”[I]f he gets anywhere in the primaries,” Weisberg declared, “Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so.” And as if realizing that he has just declared open season on religious belief, Weisberg quickly added: "Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender."Thus, Weisberg cleverly tries to distinguish between believing in something that most don't, and coming from a people (in his case, presumably Jewish) who believe something that most do not.
Thus does the left casually open the door to the baldest sort of bigotry, a first cousin of the anti-Catholicism thought buried in 1960, or the anti-Semitism that continues to plague Europe and of course the Middle East. The not-so-deft substitution of "religious heritage" for "religion" is supposed, I guess, to protect Jews willing to abandon the outward display of their faith, but for anyone believing in the miraculous of any sort, well, those days of the great tolerance in American politics are over.
I don't think that there is any way around the fact that Weisberg is suggesting religious bigotry for voting for president. As Hewitt points out, religious fundamentalists of any stripe believe in stuff that the more "rational" find questionable. He also seems to be applying a time test to religious belief - it is acceptable if the unrational belief has, say, over 200 years behind it, but not if it has less. And, thus, Mormonism is out, as is Scientology, but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are ok, despite having beliefs that if taken literally, are just as unrational as is found in Mormonism.
Not a good sign. Hopefully though, those who espouse this sort of thinking will get the same sort of response that Woody Paige here got when opining about the SLC Olympics.