With all due respect to the editors of NRO, it is not at all clear to me why the religious views of serious candidates for President of the United States should be out of bounds for public discussion. As we have learned, over and over, the underlying attitudes, beliefs, and cultural assumptions of our very powerful presidents drive a lot of what does and does not happen in social policy — and, for that matter, foreign policy, in the course of an administration.

Furthermore, on the very narrow matter of the Mormon religion, reasonable questions exist for the naturally curious. The Mormon church was founded about 150 years ago, with highly specific and interesting divergences from mainstream American Protestant theologies. Even now there are a mere 13 million or so adherents worldwide. Those of us who struggle with our own religion, and the authority behind the law are naturally curious about how someone comes to embrace a brand new religion.

Not only do I wish to know what church a President belongs to — I want to have a basic understanding of what sub-denomination or theological stripe to which he or she adheres (or merely pays lip service). Why? Because I want all the information I can get about where a candidate ”is coming from,” philosophically. After all, it matters whether a Catholic candidate embraces Opus dei theology, or whatever you call Giuliani’s practice. (Lapsed?) Orthodox Jew, or reform? Evangelical Christian, or “reference religion when it seems useful, but show few effects of it in your personal life and public views” suburban Protestant, (that is Hillary I’m thinking of, btw– though I could be wrong about her practice, as she claims…) It matters because it tells you a lot about how they will approach issues that impinge on our lives. And not just abortion; taxes, the role of the state vs. mediating institutions, the centrality of tradional family life, as well as other core cultural matters. As we say in my neighborhood, “Who’s your rabbi?” Sometimes this is meant literally, and sometimes more figuratively — but you get the point.

(And while we are examining the religious beliefs of candidates, i think we need to know more about that minister of Barack Obama’s — since his entire life experience seems to revolve around community organizing, in a community where the Church is the central institution.)

So, here is what we know about Romney: As Governor of Massachusetts he pretty cheerfully supported the Planned Parenthood line on abortion — and now, seeking the GOP nomination, he is supporting the Right to Life line. He may have undergone a spiritual conversion — that’s something only he knows. But we know that he had a clear disregard for his religion’s teaching in this matter for a long chunk of his adult years. That seems to suggest that we don’t have to worry about “Mormon influence,” per se. Since the Mormon culture remains explicitly patriarchal that issue matters to me. (As it happens he also has a record of hiring women for top jobs — something that doesn’t happen so often in Salt Lake City, which I also find useful to know.) Those who want religion divorced from governance should want this information as well.

It is not easy to spell out one’s own religious views and how they compare and contrast to the standard doctrine of that religion in a speech. We voters are best off observing, over time — as the nation has done with, say, Senator Lieberman, whose very moderate Orthodoxy has made it easy for him to get along with both conservative Christians and less religious voters. But Romney is a serious possibility in this cycle. So, I personally think that letting us know more about his religious beliefs would be useful. Especially now that the anti-Mormon push polling has begun in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Less reverently, anyone with access to the New York Times today should look at the op-ed page for a genuinely laugh out loud chart documenting the various attributes — intellectual, physical and impression-generating, of the candidates for president. While I think they are a little harsh on Rudy, in general the authors are on the mark. And when was the last time the turgid and self-important Times op-ed page caused anyone to laugh….

Finally, on the “not sure I should be raising my children in Manhattan” front, the 12 year old wandered into the living room toward the end of the debate last night, did a double take at the screen, and said, “Wow. That’s Hillary? Too much botox.”