Hitchens on Romney and Mormanism...

[headscratcher4]

http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

Interesting...he asks some good questions that others don't dare to ask out of fear of being politically incorrect.

 

[Lurker]

Good article. Good questions. Our press will never ask them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really? Why do you presume that any and every follower of a religious creed is in some way a fundy, or meticulous adherent to doctrine?

Y'all ever hear of projection? Might want to look it up.

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

When you have an answer to that, how about we have a conversation?

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This piece by Hitchens smacks of the same idiocy that arose in about 1960, where Presidential candidate Kennedy's being Catholic was raised as somehow relevant to his presidential aspirations.

Being a Mormon didn't prevent Romney from being a modestly competent governor of Mass. This narrow focus on one facet of his life conveniently ignores an entire life spent successfully navigating the path between how he applies his faith to his life, private and otherwise, and how he gets on with whatever job he has to do at the time.

What the hell is wrong with you people, really?

You piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president, and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why your vision seems blurry?

Romney's Mormonism: if you want to know how it influences his role as possible president, ask:

How did it influence his role as governor?

How did being Catholic influence JFK?

DR

Try reading the article.

Ronmey appears to be eagily anticipating the following: "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. … And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. … The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem" The Mormon Chruch was pretty anti-black until 1978 and he was an adult member of the cult at that time. How does he feel about black people now? Whereas JFK straightforwardly answered the question of whether or not he believed Catholic dogma superceded human laws, Mitt, Mitt, full of **** has not addressed whether he believes his cult's "divine" laws supercede the Constitution he would need to swear to uphold as President of the United States.

I'm done giving you the Cliff Notes. Read.

 

[Cleon]

I think DR has made some valid points on the matter.

Further, I would say that Hitchens has next to zero credibility on the matter of religion and politics. He has a problem with Romney's faith, but had no problem hopping into the proverbial bed with George Bush, a born-again Christian and creationist.

Don't get me wrong--the LDS church is a classic example of small, creepy cults turning into mainstream religions. (From a historical/anthropological POV, it's rather fascinating to watch, actually.) But I don't see this as being particularly different than any other religious tradition. Hell, even at their worst, the Mormons didn't have anything close to the horrors of the Inquisition.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Mitt, Mitt, full of **** has not addressed whether he believes his cult's "divine" laws supercede the Constitution he would need to swear to uphold as President of the United States.

He is not required to do that.

Why do you demand it?

I read the article, ID, and the points raised are irrelevant to his performance as President, or Governor. Once again, little one, go back to his run for, and term as governor, in Massachusettes. All that is going on here is the politics of personal attack.

Did his being a Mormon in any way, shape, or form prevent him from carrying out his duties as Governor of Massachusettes?

You got evidence, or do you have your usual load of BS?

You don't like him for being GOP, or Mormon? Fine, that's cool. That's got nothing to do with his competence, or potential competence.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

These alleged "skeptics" piss and moan that an atheist can't get elected president -- quite possibly true -- and then applaud an attack on the basis of belief and wonder at why their vision seems blurry?

First of all, beliefs is what you elect canidates based on. Do they believe in the same roles for goverement, enterpretation of the law and so on as you do. So you should always question beliefs of any canidate.

Second there is no central body of athiest thought, atheist means nothing about other beliefs. Mormons have a great many beliefs outside of their beliefs in the existance of an alien god.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

He is not required to do that.

Why do you demand it?

I read the article, ID, and the points raised are irrelevant to his performance as President, or Governor. Once again, little one, go back to his run for, and term as governor, in Massachusettes. All that is going on here is the politics of personal attack.

Did his being a Mormon in any way, shape, or form prevent him from carrying out his duties as Governor of Massachusettes?

You got evidence, or do you have your usual load of BS?

You don't like him for being GOP, or Mormon? Fine, that's cool. That's got nothing to do with his competence, or potential competence.

DR

Whether or not his demented religion has presented a problem in the past isn't the issue. The issue is that his membership in the Chruch of Better than You is a major political hurdle he refuses to address, why?

 

[Darth Rotor]

First of all, beliefs is what you elect canidates based on. Do they believe in the same roles for goverement, enterpretation of the law and so on as you do. So you should always question beliefs of any canidate.

Second there is no central body of athiest thought, atheist means nothing about other beliefs. Mormons have a great many beliefs outside of their beliefs in the existance of an alien god.

Your second point is true enough. Well said.

As to your first, yes, I tend to agree, however, Hitchens is focusing on doctrine of an organization, which strikes me as something different from what you said.

Again: look at his record, as governor.

Where is the evidence that he in some way acted under the old, (and revised) bias in Mormon doctrine that was the subject of the 1978 "revelation." (Yes, I've cracked many a joke on that score, about how Ralston Purina finally had to put black dogs on its packages of chow. Back then, a Mormon owned company.)

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your second point is true enough. Well said.

As to your first, yes, I tend to agree, however, Hitchens is focusing on doctrine of an organization, which strikes me as something different from what you said.

But the Mormon church is an organization and he is a member in it, so its policies and doctrine matter. I would want to know if catholics think that providing condoms in Africa is counterproductive to the fight against AIDS as well as that is doctrine for their church.

Atheism has no doctrine outside of the nonexistence of god, so a politicians adherence to it is not relevant

Where is the evidence that he in some way acted under the old, (and revised) bias in Mormon doctrine that was the subject of the 1978 "revelation." (Yes, I've cracked many a joke on that score, about how Ralston Purina finally had to put black dogs on its packages of chow. Back then, a Mormon owned company.)

DR

Why is discussing membership in a racist organization taboo? He was a member of the church before then, so asking about his views on that would seem to be relevant.

