Video: Mitt’s Mormonism is fair game, says Hitchens
posted at 5:38 pm on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
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.
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: 1 2 Next »
Well Christianity has, you know, archaeology for references/debate . Garden of Eden in Missouri? Come now.
Theworldisnotenough on November 19, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Does Hitchens take naps in the green room before appearances like this? He always seems like he’s a bit surly about having been woken from a nice nap.
forest on November 19, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Because this is how we convert more of the faithful to the dark side, my godless friend. We start out with something simple, like the “crackpot” Garden of Eden theory of Mormonism. Believers will certainly recognize such a thing as obviously absurd. And this may cause some believers to examine their own beliefs, searching for similar absurdity…which inevitably leads the some new atheists. Sure, it’s baby steps, but this Mormon Garden of Eden theory isn’t a bad place to start. Bit by bit, little by little, etc.
Enrique on November 19, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Allah, are you telling me drinking too much kills brain cells?
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 5:48 PM
If that lasts for more than four hours, make sure you get to a doctor.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 5:49 PM
He’s an angry drunk with a nice speaking voice.
tizzidale on November 19, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Might be a hangover. For a long time he’s been open about drinking a lot–he says it makes other people less boring. Don’t know if he has curtailed the drinking at all recently.
dedalus on November 19, 2007 at 5:50 PM
What’s with this guy? Is he a drug addict?
SoulGlo on November 19, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Just a bitter drunk.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Amazing how you guys smear him just the way the lefties do when he says something encouraging about Iraq.
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Of those running in either party, I think Mitt would be the best executive in the White House. However, his Mormonism is going to turn off both the left and a lot of Christians.
He can do a lot for Mormonism with his run, but he’ll cost the GOP the election.
dedalus on November 19, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Without exception every Mormon I have ever met was a great person.
That being said, what’s up with wearing special godly underwear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
Chris is just using Christians natural disdain for non-Christians against Mormons.
Kind of like an AQ operative blowing up a Sunni mosque to insight Shiites
At the end of the day, Hitch doesn’t care which breed of snake you handle.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 5:57 PM
It doesn’t matter what someone believes, it matters what they do. This applies to Romney, Hitchens, and violent imperialistic theocrats.
Bad Penny on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
The only thing that makes Mormonism more “crackpot” than other contemporary religions is that it is truly contemporary. We have direct historical evidence that the entire thing was invented out of whole cloth a by a con artist.
On the other hand, finding Jesus or Mary in the occasional tortilla or wall stain or whatever could supply evidence of equivalent “crackpotness”.
That all being said, I’m not sure exactly what Hitchens’ point really is, except that perhaps Romney’s adherenece to Mormonism is an indication of deeper level of religious commitment than the garden variety politician, most of whom would probably gladly exchange whatever faith they have for a few electoral votes, and Hitchens oviously considers true religious conviction a character flaw.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
AP, I think you misunderstood why he used the Garden of Dened in MO myth. Hitchens wanted to illustrate to Christians in Christian terms that Mormonism is not a Christian religion, but some bizarre science fiction by Joseph Smith. It’s an extremely important point to raise before the Republican primaries in areas where many fundamentalist Christians vote.
thuja on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Christ (that’s for you AP ;-)) has a motive here. He knows that if he can get Christians battling Mormons, no one comes out clean. ESPECIALLY Christians, which I am sure would tickle him to no end. It is a strange move on his part since he is the target of so much “Christian” gibotry. You’d think he would be a little more empathetic to a religion that just wants to worship as it sees fit and does not go after atheists or other faiths as a part of it’s doctrinal teachings. But, I think it ends up that he is trying to start a religious war that his main protagonist cannot come out ahead on.
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I understand that. My point is, what does Hitchens care? He’s not a Christian.
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM
No smear from me. Hitch is great. He mentored someone I knew and has been very giving to younger writers. I think he sees alcohol as a writerly thing.
dedalus on November 19, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I wish that I could buy this guy for what he is worth and then sell him for what he thinks he is worth….
d1carter on November 19, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I’ll have what Chris is having and make mine a double.
