Over the previous few years, I had been an occasional Mike Gallagher listener. I enjoyed his program and commentary when I could catch it. That quickly changed a few months ago while I listening to Mike's comments on 'Mormonism's bizarre beliefs' and his cherry-picking of some of those beliefs. I have since purged Mike from my radio dial. Curiosity got the best of me, however, and I found myself reading about his epiphany. Not one to normally make comments, I couldn't let this pass.  I've joined the forum here at townhall.com.

In Mike's backtrack, he excuses his previous comments with the following weasel words: "I pride myself on hosting a daily radio show that often reflects the way people are thinking, whether it’s considered 'polite' or not . . . a number of concerns have been raised by people who struggle with whether or not they’d be able to vote for a Mormon."  Sorry Mike, but I don't fall for that. In this vast wide world there is no shortage of 'ways people are thinking'; we have people who deny the holocaust, there are not an insignificant number who question Israel's right to exist, there is also a sizeable chunk who believe the United State government masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Is Mike going to be an advocate for those 'ways of thinking'? It is wrong for him to pass this off on his listeners. It is Mike Gallagher who is responsible for the positions Mike Gallagher takes and the comments he makes.

In Mike's backtrack he doesn't make the separation between a candidate's personal religious beliefs and political positions; he equates Rudy's political position on abortion (which he calls a "personal belief") to Mitt's doctrinal beliefs. Even though he says he has no reason he shouldn't believe Mitt, the fact he questioned whether or not Mitt's ideological beliefs as a Mormon would impact his job as commander-in-chief, yet doesn't question whether or not Rudy's Catholic beliefs would impact his job as president, is inconsistent. Why NOT question Rudy as you would Mitt? Why not just make all candidates swear an oath: "that I will not allow my ideological beliefs, odd as they may be, to impact my job as commander-in-chief". It may make a worthy addition to the presidential oath and satisfy some of the secular leftists out there.

It is statements such as the following which shows Mike's prejudices continue to get the best of him; it just doesn't work for someone who is trying to broadcast or write to a wide and diverse listening audience. Mike says "I should have no reason to feel that just because there are some odd tenets of the Mormon religion, Mitt Romney wouldn’t make a terrific president."  He uses the word odd so definitively. The tenants of the fifth largest religion in the United States may be ODD to MIKE, but if they weren't odd, he might quickly find himself among the ranks of the faithful in Salt Lake City. Mike really doesn't seem to understand the religious pluralism we have here in the United States. NEWSFLASH: All religious adherents can easily find 'odd tenants' in other's beliefs. That's partly why they are faithful to their own beliefs and not others. A close friend of mine who considers herself a devout Christian has some serious issues with oddities she finds in Catholic doctrine. I don't have a problem with that. But her and other's issues with Catholicism shouldn't be injected into the presidential debate. Nor should Mike Huckabee's views on evolution or salvation through Jesus Christ. It appears Mike wants to distance himself from his earlier comments, yet maintain a footnote that he doesn't approve in Mitt's choice of religion.

I commend Mike for making a first step toward realizing the United States is not a theocracy, but he still doesn't quite get it. And he is not yet welcome back on my radio dial.