Friday, December 7, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Holy Nonsense

by Christopher Hitchens, Slate

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

MITT ROMNEY'S WINDY, WORTHLESS SPEECH.

Mitt

Almost the only clever thing about Gov. Mitt Romney's long-denied and long-delayed but obviously long-prepared "response" was its location at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, which allowed him to pose (prematurely, I'd say) in front of a presidential seal as well as a thicket of American flags. Composed chiefly of boilerplate, the windy speech raised the vexed question of the candidate's religious affiliation—and thus broke the taboo on mentioning it—without setting to rest any of the difficulties that make it legitimate to raise the issue in the first place.

Actually, and in fairness, one should say "any but one" of those difficulties. Romney did avow, early on and in round terms, that "no authorities of my church" could ever exert any influence on his decision-making as chief executive. This may get him in trouble with some Mormons, and it does invite the question of why he adheres to a sect whose "prophet" is a supreme commander, but it is the most he could have been asked to say, as well as the least. Actually, the more he goes in one direction, the more he may find it is Mormons who are developing reservations about him. There is already grumbling in the ranks about his statement that the Bible is the revealed word of God, an absurd belief that Mormons do not truly profess, because they feel it is lacking an even more absurd later revelation to Joseph Smith. There are also those who think that Romney's disowning of past Mormon polygamy is too opportunistic, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does still offer the consolation prize of multiple wives in heaven (just like the sick dream of Mohamed Atta).

Click here to continue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Posted: Friday, December 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 51 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #95218 by kaiserkriss on December 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Like probably most other politicians who are sucking up to the electorate by being inoffensive to the least number of voters (what a concept in itself??), Mitt is walking a tightrope by talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He does not want to offend his own cult, nor does he want to offend the Christian-right-wing-wing-nuts. So how does one get around that, you invoke the one irrational outdated concept most Americans can agree upon, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM and THE FLAG.

Get people to agree that something is UNAMERICAN, and you suddenly have a united mob mentality take over, regardless of more pressing issues. It is a well establish "fact" that not believing in god is unamerican. (George Bush Sen.)

That this charlatan can get away with such a cheap trick speaks volumes to the level of rational though currently prevelant in the USA. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

2. Comment #95221 by NormanDoering on December 7, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Cenk Uygur, in his Huffpost blog, "Mitt Romney's Ironic Speech on Religious Tolerance," summed up the speech perfectly in one sentence: "Don't hate me for my religion, hate atheists and agnostics for theirs!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/mitt-romneys-ironic-spee_b_75836.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

3. Comment #95223 by Hypoluxa on December 7, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Hitchens sums it up again quite nicely... This Ken doll ward cleaver clone needs to get with reality.

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

4. Comment #95224 by Elcristoph on December 7, 2007 at 3:52 pm

well said Christopher

Other Comments by Elcristoph

5. Comment #95228 by Nails on December 7, 2007 at 4:03 pm

His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

The ability to mock a president, a candidate and an argument in one sentance - this guy is a legend.
I am looking forward to Portable Atheist in my stocking this year....

** hint hint mum, wife, anyone ***

Other Comments by Nails

6. Comment #95229 by Matt H. on December 7, 2007 at 4:14 pm

"I am looking forward to Portable Atheist in my stocking this year..."

As am I!

Other Comments by Matt H.

7. Comment #95232 by brayton.l on December 7, 2007 at 4:26 pm

What a jackass. Lets crucify him, Or lynch him... whatever your preference.

I am, admittedly, hip to the whole polygamy thing....Yay for multiple partners!

Other Comments by brayton.l

8. Comment #95234 by CJ22 on December 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Clearly he isn't worried about offending secularists. Too small a voting block? But when push comes to shove, he'll risk offending mormons before he risks offending the christian right, for the simple reason that not only are their more of the christian right, they run the party he will be running on behalf of. Mormons can expect to be disapointed in the white horse or whatever the hell he's supposed to be. Secularists, can, of course, go fuck themselves.

