Hitchens: It’s “essential” that Romney be asked about Mormonism
posted at 1:34 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: 1 2 3 Next »
zzzzzzzzzzzzz….don’t care. Well almost….Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish,….just don’t matter to me. All have western values. Muslim, I admit, raises an eyebrow. Count me bigoted I guess.
Limerick on November 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I am saying this as a friend Hitch, STFU for a while already.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
RESPECT HITCH.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Put it in “Top Picks” now? You know – based on the perceived number of comments that this will generate.
nailinmyeye on November 26, 2007 at 1:43 PM
OR GOD WILL STRIKE YOU DEAD………..
doriangrey on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I can’t believe that Hitch is arguing ad hominem against Romney—oh, wait, that’s all that freakin’ guy does.
I don’t look for a president who has religious beliefs that agree with me. All I want is someone who’s exhibited good judgement, has a good track record, is acceptably conservative, and is electable.
jdpaz on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Any particular reason? Or are you just having some capital letter fun?
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
*snicker*
Oh, Christopher, you card…
MadisonConservative on November 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
I would need to see his opinions carry some weight with the majority, or even the minority for that matter.
Until then he gets none.
mojowire on November 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Well, he raises a fair point here in his critique of racism. Mitt should at least be asked about that, no? I knocked Ron Paul this morning for taking money from white supremacists; if Mitt belonged to a church as an adult that condoned racism, he should at least explain himself.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 1:49 PM
If the General comes down to Obama/Romney, Obama is going to beat Romney over the head all day long with Mormonisms racist past. Which is undeniable and documented. Now that was the past but he will not get out from under it. No way.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 1:49 PM
I think that a bunch of Christians ought to “protest” outside his next public speaking engagement–by hold a prayer meeting outside. You know, with signs saying stuff like “Christopher, God loves you and so do we.” Would that be considered torture? ;-)
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I’m just glad to hear that Allah has a pal.
saint kansas on November 26, 2007 at 1:51 PM
LEAVE CHRIS ALONE! HE’S A HUMAN BEING!
A very drunk, very British sounding, very faux intellectual human being who should lay off the beer and hatorade for a while, get him some AA, and take some meds for that Oedipus complex he has with God.
Seriously AP, surely there are less, I don’t know, idiotic, atheists out there you could cull soundbites out of? Next thing you know we’ll get a video of Hitch saying fire cannot melt steel. Hitch is the new Rosie.
BKennedy on November 26, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You do know he’s not going to give you an iPhone, don’t you?
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Hitchen’s always looks like he spent the last few hours asleep while standing up.
Hening on November 26, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Until 2978, no woman American was permitted to hold even the position of Priest in the Catholic Church.
- and
Until 3978, no gay American was permitted to hold even the position of Minister in the Southern Baptist Church.
- “Slight” Seque as there has been “progress” however
Until 2000, no pro Mexican was permitted to hold the position of President of the United States.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Aw, give it up Hitch. I’ll cede Allah’s point that he needs to answer for the race issues that the Mormon church has, but that’ll be smacked down in no time, and we’ll move on…or rather, we should move on.
Bad Candy on November 26, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Sure. But that doesn’t mean that CH doesn’t have obsession with any and all religion. Therefore, I question his sincerity as to how really concerned he is about the Mormons’ prior ban on blacks.
BTW, back when the LDS dropped its banned on allowing blacks to be members, one of my step-dad’s co-workers began to recruit him to attend the church. We never joined but my dad found a place where he could play pick-up b-ball against decent competition without getting shot at.
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I’m hoping they’ll hold out longer than that.
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Faux intellectual? Idiotic? Perhapse you should lay off the hatorade…oh I mean the communion wine.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Byrd actually was a kleagle or klavern or katamite or whatever they call their middle-management, wasn’t he?
see-dubya on November 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Explain what exactly, that the church he belongs to once held a repugnant view, but since has changed it? Perhaps he ought to explain how he is personally responsible for a theological stance by the Mormon Church that actually predates him by a hundred years?
Maybe he ought to explain how he could have allowed himself to be born into a family that may or may not have held a repugnant view that he himself may or may not have held and thus he should never have accepted the religion of this parents because of this repugnant view.
Let me clue you in on a little something, my parents were Mormons, I am not. But as a child I did study Mormonism, and never heard this doctrine so much as one time. My parents converted to Mormonism in 1969 and I studied Mormon theology until about 1974.
