Bigotry and Romney, again

I blogged a few days ago ("Taking Religion Seriously") about Damon Linker's suggestion that Americans may and should be concerned about Gov. Romney's religion when they consider his candidacy for President.  I expressed the view that we should not be too quick to respond to argument's like Linker's with the objection that such arguments are out of bounds because religion is "private":

I am sure that, in many quarters, conversations about Romney's religion (or, to go back a few months, then-Judge Roberts's Catholicism) are distorted by inaccurate understandings of Mormonism, or plain prejudice.  This is unfortunate.  That said, it strikes me that the response of religious believers to questions like Linkers' should not be to insist that religious beliefs are "private," and therefore irrelevant to public life.  An appropriate respect for religious freedom and individual conscience does not require us -- those of us who profess religious beliefs and those who do not -- to act as if religious commitments lack content and have no implications for believers’ actions and policies.  What exactly these implications are is something that, it seems to me, believers and non-believers alike should think hard -- and fairly and honestly -- about.

Consider, now, this recent op-ed by Hugh Hewitt ("The New New Bigotry").  Certainly, bigotry towards and ignorance about Mormons is widespread, and certainly many past and future objections to Romney's traffic in that bigotry and ignorance.  Still, I continue to think it is important to focus on (a) getting religious politicians' beliefs and commitments right, i.e., stating them fairly, and (b) thinking charitably and reasonably about the implications of those beliefs for public service.  I continue to think it might be a mistake to jump too quickly from arguments that focus fairly on these matters to (i) accusations of bigotry or (ii) assertions that candidates' religious views are private and therefore irrelevant to the merits of their candidacies.