Other Comments by CJ22

9. Comment #95252 by wlrogers on December 7, 2007 at 6:11 pm

The Hitch is right, of course. And yet this article throws even further into sharp relief his blind spot about his beloved W. This simple truth is this: If W were pressed about his religious beliefs � the same way Hitchens presses Romney � he would admit some pretty remarkable things. He would admit that he believes the world is going to end soon and that Jesus will reign over the event. He would admit that this event will be preceded by a war in the Holy Land. He would admit that he has a personal savoir in the Lord Christ. He would say that environmental concerns are irrelevant because their isn't going to be an environment for very much longer.

How do I know? Because I come from a family of born again Christians and used to be one myself. They are every bit as crazy as Romney and not one of them should be in charge of 20,000 nuclear weapons. Why does Hitchens refuse to see that W is fundamentally no different than Romney?

Other Comments by wlrogers

10. Comment #95259 by TheUniversalAcid on December 7, 2007 at 6:30 pm

We know Mormonism is stupid because it's Christianity... and then has even more absurd additions to it. Romney is doing whatever it takes to get elected. And where better to invest in your election than born again Christians. I highly doubt that he believes in the Bible being "the word of dog" or the Mormon book for that matter. How do I know this? If you pay attention to Romney's record he'll seek to make the opporotunity out of anything (as most politicians do). He's pro-choice when he's running for governor of the liberal state Massachusetts, and when running for president he'll be pro-life etc. I'm not sure what scares me more. A man that actually believes in Christianity and the other doomsday cults it has spawned? or a man that is willing to take orders from lunatic born agains with sincere beliefs? I sure hope he isn't elected. Such a liability to the human species , and the civilization that the evil "secular religion" established.

Other Comments by TheUniversalAcid

11. Comment #95262 by Bueller_007 on December 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Olbermann's take on it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSEmw4324E

Perhaps someone can fix the typo in the title as well? Unless Hitchens has changed his name to Christohper...

Other Comments by Bueller_007

12. Comment #95263 by Diacanu on December 7, 2007 at 6:53 pm

wlrogers-

Bush already admitted in his '00 run that he doesn't believe in global worming or evolution.

BTW, Euros, don't blame all of America for Bush, please.
It's just the stupids breed more copiously, because smart people consider consequences, and stupids blindly plow right ahead on welfare and macaroni.

Other Comments by Diacanu

13. Comment #95264 by Bonzai on December 7, 2007 at 6:56 pm

It's just the stupids breed more copiously, because smart people consider consequences, and stupids blindly plow right ahead on welfare and macaroni.

So stupidity is advantageous in the Darwinian sense. Natural selection works against intelligence.

Jesus should have said that the stupid shalt inherit the world :-(

Other Comments by Bonzai

14. Comment #95266 by Diacanu on December 7, 2007 at 7:10 pm

*Sigh* I knew it, we are mutants.
:(

Other Comments by Diacanu

15. Comment #95271 by eXcommunicate on December 7, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I'd laugh at Romney's speech if he wasn't running for president...

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

16. Comment #95274 by TIKI AL on December 7, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Willard "the Rat" Romney burrowed out a deeper hole on CNN:

"The speech was NOT political, it was about keeping religion in the public square."

Not political? Really??? At this point in the campaign he pees politics! What a slimeball liar. And I agree with Hitch, Goober Godbot(Huckleberry Thin) is just as bad. At least Jim Nabors could sing.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

17. Comment #95282 by k1mgy on December 7, 2007 at 9:04 pm

"I highly doubt that he believes in the Bible being "the word of dog" or the Mormon book for that matter. How do I know this? If you pay attention to Romney's record he'll seek to make the opporotunity out of anything (as most politicians do). He's pro-choice when he's running for governor of the liberal state Massachusetts, and when running for president he'll be pro-life etc. I'm not sure what scares me more. A man that actually believes in Christianity and the other doomsday cults it has spawned? or a man that is willing to take orders from lunatic born agains with sincere beliefs? I sure hope he isn't elected. Such a liability to the human species , and the civilization that the evil "secular religion" established. "

Not quite.

Willard Mitt is a high mucky-muck in the mormon church. He HAS to believe all this crap, and he was indoctrinated at a young age.

He believes all of it and lies his way through public life towards a position where he may become 'Murca's head preacher.

