Christopher Hitchens is a wonderful writer and a clear thinker on matters not related to religion – but when it comes to Mitt Romney’s religion, he is positively unhinged. That Slate would even consider publishing what can only be considered a hate piece on Mitt and Mormonism.

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.

Upon what basis does this would-be Torquemada argue that Romney should be subject to increased scrutiny for his beliefs? Why, his family tree and his missionary work (as well as raising his children in the faith, apparently). What next? Dose Hitchens intend to insist that all Catholic candidates take a public stand upon the issue of ordaining women? What of Orthodox Jews like Joe Lieberman – would he ask such questions, or even dare to do so for fear of being rightly labeled as an anti-Semite?

And then there is this resurrection of the bigotry of 1960 – appropriate, as it was first raised in 1994 by none other than Teddy Kennedy’s campaign – about whether he would be a puppet of the leaders of his church in Salt Lake.

There is also the question—this one more nearly resembles the one that John F. Kennedy agreed to answer so straightforwardly in 1960—of authority. The Mormons claim that their leadership is prophetic and inspired and that its rulings take precedence over any human law. The constitutional implications of this are too obvious to need spelling out, but it would be good to see Romney spell them out all the same.

The evidence is pretty clear on this one -- that Mormons with such distinct political philosophies and behaviors as Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid should be proof of that.

And then there is this flip comment.

If candidates can be asked to declare their preference as between briefs and boxers, then we already have a precedent, and Romney can be asked whether, as a true believer should, he wears Mormon underwear. What's un-American about that?

Other than that the original question to Bill Clinton was inappropriate, and his decision to answer gave clear evidence of his basic unfitness for office, there is no reason to discuss what may have been the nadir of American politics during the last 20 years. What next- asking Joe Lieberman if he is circumcised?

I’m not a Mormon, and I have repeatedly rejected their doctrine as being nonsensical to me .Those who want to make Mormonism an issue in the 2008 presidential race fall into one category with two horns – they are all bigots, and the only question is if they are motivated by a hatred of Mormonism in particular or religion in general. In Hitchens’ case, we know the answer.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.