I know it will be a nice single malt scotch and not gerin oil.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Yes, I’ve acknowledged that myself in previous posts: Doubtless Hitch would love to see a good Christian/Mormon battle royale over whose beliefs are sillier. But that’ll happen without his prompting. Why start making distinctions about whether it’s sillier to locate Eden outside Kansas City as opposed to somewhere in Mesopotamia?
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Hmm… what’s the post count going to be when this thread devolves into the inevitable pro/anti Mormonism debate/flamewar?
I’ll guess 193- and only that low because it’s been done a few times already.
Back on point- I have plenty of problems with FlipFlop Mitt that don’t include his religion, but since Romney himself has brought up his faith in a vague way as part of his campaign, doesn’t that make the subject fair game for consideration? I don’t think it right to discount him completely based only on his religion when there are so many other good reasons to oppose him, but I don’t think it completely unreasonable for voters to at least consider religion when voting either.
So far as I can tell, 100% of the Mormon posters here on HA are backing Romney, while polls show that a significant part of the population won’t vote for a Mormon. Merely discussing those realities hardly makes one a biggot.
And is it really biggotted for a mainstream Christian to prefer a mainstream Christian over a Mormon? After all, Mormons seem to be preferring a Mormon over mainstream Christian candidates. What makes it OK for Mormons to take religion into account but not mainstream Christians?
Hollowpoint on November 19, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I think it’s two things AP:
1. Mormon doctrine is so clearly whacky that it give him an easy shot to remind us that religion in general is whacky, which is his mission.
2. I think he suspects that as a Mormon Romney is “more religious” than the typical run-of-the-mill default-value Christian politician, and therefor deserves more religious scrutiny. I think he’d say the same thing about Bush if he was running again today.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:05 PM
*snort* Before Hitchens runs his mouth off a bit more, he may want to find out what we actually believe. As I recall, the guy knows very little about our actual beliefs. Hitchens is the real con man.
But I’ll play. Tell me, Hitchens: If Joseph Smith was such a con man, fraud, etc…. then how did he successfully have knowledge about ancient practices, literary techniques, histories, etc. about ancient times that NO ONE knew when Joseph Smith was alive? How did he just toss off some of the greatest Hebraic literary examples around–and then never even mention them? How did he convince over 11 other people to sign sworn statements about witnessing events and then stick to them when they had every reason to burn him? Why is it that the LDS church has a higher percentage (of member base) of scientists, highly educated people, etc than almost any other religion out there? Surely they are smart enough to see through this “fraud.”
It’s simple: Hitchens is a fool, and a liar as well. I have no respect for the guy–he’s the atheist equivalent of a rabble-rouser.
And I’ll wager he’s not happy at all, either.
Vanceone on November 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM
How does it do that, though? To me, it comes off more as “Christianity’s really not all that wacky by comparison.”
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Except for the fact that his opinions on Iraq are written with some sort of coherent logic. He drops into foaming irrational hatred when he starts talking about religion, and I’ve become much less enamored with him.
I don’t look at him much differently than the fascists in Europe, you said it yourself Allah, don’t fall into the ‘enemy of my enemy’ trap. He’s got a lot of hate in him, and its gotta go somewhere. This guy was a frothing Marxist before his recent conversion.
I’m not a strongly religious person, but I respect people who want to practice peacefully. He doesn’t. That’s where his war is, he’s clearly an anti-theist before anything. We might support confronting the same enemy, but Hitch and I support different wars.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I’ll drink to that.
see-dubya on November 19, 2007 at 6:13 PM
And where exactly are those golden tablets? Maybe the 12th Imam is holding them for safekeeping, or the Virgin of Guadalupe is using them for some light reading.
Whatever. These goofy stories don’t even have the redeeming quality of being interesting.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM
You’ve got a point, but I think this is the great divide:
Most people focus on the “big picture” of their faith – belief in God and their own salvation, leading to a new life of faith. They gloss over all the little details that don’t fit that “good feeling” (not always easy, but good, like charity).
