Video: Mitt’s Mormonism is fair game, says Hitchens
posted at 5:38 pm on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
His point about institutional racism is well taken (and timely given this morning’s WaPo article on Mormonism going global) but nothing Mitt can’t deflect with a statement about believers sometimes disagreeing with their church’s policies and working from within for change. When all else fails, remind Catholics that women still can’t be ordained as priests and drop “let he who is without sin…” on them and you’re good to go.
The rest is surprising. Like Cavuto, I thought he’d come out and start throwing grenades about Christianity being ridiculous root and branch, in which case why should Mitt have any more to answer for than McCain, Thompson, Giuliani or anyone else who subscribes to the more mainstream version? Instead, he singles out the Mormon theory of the Garden of Eden as especially “crackpot.” Which may be so, but seems like an odd distinction for one of the world’s most famous atheists to make.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Ok, I withdraw the term “religionist”. I stand by the rest of my post.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 19, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Oh way to stick together there.
Let the enraged villagers come after the rest of us with torches and pitchforks just as long as they leave you alone!!!
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Its a pendulum. They had their big years in 2000-4. The old guard of the evangelical bloc are starting to see their grip loosen. Its an evolution, they’re still quite powerful, but things will change over the next few decades. People are beginning to see the folly of Nanny Statism. It’ll start slow, but it will grow. We’ll see a realignment over the next few decades, it’ll be less about religious/non-religious and more state power vs. liberty. I’m convinced.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 11:40 PM
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Comment doesn’t really sound the same when it loses the context of Allah’s comment, but believe me, I know.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM
okay. sorry to spray freindly fire all over the room.
here’s an awesome video of reckless basejumping
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262
jummy on November 19, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Here you go. I’m not sure you’ll actually learn anything…but maybe.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Great quote. Thanks. I hadn’t seen it before.
dedalus on November 19, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Thomas Jefferson was anti-clerical.
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Ha! That’s a great site, I like the article about the resurrection the best. “if he appeared to hundred of people, why not now? Lets all pray and see if he comes”. Some people read the darndest things.
Hundreds see Him after the resurrection, all of his disciples die a horrible death…and the question asked is “if he appeared once in the past, why not now?”
I think that site is a satirical site, and you have been taken in.
Ha, that was great…reminds me of the Onion network.
right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Maybe, but he wasn’t an anti-theist like Hitch. Jefferson was a Deist AFAIK.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 11:58 PM
and he said JC was the world’s greatest philosopher.
Spirit of 1776 on November 19, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I think a deist is anti-theist, but maybe that’s subject to interpretation.
dedalus on November 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM
You people will like this, a Republican Assembly in Arkansas just endorsed teh Fred. Now, you may not like Fred, but that’s a black eye for Nanny Huck.
Bad Candy on November 20, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Jefferson was not an anti-theist. Not to be argumentative, just for the record. He, with a handful of other great men, get the mind of the common man projected on to him and interpreted through those prisms instead of taken as they were. Not saying you are doing that, just being clear.
Spirit of 1776 on November 20, 2007 at 12:07 AM
In a technical sense, but I’m talking as an attitude, he wasn’t belligerent in his behavior like Hitch.
I’m just turned off by unjustified hostility to religious or non-religious simply because of their personal religious life.
Bad Candy on November 20, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Agreed. I think there is a difference between a deist and an atheist. I think religion, especially Christianity, is a force for good.
dedalus on November 20, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Of course there is, I’m amazed I stay Catholic and don’t go Deist.
Bad Candy on November 20, 2007 at 12:16 AM
No problem. I’m following a technical line of discussion, not in search of an outcome.
dedalus on November 20, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Lots of reasons to stay Catholic. Even allowing for doubts, there is an elaborate beauty to the Catholic church that is remarkable even in the face of uncertainty.
dedalus on November 20, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Very true, and a big part of why I stay. I’ve just kinda entered a rough spot in my religious life.
That doesn’t mean Jefferson rejects a Creative force. I’ve never heard of him declaring there was no Creator, just that no faith held absolute truth, which I appreciate.
Bad Candy on November 20, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Don’t bash the Hitch … he’s very brialliant in his foward thinking and a true studier of theo/philo history…
OR don’t be so conservative that your too stubborn to understand the other side/ or under side of anti-religious thought.
There are many written works you could look at for primers… hm ..read some Plato or Aquinas to start. (niche, voltaire,)
Look around and read some things without making such anti thinking comments… and you know who I’m talking to.
amend2 on November 20, 2007 at 12:40 AM
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
- Voltaire
MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 1:12 AM
God is the stuff from which is made the very mind that attempts to comprehend him.
