I agree with the position taken by the author that Mitt needs to talk more about his religion. Religion is one of those things that helps form the core of many people. Therefore understanding Mitt's religion can help us understand who he is and what he will stand for if elected.

That being said, however, I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which this argument is presented.

Based on the hostility in this article (and 1 or 2 others I have recently read on Slate, seemingly all on Mormons) I can no longer take anything Slate or any slate writers say to be even close to credible. I understand that this is an editorial column, but the effective editorial writer understands that he/she must approach their subject with a tone of rationality- presenting facts, then interpreting them or explaining them as he/she sees them.

With the libelous tone taken in this article, the author exposes not simple bias, but an angry, vicious, and closed mind. Such a closed mind is unable get past personal bias to explore truth as it is. Rather, the "truth" in this article is skewed by the overt hatred the author displays toward Mormons. Such an author, (one who searches for slander, rather than truth), has no place in the media masquerading as a journalist. The very tone with which this Mormon cult (religion?, sect?), is described negates everything said within the text. It can be dismissed as simply another bigot on the internet trying to force his beliefs on those willing listen.

I'm not going to take it anymore- and neither should any readers out there. There are plenty of credible sources out there that provide rational arguments on the same, or similar subjects. You don't have to read this type of emotionally charged drivel. Shame on you slate, for allowing such sloppy work to be published in your name.

Bye.

I don't get it. Why does a person have to tred so carefully over material like this? Mormonism? Is Hitchens such a bad guy because he shows distain for this rubbish? What if it were, say, the flat earth society? What if a presidential candidate who wanted to be taken seriously was a card-carrying member of the flat earth society, what then? What is it, the sheer number of pathological believers that makes it off limits to ridicule? No, I don't buy it. If something is patently absurd then it deserves our contempt, and double as much for the dupe who believes it.

I wholly agree with you, hansmoot. The idea of reflexive and absolute respect for any and all religions is about 400 years too old.

People can believe whatever they wish, but they have no right to demand that others pay deference to them or their beliefs.

StevieN

The Mormons aren't asking for reflexive and absolute respect for there religion. They are just asking someone that puts themself out there as a professional journalist that gets posted on well respected and professional websites such as MSN and Slate to have at least the common decency to put some objective facts about the Mormon church instead of the most easily obtained anti-Mormon propoganda. When you can google key words such as "mormon hater" or "Joseph Smith and fraud" out there and get his facts, there lies the problem. I think Hutchins could have made his point about Mitt not answering questions about his faith as much as some would like and still not piss off 13 million people.

Thank you lampkurt, at least you understood my point.

Unfortunately for most of the rest of the responders, they either cannot understand what I was saying, or they are so full of contempt towards Mitt's religion that they refuse to see that in this case, editorial "journalism" failed to provide an emotionally neutral, and therefore logical argument to its audience. If that is too much to ask, the whole premise of journalism is a fraud.

Just because you too hold disdain for this religion (or religion in general), hansmoot, and StevieN, does not mean you should force your beliefs on others, as you do not want others forcing their beliefs on you. That's just downright hypocritical.

As I said before, I think Mitt should discuss his beliefs more. Such an openness would either fully and blatently display the ignorance you seem so sure is there, or it would educate people on both sides of the story. This story is unilateral and biased. I just want the truth about Mitts beliefs. Who better than Mitt to tell you what he believes? If not Mitt, what about people who are emotionally neutral on the subject. If you don't the truth, that's fine- but don't force me to believe anything you say if you won't give room to an unbiased argument.

robtherobot:

....Just because you too hold disdain for this religion (or religion in general), hansmoot, and StevieN, does not mean you should force your beliefs on others....

Your statement perfectly exposes the VIOLENCE inherent in virtually all religious belief.

To "force" one's beliefs on another is an assault. It's a crime that has been committed often throughout history, often by murderous methods. Those who are subject to being forced have every right to respond with grave violence to protect themselves.

But I'm only offerring very well-known criticisms of the veracity of mormon doctrine that beg to be repeated, and ARE repeated by many others--because they are so obvious and so damning.

That you characterize my critiques of your religion as forcing beliefs upon you is a serious cognitive dissonance on your part--the sort of cognitive dissonance that has preceded many a crusading slaughter throughout history.

StevieN

You entirely miss the point again. Your belief is all religion is crap regardless of what you know or don't know about it. You believe the world would be better served if there was no religion. You have no proof that it would be better off, but that is your belief. It is a strongly held belief just like anyone elses. It is not neutral in any way and you are continuing to push it off in response to many articles. We all have been following your rants all over this discussion forum for this article.

lampkurt,

The assertion by religious believers that "atheists have faith in their beliefs," and variations of that, is always proudly delivered as a "gotcha." (whereas, in fact, atheism is nothing but the LACK of any specific beliefs regarding supernatural master-beings).

Each time I see it I'm again reminded of the truly bizarre perspective of the religious; they seem to believe that anything can be true, and any one idea has just as much validity as any other idea--a pathetically primitive way of looking at things (but well-suited to religious followers).

Atheists are neutral--they reject unproven assertions of psychic transmissions from masters of the universe with the same neutrality as they reject unsubstantiated reports of cows being abducted by UFOs.

But there's more than that to this discussion.

Do you claim to ACTUALLY PRETEND that you are UNAWARE that the overwhelming majority of the general public (believers and non-believers alike) sees the mormon religion as a bizarre, cult-based joke of a sham of a religion?

Have you truly contorted you mind into such denial that you're blind to people's perception of you? Do you really fail to realize that the well-documented and relatively recent facts of the start of your religion contain ALL the elements of every other twisted religious cult that has come down the twisted-religious-cult-pike?