Hitchens, and I too to a great degree, feel no need for what we see as the “security blanket” of salvation, and focus instead on the illogical and ridiculous dogmatic claims that all religions make.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM
He’s said repeatedly that he wouldn’t ban religion even if he could and he acknowledges that it’s probably part of basic human psychology. He’s not trying to practice hate.
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I think there are two kinds of drinking writers: writers who cultivate a reputation as boozers, and genuine alcoholics.
The latter usually only have one good book in them and then drink so much their talent fades away–see Hemingway or Thompson, H. (If memory serves, Fitzgerald fell into that trap too.)
Hitchens drinks a lot, I hear, but I don’t think he’s ever showed up somewhere incoherent or started missing engagements like George “No Show” Jones used to or turned in lame, whiskey-sodden prose. And I don’t think when he says mean things it’s because he’s been drinking. He says mean things because he’s mean.
Right about a lot of stuff, but…mean.
see-dubya on November 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM
As a Bible believing Christian, I am begging Christians and Mormons to please ignore this post. The eventual argument of Christianity vs. Mormonsism bears abosultely no fruit. No one will accomplish anything that is of worth in this venue. I think AP finds an immense amount of joy watching us argue, please don’t give that to him.
submarine_guy on November 19, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Even though they have some unorthodox ideas people like Mormons.
They are so clean, good looking and articulate.
I wonder why they aren’t better represented in the Tour de France
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:22 PM
But he clearly believes that religion is on balance a force for EVIL in the world. I’m not sure if I agree, but he has a lot of evidence, and if you take his statements in that vein, then they are not mean, they are just blunt.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:24 PM
And might I add, a guy who believed in and was a devotee to the teachings of Marx for most of his life(and may still, who knows) has a lot of nerve knocking people who believe in God or gods.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Will you please knock off the incessant demonizing of atheists, or at least of me? I had a commenter accuse me of hating Mitt because he’s a Mormon in an earlier thread, which is patently absurd, and you’re trying to make me out into some sort of Iago figure. If you don’t want to debate, fine. If you all want to agree that Mormonism should be off limits for attacks, that’s fine too. It won’t affect my “enjoyment,” I assure you.
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM
So basically, what you’re saying is he’s whining about the natural order of things?
Figures, leftists have a b*tch of a time accepting human nature. Its to be expected from a former Marxist.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Allahpundit why do you think God doesn’t exist?
offroadaz on November 19, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Why do you think Zeus doesn’t exist?
Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Politically I find his Marxism as disturbing as you probably do, but if you are laying the so called “godless” communist scurge of the 20th century at is feet, remember that Hitchens has argued that the Bolsheviks, Stalin, Mao, the Gang of Four, and Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Mentally-Ill may have claimed to be atheists, but in fact created systems in which they were actually worshiped as deities and coincidentally in some cases enjoyed the cooperation of the church in their efforts. In effect that they purposely set out to replace established religions with new ones that served them.
And in his view, this is what all churches do.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Hitch is the only guy who can really get away with mentioning the specifics of the LDS faith without sounding like a gibot. That is all the media needs for cover. They can then simply report what others have said and that will put the issue front and center ina national debate and EVERYONE can then discuss it without coming off as giboted. Everyone except Christians. They cannot come out of this pissing contest without getting piss all over themselves.
I don’t think CH has a specific goal other than to oppose religious folks whenever he can. This is a perfect opportunity and considering the abuse he has taken over the years, I don’t blame him. I hope it doesn’t hurt Mitt, because I think the guy would make a very capable president. I would even urge CH to support Mitt because one of the basic tenets of their faith is to keep the line between government and religion very defined.
The 12th article of faith:
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
That means Mitt will follow the constitution and the Prophet would never expect him to do otherwise. The tenth article of faith refers to Christ returning and ruling the earth as a theocracy. But that means Christ himself and not a member of his church or the Prophet.