~Greg west
earlier today
TheSitRep on November 20, 2007 at 1:51 AM
like Hitchens. I never listen to his atheist crap. Wish some more non-Christians like me would weigh in and explain exactly how big a problem Christianity is in their lives–ZERO! Thank you wonderful Christians. You made a GREAT country for us to enjoy.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM
God Bless you!!
lizzee on November 20, 2007 at 6:25 AM
Because you’re making associations in your mind between two things you don’t like (religiousity and excessive State power). Is it really likely that say increased spending on federally mandanted bicycle helmets stems from a messianic urge?
I don’t know. Ask your therapist.
aengus on November 20, 2007 at 6:46 AM
Look you all,
Hitch is viscerally anti-religion… no question. However, he was not in atheist mode in this interview with Cavuto. He made a major point that no one here has adressed. (If I’m wrong, sorry I missed you.)
I’ve been open to Mitt. I like him. But I have known this fact and Hitch just reminded me.
The Mormon Church was racist. Now mind you, not raaaaaaaacist. Just simply racist. Until 1979.
You could not be a member of the church if you were black. They sure liked ya, by golly, but you could NOT BE a member.
Now Mitt was a young man, in the late 60’s, an enthusiastic missionary for a racist church. What did he do when confronted with a dark-skinned Frenchman? He couldn’t proselytize him! Did he try anyway? Any stories there?
From Mitt, so far: nothing!
What is gonna happen if Mitt gets the nomination? This will be a major issue fo sho!
It will definitely be asked about at the debate.
As an adult, what did he think of his church’s racist policies? The policy was changed when the 12 elders in Salt Lake City had a “revelation.” What kind of process is that? And why didn’t it happen like, a 100 years ago?
You guys have missed the big issue… this is HUGE.
I don’t think Hitch was thinking religion, here. He knows that a Democrat president would be disastrous. He wants a Republican president, for the GWOT, to fight the good fight. He’s worried that Romney gets the Republican nod, because he can’t win.
Even if he could win, he could not govern well, as President of ALL Americans, because his religion’s recent history TOTALLY disqualifies him.
Again, Hitch isn’t being atheist here.
It’s the War on Terror, stupid.
silverfox on November 20, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Another question:
Is there a witness out there who can say that Mitt bought the racist line from his church? Is it possible that Mitt himself actually held racist beliefs?
So much for Rove’s advice for the GOP to reach out to minorities more… this would set it back decades.
If the Dems can’t find a witness, they’ll make one.
Even if it’s one of Allah’s robots.
silverfox on November 20, 2007 at 7:12 AM
Christopher Hitchens, with an entire bottle of Glenfiddich in his system, is smarter than any 20 people you can pull off the street. Let’s not resort to ad honinem attacks here. That sort of thing belongs to the libtards. And his point about Romney’s Mormonism is correct.
The garden of Eden in Missouri? Show me!
thejackal on November 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM
honinem s/b hominem
Too much Glenfiddich this morning.
thejackal on November 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I hadn’t heard about the banning of blacks until 1979 before. I wonder why this wasn’t included in the push poll?
Bill C on November 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM
False.
To be a member, one must be baptized. ‘Black’ people could be baptized before 1978 and, therefore, could be members of the L.D.S. church. They could also serve in the church, as do/can all members. The one thing denied black members of the church before Spencer Kimball’s revelation in 1978 was ordination to the priesthood.
The year for which you’re looking is 1978.
You should check your sources.
Jens on November 20, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh BS. He simply takes a contrarian position, sprinkles in pseudo intellectualism and presto, people think he is a genius. So he is right about jihadism, big deal.
And like all of us he only becomes more intelligent when he does drink the Glenfiddich. (Or when I do)
sweeper on November 20, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Depends, is that street 1st Street in Washington DC (Capitol building)?
Otherwise Chris Hitchens is simply more arrogant and self-absorbed than any 20 people you pull off the street, who sounds like a briliant man but is merely a very angry faux intellectual.
BKennedy on November 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Exactly. Hitch is a bore of suprisingly little brain.
Hitch hitched his name and support to all of the leftist cause celebres of the 1970’s. He was (and still is) a fawning Palestinian apologist and remains an unreconstructed Trotskyite. He viewed America’s involvement in Vietnam as a “colonialist” enterprise. That’s deliciously ironic since the North Vietnamese proved to be the empire builders in southeast Asia, conquering or bullying all of their neighbors into submission. His personal crusade against General Augusto Pinochet is ironic as well since he has publically supported far more hideous governments and individuals.
Mike Honcho on November 20, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I stand corrected.
And Hitchens said so in the video too.
However, in terms of the politics, it’s just not that different.
I like Mitt… but this issue kills the deal.
silverfox on November 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2