If They Want To Talk About It, They Should Expect To Get Thumped

While there are many on the left and liberal end of the political spectrum who welcome liberal politicians speaking of their faith, it should come as no shock that, when they do, conservatives and fundamentalists will go after them with all the limited theological and intellectual resources at their command. This is why (a) I wonder why they do it; and (b) wonder if, they are doing it at the behest of some consultant, why they listen to a consultant as stupid as this. This is a no-win situation for the candidate, and is a distraction from something that separates liberal politicians from conservatives - a dedication to keeping one's personal faith commitments out of public debate. Once we go down the road, we are left with all sorts of things that need to be said unsaid, and the conservatives and fundamentalists, while not having much in the way of serious thought, do have the pithiest sound bites.

Over at a site named Sacbee.com is a column by Cal Thomas that includes the following sentence in a review of a recent New York Times article in which Sen Hillary Clinton spoke about her religious faith:

The quality and depth of one's relationship with God should be personal and beyond the judgment of others, unless one is running for president and chooses to talk about it as part of a campaign plan to win the election.(emphasis added)

So there you have it. Religious conservatives are going extra-constitutional on us, reserving a religious test for liberals who speak out on faith issues. Thomas goes on to score all kinds of points against Sen. Clinton, at least in his own mind. Part of the problem with a column like this is that Clinton revealed a deep faith, an abiding trust in God, and an openness to the world that characterizes the best in Christian wisdom. For Thomas, however, there is nothing but the betrayal of true Christian belief, which he "proves" by throwing Bible verses out left and right. Proof-texting is a fun game, and everyone can do it (you don't even have to believe in the Bible), but it is meaningless except to those for whom the words written down in various dead languages thousands of years ago trump everything.

For this reason alone - the good proof-text always works better than the nuanced statement of faith - one wonders why the Democratic candidates want to play this game. Since they are playing it, however, they should expect to get treated like this. At the same time, Thomas' insistence on a new religious test for public office at least leaves open the possibility for religious liberals and progressives and non-believers and believers of other faiths to take on the Christian fundamentalists. They just have to be willing to be as nasty and intellectually shallow and dishonest.