Sorry AP, Hitch and you are both wrong on this, Mitt has nothing to explain.
doriangrey on November 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
That’s Hitch’s point. The racism part didn’t predate him.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Boss lady says kleagle.
see-dubya on November 26, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Actually the church did not allow Black people to hold the priesthood until about 1975.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 2:05 PM
The fact that the LDS church changed their position implies that it should never have been their position in the first place, otherwise they would not have changed it.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Ah, but Hitch says that being just a little bit Klan is OK with him. That’s the point to take away from this, not the actual fact of Byrd’s involvement.
James on November 26, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Does Hitchens ever get tired of acting like a little boy? I don’t wanna believe in God! You can’t make me believe in God! I’m not gonna believe in God! I wanna be the center of attention!
He looks old and tired. Worn out. Just like his Godless schtick.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 26, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Here’s the problem. . . RACISM has nothing to do with religion. Of course it is actively a part of the Mormon Church. Even in the ‘racist’ South, from the time the first black person began working on the plantations, the Southern Baptists WELCOMED the African Americans to the faith.
I stopped going to the Methodist Church because they were allowing sanctuary policies in Chicago. That doesn’t make me less of a Christian. But when a church unilaterally takes a stance on something you disagree with, leaving the organized church WITH YOUR BIBLE would be appropriate in God’s eyes.
This practice of discrimination was not anywhere in the Bible. Sure the KKK is considered the ‘Christian knights of the kkk’, but I appreciate that about as much as they desecrated the meaning of the Confederate Flag. The Confederate Flag is about Southern Heritage. It is not about Racism and neither is Christianity. Christ died for everybody.
ThackerAgency on November 26, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I guess I’m not seeing the connection here. Is the suggestion that Romney is unfit for office because he himself actively discriminated against black people until 1978? If we are going down this path, we absolutely need Obama to explain that racist church he belongs to in Chicago (Trinity UCC’s Black Values System- http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html). Let’s also discuss Rudy’s faith in the context of a RCC in America that doesn’t enforce the parts of its doctrine that are inconvenient in a pluralistic society. We should also make Hillary explain her utter lack of any sort of faith other than Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
It’s really the same issue time and again- other than Hillary’s raging atheism, candidates who express a personal faith are unabashedly attacked for daring to suggest some belief in a higher being. Huckabee, a minister, is attacked for calling attention to the fact that he has been a leader in the Christian faith. Romney is attacked because he belongs to the LDS. Even Obama gets somewhat of a bad rap because he happens to belong to a church that hates white people. Yeah, this year’s campaign is fair and balanced-not!
Put another way, there are far too many people out there that want to eliminate a candidate simply on the basis of his faith in much the same way that JFK was attacked in 1960. Romney is no JFK but he does deserve fair treatment based on his ideas and vision. Shame on the anti-religious crowd for being so intolerant that their single issue this year is getting rid of anybody who dares not join them in mocking all expressions of faith and scorning any involvement in any community of believers! It takes a certain arrogance for a candidate to think that they won’t need the assistance of a higher power to run a nation with as many challenges as the United States faces. It should be a character plus for a candidate to express a sincere belief in God- not the fodder for ridicule as too often done here and elsewhere by people who consider themselves too cool to believe in God.
highhopes on November 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM
And Hitch is wrong, the theology was a hundred years old by the time Mitt was born and Mitt was probably all of 17 when it was repealed. It is extremely unlikely that Mitt knew anything what so ever about it until the church officially disavowed it. You and Hitch are grasping at straws here AP.
doriangrey on November 26, 2007 at 2:11 PM
We all know Mitt is Mormon, but that does not take if off the table. You can’t wear a badge, and then tell people to ignore the badge.
More importantly, is the influence that the Church has on his decisions, and campaign. He is heavily sponsored by his Church members, so there is nothing wrong in looking into his relationships.
The Church has controversial stands (historically and presently), what is wrong with bringing that out. If you live by your faith, what is wrong with defending it. It gives him a chance to let people understand his Church history, and what he stands for. It helps define him.
I just don’t like the idea of an atheist, defining a faithful persons stands. It is like a dog trying to understand a cat…all it knows how to do is to chase it.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Absolutely right.