 

[ravdin]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?

Hitchens has not stated that Romney is unfit to be president because he's a Mormon. He does say that it's unbecoming for the media to avoid asking pointed and uncomfortable questions about what Romney actually believes.

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

Romney seems to be the only candidate in the field who ducks questions about his faith. Is it fair to distrust him because of this? Yes.

 

[headscratcher4]

I would want to know why a former supporter of the Klan, for example, changed their mind. Old Senator Byrd has spoken about his early invovlement with the Klan and his evolution away from it. It suggests something of how his mind works, maybe something about his principles, his willingness to change, pander, whatever.

Did Romney, for example, as an adult prior to 1978, believe Church doctrine? Did he only believe that the revelation of God could change that doctrine (as claimed by the church's prophet in 1978), or was he specifically able to seperate the faith in his doctrine from the reality in America?

I note, his father George Romeny, was a progressive governor in Michigan and a practicing Mormon. Clearly, he was able to strike that balance and figure it out...but wouldn't it be useful to know how Mitt strikes it?

Or, do we assume, that like the positions he holds now, as opposed to those he pursued as a progressive governor of MA, that all is fungible when it comes to obtaining political office?

 

[Lurker]

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

This was my concern with Romney and the article pointed this out. I think 1978 is late enough that Mormons should have been questioning their practices well before this.

 

[Cleon]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons?

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

 

[Darth Rotor]

DR and Cleon- Did you read the article? Or are you biased because you dislike Hitchens?

To repeat myself, I read the article. Yes. No, I don't dislike Hitchens, in general, but I find this obsession with religion indicative of a bigotted mindset: the bigotry of so called skeptics. I hadn't grasped that form of bigotry until I began to interact in the JREF formums, particularly R & P, over a year ago.

As to Hitchens himself, some days he comes across more coherently than others. Mixed bag.

Hitchens has not stated that Romney is unfit to be president because he's a Mormon. He does say that it's unbecoming for the media to avoid asking pointed and uncomfortable questions about what Romney actually believes.

I see, you take at face value what I choose to look at from a different point of view, and considering Hitchen's previous agenda as a Skeptic.

The Mormon church was officially racist up to 1978. Romney was an adult then and active in the church. How did he reconcile this? I think it's a fair question.

Does it occur to you to ask yourself this question:

Why is Hitchens assuming a doctrinaire approach to Mormonism by Romney? What evidence does he have of Romney applying said doctrine to public life?

Why the unspoken implication that based on that (grossly flawed IMO) doctrine, that "all True Mormons" and by extension "All Mormons" must necessarily subscribe to that position?

Do you see what is going on here?

Romney seems to be the only candidate in the field who ducks questions about his faith. Is it fair to distrust him because of this? Yes.

To you, yes. But of course, a Skeptic might be pre biased on that score to begin with. Evidence abounds all over the JREF forum discussions, both on the politics and R & P forums.

To me, not sure how I feel about Romney's position on that yet. The campaign is still young.

Mormons, being a relatively small sect, are not infrequently targeted for ridicule (fair or not) and methinks get rather tired of it after a while. Of course, once you run for Pres, people will ask inconvenient questions, so to be fair to you, and Hitchens, it's not as though he should not have expected this sort of thing.

DR

 

[ravdin]

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons?

I have met many Mormons that I like just fine. It's true that I dislike Mormonism. I'm also biased as hell. But I try to be fair.

As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

Yes. Do you have evidence that the SBC officially refused to allow black people into their hierarchy? If you do, then I would want to ask the same question of any presidential candidate who has worked to convert people into that sect while they had this policy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This was my concern with Romney and the article pointed this out. I think 1978 is late enough that Mormons should have been questioning their practices well before this.

And slavery should not have been accepted in the Constitutional convention.

But it was. Time moves forward. Some folks clue up more quickly than others.

At least in 1978 they finally woke up, and got a clue.

Beats the alternative.

PT: back to assumptions, again.

Why do you choose to assume a lack of dissent within an organization?

Ever hear of Vatican II?

DR

 

[ravdin]

Does it occur to you to ask yourself this question:

Why is Hitchens assuming a doctrinaire approach to Mormonism by Romney? What evidence does he have of Romney applying said doctrine to public life?

Why the unspoken implication that based on that (grossly flawed IMO) doctrine, that "all True Mormons" and by extension "All Mormons" must necessarily subscribe to that position?

I don't want to assume anything on Romney's position. So why would it be wrong to ask him this inconvenient question? Let him explain himself in his own words.

You seem to think that Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt, if he is reticent to discuss the tenets of his religion. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But when he may have the power to start a nuclear war, or indefinitely detain a US citizen, I think the rules change a little. I'd like to know what Romney really believes.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, I did. Did you read the points DR and I made, or are biased because you dislike Mormons?



As opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, right?

I can't believe I'm defending the SBC, but they're actually substantially more progressive that the Mormons. They have higher regard for women, and respect for Church/State sepration, for example. Source.

The SBC in 1978 didn't have a platform fobidding blacks from joining or getting involved in their hierarchies, whereas the Mormons did. It's a false comparison.

Excuse me, I need to wash now.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't want to assume anything on Romney's position. So why would it be wrong to ask him this inconvenient question? Let him explain himself in his own words.

You seem to think that Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt, if he is reticent to discuss the tenets of his religion. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But when he may have the power to start a nuclear war, or indefinitely detain a US citizen, I think the rules change a little. I'd like to know what Romney really believes.

I see where you are coming from.

@ ID: I shall raise a glass in your honor, for the courage you showed in defending the Southern Baptists.

DR