If you give one person a pass on bigotry because of age, then you can give another a pass because of lack of education or information or bad influences.

On the other hand, I would distinguish between types of bigoty for all ages and backgrounds.
If someone says he believes that Mormons are a dangerous cult, we can disagree and debate, wtihout banning that person from appearing in public. Free speech implies free thought.
This is really not much different than tolerating those with different political convictions: to be tolerant means ot be tolerant even of those who are dead wrong,

It’s entirely different, however, if another says Mormons are a cult and they should be penalized for being Mormorns in some way. That kind of proposition should be confronted, no matter who the author of it is. The difference is one between a passive thought and an umacce[table action, proposed or realized.

Mrs. McCain didn’t propose burnign down Mormon churches, so she is not all that alarming. We should say she has bigoted views on the subject, which is true regardless of her reasons, and let it go.

I know the intent of your statement was good, but to say that “Even if she had made a blatantly racist statement”, it makes me feel like you don’t consider what she said to be bigotry. Simply insert the word “Black” where she said “Mormon” and tell me if it isn’t already the same

You’re absolutely right of course, and I apologize. There is no better and worse bigotry. I’m atheist and object to the double standard that makes it OK to badmouth atheism. This is obviously no different.

Doma, I don’t think the opinions of old people need to be all summarily dismissed just because they are old (barring senility), but I do think that a certain leeway is in order when they express opinions that are clearly no longer socially acceptable. like expressions of racism/sexism/homophobia. The fact the woman is 95 doesn’t make her bigotry right, but I would object more if she were 50 years younger. People do become set in their ways, and though that shouldn’t give them the right to do/say anything, I think a minimum of further patience is appropriate.

His mother is not running for office, and her views are very much a sidelinne issue. McCanin is all grown up and speaks for himself.

I object, however, to the idea, expressed by Lynx, that old folks can’t be taken seriously because they’re, you know, old. Mrs. McCain showed no signs of being a doddering old fool. I’m sure she’ll be voting,, and her opinion matters just like that of anyone else.

Reading the many blogs written by college age sharp tacks, I see a great many pronouncements based on belief rather than fact. What’s they’re excuse, that they’re too young?

McCain has his views, which are important because he’s running for office. We can agree or disagree with him.
His mother has her opinions, which are much less imprtant, because she is not running for office. We can agree or disagree with her.
The two people are related by blood, but each is separately responsible for what he/she says and does.

BTW, there is tendency to ignore or denounce the emotional reactions of politicians’ family members to political battles. I say, lets’s let them be just humans once in a while and show their natural partiality

As far as the opinions of family members, I would only accept as valid to my opinion of a candidate the opinions of their children, and then only if they were relatively young and the views extreme. If I find out that your 10 year old son calls black people n—rs that would make me highly suspicious of you, since young kids learn that stuff at home. Otherwise…no go.