Lileks is the man, but I won't drink the Koolaid.

From his secret syndicated column that he never links to or talks about, on Iran and the Brits:

Iran won't sweat the survey results. It thinks the West is weak and exhausted, that Europe is a continent full of sixth-century Roman sodomy-besotted elites dining on larks' brains while its civilization rots from within.

...From where they sit, Syria's President Assad could have shot Speaker Pelosi's bodyguard and Pelosi would have insisted on additional conferences to ensure that the process of dialogue moved forward.

That's the predictable thing about appeasers: They're so intent on moving forward they don't care which body they have to step over.

Iran is probably right, at least about Europe. If the British hostage situation accomplished anything, it reminded England that John Bull is a gelding.

And here he is reviewing Hugh Hewitt's book on Mitt Romney:

In short, it’s about the right to believe in something that lies outside the realm of empiricism. ...

The point is made with greater clarity in Hugh’s book, which cautions against putting Belief into the mainstream pundit’s meat-grinder. Because once Faith is a fair target, every aspect of faith will be put under the microscope. If you can dismiss a candidate for his belief in the golden tablets, then transubstantiation is next on the list. You want to snigger about Mormon undergarments? Fine; the next time a Sikh runs for public office, quiz him about the same issue. You want to probe a Mormon for the ways in which their Jesus narrative varies, you’d best do the same to a Muslim candidate. And if you can’t see yourself standing up in a press conference asking a Muslim candidate whether Christians will have a problem with him because he doesn’t think Christ died on the cross, you’d best throttle back your zeal for digging into a Mormon.

Noble sentiments, and the point is well taken. There is a place for men of faith in public life, but it can be eroded by too much probing and poking and sneering.

Where I diverge from Lileks and maybe Hugh is the part that occupied the ellipsis up there:

People who have friends of different creeds can josh about the differences, as long as each knows that the each respects the other’s beliefs. But some beliefs are, well, out there; doesn’t it say something about a person if they’re a Raelian, or subscribe to the Church of Joe-Bob Briggs ... Yes. It does. That’s the problem for many: it does matter.

Privately, anyway. The public realm has different standards, and it should.

Or so we’d like to hope.

It doesn’t matter much to me, because I’m more concerned about the policies the candidate advances, and how well I think they’ll advance them. If Fred Thompson gave a speech about Iran I loved, and I also knew he believed that humans were seeded on earth by lizard aliens who will return in 3030 AD to construct a Dyson-sphere terrarium, I’d still be more interested in how his Iranian policy stacked up against the other candidates. Not to suggest that Mormonism is akin to the space-lizard belief-system or Raelianism or whatever, of course. But you get my point.

Well, no. Either Raelians are fair game or they aren't. And I say they are. There are beliefs so "out there" they either give rise to legitimate suspicions about their followers' gullibility or their unstated goals or how they perceive reality.

Better governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian, exhorted St. AugustineMartin Luther, and I agree; but I just don't see myself voting for (and this isn't an exhaustive list) a Scientologist, a Raelian, a Twelver Shiite (like Ahmedinejad), a Satanist, or a Moonie. (While I think these last are mostly harmless, stuff like this freaks me out.) Those are dealbreakers, and I would feel more than foolish turning over the government's monopoly on violence to a confessor of one of those creeds.

There was a group that was somewhat prominent in San Francisco politics a while back. The politicians loved them and treated them with respect because they could usually send several clean-cut devotees to smile and hold signs when politics demanded it. It's perhaps for this reason that no one really looked into what they were all about until they pulled stumps for Guyana:

Politicians from that period conveniently have forgotten the clout Jones had, but the fact is that he had plenty of it. Among other things, he helped elect the late George Moscone mayor of San Francisco in 1975. (It also should be noted that, in another paradox, the temple did much good work in the community, something the film goes out of its way to point out.)

In fact, Jonestown might have been avoided if Jones had not had such power. New West magazine was on the verge of printing an extensive expose` of the Peoples Temple and Jones' excesses but held publication under political pressure. Jones then fled to Jonestown, and the story wasn't published until after the deaths.

What does this have to do with Romney and the Mormons? Nothing, really. The Latter Day Saints just aren't weird enough to be lumped in with the Raelians or the People's Temple. As far as I can tell, Mormonism doesn't place any repugnant ethical strictures or commandments on its followers, and neither does it subvert one's political loyalty to the United States. End of story, move on, tell me what Romney wants to do about the border.

But just remember that at the end of the day, creeds do matter. George Washington implied as much, when he damned the Quakers with faint praise for their pacifism in 1789:

Your principles and conduct are well known to me; and it is doing the people called Quakers no more than justice to say, that (except their declining to share with others the burden of the common defense) there is no denomination among us, who are more exemplary and useful citizens.

I assure you very explicitly, that in my opinion the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.

Faith has immense personal and political consequences. Acknowledging that fact doesn't mean an end to religious tolerance. Nor does it mean that questions and concerns should be advanced without tact and circumspection. But sometimes it is necessary to advance them.

Update: Hugh takes note.