From Slate:
Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon “push poll” calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was “un-American” to bring up his “faith,” especially “at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving,” whatever that had to do with it.
More:
According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it’s working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it’s off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenets of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons!
More:
It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.
I’ll be the first to say that the pre-1978 ban on blacks holding the priesthood was a mistake. It was a policy begun without a revelation and ended with a revelation. It’s an unfortunate blemish on the history of a Church that I believe has a divine mandate but is lead by very fallible, very well intentioned people.
To indict an entire belief system based upon a single policy and mistake and then make a tenuous appendage indictment of Mitt Romney is a spurious argument at best. Even if we accept the argument that the priesthood ban proves that the LDS Church is a morally bankrupt organization, Hitchens never bothers to deliver the most critical part of the argument- the impact on how the allegedly morally bankrupt LDS Church would effect Mitt Romney as President of the United States. Hitchens demands answers but never offers a solid link between his objections to Mormonism and how those objections would negatively impact the duties of the President.
Furthermore, Mormonism is non-unique in terms of doctrines that seem odd to outsiders or mistakes in history. Is the Eucharist or the Trinity any more logical or believable than the Garden of Eden in Missouri, or that a Garden of Eden existed at all? These are all claims that can’t stand empirical scrutiny and must be taken on faith.
Hardly! The only difference is that Americans are familiar with these doctrines and not with Mormonism.
And yet no other candidates are getting the kind of treatment that Hitchens and others are blasting Romney with, even though the dogmas of their faith are just as odd as Romney’s.
Unless you can impact the link between doctrine and policy, there isn’t much of an argument to be made.
-Tom