t have to be there but nothing takes effect unless ultimately approved by the “Greatest among Equals.”

    Regarding “argument by incredulity” or “from,” the point is the same. You find it incredulous that Jackley isn’t acting but because he and Rounds are Catholic.

    You enter into the discussion with a predisposition that Catholics act in cahoots (cronyism I think was your word) and then conclude that a certain result is because of your predisposition. This is called the logical fallacy “circular reasoning.”

    Secondly, you introduce the assertion because two things are true (Rounds and jackleg are Catholic) but offer no evidence it has anything to do with the decision/action. And, when I assert it is untrue, you assert the burden of proof is on my to prove it is false. This shifting of the Burden of Proof violates the principle of “onus Probandi” where the asserter must offer evidence. If there is no evidence offered, the assertion is to be rejected.

    Despite your claim you didn’t “directly assert” it was an act of Catholic cronyism but if you read your posts in the introduction and since, the innuendo is most direct. You keep digging the hole different. You might want to quit digging.

    Reply
  16. Kurt Evans

    Troy Jones wrote:
    >”Catholics include [the deuterocanonical] books [as infallible] as they were part of the Jewish canon during Christ’s time on earth and were stricken after the destruction of the Temple.”

    They were never part of the Hebrew Bible, and they were never generally considered infallible by early Christians.

    >”There are as many Councils/Synods where the presider is the Pope as by an appointed representative by the Pope. The Pope doesn’t have to be there but nothing takes effect unless ultimately approved by the ‘Greatest among Equals.'”

    You indicated that the pope helped to select the books of the Bible 350 years after the Resurrection. The pope didn’t “ultimately approve” the list of books from the Synod of Hippo until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.

    >”Regarding ‘argument by incredulity’ or ‘from,’ the point is the same. You find it incredulous that Jackley isn’t acting but because he and Rounds are Catholic.”

    You’re not using the word “incredulous” correctly. A person is incredulous when he or she finds something incredible. The possibility that Jackley’s motives were pure doesn’t seem incredible or unbelievable to me. It just seems unlikely.

    >”You enter into the discussion with a predisposition that Catholics act in cahoots (cronyism I think was your word) and then conclude that a certain result is because of your predisposition. This is called the logical fallacy ‘circular reasoning.'”

    You’re misrepresenting both my predisposition and the circular-reasoning fallacy, but that’s beside the point. None of these logical fallacies can possibly apply because I’ve never directly asserted that Jackley’s announcement was an act of cronyism, much less tried to prove it.

    >”Secondly, you introduce the assertion because two things are true (Rounds and jackleg are Catholic) but offer no evidence it has anything to do with the decision/action.”

    No, I’ve never “introduced the assertion” that Jackley’s announcement was an act of cronyism. I’ve only indicated how the situation looks to me.

    >”And, when I assert it is untrue, you assert the burden of proof is on my to prove it is false. This shifting of the Burden of Proof violates the principle of ‘onus Probandi’ where the asserter must offer evidence. If there is no evidence offered, the assertion is to be rejected.”

    You acknowledge asserting that Jackley’s announcement wasn’t an act of cronyism. Then you argue that the asserter must offer evidence. I’m not shifting the burden of proof to you. You’ve taken it upon yourself.

    >”Despite your claim you didn’t ‘directly assert’ it was an act of Catholic cronyism but if you read your posts in the introduction and since, the innuendo is most direct.”

    My statements about what I believe and how the situation looks to me are definitely direct. By definition, “innuendo” is never direct.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.