Other Comments by k1mgy

18. Comment #95290 by TheUniversalAcid on December 7, 2007 at 10:06 pm

He may or he may not either way he's a demagog that should be fervently opposed.

Other Comments by TheUniversalAcid

19. Comment #95306 by brucefye on December 8, 2007 at 12:36 am

I wish we taught history better here so we could call him out.

Other Comments by brucefye

20. Comment #95310 by sent2null on December 8, 2007 at 1:19 am

I am prepared to move to Canada and become a naturalized citizen there should the dolt majority of my country again vote a Republican to the Presidency. It would take some miracle(rigged elections, more gerrymandering) or tragedy (assassination of leading Dem. candidates) for the republicans to win in my book, comparisons of incoming funding have the Dems. taking way more money every month from contributions than the Republicans, this is a very good sign that Republicans are aligning behind Democratic candidates at least with their pocket books. I also can't see a single republican who will provide anything different from what we already have in Bush. The existing democratic majority in the houses would simply ensure the existing lame duck status continues into the next few years as important issues go unaddressed. The next president MUST be a democrat just so that we can see some change, even if it may not be immediately fruitful change at first. Americans have hard choices to make and the candidate willing to tell them that "yes, for some of you I will raise taxes if it means funding programs to clean our environment or get us off fossil fuels sooner" is what we need. It is unfortunate that we don't have a candidate willing to stand boldly on the side of reason and reality over the religious madness that apparently is compulsory for anyone wishing to be elected president.

Other Comments by sent2null

21. Comment #95330 by JesusH on December 8, 2007 at 2:40 am

Would be nice if people stuck to the issues of atheism versus religion instead of trying to turn this site into a left wing political site.

All the democratic contenders are on record as being believing christians and claiming that faith is important.

So, lets not try to make it out like the democrats are a bunch of atheists, because they are not.

I am sure that there are other here to who would prefer some of the Republican candidates, like mcCain, Thompson, Giuliani to Hillary or Edwards.

Other Comments by JesusH

22. Comment #95355 by TIKI AL on December 8, 2007 at 5:57 am

Neither party is God free, but the republicans have embraced and pursued the evangelicals for votes, pushed for faith-based programs, prayer in schools, and toe stubbing 5 ton, 10 commandment monuments on the court house steps. A republican administration put god on our money and the pledge.

Lesser of 2 evils. A no brainer for now.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

23. Comment #95366 by whig on December 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Would be nice if people stuck to the issues of atheism versus religion instead of trying to turn this site into a left wing political site.

All the democratic contenders are on record as being believing christians and claiming that faith is important.

So, lets not try to make it out like the democrats are a bunch of atheists, because they are not.

I am sure that there are other here to who would prefer some of the Republican candidates, like mcCain, Thompson, Giuliani to Hillary or Edwards.

I would agree with your sentiments to a certain extent, there's no reason for atheism to be linked with the left in every sphere, and I was particularly unfond on Matthew Chapman's speech at the AAI conference. I'm a strong individualist, favouring free trade and free speech, freedom in the bedroom and the boardroom. But the most important issue for me is the question of church state separation, which is why I would support the Democrats, as the lesser transgressor. There are two areas in which I think this is important, supreme court and the war on terror. Compare the Republican-appointed Roberts, Alito and Scalia, who would almost favor theocracy, to the Democrat-appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. These are among the most significant appointments, given the control they have over the interpretation of the extent of the First Amendment and the Constitution in general. And on the war on terror, I think we can only win if we fight as rationalists. As things stand, I'll grant the Democrats are reluctant to fight at all, but I strongly believe that we can't win with a clergy dominated mentality, and as it will be fought, that I would trust the Democrats more.

Other Comments by whig

24. Comment #95372 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 7:28 am

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
-Barry Goldwater.

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #95376 by jshuey on December 8, 2007 at 7:39 am

Once again I read the unfounded criticism that Hitchens is "pro-Bush". The truth is that C.H. supports Bush on one policy - the "War on Terror", largely based on his experience in Islamic countries. On other occassions, however, Hitchens has (rightly) criticized Bush, almost to the point of ridicule.

