Article VI Blog

Because of work I have only now been able to read Michael Kinsley's Time Magazine piece, on which John briefly commented last Friday. I suspect there has already been much pointed response to Kinsley in the blogosphere, but I haven't read any of that yet.

There is not much new in Kinsley's piece; in fact, it is really only a rehash of Jacob Weisberg's now-infamous screed from last December. Weisberg had said, "I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism." Kinsley, however, does not limit that analysis to Mormonism. To Kinsley, any belief in the miraculous disqualifies a candidate from serving as president:

For me, any candidate who believes in the literal truth of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon or the novels of Jane Austen is probably too credulous to be President.

Now, this is just claptrap dressed up as sophisticated reasoning. It simply oozes with condescension toward anyone who does not share Kinsley's worldview.

I'm sure many agree with Kinsley; but if recent polls are anywhere close to correct, I'm just as sure that the great majority of Americans disagree with him.

Notably, Kinsley's approach might have some appeal in the general election, but it is not going to be a problem in the Republican primaries. I'm afraid 95% of those who agree with Kinsley are already Democrats, which has become, whether religious Democrats like it or not, the party where secularists feel most at home. Can anyone deny that?

The most remarkable part of Kinsley's piece is his apparent belief that candidates ought to be grilled publicly on why they believe in their religion:

Above all, we need to see some struggle. Precisely because all religious doctrines are hard to believe, believers and nonbelievers alike have an interest in how a candidate who claims to be deeply religious deals with religion's improbabilities.

"Religion's improbabilities." I love that phrase. Imagine, if you will, Michael Kinsley moderating a debate involving the Republican candidates for president. Here are some questions he would presumably like to ask:

"So, Senator Brownback, you are a Catholic. Do you really believe the communion wafer and wine become the literal blood and flesh of Christ in your mouth? And if so, how is it that you can accept such an improbability?"

"Governor Romney, you have said you love your faith and believe your faith. One of your church's teachings is that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith to show him where metal plates were located that Smith eventually translated into the Book of Mormon. Many Americans find that story improbable. How can you believe it, and if you do, why should Americans who don't believe it vote for you?"

"Governor Huckabee, you are a Baptist minister and have sermonized on the stories in the New Testament. You've said you have no doubt, for example, that Jesus walked on water. Yet many Americans find that story to be more like a legend then an account of actual events. How is it that you can accept such an improbability? If you do, why should Americans who don't accept it vote for you?"

It's one thing to say you don't believe in the Bible or in miracles. It's quite another to say that anyone who does believe in such things should not be trusted to serve as president of the United States. In fact, it's downright un-American. But that doesn't mean Kinsley's nasty brand of skepticism won't be used — a lot– in the general election, especially if an unabashed religious believer like Romney gets the Republican nomination.

Technorati Tags: Michael Kinsley, Mitt Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Jacob Weisberg, religious bigotry