Kill It Before It Spreads

Interesting article on religion and politics from NYT

Keep in mind that the author is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and it's no surprise that he's basically trashing the left for attempting to incorporate belief into politics, the same strategy that the right has been abusing for years.

And, of course, there are holes in his argument big enough to drive a truck through:

"We affirm God's vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," he writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality.

Maybe it's just that those "spending schemes," as he terms them, are social programs founded on that same belief. It wouldn't do to say that though, now, would it? It's radically different than the wildmons' anti-gay crusade, particularly when taken in the light of Jesus' teachings. But then, pick-and-choose Christianity is all the rage these days, in some quarters. He dwells at length on evangelicals' involvement in feeding the poor and ministering to prisoners, but doesn't quite get around to mentioning in any detail their attempts to forestall efforts to guarantee basic human rights for some groups, or the racist and otherwise bigoted references of significant so-called "Christian spokesmen." Nope -- it's all about the Democrats co-opting faith as a political tool.

When Christians - liberal or conservative - invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics, they threaten our democratic discourse. Numerous "policy papers" from liberal churches and activist groups employ the same approach: they're awash in scriptural references to justice, poverty and peace, stacked alongside claims about global warming, debt relief and the United Nations Security Council.

Notice that he's attacking liberals here, albeit with a sop to even-handedness. But it's only a sop. Also note that the wildmons don't even bother quoting scripture any more. It's just a matter of "God said."

In light of the highly partisan tenor of his article, the conclusion is priceless.

A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise - and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven.

So, what we have is another apologist for the right attacking the left for trying to use the same strategies that the right has been using very successfully, albeit with a complete lack of prudence, reason, and compromise. And for this he gets to use the New York Times. Asshole.