The ban on black deacons was repealed in 1978, when Mitt was 31. He’d already completed his LDS mission years earlier. I’m sure he was familiar with the policy.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Mormonism is a new religion; it’s not Catholicism. Moreover, it’s strange and foreign and considered clannish to the vast majority of voters. He should explain it; frankly, it would be a good move–it would show openness and allay fears. And he shouldn’t disavow the various goofy and odd elements of Mormonism.
albo on November 26, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Not that I don’t share suspicions about CH’s motives, but if we’re talking about 1978, then Mitt was 31.
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Yes I think they both have to affirm their commitment to racial equality given their associations with organizations that have demonstrated racial bias in the past. Is that not reasonable?
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Yes, thank you!
NTWR on November 26, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Should Rudy be required to answer questions about Catholic Church doctrines or policies? Not just abortion, but prohibition against female clergy, the Church’s handling of priest molestation scandals, historical crimes against Jews and other non-Christians?
I think this would be a dangerous road to travel if we are to inject religious doctrines and church policies into an election.
aunursa on November 26, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Mitt believes in magical undergarments that protect the wearer from spiritual evil and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Hillary believes in the Communist Manifesto, Socialized Medicine, and absolute government control.
I’ll take the former, please.
BKennedy on November 26, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Doh………………My bad, I didn’t realize that Mitt was in his 60’s……
I seriously doubt that he knew anything about it, but he may have. That aside he was in no position to change the doctrine, only the current prophet can do that. Expecting him to renounce his faith because of one doctrine that he might not have agreed with is ludicrous.
doriangrey on November 26, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Sure. The first few issues you mention, which are current and could be considered relevant political issues to the voters. We don’t need to go back into history to the inquisition and such.
albo on November 26, 2007 at 2:21 PM
No one here is doing such a thing. I think we’re asking him to tell us how he feels about it and how it influences his personal and political philosophy.
albo on November 26, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Having been raised in “The Church” I can say that there is NO WAY that he did not know. I knew and I was a child. I did not agree and went my own way. He stuck around. Why?
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 2:25 PM
As I said, my parents converted to Mormonism in 1969, I spend five years studying Mormonism and never heard a thing about it, nor have any of the Mormons I have talked to as adults known about it.
doriangrey on November 26, 2007 at 2:29 PM
While I have the deepest respect for Hitchens and while I’m not voting for Romney in the primary partly due to Romney’s Mormonism, there are more important things to discuss than a practice the Mormon church abandoned over thirty years ago. We should be discussing now.
thuja on November 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Don’t forget the other Faith that she and Bill share (with most politicians): Worshipping at the altar of the Almighty Poll!
Frozen Tex on November 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Maybe other Mormons did a little better research. I’m a non-Mormon, and I learned about it in the early 1980s when I joined the service and got to know some of them.
albo on November 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
You don’t see the difference?
Mitt’s religion is the driving force in his life, he has repeated that many times. He has been steeped in it from the day he was born. In high school, everyday before school, he spent his hours in very serious organized study of his religion. When he was a young man, he made a choice between fighting for his country or going on a mission in France…he chose the Mission, that is not a small committment. His major contributors are Mormon, the Big Dig fiasco was a Mormon run company project, show me another candidate that even comes close to the religious zealously of Mitt.
Letting a woman not be a priest is a lot different that not allowing a woman to join a church…wouldn’t you say?
And I agree Obama should explain his relationship with the church.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM
So, on the one hand it is beyond the pale that Mike Huckabee calls himself a “Christian Leader” in his ad, thereby exposing us all to his view on his faith, but Romney and Giuliani and Obama should be encouraged to expound on their choices in Churches?
Defense Guy on November 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I don’t believe that is the expectation here.
Mitt can just answer the question and say that he disagreed with the policy but believed in the church and believed it would eventually make the right decision.
The same can be said of many Americans. Slavery was wrong as was racial inequality, but not all who disagreed left the country.
However, I’ve never thought of asking any who lived through such injustices why they never left this country. It’s an absurd question in my mind, but apparently people are supposed to act in a different manner when it comes to religion.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Raaaiihhhggt. I know nussing, nussing.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
All props to Hitch, but no, he freaking couldn’t. Even Calypso Louie himself doesn’t get those kinds of questions. Heck, look at Keith Ellison; he had all kinds of Nation associations, and never faced tough questioning on ‘em. The guys at Powerline were the only people who even brought it up. Now Ellison’s in Congress.
Well-Armed Lamb on November 26, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Rudy can answer these easily, and to his advantage, by saying that he does not agree with all the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Can Mitt, as a Bishop of the LDS do the same?
