Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Gretchen sends along a link to this essay by Lawrence O'Donnell about Mitt Romney's breathtakingly stupid and hypocritical speech about his religion. I have to agree with her, I think it's excellent. This whole notion that we somehow aren't supposed to question someone's religious beliefs is just idiotic. So is the notion that criticizing someone's religion is bigotry against those who believe in it. I
I think Mormonism is an incredibly ridiculous religion. Do I hate Mormons? Absolutely not. My older brother is Mormon and I love him dearly. I have met hundreds of Mormons in my life and I can't recall a single one that I did not like. In my experience, Mormons, far more than your average Christian, have a devotion to family that is really quite striking. I think that goes along with being a minority and long-despised religion; your belief has to be stronger than average to keep you going in the face of such disapproval. But that doesn't make their beliefs any less absurd, nor does it make such criticism any less accurate.
Comments
And why do the Amish get a free ride?
Posted by: Divalent | December 16, 2007 9:41 AM
Hay tisn't free, English.
Posted by: jpf | December 16, 2007 10:04 AM
And why do the Amish get a free ride? Because there's always a Mennonite ready to drive them where they want to go.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 16, 2007 10:22 AM
What else do the Amish and Mormons have in common? A high incidence of within-group rape which is never reported to the authorities.
A lot of work goes into keeping up the most pleasing of appearances, and the main reason for doing so is to keep the outside authorities from getting involved.
Posted by: Belsnickel | December 16, 2007 10:32 AM
The Amish?
What sort of free ride do you think they are receiving?
Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 11:10 AM
Ok, so someone finally asked Romney about his religion's racist policies before their 1978 "revelation" that blacks should be allowed full participation in their church after all. Tim Russert on Meet the Press asked him (probably prompted by Frank Rich's column in this morning's New York Times).
Romney's response. He refused to say a single critical word of the Mormon Church. Not one. He simply defended himself and his father by repeatedly mentioning their long association with the civil rights movement (his father marched with MLK). I'm sure that is true, and I doubt Romney is a racist, but he was asked point blank about the Mormon's official policies and he refused to answer.
I wish Russert had asked why Romney and his father hadn't agitated for change in the Mormon church, but I doubt he would have gotten an answer anyway.
As for the moment when the Mormon Church announced their policy change towards blacks in 1978? Romney said he was driving back from law school when he heard it on the radio and he pulled over to the side of the road and wept for joy.
Hmm. What are the odds that little heartwarming tale is true?
Posted by: tacitus | December 16, 2007 12:31 PM
What are the odds, tacitus? Slim and none.
That story is what Mormons call a "faith-promoting story" and what many of us in the ex-Mormon community call BS.
Posted by: Elaine | December 16, 2007 12:53 PM
Romney and his father could not agitate in the church for civil rights change. Acceptance of blacks was God's decision. And it just so happened that the church elders heard from God that He had changed his mind and it was now OK to accept blacks into the church. It was the same deal when the church needed to give up polygamy to have Utah accepted as a state...God letting the elders know that he changed his mind and now polygamy was a no go.
I'm not sure if God changed his mind or if the previous elders had got it wrong the first time...like the GodHotLine got garbled or something. Anyway, that is what is so cool about a revealatory religion. But for mormons, only elders have the GodHotLine so Mitt and his dad were out of the loop and there was nothing they could do at the time.
Posted by: lawdog | December 16, 2007 2:17 PM
Mitt Romney should still answer the question as to whether he believed that the Mormon Church's tenets regarding blacks in the church was wrong before 1978. Christians (well, most of them anyway) will admit that their church was wrong regarding race during and before the civil rights movement got going. Jerry Falwell himself admitted as much, and he was on the wrong side personally as well in the beginning.
Frankly, if Mitt cannot bring himself to be critical of an obsolete stance his church repudiated nearly 30 years ago, it's a troubling indication that, despite is "Kennedy-lite" speech, Romney would be too beholden to the Mormon powers in Utah.
Posted by: tacitus | December 16, 2007 3:08 PM
Its not being critical of his church. Its being critical of God. They have the GodHotLine, and He tells them what the current deal is going to be (yes polygamy/no polygamy; yes racism/no racism). You are asking Mitt to question the revealatory foundation of his religion. He can't do that.
Posted by: lawdog | December 16, 2007 3:16 PM
Enh. No more ridiculous than any other.
Posted by: Skemono | December 16, 2007 3:38 PM
I agree with your sentiments, tacitus, but I wouldn't say that Romney's speech was Kennedy-lite-- rather, it was contra-Kennedy. It wasn't "Don't worry, I won't inject too much of my religion into my government." It was "Don't worry, the religion I'm going to inject into my government is just like yours, and not injecting it would be atheistic and wrong!"
Charles Krauthammer had a column on Thursday in which he criticized the Republican CNN/Youtube debate
I find the question offensive too, but not for the same reasons as Krauthammer. Firstly, the questioner presumes that the correct answer to his question is "yes." He also, one can assume, believes that believing every word of the Bible (or not) will have some impact on the political decisions of the candidates he's addressing. One can safely hold, I think, that the same is true for at least one of the Republican candidates. That makes the question valid and important, regardless of the questioner's intentions. The fact that none of the candidates said "No," or "none of your damn business," makes it clear that they wish to at least pretend that they agree with the questioner, and reveals something about them that voters should know-- that they are unwilling to make a firm stand on separation of church and state if they believe it will cost them votes.