I expected this issue to rear it’s giboted head around the time of the release of “september dawn”. I actually started kidding myself that Mitt could avoid this discussion. But, it looks like it’s gonna happen. The problem is that some of the teachings are so odd according to orthadox standards, people will demand detailed explanations. Teaching the LDS faith is tough enough in the setting it is taught in, there is no way to teach it in a national setting. Mitt trying to explain why the new Jerusalem will be in Missouri will make sense, but only when you have the previous teachings. The way the LDS missionaries teach it is by explaining that we must have the milk before the meat. We must walk before we can run. All knowledge is learned line upon line, and precept upon precept. You just don’t show up to your church and get baptized. You take classes and learn what you are committing to and then you can make an informed decision. The LDS church is not just the teachings of Christ. They have many other teachings that take place in the temples and are not discussed outside of the temple because of their sacred nature. So, many of the questions that will be asked, Mitt will not answer them because they are things from the temple ceremonies. When you start at the beginning and learn line upon line, it all lines up and makes sense. It’s only when people try to inject their understanding of certain scripture into the LDS teachings that things start to go askew.
IE; The LDS do not believe in the trinity because of the events surrounding the baptism of Christ. At that event, all three members of the Godhead were present in each of their forms. God as the father, Jesus in his mortal body, and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. The argument is that since God is not a God of confusion, why go through all the trouble to show himself as three separate beings when he really wants us to believe he is one and the same? The other question is; What does God do with his Jesus skin when he wants walk the cosmos as God the spirit? Does he hang it in the Holy Closet? And if he does, does he use wire hangers?
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Bad people come in all religions and non-religions.
I certainly don’t give a flip about Mitt’s religion except that it may hurt him in the general.
I’d vote for a Muslim for President if he were a true Jeffersonian Conservative.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
That only works if Mitt actually did work from within for change, or if he even disagreed with the policies at all. I think it’s entirely fair, reasonable, and even incumbent, upon the press to ask Romney whether or not he agreed with the polices before they were changed in 1969, and what, if anything, did he do at that time to work to change them?
greggish on November 19, 2007 at 6:39 PM
i watched the interview with this goon, and his expression on the still says it all.
God cut him off at the end. How funny.
madmonkphotog on November 19, 2007 at 6:42 PM
All right, peski: Explain how Joseph Smith wrote a ton of chiasmus into the Book of Mormon when he almost certainly didn’t know what it was. Explain how he nailed the place “Nahom.” Explain why, as the evil con man he was, he allowed himself to be tarred, feathered, driven out of his home numerous times, and eventually killed.
You may not like the LDS church, but I’d like to see your “proof” that it’s all a con. Plus, I’d like to see your explanation for the book of Mormon, then. One that doesn’t require some sort of “Joseph Smith had access to the largest library in the world in upper new york state” sort of thing.
Seriously, I’m interested. Do you honestly think the LDS church is so easily explained away? If it were, why hasn’t it been? If it was all a fraud, why do we still exist?
Vanceone on November 19, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Traditional Christian doctrine has been around a long time. The miracles took place 2000 years ago. We are more forgiving of religious miracles that took place in the remote past. We have more problems with purported miracles that allegedly took place in New York while Andrew Jackson was President.
Also, the teaching of Christianity has been rationalized with the natural world by some of the greatest thinkers through out history. Thus, the rough edges of Christianity have been some what rounded.
tommylotto on November 19, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Of course Hitchens thinks that. Like any good Trotskyite (former or not), Hitchens is fundamentally anti-clerical. He has praised Sam Harris, who in the End of Faith has said that it may be morally permissable to kill people because of what they believe. He has praised Stalin and the Russian Revolution as paving the way for secular democracy (with it’s slaughter of thousands of priests and nuns). Just because Hitchens happens to be on your or “our” side with regard to the Iraq war, it doesn’t mean I have to salivate at every little thing he says. I don’t care what Mormons believe, their beliefs and practices do not represent a danger to my family or my friends. Hitchens is so obssessed with his anti-religion beliefs that he must interject them into every possible debate. Fine, good for him. But it doesn’t mean I won’t call him out for what he is: an opportunist, through and through.
WillBarrett on November 19, 2007 at 6:44 PM
He seems like two different people when you see his arguments about Iraq versus religion. I think you, AP, have made much more intelligent arguments about religion than I’ve seen from Hitchens.
