With Romney out of the race, today's Wall Street Journal discusses a delicate issue, and cites interesting study of political prejudices relating to religion, sex, and race:

Mitt Romney's campaign for the presidency brought more attention to the Mormon Church than it has had in years. What the church discovered was not heartening.

Critics of its doctrines and culture launched frequent public attacks. Polling data showed that far more Americans say they'd never vote for a Mormon than those who admitted they wouldn't choose a woman or an African-American.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in late January revealed that 50% of Americans said they would have reservations or be "very uncomfortable" about a Mormon as president. That same poll found that 81% would be "enthusiastic" or "comfortable" with an African-American and 76% with a woman.

The Mormon religion "was the silent factor in a lot of the decision making by evangelicals and others," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the poll. The Romney campaign ran into "a religious bias head wind," Mr. Hart and his Republican polling partner, Bill McInurff, wrote late last month.

A perfect example of this mindset is James Dobson, who has just endorsed Mike Huckabee, and who previously refused to endorse Rudy Giuliani for being too liberal, as well as Fred Thompson for not being "Christian" enough for him.

It's all too easy to write Dobson off as a kook, but the problem is that a number of voters think along similar lines, and the poll discussed today does not seem to take them into account.

Here's the way it was presented:

Hmmm.... Why is Romney standing there all by himself?

The problem I have with the poll is that it does not provide enough information about voter preferences. Mormons, evangelical Christians, women, and blacks are listed, but others are not. Obviously the poll doesn't take into account that evangelical Christians -- many of whom could be expected to agree with Dobson -- might have a problem with those they don't think are "Christian enough." This would presumably include Mormons. But before we write them all off as merely anti-Mormon bigots, isn't it fair to ask them if they feel the same way about other Christian candidates with different views? If Thompson isn't Christian enough, would McCain be?

McCain follows the tenets of Episcopalianism, which falls under the general umbrella of Anglicanism. Surely, most evangelicals know that the Episcopal church is facing a fairly major schism over homosexuality. How might they feel about a president who belonged to a church which has gay bishops? Please bear in mind that the sexuality of bishops is of no concern to me at all, and I was educated at a school run by the Episcopal Church. But the question is what the voters think, and why.

What I consider to be the most serious problem within the Anglican Church right now are the pro-Sharia views of the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Dr Williams believes that aspects of sharia law - which aspects he does not explictly say - should be allowed to form part of the law of this country. He does not explain what tests should be used to decide what bits of sharia law are acceptable and what are not. For example, in some of the most conservative muslim lands, the death penalty is used for offences far less serious than murder, such as adultery. We are not told what the Archbishop thinks about this; or whether he thinks things such as arranged marriage, etc, are acceptable. But he needs to be clear about what he thinks is acceptable, otherwise, all we can assume is that the fellow is mouthing vacuous platitudes, nothing more.

Personally, I think the Church would do better under a gay conservative Archbishop than the smarmy heterosexual multiculturalist who runs it now and would allow anti-gay bigotry to flourish under Sharia law.... But alas! Just as I'm not a king-maker, I'm not a bishop maker. (Nor am I a queen maker, although I am trying to prevent Hillary from assuming her wrongful throne.)

Perhaps its nitpicky, but not only were people not asked about anti-Anglican/Episcopal bias, they also weren't asked about anti-atheist or anti-secular bias. Surely these biases exist. It would not surprise me if there is considerably more anti-atheist bias than anti-Mormon bias.

But the end result is to make it appear that the only groups "the voters" have problems with are Mormons, evangelical Christians, women, and blacks.

To be honest, "anti-atheist bigotry" just doesn't have the same ring to it as anti-Mormon or anti-black bigotry, and I'm not sure why. I suspect the rule regarding prejudice varies according to the group.

"Bigot" is one of those words which has become so inherently inflammatory that it almost can't be used in common parlance anymore. But in logic, what is the difference between anti-Mormon bigotry, anti-evangelical bigotry, anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-atheist bigotry? Or anti-female and anti-male bigotry, anti-white and anti-black bigotry, or anti-gay and anti-straight bigotry? Does the word usage depend on which group can claim the history of oppression?

What does the word "bigot" mean, anyway?

Glad you asked.

It's time to play the Webster's Dictionary satire game again.

If the word means what the dictionary says, most of us are all bigots about one thing or another, most religions are bigoted against most other religions and to call someone a bigot would not be libelous absent something additional.