More on Mitt

In a comment to my post yesterday about Mitt Romney dashing my Presidential dreams, Big Jay from Texans for Mitt Romney said:

You won't find any instance of Romney discriminating against atheists. Don't buy too much into that comment.

I'm sorry, what part of "no God = no president" isn't discriminatory? Romney is categorically excluding from consideration as leaders of this country a group of us (admittedly a small group) based on religious beliefs or lack thereof.

That disappoints me for two reasons. First, it makes me question how firm a grasp Romney has on basic Constitutional principles (leave the First Amendment to the side for a second - how about Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."). Second, one would think Romney would be a little more sensitive about that kind of blanket statement given the hurdles he faces as a Mormon running in the GOP primary:

After all, the same bloc of voters -- conservative Christians -- that once found Romney suspiciously liberal on abortion and gay rights does not much like his Mormonism, either. This nice touch of intolerance has got to worry Romney. In recent polls, something like one-third of all voters have said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate -- and the figure is a bit higher (39 percent) among Republicans. Iowa, where conservative Christians comprise about 37 percent of the GOP electorate, could be trouble.

Getting back to the issue of whether Romney's statement was discriminatory, there seems to be only two ways to read it. He was clearly responding to a criticism from someone of his religious beliefs. By concluding his response with a proclamation that only believers can be President, he is either (a) honestly stating a bigoted and close-minded belief on his part or (b) pandering to the Bible-thumping base of the GOP in order to secure the nomination. Neither one is particularly honorable.