Also, I’ve noticed that people tend to smear someone who disagrees with them on an issue they feel is important.
frankj on November 19, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Before camera phones and the Amazing Randi.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I think what is cool is most people here consider themselves pretty conservative.
Yet we all get here from different points of view on different issues.
Big tentish don’t ya think?
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I am sorry that I “demonized you.” I certianly don’t think you are a demon, but this is a daily topic around here and it is tough to tell what your motive is. AP what do think your purpose in life is?
submarine_guy on November 19, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I am amazed that Hitchens is cherry-picking one particular religion over others. Since all religion is based on faith, not facts, you cannot challenge someone’s faith by trying to use facts. Mitt should not have any more problem with his religious beliefs than JFK did as our first Catholic president.
If Hitchens and others think the Garden of Eden in Missouri story is “crackpot”, do they not also think that weekly, routine transmutation is also “crackpot”? JFK survived that objection during the election and afterwards just fine.
I am much more concerned with what a presidential candidate plans to do with “what is Caesar’s.”
fred5678 on November 19, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Mitt carries the baggage of the LDS Church. And we haven’t even heard anything about how women are treated in the church yet. IMHO, he would not be a very viable general election candidate for the Republicans to choose.
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 6:58 PM
No. The contemporary definition of bigotry is comically absurd. If my dad was running for office and I voted for him would I be guilty of nepotism?
(If memory serves, Fitzgerald fell into that trap too.)
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 7:02 PM
IF voters are going to take his religion into consideration (and MANY will), why is this subject taboo?
omnipotent on November 19, 2007 at 7:03 PM
What’s even more amazing is that you’re worried about people smearing a guy whose career is smearing.
tizzidale on November 19, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Without taking sides, these aren’t remotely the same. Christianity, such as it is, is fundamentally based on the idea that people believe the witness of people that saw. Zeus is a construction to explain that which transcended human power. One stems from conjecture, one stems from witness.
Spirit of 1776 on November 19, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Wrong, I was simply noting that a guy who believed the tenets of Marx for most of his life(and may still) has a hell of a lot of nerve sliming people who belive in God. I don’t see believing in God or gods as any bigger a stretch in faith then believing in Marxism.
As for the rest, its a dodge for atheists, but its irrelevent to my wider point. But since you point out how easy it is to dismantle a traditional church and create a new one, who’s to say Atheists won’t do the same, after all, you guys already have your snazzy church logo, and I know there’s a 10 Commandments for the godless floating about.
Sounds like…hmm…a religion is being built around Atheism, with symbols, sayings and other ritual behaviors. Odd that.
Atheists haven’t engaged in the savagery that the other ideologies have yet because they haven’t established the power needed to do it. Its not a religion thing, its a human thing, which is what Evangelical Atheist clods can’t seem to accept.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 7:07 PM
hey did anyone here catch the news that there’s no evidence to support the existence of abraham or moses and that “jesus” is basicly a transcription of the greek myth of dionysus?
heh. i’s sure hate to be the sort of clown, imbecile, sucker and fool who would base his morality and poltiics on some nonsence campfire stories.
jummy on November 19, 2007 at 7:09 PM
-1, weak troll.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I have to agree that he looks to be auditioning for Gregory House, MD.
shirgall on November 19, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Yeah, but with twice the bitter surliness, and half the humor.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I didn’t say I don’t like the LDS Church, I said it’s dogma is a crock. Lot’s of nice folks, and I might even vote for Mitt. As for debunking, here’s a sampler.
Plagiarisms:http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/plag/long.html
Absurtities:http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/abs/long.html
Scientific and historical oddities:http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/sci/long.html
I won’t claim I’ve dis-proven anything, but why bother with this nonsense?
And please, keep in mind I only find Mormonism marginally more absurd than Catholicism or Baptist Fundamentalism, or Calvinism, or Episcopalianism (where I occasionally pass a Sunday).