Why should we pretend? Please don't ask ME to pretend. Unlike you, I lack any NEED to pretend about these things.

I agree that Mitt should talk more about his religion and what it means to his values.

I think all the candidates should be expected to do so. Unfortunately for the sake of our understanding, many evangelical politicians make a big point about their religions without actually being specific about what they actually believe. That lets them appeal to the red meat conservatives who take their references as coded support for the more extreme positions without actually having to go on record with positions that would offend other voters.

I would like to see each candidate pressed to state exactly what he or she believes about science vs young earth creationism, what they really believe about the fate of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. If they really think that there is no need to worry about global warming etc because the second coming of Jesus will occur before those become issues.

I want to know if they really think G_d would talk to them and tell them what to do if they were elected.

Yep, lets go for full disclosure.

Remember, the idea of a sun-centered galaxy was "patently absurd" once.

And I ask, what ISN'T rubbish to you? Cold-eyed secularism? Fair enough...but you'd better prove to me that secularism is the way to go. How would you do it? By saying, what you see is what you get? But what evidence do you have for that assertion? You're assuming limitations and the only way you can prove a limitation is by proving that there's something beyond. But you don't claim that, so you can only prove 'I only know what i see." Therefore, you shouldn't blame others if they make claims to knowing more...you should only ask how what they claim might affect what you see.

In any case, you do know that the overwhelming populace of mankind disagrees with you...both in the past and the present. Never mind that, as a Latter Day Saint myself, I know my faith better than most here and my guess is that what you know is a caricature...almost certainly distorted and probably "patently" false.

Russell,

You make your comments apparently ignorant of human culture over the millenia. Certainly, when you ask me to state what isn't rubbish I would say "most things." But my forum posts have been about what I judge IS rubbish--and that is unsubstantiated reports of psychic transmission from universal master-space-beings.

Mormons go one step beyond this: "Psychic transmissions? Nope, we don't need 'em! We've got the PLATES!" Golden plates of "reformed" Egyptian heiroglyphics found burried in upstate New York. What a fantastic (and I use that word carefully) archaeological find! I would like to ask whether you have really ejected the last shred of rationality and circumspection from your blighted soul, that you cannot see the LAUGHABLE CONVENIENCE that those plates were beamed up to heaven before any objective person could have a glance at them?

One thing is certain beyond any doubt: god does not want to have lots of mormons here on earth. With those miraculous plates still available for viewing and authentication the mormons could have a few BILLION converts rather than a few million, by now. People would be leaving their deluded religions in vast hoardes and travelling to Utah to embrace the mormon church! Oh happy day! Ah, but instead, the overwhelming mass of people hears about the disappearing plates, the early leaders banging away at any comely females from the flock like jack-hammers, the conveniently timed revelations of CHANGES in past revelations....and....LOLs

And speaking of deluded religions. You say the overwhelming populace of mankind disagrees with me. I take that to mean that by being religious, they dismiss my sensible notion that reports of the supernatural are not trustworthy on their face; they do. But they also dismiss you! And you dismiss them! The mormons belong to the very strongest fraction of religious dismissers. They doctrinally assert (by revelation) that theirs is the only true church on earth--all others are false. You and most of the religious are in fact very similar to me and my views: I dismiss 100% of the ten thousand "revelaled" religions that have been brought forth. You, and all those ten thousand groups dismiss 99.99% of revealed religions as nonsense, and hold only one of them as "obviously true" (LOL). Oh, and like most others, IT IS A MIRACLE that 99 times out of 100 is just happens that the one true religion is the one they were born into and raised to believe from childhood!

I guess I have to admit that miracles do happen :)

For the sake of my own vanity, I've been following the comments under my original comment. It is interesting that a few people REFUSE to accept that the main point of my argument was that the media should present facts only, and editorials should make rational arguments for one point or another without resorting to emotion-based arguments. These (in this case) are the same people that also refuse to accept that some people can have religious beliefs without those believers doing harm to others.

robtherobot:

For the sake of my own vanity, I've been following the comments under my original comment. It is interesting that a few people REFUSE to accept that the main point of my argument was that the media should present facts only, and editorials should make rational arguments for one point or another without resorting to emotion-based arguments. These (in this case) are the same people that also refuse to accept that some people can have religious beliefs without those believers doing harm to others.

I'll get you a hanky, robtherobot (but I don't know what to offer you for your vanity). Beyond the first two sentences, your original post consisted of claiming that hostility proves lack of credibility; that the tone of the article was LIBELOUS (see you in court), and that you aren't "going to take it anymore." (you also included the lovely and weary accusation that those who question your beliefs are trying to FORCE their ideas on people, LOL--this one must be straight from the book of mormon since all mormons seem to come with it hardwired).

Why not try to grow up and be a big boy, robtherobot. You can start with a very EASY task: recognize that--while considerably more reluctant than Christopher Hitchens to say so--the majority of people in America perceive your religion pretty much as he does; and their perception is based on commonly known historical facts (polygamy being the best known--and recently in the news as well). Get angry, get indignant, get vain (!?!?), but don't close your eyes to the fact of the many silly aspects of mormonism--or is it necessary that you do so in order to believe? And don't go around stomping your feet that people don't have a right to their own perceptions--nor a right to write about them.

Discounting silly, though, people will and should give serious consideration to the important fact that, unlike any other major religions, yours is the only one that has had racism interwoven into its doctrine. Doctrinal racism, by the way, being a major point of Mr. Hitchens article.

Lampkurt:

But what propoganda are you talking about? Mormonism is pure hooey. It's nuts, luney, hogwash. The king has no clothes whatever and he's filthy to boot. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, alcohol and whatever else these ridiculous, religiously obsessed fools prohibit. CHrist! Can't you tell when you've been hoodwinked to the hilt?