I've argued before that Dean's foray into religousity was a mistake, the biggest one he's made so far. I believe events have proved me right. Everytime he opens his mouth on the subject he sounds either pandering, artificial or unknowledgeable. Why he and his team let themselves get spooked by an article in TNR is beyond me. How much better would it have been for him to have taken this approach:
"In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats, particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President Bush."
"On a deeper level, the notion that elected officials should employ a religious rationale for policy decisions is rooted in the misconception, promulgated by the Christian right, that the American government was founded on divine authority rather than human reason."
"Not a scintilla of bravery is required for a candidate, whether Democratic or Republican, to take refuge in religion. But it would take genuine courage to stand up and tell voters that elected officials cannot and should not depend on divine instructions to reconcile the competing interests and passions of human beings."
"Today, many voters, of many religious beliefs, might well be receptive to a candidate who forthrightly declares that his vision of social justice will be determined by the "plain, physical facts of the case" on humanity's green and fragile earth. But that would take an inspirational leader who glories in the nation's secular heritage and is not afraid to say so."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html
