Today’s Reading List – March 7, 2007 | Article VI Blog

PLEASE, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, TAKE A MOMENT TO TAKE OUR POLL IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.

Thomas Sowell sees The Question as a part of the larger coarsening of American political discourse.

The raising of the religious issue was not an aberration but one of the signs of an ugly retrogression in our times. During the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked him if being a Catholic would interfere with carrying out his duties as a justice.

Did she think that being Jewish interfered with carrying out her duties as a Senator? Had she forgotten that it was less than a century ago — not long as history is measured — when people objected to Louis Brandeis becoming a Supreme Court justice because he was Jewish?

Every nation has parts of its past that are best buried and never resurrected.

While a resurgence of religious bigotry does not seem likely, what has aptly been called “the politics of personal destruction” — by one of its practitioners, Bill Clinton — has become a growing cancer on the body politic.

Sowell is making a very interesting connotation here. Rather than a "religious test," he is contending that The Question is a form of character assasination. I would argue it is both for if religion is used to attack character, how can that be anything but bigotry? Of course, religion influences character, but it does not define it, to argue otherwise, whether between religion and a religion, or between religions, is to judge without evidence. I believe we call that prejudice.

Speaking of which, here is some extraordinary evidence:

Andrew Sullivan plays the guilt by association game. His insinuation manages to use Romney to smear, well at least try to smear, Pat Robertson and the other way around. Creedal Christians cannot win this one unless we attack the attackers – Mormons are our allies in the political battles whether we like it or not.
As this leftie blogger, whose blog title I will not repeat, contends "In perfect harmony with other flavors of Christian cults the Mor[m]ons…" The left views us as part of the same gang despite our finely tuned theological differences. The only thing political battle between us, creedals and Mormons, will do is reinforce that view and give the left ammo.
Another leftie blogger thinks pretty much the same thing, "Mitt Romney’s religion is a goofy [explitive deleted] bunch of tripe. Granted, religion in general is pretty much a bunch of goofy tripe, but the Mormon religion takes the cake."

The Boston Globe, knowing most people don't read beyond the headlines, tries to pull a fast one. A Romney advisor, speaking at a Havard symposium, agrees that many people don't know about Mormons and thinks its OK to look into the religion - The Globe turns that into this headline:

To Romney strategist, questions on faith fair game

There is a huge difference between intellectual inquiry into a religion and religion being "fair game" as an election issue. A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Which brings us back to the lefties…The left want religion to be an issue in the election because it will give them license to use it against all religious people, Mormon, creedal, Buhddist, whatever. Which in turn takes us back to Sowell. The ultra-right is, in fact applying a "religious test" while the left is in fact using religion as a cudgel in the politics of personal destruction. The center-right, the majority of the country, simply must thread that narrow way between, or we risk losing everything.

We have at times been able to make common cause with the ultra-right, but we cannot in this instance as to do so will only empower the left and they are the ultimate opponent here.

Lowell: John's right. For some super-conservative Christians, the issue is their conviction that Romney's not a true Christian; for the Left, the issue is that his religion is, to them, "weird." They have a hard time generally with religious people who take their religion seriously, and they are the source of the "nobody can believe that stuff" meme.

Radley Balko at "reasononline" makes my point. In the end he casts religion as the enemy of freedom – something that would actually be true if we do indeed apply a "religious test." We just cannot go there.