I agree with the position taken by the author that Mitt needs to talk more about his religion. Religion is one of those things that helps form the core of many people. Therefore understanding Mitt's religion can help us understand who he is and what he will stand for if elected.

That being said, however, I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which this argument is presented.

Based on the hostility in this article (and 1 or 2 others I have recently read on Slate, seemingly all on Mormons) I can no longer take anything Slate or any slate writers say to be even close to credible. I understand that this is an editorial column, but the effective editorial writer understands that he/she must approach their subject with a tone of rationality- presenting facts, then interpreting them or explaining them as he/she sees them.

With the libelous tone taken in this article, the author exposes not simple bias, but an angry, vicious, and closed mind. Such a closed mind is unable get past personal bias to explore truth as it is. Rather, the "truth" in this article is skewed by the overt hatred the author displays toward Mormons. Such an author, (one who searches for slander, rather than truth), has no place in the media masquerading as a journalist. The very tone with which this Mormon cult (religion?, sect?), is described negates everything said within the text. It can be dismissed as simply another bigot on the internet trying to force his beliefs on those willing listen.

I'm not going to take it anymore- and neither should any readers out there. There are plenty of credible sources out there that provide rational arguments on the same, or similar subjects. You don't have to read this type of emotionally charged drivel. Shame on you slate, for allowing such sloppy work to be published in your name.