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 2:48 PM
When he was a young man, Rudolfof made a choice between fighting for his country and by hook or crook getting a phony baloney 2-A “deferment”…
I’ll take the former.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 2:49 PM
A fair point but I wish it did not come from a man who professed communism long after we knew of the millions killed by this ideology.
When that doctrine is institutionalized racism then, yes, he might have at least worked to change the policy. Perhaps he did speak out against it and I think Mitt should be given the opportunity to explain himself.
To all you Rombots out there, notice how no one is calling Mitt names or inferring Mitt is a racist because his church had a racist policy. This is called civilized discussion. Read and learn. (Of course, who knows what is going to happen during the rest of this thread.) ;-)
Bill C on November 26, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Old Byrd has a good vocabulary; I would love to see his reaction to being called a katamite; poor Geezer would probably have to be carried out mid-rant. Shame on you. :)
austinnelly on November 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM
It seems possible to me to ask about the cultural and ethnic views of an organization that a member belongs to without getting into deconstructing their faith. Having said that, though, it seems unlikely that such distinctions would be maintained, and frankly I question whether Hitch wouldn’t prefer the waters muddy anyway to cast an ill light on religion in general.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 2:57 PM
If Hitch raises a legitimate point, what do motives matter? It’s the left that cares about motives and “good intentions,” I thought we on the right were a little more reality-based. :)
Enrique on November 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Well, compared to Catholicism, most religions are “new.”
It’s not the clannish apects of Mormonism that is being used as a wedge here- it is the cultish aspects of the LDS. My denomination, for example, doesn’t recognize the LDS because of their doctrine.
Frankly, it isn’t Romney’s religion that needs to be explained. Like JFK in 1960 (when Catholicism was deemed suspect), Romney need only explain how his faith would come into play should he become President. Romney needs to point out crucial decisions he made as Governor and how those decisions came about. I suspect the LDS didn’t have a toehold in Mass. under Romney and it is up to his campaign to show how a President Romney would lead.
The same litmus test would hold true were it Joe Lieberman running and having to explain his Judaism, or a Muslim, a Wiccan, or any other individual. To a certain extent atheist socialists like Clinton and mainstream nominal Christians get a pass where the more devout or exotic faiths get unfair scrutiny for no other reason than it’s different than the sterotype. I’d take a Mormon Cult member who practices fiscal and social conservatism in a pluralistic society over “devout” Christians like Bill Clinton any day (one of the images that stands out for me is Clinton emerging from Church with Jesse Jackson and waving his Bible like some kind of prop to convice us he wasn’t sinning under the laws of the Christian faith).
highhopes on November 26, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Isn’t that the point she goes on to make? Can’t you question someone’s motives and accept a good point being made?
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Unless someones religion and holy book are diametrically opposed to liberty and the U.S. Constitution, as is Islam and the koran, I can not see their religion being an issue at all.
It seems un-American to me.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I’ve already explained why.
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 3:14 PM
No way. You.Must.Continue.To.Fight.For.Free.Speech.For.All!!!
Dude, $10.00 on the way toward that red Corvette. Hoping that you’ll never get banned.
Why can some of you not comment on topic, without attacking C. Hitchens’ looks, drinking/smoking/sleeping habits, etc.?
Take a good example from ThackerAgency on November 26, 2007 at 2:09 PM, on how to make good points, without attacking the particulars of anyone.
I fully agree that Mr. Romney, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and all candidates, should be asked, and made to answer earnest questions like these. Don’t count on the press pursuing it with Mrs. Clinton, though.
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
I guess I missed something, did I say I gave Rudy a pass? Cheney also got a deferment, I have stated several times, many of these deferments were phony, a way to get out of serving. You choose missionary work as better then a deferment for clerking for a judge, then a high draft number? Okay. Cheney got a deferment for the same reason; the Mormon church worked out a deal to allow special privileges to missionaries (nice to have pull in the government…who was Mitt’s father?). We both admit, Rudy and Mitt dodged the war. You just think Mitt’s reason has a higher calling, I don’t.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Look, I fail to see the issue here. Romney shouldn’t have to defend the LDS church–that’s the Church’s job, not Romneys.
And I’m not sure why so many people jump on the LDS church for this.
