Hitchens to Romney: Time to Speak Up
There have been plenty of stories written about our former governor, including the Globe’s extensive series and a piece penned by our very own magazine. But, regrettably, few bother to challenge Mitt Romney on much of anything.
Instead, most of the pieces are soft, writing off his flip-flopping as somehow smart or excusing him from responding to queries that some find too personal. That’s a gross failure on the part of the media.
Ah, but in our darkest hour comes Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens has a brilliant piece on Slate today which says Romney should be forced to answer questions about his Mormon faith. Why? Because, Hitchens notes, Romney is “no rank-and-file Mormon,” and his church has a dubious past:
His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith.
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…
Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church.
As Hitchens wisely points out, there’s nothing un-American about asking Romney to explain himself on these points.
Finally, an educated, skilled writer who dares to state the obvious: The man is running for president — it’s long past time for him to answer the tough questions.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Hitchens: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization..”
Do you mean like the Evangelicals were offically racists throuout most of the twentieth century and even up to today? Or
Catholics were officially murderers in Northern Ireland up until the recent accords? Please explain.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Is anyone really going to say Hithcens represents thoughtful, intelligent people’s understanding of ANY religious issue? Hitchen’s well known hatred of relgious groups removes him from the discussion. Boston Daily’s suggestion that Hitchens poses some new slant on a dark and unaddressed issue is bizarre. Singling out Mormons when he has no idea what he is talking proves his disregard for doing his homework.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Our point wasn’t that Hitchens is the end-all on religious matters. Our point is that we agree with Hitchens when he says Romney, like countless politicians before him, including JFK, ought to answer tough questions.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The policy of the Mormon church reflected the culture in which it was born. To make a major policy change in the Mormon church requires consensus of a gerentocratic leadership. The Mormons were a little slow in making the change for this reason. There is evidence that Mormons in the leadership and the majority in the membership wanted this change long before it occurred. There is also evidence from quantitative data that even before the change Mormons were less racist than the general American population (see book “All of the Children of Abraham”).
Hitchens is pretty ridiculous as a commentator on Mormonism. I am glad to see he now has the date of the policy change (he said on Fox news in was changed in 1965). But he is wrong about the doctrine of pre-mortal black neutrality being propounded by Joseph Smith, and he is wrong about Mormon opposition to abolition in Missouri ( pro-abolitionist writings were one reason given for their expulsion from Missouri). It is disputed whether Joseph Smith ever approved the priesthood ban. There is documentation of him ordaining a black man to the priesthood and calling him to a position of trust in the church. Abolition of slavery was part of his presidential platform. He taught, contrary to what many believed in the 19th century, that perceived differences between blacks and white behavior and refinement were due to different social circumstances, not inherent qualities. Romney will probably be able to say with most Mormons during that time that they were elated with the change and considered the policy a “burden too difficult to bare.”
This type of nuance is excluded from Hitchen’s writings on Mormonism, as it is from most of his other writings on religion.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Don’t confuse us with facts, John. Can’t you see we’re all looking for a reason to hate Romney? How dare he make all that money? That wife? Those kids? (And no girls, I smell a rat). What do you think this is, a capitalist country? We reserve the right to be whining beeyotches, dammit!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Granted, Hitchens may have his facts wrong, but I think what Hitchens is pointing out is that any person who belongs to an organization that claims to be the one true church/religion, and has a direct line to a prefect and all-knowing god ought to be open to inquiry. Therefore, based on the recent comments above, is it reasonable to say that the LDS church is a product of its time and thus a human church developed/influenced by human ideas and beliefs?
November 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Helio,
Do you really want Presidential campaigns to be about whether the theological claims of one’s church is reasonable?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:28 am
“Romney will probably be able to say with most Mormons during that time that they were elated with the change and considered the policy a “burden too difficult to bare.””
Hitchens isn’t saying Romney can’t have a good answer to questions about Mormonism, just that those questions should be asked and he should have to give those answers.
“Do you really want Presidential campaigns to be about whether the theological claims of one’s church is reasonable?”
That shouldn’t be the main focus, but it’s certainly relevant. Romney doesn’t deny that his faith is a big part of his life. Certainly it would have some bearing on his performance as president. If faith is a major part of who Mitt Romney is, we deserve to know the nature of that faith before we give him the most important job in the world.