One of the things I find interesting is how rarely Sen. Harry Reid’s religion has been mentioned in connection with Romney. It’s regrettable that most people, and especially any savvy journalist, fail to recognize the all-too obvious fact that both Romney and Reid are reputed to be devoted to their faith yet they have pursued different political parties and are on different points of the spectrum. And, in both cases, it may be that in both cases their motivations are ultimately inseparable from their faithful devotion.

Taking a step back (and truly a step forward), here is the broader truth: it is possible for at least two (if not billions of ) people to be religously devoted, Christian, even adherents of the same religion, and yet come to different conclusions about some pretty important things, be quite arguably equally patriotic, and have admirable judgment. Not remarkable really, and yet so deserving of being remarked.

The fact that, to my knowledge, no well-known journalists or media spokespersons have pressed this awfully understated point forces the question: why? One may ask: Is it that those same journalists and spokespersons, if perhaps innnocently in an unconscious or tacit way, aver that strong religious devotion (even to the same religion) is OK as long as the person comes to the “appropriate” conclusions? Is Harry Reid “safe” to them? For example, “No need to worry about him letting his religion influence his decisions, because he’s one of us. He knows how to turn off his Religion Filter when appropriate. But, Romney- if he comes to different conclusions- it’s got to be because of a suspicious devotion to his religion. He’s an automoton without the all-too vital switch.” What if they found out that Reid were coming to conclusions that they find instrinsically palatable also because of his religious devotion?

So, finally we come to the real rhetorical question: Is it the conclusions people come to or how they get to them that matters most?

There’s something to ruminate!

Bon appetit!