The point you may have missed
I wouldn't want that doctor, and I'm not voting for Bush either.
But look at your closing thought: Of course too, all realize that there is absolutely no way to expect some 'law' change to prevent a religio-loony and lots of other kinds - from say, achieving let's even say: control over the Bagman's codes.
I only wish that was true. This argument is over the fact that Mike apparently does seem to think that it is reasonable and desirable to make a law change to prevent religio-loonies from having access to political power. And doesn't understand why many of us (myself included) see this as advocating something that would cause irreparable harm to the principle of American democracy.
I'd also like to wave a magic wand and have the problem go away. But banning fundamentalist Christians from political office isn't the way to do it.
What would happen if there was such a ban? Well quite simply, the principle of having a democracy that everyone is free to participate in would be gone. The principle that the government will not discriminate on the basis of faith would be gone. And the banned religious people would just lie about their beliefs and continue to participate anyways unless we went to more draconian measures (which are an even more obvious violation of the ideals that we'd like to believe that we have).
I think you recognize this, after all you've said that there's absolutely no way to expect this. Mike obviously doesn't, and when he fails to understand something this basic, there are literally no grounds for communication.
Cheers,
Ben
