. . . and which by extension, other religious conservatives can't give.
This morning, the D-News editorial board published a relatively short piece decrying a recent NY Times Op-Ed.
The piece in the Times (written by Bill Keller) included this passage:
. . . when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively. Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible obliged her to “be submissive” to her husband, and there was an audible wave of boos — for the question, not the answer. There is a sense, encouraged by the candidates, that what goes on between a candidate and his or her God is a sensitive, even privileged domain, except when it is useful for mobilizing the religious base and prying open their wallets.
Without actually using the word hypocrisy, that's exactly what Keller is pointing out here. He observed, as well:
In the last presidential campaign, Candidate Obama was pressed todistance himself from his pastor, who carried racial bitterness to extremes, and Candidate McCain was forced to reject the endorsement of a preacher who offended Catholics and Jews. I don’t see why Perry and Bachmann should be exempt from similar questioning.
The D-News editorial took offense at Keller's reference to Mormonism, but was unable to actually grasp the centerpiece of Keller's argument - that if religious beliefs are going to influence policy, we as voters have a right to know and to explore them. Such questions aren't beyond the pale of public discourse. That's the answer the D-News editorial board can't give - it's one they can't explore because the minute they open that line of questioning, they begin to question the entire edifice of Utah politics in which Mormon beliefs are frequently offered as sufficient to justify passing laws and implementing regulations. To offer that answer would mean the D-News would begin questioning the justification they offer on a host of public policy issues from civil rights for glbt persons to alcohol regulations to prayer in school.
The D-News editorial demonstrates several historical errors - first in claiming "The Founders themselves drafted the Constitution based on a belief that rights, freedom and liberty derive from a higher power." That's really not the case - read the actual Constitution. There's no mention of God in the Constitution; and the only mentions of religion are prohibitions on government action with regard to religion. Which leads the D-News to their next error:
The Constitution also says, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is as definitive a statement as any about how the Founders felt about questioning candidates concerning their most sacred beliefs.
Beyond its basic misunderstanding, it assumes facts not in evidence. The prohibition on religious tests for public office was based on real experience of the time. Some of the colonies prohibited non Christians from holding office; others were stricter, in requiring membership in certain churches to hold office. The simple intent of this prohibition was to guarantee that a person of any faith or no faith could hold public office if he (there were no shes allowed in elected office at the time) were qualified. Nothing more nothing less. The idea that this prohibition means we should not inquire into the policy implications of a person's faith is an absurd distortion of the text and the historical context in which it was written.
Finally, the D-News editorial board is forced to take the same position that other conservative faithful people take - that religion is an unalloyed good in society, ignoring the very real history of the Christian church and its often active role in suppressing the rights of minorities:
Keller might gain important perspective by examining how Biblical beliefs or faith in things that are unseen informed those presidents. What he would find is that faith has been a powerful motivator for protecting rights and defending the nation's unique role in the world, as well as for preserving hope in dire circumstances.
This position - popular among many faithful persons - is simply at odds with the historical record. To take one key example, Lincoln's faith was complex, unorthodox, deeply personal, and often for him a source of emotional trauma. Lincoln, for all the depth of his faith, would not find a home among today's conservative churches if for no other reason than his lack of confidence -
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
An attitude on would be hard pressed to find among today's conservative faithful who seem determined to draft God into any and all issues on their side.
Of course admitting such complexity and heterodoxy of faith would undermine the D-News position that discussing faith is simply outside the bounds of civil discussion. And so they're left with the weak tea of claiming
Certainly, no respectful question should be out of bounds when considering a candidate. We are confident, however, that most Americans would rather hear answers concerning how to fix the economy or deal with terrorism than how to interpret verses of scripture.
Sounds good, until you consider that some Presidential candidates seem to believe how they interpret scripture informs how they think we can fix the economy of deal with terrorism. Or deny civil rights to glbt persons or limit women's freedom.
Originally posted at OneUtah.