Here’s the deal: holding the Priesthood is not a necessity for salvation in the LDS church. Black members have always had all the chance necessary to make it to heaven as much as I do, or anyone else. Why the reason for the restriction? As well ask why were only the Levites allowed the Priesthood in the Old Testament. Or why didn’t Jesus want to preach to the Gentiles while He was alive? In fact, he called them dogs, I believe.
I don’t know why African Americans were not allowed to hold the priesthood temporarily. It was the long expressed belief of the prophets (including Brigham Young, btw) that someday they would. It certainly wasn’t racism, though. And the church didn’t “buckle due to civil rights pressures,” either. If they had, they would have done it in the 1960’s, when it was a huge issue, not out of the blue in the 1970’s.
And guess what–one of the primary reasons the Mormon church had so many troubles in the 1800’s is because as a general rule, they were anti-slavery. The LDS church also was behind the first attempt to give women the right to vote (they could vote in the Utah Territory long before anywhere else, until that right was taken away by the US goverment). The implication Hitchens and other Mormon-haters is is that the LDS church is raaaaaacist, or was. Yet that’s not true–there has been no stronger pro-American Indian church, and the LDS church was one of the first into the Pacific Islands (where they certainly are not white).
As is usual, once you get over the anti-mormon bigotry and see the truth of the matter, you find out that there is a rather complex set of circumstances. Were some LDS members prejudiced? Certainly, but I don’t think that’s a reason to tar and feather anyone–what group today has an entirely clean set of hands? No one. And I will note that the KKK, etc. comes out of the Evangelical south, not the intermountain west.
For the Atheist people, they have no room to throw stones either–there’s a strong racial component (due to eugenics, I think) in many Atheist systems of belief, as far as I know.
Was the priesthood restriction one I am proud of? not really. Was it one I cannot explain to my satisfaction? No, I can only speculate. But racism is certainly not the reason (if we HAD been racist, we would have tried to help out the South or something in the Civil War. We didn’t). Racism just doesn’t fly.
Vanceone on November 26, 2007 at 3:20 PM
If a religion changing its stance on an issue that is not core doctrine makes that faith false, every Christian sect is guilty and false.
Don’t even get me started on the history of the Catholic church and some of their changes (and as people here like to point out that the Nicea Creed states there is only the one catholic church in all of Christianity).
C.H. is just using this as a way to lay down groundwork to attack all faiths, by getting everyone to attack one faith. Divide and Conquer if you will. If everyone hops on-board his Drunk Train of Narcissistic Living (TM) and agrees that this is how we can judges faiths, then he has the means to attack any other faith.
*shrug* @ Mitt having to answer for any of it, as it was not core to the teachings of the church. It was a policy that was in place and removed at a later date.
Voidseeker on November 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Hitch alludes to the Nation of Islam and a supposed black candidate that would have ties to Louis Farrakhan. That they too would have to answer questions.
Does anyone remember Keith Ellison being asked those tough questions?
How will the Democrats go out and attack Mitt for his Mormon faith when the Senate Majority Leader is himself a Mormon.
Perhaps, religion should be left out of the race. Unless of course it is not a religion and instead a political movement masked as a religion.
But as Ellison’s race proves, the MSM paid very little attention to his political affiliation beyond the D.
James on November 26, 2007 at 3:27 PM
THE REAL POINT IS: that we’re talkin’about electing the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth– AND nobody should get a pass on anything!
I should be able to ask anything- ANYTHING. You can choose to answer or not. AND I can choose to vote for you or NOT.
If folks have questions about Mitt’s Mormonism- then NOW is the time to ask’em.
Likewise if they have questions about Hillary’s relationship with a Muslim woman who is (according to everybody) her closest aide. A Muslim woman who appears to live well beyond her means. NOW is the time to ask the questions.
Personally, I still have alot of questions about Anti-mormon pushpoll-gate! (I have noticed that all the Pro-Mitt folks who were callin’ for somebodies head- and sayin’ that whoever was responsible would BE FINISHED POLITICALLY- are real quiet now.)
The point is that I’m SICK of bein’ told by anyone that I can’t ask questions- THIS IS AMERICA- AND I WILL ASK.
Ex-tex on November 26, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Ellison’s race (as in political race)
James on November 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Bingo. It’s not about Romney or the LDS at all. It’s about religion – any religion – but, mostly, anything Christian.