In the end, it must stop being about people and begin being about policies. I am often chagrined that, in spite of the obvious intellect on exhibit here, the opposite is far too common.

Other Comments by jshuey

26. Comment #95392 by happyatheist on December 8, 2007 at 9:03 am

"eXcommunicate :I'd laugh at Romney's speech if he wasn't running for president."

LOL! Go ahead and laugh...cuz Romney's speech did nothing to move him up in the polls. He can reference JFK and make all the speeches on Mormonism he wants to...but many evangelicals still don't trust him. They smile and applaud out of politeness (he is still a Republican after all)...but when it comes time to vote for him PRIVATELY...they won't do it. Former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee is the one to keep your eye on.

Other Comments by happyatheist

27. Comment #95436 by USA_Limey on December 8, 2007 at 10:42 am

Comment #95266 by Diacanu:

*Sigh* I knew it, we are mutants.
:(

If that's true, shouldn't we have special powers?

;-p

Other Comments by USA_Limey

28. Comment #95519 by nrvous on December 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Who is this Christohper Hitchens? Any relation to Christopher?

Other Comments by nrvous

29. Comment #95520 by STLstrike3 on December 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm

The media is afraid to criticize this speech. And it irks me to no end, because it is a silent validation of Romney's marginalization of those who know better than to believe in any of this crap.

"Tell us, Mr. Romney, do Americans who do not believe in a god *not* have a friend in you?"

I would relish watching him stumble over an answer to that question.

Other Comments by STLstrike3

30. Comment #95524 by liberalartist on December 8, 2007 at 2:08 pm

The Republican party has been the self-claimed party of god for sometime now. Prior to Bush it was a way to get votes, but with W, the party of god started changing policies, spending tax dollars on religious initiatives, packing the courts with religious nutters, and pretty much destroying our long history of seperation of church-state. On top of all this they found a holy war in the ashes of 9/11. I think the vast majority of Americans have no interest in this type of ideology. And I think it is very unlikely that a Republican will win the next election unless something unforseen happens (assasinations, terror strikes), because religion seems to be all they can talk about. Not all Republicans are christian conservatives. Lets not forget that the Dover case was decided correctly by a Bush-appointed Republican judge. I think the religious-right is destroying its own party, like a virus.

and calling secularism a religion is an oxymoron!

Other Comments by liberalartist

31. Comment #95604 by CatrelStevens on December 8, 2007 at 5:55 pm

How in the hell do you write like that? Simply perfect.

Other Comments by CatrelStevens

32. Comment #95617 by wlrogers on December 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm

jshuey

You are speaking from ignorance. When Hitchens was playing word association with members of the Rational Response Squad, his association with the prompt "George Bush" was "Mr. President." You can watch the video on line, and I will leave it to you to judge with what amount of deference the title was spoken. Further, when Hitchens was on Bill Maher's show, he pointed out that many Muslim leaders have fanatical religious beliefs concerning the approaching End Times. Maher pointed out, correctly, that so did Bush and his ilk. When the audience responded positively to Maher's comment, Hitchens literally shot the audience the Bird in a broad, sweeping gesture. Hardly the behavior of a man who agrees with Bush on "one policy."

Other Comments by wlrogers

33. Comment #95620 by Farooq on December 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm

"Religion of secularism"

I wish I could ask Mr Romney that if it was not for the "religion of Secularism", Could he be one of the leading Presidential candidate from the Republican Party?

I think "Men of Faith" would not have allowed him to go so far.

Hitchens and Dawkins are my Prophets. A million times better than Mohammad, Jesus or Moses.

Other Comments by Farooq

34. Comment #95632 by dragonfirematrix on December 8, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Okay folks, I guess I will stick my neck out...

I heard Romney giving his/this speech while relaxing and sipping my coffee at a local McDonald's. After Romney's speech, I was hardly relaxed.

I was insulted, hurt, and infuriated. We Secular Humanists, Atheists, Buddhists, Humanists, etc., are also a very important part of America, and we to love our freedom, and we to want an honest representation in government like any other group. Romney, like all conservatives, leaves us out of the "American Dream."

