I suspect Mitt Romney's candidacy, whatever its other successes and failures, will provide endless fodder for conversations on the pros, cons and contradictions of religion in US politics. Case in point: this past three-day weekend, responding to a voter who declared that because of his Mormonism he did "not know the Lord," he declared in Florida that:

"We need to have a person of faith lead the country."

Andrew Sullivan jumped on the statement, arguing that Romney's attempt at placing a religious test on the office equated fighting anti-Mormon bigotry with anti-atheist bigotry. Oliver Willis wondered aloud whether or not Romney has read the Constitution. Atrios worried about the slippery slope leading us to:

"We need to have a member of the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915 to lead this country."

Our own Nathan Newman wasn't so worried.

Newman wrote here on Sunday:

I think it's a profound mistake for atheists to demand that such religious debates be taken out of the public sphere, since they will never be taken out of voters' minds. Instead, us progressive atheists should be engaging in that faith-based discussion more vigorously, laying out our belief systems and helping make voters comfortable with our viewpoint as part of the menu of "religious" options, not in order to convert them but just to integrate it into the terrain of debate that people are more familiar with.

But Atrios responded that he really didn't disagree. He just emphasizes that it's not simply a matter of atheists being willing to engage the debate to discuss their own beliefs, but also engage those of others without being called anti-religious bigots:

We believe different stuff. Especially to the extent that people want to keep shoving personal religion out into our political sphere, it's important examine those differences. And if we examine those differences, we're entitled to make decisions based on them. Otherwise, the implication is that someone's religious beliefs say something incredibly important about them, but we're not actually supposed to talk about exactly what that is.

Ed Kilgore, another Coffee Houser, agrees with Atrios but with one important caveat: the whole thing runs afoul when the line is crossed between criticizing someone's beliefs and criticizing their sincerity:

Here's how the regression from mockery of politics to mockery of religion to mockery of religious sincerity tends to work: Some people hold abhorrent political positions that they justify with religious principles you happen to consider a bunch of atavistic Hooey. You attack the positions on their dubious merits. You then go over the brink and attack the underyling Hooey. But since you think it's Hooey, you go on to suggest that the Hooey, being Hooey, is just a mask for very different motives (e.g., misogyny) that can be deplored without discussion of religion.

Atrios has more on evangelicals today and Richard Cohen's lede in this morning's Post nicely captures the reason Mitt Romney won't stop providing material for this debate any time soon:

I have been following the zigs and zags of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and now Republican presidential candidate, watching him grow progressively less progressive, sort of making himself up as he goes along. As a result, I surf the Web with trepidation, bracing myself for the story that I fear might be coming: "Romney Says He Is Not Really a Mormon.''

What are your thoughts?