It’s a worn-out, old schtick, from a worn-out, old man. And, bingo, again, on the Narcissism aspect. These hacks aren’t atheists. They aren’t godless. Their god is themselves. Their altar is hedonism, narcissism and nihilism. Their atheism is a lie. They worship themselves.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 26, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Even I, an atheist, would put being a missionary above being a law clerk, far above. I think Cheney got out because he became a father. I would put that above being a law clerk too, far above.
Also with Romney and Cheney, their deferments “fell into their lap”, with Rudolfo, he had to connive for his.
Mucha diferencia.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM
I love Christopher Hitchens. I respect his intelligence and great wit. I feel badly that he must suffer whatever demons cause his addictions and hatred of faith. I hope he he gets a grip with his addictions at least, the world would be much less interesting without him.
peacenprosperity on November 26, 2007 at 3:35 PM
So before they make any decisions they sit down with their Tarot card reader and “follow what the cards say”, and you have no problem with that? Maybe a voodoo doll with pins to take care of Chavez?
That makes two posters on here that could care less how decisions are made…until it is too late.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
The first black person elected to congress for the Democrat party was not until 1935 (Illinois).
The Democrats did not have a black elected to congress in the south until 1973 (Texas).
Republicans have had black congressmen since the beginning of the party in 1860s.
Agrippa2k on November 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Is it racism if it’s the will of God…
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Don’t worry my little one as I have two more ID’s.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Actually, most Atheists are intelligent enough to realize that “Race, Races and Racial” are all meaningless terms. We are all in the same species, a race is merely a collection of traits forced on a communitty by geographical and cultural limitations.
I do not believe in racial differences as much as I do cultural differences.
Of course, I do set the bar low when evaluating the intellect of people that believe that fictional characters hold omnipotent power over their lives, but even by that standard, your comment lacked even basic insight or understanding of how Atheists think.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Yes, I saw a forum on C-Span on the Florida Black Republicans, or a similar group, a rerun this weekend. The moderators mentioned the same, that if the Blacks would really study their history, and find out which party actually was on their side, 90% of them wouldn’t vote in lock step for the perceived helping them liberals.
Sneaky MB4 – I suggest you don’t get banned as MB4. Much better this way.
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I didn’t think that Tarotism and Voodooism were actual religions.
Maybe I am not up to date.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Which god is that, tommylotto?
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 3:47 PM
And that’s probably the best point. And Mitt should address it.
However, another portion of this post consists of AP semi-jokingly suggesting that we should respect Hitchens and his stopped-clock point, to which I um…respectfully…cast a cynical eye.
Should Romney lost the nomination, Hitchens will revert to harping on Catholics’ imperfections, then Protestants’ and so forth, because that’s what he does–he’s not doing this because he cares about racism (I’m sure he does care about that social malady but that’s not why he’s doing this.) Religion is his target and he remains an implacable foe of any religion. Therefore any weapon he can use against it–justified or not–will suffice.
In this, he remains rather leftist in outlook: any group which has displayed imperfections in the past but corrected them should, nonetheless, be excoriated for all time because of that history. In light of that way of thinking and in light of the USA’s imperfect history, one wonders why he decided to become an American citizen.
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Eventually Mitt will have to talk about the Mormons or LDS (what’s the difference).
Either he claims to be less “religious”, and more mainstream Christian (with evidence) – or he portrays the LDS majority in a moderate light with common ground with other churches.
Sorry Allahpundit – it is all about Jesus. Perhaps Mitt is a born-again Christian, who was/is Mormon. Bottom line – we just don’t know.
For Hitchens it seems he makes a lot of assumptions about LDS and Romney, without any basis in fact. And even if Mitt claims to believe in the most unusual parts of Mormonism – so what?
He has not made the case that it is bad in general (from his point of view) – and has no standing to make that point for other Christians.
Agrippa2k on November 26, 2007 at 3:49 PM
It wouldn’t take you long to figure out my “alter ego”.
Others, maybe a while.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 3:49 PM
And you don’t understand the thrust of my point? You don’t get it?
Playing dumb are we?
Google Voodoo religion, and see what you find. That will bring you up to date.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Oops, I forgot, so now you are saying you don’t care what they practice?
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Check out these supposed words of God, 2 Nephi 5:21-23:
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Uh, yeah. Hitch can be an annoying, pompous twit. I disagree with him often – although I occasionally love his opinions. His strident atheism is certainly tiresome.
But idiotic? No. Hitchens is anything but stupid. People who think so are usually embarrassed later. See, for example, George Galloway.