Exactly. Let’s hear it for personal liberty, equal protection under the law, lower taxes, our borders secured, a strong national defense, free trade (subject to national defense).
peski on November 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Actually, I agree with this statement in spite of the gratuitous name calling. Power corrupts. That’s the beauty of our republican political system.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Hitchens is not impartial in his dislike of religions, or at least he didn’t used to be. In an anthology of his writings published in the 1980s Prepared For The Worst (highly recommended, seriously) he calls the Maronites “Christian Fascists” though more recently one of his greatly admired friends Walid Jumblatt of the Progressive Socialist Party of Lebanon told Michael J. Totten in 2006 that the Maronites were the most liberal faction of the Lebanese civil war.
In any religious conflict involving Christians and non-Christians (Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo) Hitchens knows that the Christian faction are automatically the fascists and unlike Richard Holbrooke he doesn’t even need President Izetbegovic to dance him around the maypole.
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I 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
Although I agree that he seems to default to pro-Palestinian (and probably anti-Israel) stance, I’ve heard and read enough of his flaying of Islam to know that he puts it somewhere near the top of the pile of evil-prone fanaticism.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Thou eater of broken meats.
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I think I worship the The First Temple of Desktop Tower Defense…I can has my soul back, pleez?
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 7:41 PM
“…weak…”
i can’t argue with that. nothing on earth is dense enough to penetrate christian psychosis. if their ideology was amenable to reason or inquiry, they’d notice how disgusting it is to watch them screech like a two-year-old denied a toy about fake “persecutions” from the secular public sphere while simultaneously attacking a candidate for public office on religious grounds.
huckabee is the final realization of this corruption of politics by the jesus-worshippers. christians are not conservatives. for the most part, christianity is inimicable with conservatism. christians can be just as easily found hiding ak47s up their habbits for marxist narco-terrorists as they might be found using the republican party as a platform to beat up on gays.
i could do without either tendency of theirs, but it’s too late. whenever the socialist huckabee or one like him becomes president, with his stupid and embarrassing delusion about the earth being 6000 years old, it will have been made final. there will be nothing left of the right; the u.s. will have one rational secular political party versus a powerful organ of blind faith with police powers.
christians do not share our values. christians want the same thing marxists want: they want to gain interpretive control over, and ultimately revise from existence, our secular liberal republican constitution because the freedom it prescribes allows for the freedom of individuals to behave in ways which do not comport exactly with their higher moral vision.
i wish i could vote for romney and rudy – multiple times. abc is my motto for the primary.
jummy on November 19, 2007 at 7:48 PM
LMAO. Guess they’re pretty bad at it.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 7:50 PM
If you agreed with me, than why is it gratuitous? :P I’m only talking about those that can’t wrap their heads around that basic point. Mindless Evangelical Atheists think they’re above all these pitfalls that everyone else has fallen into. It shows immensely foolish arrogance,and that I’m quite critical of.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Mitt should announce that he’s a Muslim now…
…a nice, pro-American one…who claims the same rights as every non-Christian…to limitless accommodation by the politically correct leftists.
landlines on November 19, 2007 at 8:08 PM
jummy:
Are you a Liberal Plant, a beginning writer who hasn’t mastered the subtleties of sarcasm, or just the comic relief for this blog?
landlines on November 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Good idea. But can he handle the circumcision?
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I think the bigger question is, why ask Hitchens in the first place.
People need to be beyond my god is bigger and better than your god and my god’s gonna kick your god’s ass.
Kini on November 19, 2007 at 8:16 PM
This is what Obama needs to do. Run as a moderate pro-america muslim. He should speak out against terrorism, al-qaida and other groups, yet maintain that Islam is a religion of peace. He would get tons of press time and I think it would help him in the polls
offroadaz on November 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM
You want this fight? Sure, I’ll bite. First question, have you found the shift keys? They are next to the ‘z’ key and the question mark/slash key. Look at your keyboard, see if you can find them.
Because all Christians do that right? Like me and csdeven and many others, who are both Christian, and yet rail against people who do that. And I don’t even like Romney.
