Hitchens: It’s “essential” that Romney be asked about Mormonism
posted at 1:34 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Following on his Cavuto appearance from last week. There isn’t much here that you haven’t heard before and he’s a bit too credulous of the claims that Mitt orchestrated the suspicious anti-Mormon phone poll in Iowa, but this is sharp:
Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church, and nor were any (not that there were many applicants) admitted to the sacred rites of the temple. The Mormon elders then had a “revelation” and changed the rules, thus more or less belatedly coming into compliance with the dominant civil rights statutes. The timing (as with the revelation abandoning polygamy, which occurred just in time to prevent Utah from being denied membership of the Union) permits one to be cynical about its sincerity. However that may be, it certainly makes nonsense of Romney’s moaning about any criticism or questioning being “un-American.” The Mormons have already had to choose—twice—between their beliefs and American values.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has had to be asked about his long-ago membership of the Ku Klux Klan (which, I would remind you, is also a Protestant Christian identity organization), and he was only a fiddle-playing member, not a Grand Kleagle or whatever the hell it is. Why should Romney not be made to give an account of himself? A black candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan could expect questions about his faith in the existence of the mad scientist Yakub, creator of the white race, or in the orbiting mother ship visited by the head of the Nation of Islam. What gives Romney an exemption?
My pal Barnett wonders whether the “Christian leader” graphic in Huck’s new ad isn’t his way of subtly contrasting himself with the Mormon in the field. Possibly, but if touting one’s Christian bona fides is now beyond the pale then it extends Hitchens’s lament here even further. His gripe is that Mitt has largely succeeded in rendering questions about Mormonism taboo; the next step is to render any reference to religion taboo lest it make an issue by implication, intentionally or not, of Mitt’s faith. There’s a certain appeal to that for atheists, but as we’re seeing in the comments to the post about Huckabee’s ad, not all Christians will receive warmly the idea that a candidate shouldn’t be encouraged to talk about his beliefs.
Speaking of Huck, he spent yesterday morning preaching. “After the later service ended in Fountain Inn, Huckabee and his wife Janet lingered for an hour shaking hands with dozens of church-goers who had lined up to meet them, many of whom told CNN they were already supporting Huckabee’s presidential bid.”
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 3
Makes dialog kinda pointless
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
(on the nature of prophets, true and false) “when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD…”
A false prophet is one who deliberately seeks to lead people away from the Lord’s path with his “prophesies.” See Jeremiah chapter 29 for a concrete example of this, and specifically verses 29-32 for the consequences. (think “false witness” or perjury – lying to convict an innocent man). Shemaiah the Nehelamite presumed to speak in the name of the LORD, and demanded changes in priests and declared against Jeremiah…and Jeremiah prophesied right back, also in the name of the LORD. We saw who the LORD backed.
Joseph Smith’s life and words were more thoroughly documented than any biblical prophet’s, but that doesn’t mean his every utterance was prophecy. When he meant it to be accepted by the church as prophecy, he put it to a vote, either in leadership councils or before the whole church.
It’s not a false prophesy to say “good morning” on a rainy day. I’d say a closer analogue would be Al Gore swearing doom on us all if Bush doesn’t sign Kyoto. It’s not just saying something – it’s a command to action, invoking the divine, for a false cause.
The apostle Paul frequently offered his opinions in his letters. Do I really think God said, “cut your hair, hippie”? No, I think that was Paul’s personal preference. When the phrase “I speak as a man” appears in his epistles, he is distinguishing his counsel from divine counsel. Likewise, most of the things Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie and others have said or written were their opinion or speculation.
sulla on November 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
That’s my point.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but that’s not entirely accurate. We believe mankind cannot be Good without divine intervention. That doesn’t make mankind Evil, and it doesn’t mean that mankind cannot be good.
Surely we agree on one thing. I’ve never heard an atheist proclaim that man can ever be Good. We both seem to agree that man can be corrupted. We just disagree on what to do about it.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Ronsfi,
This is not a discussion of good and evil, but of fitness to serve in the highest office of our free and religiously influenced Representative Republic. I have already said that I respect benign Atheists who are not on a mission to change this Republic to fit a secular progressive vision.
The key for me is the concept of our rights being endowed by our creator. If they are God-given rights they cannot be taken away from us, but rights given by men can be taken away by men. If one is a benign Atheist, this is of no concern to them one way or another so it becomes a matter of neutrality. If one is a malignant Atheist then this belief is heresy.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Daniel was seeing the end of the world. Presumably that could include the time we are living in. His knowledge of people wouldn’t be limited to those in the Middle East.
My exegesis may be worthless, but Strong’s shows that the same phrase is used by Isaiah and the Psalmist in metaphors to literally mean to make white. It seems to me that Daniel would be redundant in using both purified and spotless.
Are we changing the translation sincerely on the basis of a more accurate translation or are we rejecting a miracle described by Daniel based on our modern view or race? If it’s the latter, we may be forced to revaluate our standing, as Daniel says, as are we among the wicked or the wise.
Sebastian on November 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM
It’s common knowledge that the King James Version is the least accurate of all of the translations.
So your claim is that he was mocking his own skin color, the same skin color of Christ?
I can’t help but believe you’re stretching here.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Groan. I missed this. I think it’s fair to say that r2b is something of a zealot:
Most churches have made “terrible mistakes” and many Christian churches have what could be termed a racist, or in the very least pro-slavery, history. Why are you singling Mitt Romney, the son of civil rights activists, out? This is insane.
On balance Christianity has been a force for good, has been a civilizing influence, and without Christianity this republic would not exist as founded. Clearly Mormons like Mitt are civilized and a force for good who cherish our Founding principles.
.
We most certainly should not be asking these questions unless one wants Huckabee to be their minister! As for the Rudy comment, do you imagine some secret relationship which conflicts with his allegiance to this country?
What on earth are you getting at?
This is not a question of “playing the victim card”.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 2:53 PM
In so saying, you come closer to being a ‘false prophet’ yourself than you realize. Your disingenuousness is staggering.
sulla on November 27, 2007 at 3:19 PM
BINGO.
BTW, I like your latest posting at your website with your Bush/Reagan comparison, and I agree with your conclusion.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Thanks; I appreciate that.
sulla on November 27, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3