Professor Blather on November 26, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Why should we care HOW the decisions are made? Isn’t it more important to worry about WHAT decisions are made?
It’s very possible Bush thinks God wants him to give illegal aliens amnesty. I don’t care. I still think it’s a horrible idea.
Oh give me a break. Just because you are an atheist, it doesn’t mean you can speak for all or even a small portion of atheists.
The only thing joining you with another atheist is the belief that God does not exist. That’s it. There’s no creed or intelligence requirement.
And it’s beyond worthless to try and assume all atheists are intelligent enough for anything. I’ve met stupid atheists, and I’ve met stupid religious people.
And why are you capitalizing the word like it’s the term for a religion? That strikes me as ironic.
Your comments here could not be any more ridiculous if you’d included that idea that you understand how humans think simply because you are one.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I just “googled” “UFO religion” and got 1,680,000 hits.
Does that mean that Kucinich is some kind of Pope?
Pope Dennis I ?
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 4:23 PM
A misspelling?
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 4:24 PM
The “R” word gets thrown around an awful lot. Is the LDS position pre-1978 “racism?” Is a faith placing limits on the faithful aptly called “racism” or is it something else? Racism, has all sorts of connotations that simply don’t apply if the LDS doctrine limited who could be a deacon.
By the standards, why isn’t McCain being taken to task for belonging to an organization that discriminated on the basis of gender well into the 1980s? I speak, of course of the US Military and their prohibition against putting women in combat roles. Why isn’t Hillary being taken to task for attending a school that practiced gender discrimination? You get the idea.
highhopes on November 26, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I have to agree – I laughed out loud at that “most atheists are intelligent enough …” line.
The irony involved in the inherent stupidity in any statement that claims “most X people are Y” is kind of breathtaking.
I don’t know about atheists in general – since I actually am too smart to make such laughable blanket statements about broad groups of people – but when I read that silliness, I lowered my estimate of one particular atheist’s IQ by at least 20 points.
About the only broad statement I could make about atheists is that if they didn’t exist, HotAir would really be hurting for material.
Professor Blather on November 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I capitalized it on purpose, just to annoy people like you. I am so glad that you notice the little touches, I’d hate to think it was for nothing.
IMO, belief in mythology is antithetical to intelligence, so If I happen to encounter an otherwise intelligent person, that believes in Odin, Zeus, Shiva, Allah, Jesus, Set, whatever, I am forced to reconsider any estimations I made of their intelligence prior to that point.
Believing in a “god” is a cop out, not the result of intelligent thought.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM
My worst fear is that people that believe in mythology will think me stupid. I lose so much sleep worrying about the opinion of a population of people that must remain willfully ignorant of reality in order to believe in theor religion.
I accept your criticism of making general statements about groups of people, but if belief in giant, invisible, omnipotent beings that exist outside the laws of physics, but control everything that exists does not mark you as being a bit low on the IQ scale, than nothing does.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 4:36 PM
baldilocks, I believe that he holds both beliefs, anti-religion, and that he cares about social justice and equal treatment for all.
On his citizenship, it’s profound and I’m so glad he did it. He’s actually a very courageous man (hid Salman Rushdie in his own apartment, with family around, until that ‘brilliant’ Maureen Dowd gave him away, and they had to move him, and his unabashed anti Islamofascism).
Also, how do you explain this?
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Please help me.
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I never said I was annoyed. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
I simply wrote that it was ironic.
I get it. You think people who believe in any god are stupid. I really couldn’t possibly care less about that statement than if you were to try and offend me further.
But what does any of that have to do with your belief that you know what all Atheists believe? Or is it that you just believe we’re so stupid that we’ll think your above statements are intelligent?
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:39 PM
And trust me, we’re all losing a significant amount of sleep worrying if Internet people who make gross generalizations think a belief in god is intelligent.
Really, there are tears on my pillow. TEARS.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:42 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie, you’re entitled to any beliefs and opinions. However, the Professor is the opposite of “low on the IQ scale”. Anyone who’s not noticed that yet, must exist in a different sphere.
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I aknowledged in my response to the professor that it was wrong to generalize.
The main reason that it is wrong is that it gives theists an out. Instead of having to explain your ridiculous belief, you attack my implied point that all Atheists are smarter than all religionists.
So, it was wrong of me to genralize in that way, otherwise, I stand behind every word I typed.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »