onegoodmove

How many people have you pleased in your life? Have you ever had a homosexual thought? Have you ever thought about your sibling in an impure matter? What things have you put in your body?

Do any of these things really effect how a leader leads? I would vote for an Athiest if I believed an Athiest was best suited for the job. Mormonism is on the rise. Hitchens is just looking to sell more books.

Regarding bogus attacks on Romney's religion, I believe that speaks to the character of him and his campaign (it's not like he actually stands for principles -- just observe his flipping on abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control).

As for his beliefs being subject to criticism, they are reasonably fair game, but the orientation of religious criticism is badly off the mark -- the standard should center around respecting academia/science/expression and not imposing upon anyone ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), rather than authoritarian evangelism.

As a publisher's rep, I used to sell books to Deseret bookstores, the Mormon chain of stores. The first time I had lunch with the buyers I confessed my ignorance of Mormon history and asked, "When the Mormons arrived in Utah, who was here?", to which one of the buyers answered, "Nobody. Well, the Indians." I wanted to say, "But they didn't have souls, did they", but I had books to sell.

My religion professor in college was always very good at presenting each religion on its own terms and letting us sort it all out for ourselves. The closest he ever came to prejudicing or views was when he introduced Mormonism with the words, "My friends, this is a very strange book."

Ultimately Mormons consider themselves governed only by the christ and by proxy, until he returns, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

These leaders and living prophets are believed to be divinely anointed to reveal the will of god and held to have the authority to carry out god's will over and above any and all temporal governments. Remind you of anyone?

This isn't christianity as we know it, not by a long shot. Mormonism is polytheist, not monotheist, and is more akin to Scientology; believing god is a physical being of "flesh and bone" who did not create the universe, but had a mother and a father and now resides on a planet that is near a star called "Kolob" (oh it gets MUCH better, but I will spare you the amusement for now).

Romney damn sure needs to be grilled about where his loyalty lies…with his religion or the secular democracy. By the very nature of the faith, it is impossible for him to serve both. But do not expect to gain much insight…Remember, Joseph Smith was a master charlatan and so are many Mormons today.

I have to add that I consider ALL supernatural belief a crock of shit, but this is about Mormonism.

I'm wary of any religion the relies so heavily on hallucinogens like the LSD they always harp on. But it does explain a lot about their behavior....

Very pleased to see Hitchens on the case. As a New Engladn resident, I watched Romney get elected to the office of Massachusetts governor, and then trot around the nation bad-mouthing the state in hopes of building up his conservative cred for his presidential run. He did very little for Massachusetts, believe me, during his term.

He is a scheisster of the highest order. The religion thing needs to be examined, in detail, as does his record as governor.

And the people who've said they might vote for him because he "looks presidential" should be ashamed to call themselves citizens.

I am glad to be a resident of New Hampshire, where his record is well-known (as Massachusetts's neighbor). He's not doing that well up here (not that I like Rudi that much better; I'm for Obama myself)...I hope he'll be history soon.

Did anyone else notice that the text on the screen read:

"Hitchens: Religion shouldn't be a question Gov. Romney has to answer."

Unless this was some broader point about secularism and the presidency, I cannot see how it conforms to what Hitchens was actually saying....

**Not to mention the flashing DEVELOPING graphic. Nice.

<><><><><>

YO!

If this site is going to be all-Hitchens, can we really ignore when Hitchens describes his persoanl experiences waxing his scrotum? Let's show the entire picture please!! http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/11/atlastchristopherhitchensd.html

Have you ever had a homosexual thought? Have you ever thought about your sibling in an impure matter? What things have you put in your body?

Settle down, Beavis.

My father had some business in Utah, where it is almost impossible to do business w/ Mormons unless you are a member of the church.

Am not sure, then, if all these Mormons are actually religious or are using their membership as an entry into the Mormon 'market'.

Poor Romney. If he does what Kennedy did, deny the authority of the church, he will lose his church membership status. This may ultimately undermine his campaign.

Hate these interviewers, who will side with the 'religious' (even if he's a Mormon, heck, he's a Christian and deserves defending) before they will agree with the common sense of Hitchens. I wish they would simply ask a question and then let Hitchens talk instead of trying to make these nasty implications.

Like, hey, but why should we give creedence to an athiest before any Christian, even if they are Mormon.

Hitchens is for Guiliani. And he doesn't know very much about Mormonism. Those are probably the two biggest reasons he wants Mitt to answer questions about Mormonism.

Look, it is very appropriate to aks about the political views of a candidate's theology. In the 19th century Catholics had official theological views which were anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-American even (the papal encyclical the Syllabus of Errors explicitly denounced "Americanism"). Christian Zionists similarly have theological views which are very relevant to politics. It's completely legitimate to ask candidates about these things. We haven't "moved past this stuff" since JFK. Nor should we ever.

The reason we're shy about this sort of thing in America is that questions about religion are most often a way to point out the strange and/ or unorthodox beliefs of your political opponents. It's just a way to make someone look weird or non-mainstream. The questions will be asked of the Mormons, Jews, atheists and Muslims, but not of the evangelicals like Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, Bush, and politicians of their ilk, unlike Romney, explicitly claim that their political views are based on theology. But do we get "questions" about their faith? No.

Hitchens probably likes the fact that people aren't asking his guy about faith. Guiliani says his religious beliefs are between "[him] and [his] priest" (qu.: does he even know who his priest is?). I.e. Guiliani is non-religious, but doesn't mind appearing to be religious, to have a priest. That's probably good enough for Hitchens.

On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate to judge candidates based on the argument, "Only an idiot or a liar could belong to a faith that preaches these things. Therefore anyone from this church is beyond the pale." Once upon a time people argued, strictly from theological arguments, that atheists were oath breakers. They didn't care to look and see whether atheists commonly lied, they just concluded it from their theological beliefs. You're doing basically the same thing when you start from the highly symbolic, abstract beliefs espoused by a person's religious community and then try to conclude something about that persons's likely behavior, without taking into account the person's actual behavior. Mitt Romney didn't just fall out of space. Look at his adult life and see if he has acted like a wild-eyed fanatic.

Of course there's no way I'm voting for him; none of the Republicans are far enough way from Bush to be acceptable.

dende blogger - concerning your last point, what about Ron Paul - from what I can tell he's a million miles away from Bush.

Not so sure about his idea for scrapping the Fed (and some other governmental departments), but if he were elected then I doubt he would be able to get away with fulfilling some of his more extreme initiatives. Wouldn't his "policy equilibrium" be quite a reasonable one?

Am I being naive - should you only vote for the candidate with whom you are in full agreement?

Settle down, Beavis.

heh, heh, heh - enough said!

Hitchens is for Guiliani. And he doesn't know very much about Mormonism. Those are probably the two biggest reasons he wants Mitt to answer questions about Mormonism.

Yeah, unfortunately, I think you've got Hitchens pegged. As much as I sometimes enjoy watching Hitchens skewer religious gasbags, he is also willing to make very unsavory alliances – he's definitely of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" persuasion. And the neverending war against the (imagined) Islamic monolith seems to be his biggest aim in life these days.

"dende blogger - concerning your last point, what about Ron Paul - from what I can tell he's a million miles away from Bush."

You're right, he's pretty far away from Bush. So I should have added, "and is a liberal". I'd consider voting for Ron Paul, if only to voice my support for a non-insane Republican party. Of course, Paul has little chance of winning and the GOP will continue to be insane. But the Democratic candidates are all good enough for me, though I don't agree with any of them on everything.

Check out this link--a political scientist rated all the members of Congress since the 1930s, on an ideology spectrum. Ron Paul comes out as the most conservative member of Congress in the whole country since the 1930s. Of course Paul's is a better kind of conservatism that Bush's kind, but he's still very much to the right of myself. Notice another thing--a lot of the most conservative members are from recent and present times, whereas most of the far left are from the 30s and 40s.

http://voteview.com/IsJohnKerryALiberal.htm

It is funny to look up the cartoon on Mormon beliefs on youtube and compare them with the episode of Southpark explaining Scientologist beliefs.

There is quite a similarity so it seems that ole L. Ron Hubbard plagiarized from the Mormons.

as an exmormon I love the mormon related things you post!

Personally, I would call mormons christians in a very general sense. They believe in christ as their savior. But I understand how when you narrow down the definition of christiantiy mormons don't fit (depending on how you narrow it down, of course).

But, really, as far as I am concerned, calling yourself a "christian" isn't necessarily anything to be proud of.

It's fun to sit back and watch Hitchen's brain go clickety-click. I do admire his gifts but he's such a zealot and he's a bit duplicitous here by saying that Christians should be outraged by Joseph Smith when his Atheism stands to denounce the lot.

Romney's association with the Mormon religion doesn't worry me in the slightest. If he were elected president, however, there's another organization to which he'd be beholden to, and that organization scares the bejesus out of me. I'm talking about the Republican Party, of course. Romney would surely continue the reign of bad foreign and domestic policy that has been implemented over the last seven horrible years.

Because, by voting republican, we're essentially saying we approve of the Iraq war, a bellicose Middle East policy. It means we're OK with a government who outs a CIA agent for political gains, an act of treason. We approve of a government that provides unregulated free market that preys on poor people to increase the bank roll of hedge fund managers. A government that tortures, defies centuries-old basic human rights of a fair trail, etc...

That's the organization that worries me.

Fluker, I noticed the graphic too. I was confused as well.

Of course someone's religion is fair game for debate, if their religion influences their political policies. How more simple can it be.

"I support Israel because Jews need the holy land for Jesus to come back"

"I believe in the book of Revelation, where armageddon is started by a holy war between christianity and an outside threat"

"I believe life begins at conception, therefore, any birth control other than condoms is considered abortion, and should be rendered illegal, after roe v. wade gets overturned"

"I think science is wrong because it disproves my religious beliefs" (i'm lookin at you Huckabee)

These are vital policy questions, and are important to the decisions that the president will be making. Stem Cells being vetoed is religious, and only religious. Trying to push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is only religious.

Religions belive some kooky crap, and any presidential candidate should answer to how much they believe this garbage, and how it's going to influence their policies!