Yet, Slublog, who’s a hell of a lot more religious than me, and myself loathe Nanny Huck. As do many religious who know what bad news he is. The rest see, a lot of people don’t know what Huck is. There are people who were die-hard Huck fans till recently. Word’s getting out about what Huck is.
I disagree, religion will thrive best under a conservative system, a Marxist system almost always damages a church if the Marxist system is accepted by the people.
As for the religious who support Marxist terrorists, I can point to Solidarity in Poland as a counterpoint.
As for the hangup on gays, agree totally, but I think its as much an age thing as a religious one.
Huh? This doesn’t even make sense, I’m not even gonna try and untangle it. You sound like a pouting teenager. If you’re looking for a rational secular movement, you’re dreaming, most Atheists are frothing leftists.
Your values. My guess is most Atheists would rather dissociate with your embarrassing whining here.
Certain parts of the Religious Right can get lazy and head that direction, but overall, most recognize that path is nothing but trouble.
But this is not religious vs. non religious conflict, rather this is the classic Liberty vs. the power of State conflict. And you know better than to claim otherwise, so don’t be so recklessly dishonest. Or maybe you don’t, and if that’s the case, I pity you.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 8:21 PM
That’s a good question. Famous atheist and political pundit at the same time? Maybe he should disqualify himself on religious questions, as he is biased. Or maybe he’s not really a pundit, but is more of a professional atheist. I knew I only listened to one-half of him anyway.
This is like the MSM claiming to be able to cover all of these political issues but not let their personal biases show.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
To be fair Allah, most of us just think he’s a prick that, much like a blind squirrel, managed to find a single good nut.
It’d be like me saying “congratulations Chris Dodd for recognizing the Islamic threat, now GTFO lefty tool.”
Or “Congratulations Ron Paul for recognizing abortion is evil, you isolationist Bircher nutcase.”
BKennedy on November 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Don’t you get tired of this $heat ? Nothing ever gets resolved. OOffaahh..
redrock on November 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM
i’m an actual conservative. you wouldn’t know what that is because sean hannity never provided a bulletted list is 24-point font on his webpage.
an actual conservative is different from a “real conservative”. we know what a “real conservative” is because we always get to hear “real conservatives” such as yourself wax musically about how great it would be to have a “real conservative” running in this primary. it was thought for a long time that fred thompson was a conservative of the “real” variety, but it turns out that that was just an illusion.
now the “real conservative” is basicly a chimera that the republican constituency measures the candidates against. the candidates are neither “real” enough to be conservative nor conservative enough to be “real”. though they are each actual, in that they are actually existing candidate presenting the voter with an imperfect mix of agreeable and disagreeable qualities, they are each insufficiently technicolor 72 millimete projections of what ignorant hannity-bots have decided qualifies one for authenticity that they cannot be crowned as “real”.
rudy is so un-”real” that the theocons are threatening mutiny. his sin is that he reads the constitution and sees there a system called “federalism”. christianists hate federalism. they don’t wan’t roe v. wade overturned, they want a federal ban on abortions with a ban on gay marriage thrown in on top.
romney is un-”real” because the “real conservative” is a protestant. maybe a patron of the pagan whore of baby – er, catholic. but most certainly nothing else. it’s not even on account that lds is too young. “real conservative” voters had to be repeatedly and loudly assured that bobby jindal converted away from hindo before they’d vote for him.
mccain isn’t “real” because he doesn’t take the appropriately bulgy-eyed, red-faced “nuke the border” attitude against mexicans.
and someone like me can never be a “real conservative” because i think and read and reason my point of view.
jummy on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Okay.
He seems drunk/hungover when he’s saying thing that make sense also.
baldilocks on November 19, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Hannity’s a dunce…you should love him.
Theocons, Christianists, Sully is that you? Oh, man, you gotta be a Moby. Some might want a ban, I don’t. I’m guessing a lot of them would be content to ban it in their own states. Beyond that, there are many other reasons to dislike Rudy. His piss poor record on the Second Amendment among them. And an “actual conservative” like you, who values classical enlightenment thinking would recognize that’s a valid issue.
