Dean & religion.

Your January 16, 2004, editorial ("Getting Religion") describes Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as "resolutely secular" and as having a "tin ear for religion." Like most Northeasterners, Dean does not talk about his religion in public, considering it a private matter. He was angered by his former (Episcopalian) church's refusal to allow a bike path through property it owned along Lake Champlain and became a Congregationalist. His present denomination is that of the pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620. It is hard to get much more American than this.

Our Founding Fathers were deists who did not believe in revealed religion but rather in an impersonal god with a small g. None of them spouted the pious platitudes of our current president. Again Dean would appear to be in fairly good company. Your editorial seems to suggest that large segments of the electorate want a president of faith, since this assures a certain level of morality. I fail to see how Christians can automatically assume that morals necessarily follow faith and churchgoing. Deep faith and shallow morals are often a disastrous combination. The pope and all major Christian denominations, save the Southern Baptist Convention, were against the war in Iraq, which was hyped by our president, a man of faith. The pedophilia scandal among Catholic priests and bishops is an even more straightforward example of the disassociation of faith and morals. I hope that no more editorials bemoaning the lack of faith of presidential candidates appear in my favorite periodical.

DANIEL J. MCCARTY, MD

Hartland, Wis.

The editors reply:

The editorial did not urge Howard Dean to wear his religion on his sleeve, nor did it suggest that those who profess faith are automatically more moral than those who don't. It simply noted the difficulty secular liberal politicians, especially in the Democratic Party, have in winning the trust of churchgoing voters.