As a 60 year-old Secular Humanist who has contributed to the "spirit and meaning of America", I felt dumped on again by another GOP religious conservative. It is no wonder I seek democratic candidates for whom to cast my votes.

HOWEVER�that said�

Democratic candidates, as well, must drop their assumption that they must show their religion to get votes. Religion will not save America. Reason will save America, and the time to learn this fact is now. All candidates, conservative and democratic alike, need to drop their religion card from their resume because their religion is not germane to the job they are seeking. There will never be one religious denomination, which will ever peacefully rule planet Earth. There is only the one reality for planet Earth, and that is "one nation (indeed our home planet), of many different people, with liberty and justice for absolutely all."

Thanks guys,

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

35. Comment #95652 by Roy_H on December 8, 2007 at 11:08 pm

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071207/tod-india-religion-courts-offbeat-451ab4f_1.html
nothing to do with Mormons, but more "Holy Nonsense". What will they do if they do not turn up in court I wonder?

Other Comments by Roy_H

36. Comment #95784 by robotaholic on December 9, 2007 at 7:41 am

HONESTY is not what I get out of his speach.. Pandering, brainwashing, and inaccuracy-

I hate this america and my only respite is the new atheist movement and the progression of science.

...it makes me pessimistic - humankind is just not going to make it I'm afriad...

Other Comments by robotaholic

37. Comment #95881 by ksskidude on December 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

The more I read about Romney and Huckabee the more depressed I become. I am going to flip out if Huckabee wins the rep. nomination. What would that say about our country, or atleast about republicans? As I watch my country slowly become a theocracy, I am left feeling angered, confused, bewildered. Is it only me, or do any others feel as I do? I am not kidding when I say that I constantly find myself reading the newspaper, and saddend as I feel helpless. I write op-eds, I write comments on articles and am constantly bombarded by irrational deluded believers.

Other Comments by ksskidude

38. Comment #95935 by walk on December 9, 2007 at 1:51 pm

It IS pretty amazing that Romney would first sort of alienate his church members (approx. 6 million in US), (they disagree with many things in the Bible), and their president and prophet, Gordon Hinckley, who receives direct revelations from god, which Romney has SWORN to follow. He stated in the speech that he WOULDN'T follow. I wonder if he discussed this speech with the elders in Salt Lake. ("Aw, c'mon guys, I GOTTA say this").

Second, he dumped on 15% of the voters with the "religion of secularism" dig. It's kind of funny that he outspent Huckabee in Iowa by millions, and is now trailing him dramatically in the polls. A couple months ago Iowa was a GIVEN for ol' Mitt.

I know the bishop of the local Mormon church in my town, and we talked briefly about the speech the other day. He actually said something like "Well, I haven't decide on Romney yet, I'll have to listen to the other republicans a bit more". Ya, Right! - - - It's the declared goal of the church to establish a theocracy in America in anticipation of the second coming of Christ in Missouri! Wouldn't a Mormon in the White House be the first step?

Other Comments by walk

39. Comment #96054 by Lord of the Morning on December 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm

"his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday"

born again and born yesterday, instant classic

Other Comments by Lord of the Morning

40. Comment #96203 by jeroen on December 10, 2007 at 6:50 am

Every time I see him on TV, I just envision the Mormon underwear he has on, and end up giggling.

I propose a simple photoshop campaign to put an end to his political aims.

Other Comments by jeroen

41. Comment #96222 by walk on December 10, 2007 at 7:29 am

jeroen, Hah! Let the photoshopping begin!

Other Comments by walk

42. Comment #96226 by steveroot on December 10, 2007 at 7:40 am

44. Comment #96222 by walk on December 10, 2007 at 7:29 am
jeroen, Hah! Let the photoshopping begin!

In that spirit (after a quick scan indicates these links haven't been posted yet), check out these:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1207/mittromney.html
http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/2007/12/07/what-mitt-romneys-not-telling-you-about-the-mormon-cult/

Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

43. Comment #96278 by walk on December 10, 2007 at 9:25 am

Thanks, Steveroot - - - great links. The photoshopping has obviously ALREADY begun!

I love the way the Landover Baptist pastor calls JFK a "Mary Worshipping jackass". How TOTALLY Christian!