Hindo? I don’t know any Hindos…know a few Hindus. And I agree, it sucks they had to do that. But a lot of Christians agree it sucks he had to do that. But by all means, don’t let me stop your narrative.
I’m not even getting into it with you on immigration, you’re such an overwrought emo mess on that issue its not even worth discussing, I’ll leave it to others to dig up your pathetic howling. There’s nothing even remotely approaching ration or reason with you on immigration.
Bad Candy on November 19, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Sometime sowers of discord do so just ’cause.
baldilocks on November 19, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Romney’s faith is fair for discussion but I’ve still got to wonder why it is singled out in ways that no other candidate’s faith comes under scrutiny. THERE IS A HUGE DOUBLE STANDARD HERE AND SHAME ON ALL THE BIGOTS WHO ARE FURTHERING IT!
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 9:32 PM
I think the Jews would have a problem with that. The Germans were smart people…oh look what I found:
The fact is, some of the brightest, are not so bright afterall.
Take archaeologists for instance; they are so stupid that they can’t find any remains, remnants, or written language of ancient civilization that is specific to the Mormon religion.
right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM
And what’s with the David Bowie hair?
But I agree, these questions are fair game. And Mitt seems like a good guy, but that doesn’t cut it. If he were running as an agnostic I wouldn’t care, but I want to know about his beliefs and how it plays into his policies.
sweeper on November 19, 2007 at 10:01 PM
As much as I like Hitch, his religion-phobia discredits him every time he lets it run loose. Venting against religion seems almost like an obsession with him. It sticks out like a sore thumb on an otherwise intelligent, wise and thoughtful man.
petefrt on November 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
I don’t know about that. The vast majority of Communists are atheists and they have proven to be a pretty savage lot.
100 million dead and counting.
Mike Honcho on November 19, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I too, agree, that the mormon faith is one of the more blatantly man-made religions, but as I said before, debating religions is basically saying:
My invisible, all powerful friend is better than your invisible, all-powerful friend.
Anyone that falls for any religion is weak minded, that’s a given, but the weakness of mind needed to fool yourself into thinking that Mormonism is the one true religion and not a contrivence of a con man named Joseph Smith is simply staggering.
The only religion more blatantly man made is Scientology.
However, all religions are man made, because:
God is imaginary!
http://godisimaginary.com/
Any reasonably intelligent person can figure that out pretty quick. Lucky for religious leaders, most humans are not reasonably intelligent. thus, religion thrives.
Regards!
JayHawk Phrenzie
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 19, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Yes, the man needs to get some other hobbies as he is in danger of beating this one to death.
Maybe gardening or knitting.
He needs to put some humor in his essays too like he used to do.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 10:45 PM
This thread wouldn’t be complete without some brain dead religionist invoking Hitler or Stalin as a prop for their lack of intelligent arguments.
Next, please demonstrate how Intelligent Design must be true, by describing a banana to me.
When you have religion, you don’t need intellect.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 19, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Very insightful. I had not thought of that possible angle on this one.
No god and no religion can survive ridicule, no political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field and live.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I’m an atheist, you moron. BTW what religious arguments did I attempt to make?
My only point is that there is no inherent moral superiority in atheism. Atheists are no better equipped to govern or deal with the problems faced by humanity than people of faith. The spectacular failure of Communism proved that.
I have no desire to do that since I don’t believe in intelligent design.
Run along now and go play in traffic.
Mike Honcho on November 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Those two wastelands?
Eden was probably in Oregon someplace.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:13 PM
BadCandy
listen, if the shoe don’t fit, don’t take it personally.
very true. now, vituperation aside, why does it seem clear to me that religiosity and the over-eagerness to weild state power corelate so closely in the current dominant politics of the right?
am i just nuts? or is it really bad enough that the exceptions aren’t signifigant enough to negate the generalizations i’ve offered?
jummy on November 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Hitch says the sky is blue
Must he a drunk atheist nutjob
EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Few great thinkers were ever happy much of the time, otherwise they would have taken up gardening.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Best if you did not lock yourself too firmly into Hitchens on Iraq.
He could be just an epiphany away from changing his position.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »