T. Jeremy Gunn of the ACLU has a diary entry posted today at DailyKos which takes the organizations anti religion platform to an absurd level. Mr. Gunn has chosen to argue that by having candidates discuss their faith publicly, they are imposing a “religious test” for the office of the Presidency.

The Constitution also has also been clear, for more than two hundred years, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Some candidates who like to talk about their religion seem, however, not to understand the meaning of the word “no.” They are happy to favor a religious test for public officials — as long as their religion is included.

Belief in monotheism has now been proposed as a necessary qualification for someone who wants to be president. So if you are a believer in the Dalai Lama’s religion, Buddhism, this country was not meant for you. If you are a follower of Mahatma Gandhi’s religion, Hinduism, – just check your American dream at the door.

Unfortunately, there are those like Mr. Gunn whose lack of tolerance for a persons religious beliefs stray so far as to blind them to the obvious truth. Americans as a whole believe in God, we are a religious nation founding under the premise of religious freedom. When Mitt Romney or any other candidate speak publicly about their religious beliefs they are not doing so in order to prove to the American people they have a belief in monotheism and are thereby qualified to be President. They speak on these issues because they, unlike Mr. Gunn, are intelligent enough to know that Americans are more likely to vote for someone who shares their own beliefs.

Had Mitt Romney decided to pronounce his approval of polygamy for example, which is accepted by the Mormon church, he would most likely have been shunned by Republican voters and watched his poll numbers sink below even Ron Paul. Likewise, had he said he has abandoned his faith and no longer believes in God, the same result would likely occur.

Ironically, later in his article Mr. Gunn actually proves this point for me:

The issue is not, and never has been, whether religion should play a role in the “public square.” Religion, along with philosophy, science, literature, and public service always has and always will play a vital role in the public square in America.

If Mr. Gunn is willing to admit the vital role religion plays in the public square, why is it so hard for him to consider the fact it would be an important issue to voters?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

ACLU, Constitution, Daily Kos, Election 2008, Politics, Religion