Other Comments by walk

44. Comment #96365 by paulwwww on December 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Love that Hitchens...

For anyone here that supposes that voting Democratic is the only way to maintain our Constitutional rights (separation of church/state), needs to check out Ron Paul. He is a strict Constitutionalist even though he a Christian.

This Atheist can live with this type of Christian in office.

Other Comments by paulwwww

45. Comment #96466 by squinky on December 10, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I've got one word:

"WHOOOOPISHCK"
(That would be the onomatopoetic whip of superior intellect resounding against the bare naked ass of Romney)

You just HAVE to love Hitch!

Other Comments by squinky

46. Comment #97404 by Paul42 on December 12, 2007 at 3:08 am

Right...

Let's all stop missing the point.

ALL of your candidates for the presidency are LIARS.

They are PRETENDING to be religious to secure votes because that is what they are told to do by their advisers... The same advisers that tell them how to look, behave and even which colour tie to wear.

When the "New Atheism" really snowballs and there are millions of us showing up in the polls, then and only then, will some politicians PRETEND to be atheists to get OUR vote...

The only thing keeping these politicians "believing" in religion is, like all religious leaders, POWER.

Logic, reason and some very basic intelligence will very quickly put paid to any religious belief system. Therefore All of your politicians are either cowardly liars or they're unintelligent... Either way they are ALL unelectable.

Is it too early to start a "Let's ALL go to the ballot box but deliberately spoil the paper" campaign? Send the message that, being asked to make a choice between idiots is no choice at all... That NONE of the candidates is worthy of a democratic vote. That deliberately lying to gain votes is "un-American"...

To kinda quote South Park, you are trying to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich...

And it's almost the same in the UK...

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

47. Comment #97418 by Jehovah's Waitress on December 12, 2007 at 3:55 am

I despair over the possible presidential candidates when all the shouting is done and it's down to the wire. Once again the choice will be "leeser" of stupidity.

Other Comments by Jehovah's Waitress

48. Comment #97445 by scott715 on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

As an ex-Mormon there is a famous quote that appeared in a church publication in the 60's "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done". Since that time the church has tried to back-pedal on this statement saying it was published in error, but from my own experience this is the case. Mormons believe that their leader is a literal prophet of God in the style of the Old Testament and receives revelation directly from God. This is also true of any male priesthood holder over the age of 12. Of course, in true Old Testament tradition, women are completely excluded.
However, just as with Bush, Romney will do whatever the hell comes into his own head to do. Or follow the desires of his backers while mouthing pieties at the same time. In any case the Mormon church pretty much slavishly follows the Republican party in politics since currently they are most aligned with the church's agenda.

Of course I think it is perfectly legitimate to question him specifically on what he really believes just as people do it to me all of the time and I am not running for any office. I would like to ask him if he will do without Secret Service protection since his church teaches that his holy underwear (temple garments) will protect him, even from bullets.

Mormon beliefs seem strange to mainstream Christians, but viewed from a distance they are all equally goofy, just different. Too bad these are the only kind of people who have the type of personality to sustain a run for such an important public office. That and the fact that God drunk America would never vote for someone who didn't believe in at least some version of the invisible bearded man in the sky.

Other Comments by scott715

49. Comment #97543 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 9:55 am

scott715,

Thanks for posting. As an ex-Mormon, you're in a much better position to see the possible danger of having a Mormon president. It's too bad the general public doesn't have the information you possess. I don't believe Romney will get the Republican nomination, but hopefully the attention that has been brought to Mormonism, and having some of the bizarre beliefs come to light will be a good thing.

Other Comments by walk

50. Comment #100410 by JHS on December 18, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I honestly don't know which is the more terrifying prospect, Romney or Huckabee. It's sickening how they're all going to such lengths to prove who is really the most backward and ignorant ("I don't believe in evolution or global warming!" "Well *I* don't believe in evolution, global warming, gravity, OR math! So ha!")

AND that this is what part of electorate wants! It's maddening. If we ever again have a wise, learned person who I could actually, fully respect (*gasp*) as president, I might drop dead from shock.

Other Comments by JHS

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last