Secondly, the prohibition in the Constitution against a religious test for office is not a prohibition for the public asking candidates about their religion, nor is it or should it be a "teacher," no matter what Romney and Krauthammer might like to pretend. If a candidate makes it quite clear that his religion is important to him, then citizens have every right-- every responsibility-- to inquire about what exactly those beliefs entail. If Romney says his faith is important to him, we should press him on precisely what he means by that, and to what extent it would affect his presidency. The same holds, of course, for Obama, Hillary, and the rest.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 16, 2007 4:21 PM
Interestingly, the first time I ever encountered anti-evolution hostility was from a Mormon friend of mine when I was a child. I was talking about some new paleontological find that interested me and he said, out of nowhere and with a look of incredulous contempt on his face, "You believe we came from monkeys?! You believe in evolution?!!". And this was back in the 70s before Reagan gave fundie Christians so much power. Somehow, we remained friends; we just couldn't ever talk about science (partly because he knew nothing about it).
Posted by: deang | December 16, 2007 4:39 PM
The core problem is that many voters in the United States will only vote for someone who explictly reflects their conservative religious beliefs. So if they take Krauthammers advice and say "its none of your damn business" then they can kiss all those votes goodbye. I guess not many politicians have a set of balls quite that big.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 16, 2007 8:35 PM
"And why do the Amish get a free ride?"
Because the Amish are few in numbers, don't have vast wealth, and aren't trying to influence the legislatures and school boards of America.
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 16, 2007 8:40 PM
Here is a comment on the issue of "Blacks and the Priesthood" issue you all seem to be concerned about.
As far as I can determine, that issue was a concern at the highest levels of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints way back in the 60's under President David O'McKay, os it took them (The Twelve Apostles) approximately 20 years to agree to the repeal of an odious doctrine. So the worst you can accuse the ollective leadership of the Church is being conservative of a belief that some significant others believed coincidentally with them. I suspect if you go South you may actually find some good Baptists that still believe that Blacks are the decendants of Cain. As for me and mine that, along with many other issue died a long time ago.
I look at the whole USA and wander why such dicrimination took so long to abolish, Joseph Smith, btw, was an abolushinist Presidential Candidate.
So give it a miss y'all, I get tired of Krauthammer as well.
Posted by: Clifford Dubery | December 17, 2007 12:04 AM
"I'm not sure if God changed his mind or if the previous elders had got it wrong the first time...like the GodHotLine got garbled or something. "
God changed his mind.
The Council of elders have regular meetings with physical manifestations of God, Jesus, Joseph Smith and the other prophets.
Seriously.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 17, 2007 2:27 AM
So what if God changes his mind again and decides that polygamy, and racist policies toward black people are right for people of the Mormon faith? Would Mitt have to go along with those changes even if he's president? Perhaps God will tell them that only a Mormon should be president from now on.
Posted by: tacitus | December 17, 2007 3:06 AM
I think Romney botched his Religion speech because he is shackled by the Republican Party. The possibility of him becoming President is remote, mainly for the reason demonstrated above, anti-mormonism, whether from our Fundamentalist Christian hypocrites or some secular humanists it is the same.
Given the place the US Constitution plays in Mormon theology, any Mormon President would be a great defender of that document, and understand it, unlike some others now in office.
What do you guys make of Huckabee, anti-evolution, and his priestly lectures and sermons are unavailable, why would that be?
Perhaps God needs to be given a bit more respect and kept out of these debates?
All the candidates are seriously lacking any leadership potential required for the Presidency IMHO.
Posted by: Clifford Dubery | December 17, 2007 9:45 AM
Clifford-
Huckabee is an antiintellectual nut. Romney is a mormon nut.
The fact they had to repeal it at all makes one question the connection to the divine doesn't it?
Posted by: GH | December 17, 2007 10:13 AM
I just want to see him called out on saying that bit about there are appropriate questions then leaving the stage without answering them but, no, I don't think candidates should be grilled about their beliefs or disbelief. I'd like it to be a nonquestion but I dream. I keep hoping that this whole thing will open the nutters eyes to the fact that if you legislate God you damn well better pray you view God the same way the lawmakers do but, no, they seem to still be assuming they do...
Posted by: Donna | December 17, 2007 10:50 AM
"Given the place the US Constitution plays in Mormon theology"
Uhm, what part is that? I can't remember hearing anything about it in when I was a child-young adult in the LDS church.
Posted by: jba | December 17, 2007 11:15 AM
jba: It's not part of the cannon or part of the theology (a commonly misused word) of the Mormon faith. It is part of the 'cultural' belief of many and a mostly oral tradition.
The idea is that there were prophecies and statements made by early church leaders that there would come a day when the Constitution, or the Destiny of the Nation would hang by a thread. At that point the elders of the LDS faith would / will ride in to save the day.
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf
Unfortunately, as a practicing Mormon who happens to agree with Ed on issues of liberty, freedom and science (that's why it's called faith...) I think that far too many Mormons have cast their lots with those who are destroying the constitution, not saving it.
Posted by: GeekCyclist | December 17, 2007 5:51 PM
If we're comparing Romney and Huckabee... well, I think recently Romney managed to make Huckabee look good.
Posted by: Skemono | December 17, 2007 6:51 PM