Erick Erickson at Red State has some observations on the Left’s inconsistency regarding religious faith: when convenient, faith is a virtue, but also when convenient, it is a failing.
In Missouri they are running an attack on a Republican saying he covered up pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
In Minnesota the Democrats are attacking Catholics full on for not living up to Christ’s teaching to help the poor.
In Kentucky they are attacking Rand Paul for blaspheming Christ or some such nonsense.
But then Erickson latches on to Michael Bennet, a Democratic candidate in Colorado:
Michael Bennet, you see, rejects religion. Yes, he says he believes in God, but he makes clear he does not go to worship, does not believe in organized religion, and does not affiliate with a religion.
And they say the Republicans are running candidates outside the mainstream.
If Bennet is really a favorite of Obama, as Erickson claims, then he will get no love from me. But seriously, does his religious inclination really matter? A lot of Americans claim a belief in God to some degree but do not affiliate with a particular denomination or regularly attend worship services. Are all of these Americans “outside the mainstream”?
The Constitution prohibits a religious test for a reason. Who is to determine what religious beliefs qualify one for public office? Obviously, voters are free to take religious affiliation into consideration when selecting a specific candidate if they choose, but should a politician be chosen based upon political beliefs rather than religious ones? Does it really matter if a candidate is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or even Pagan if that candidate is earnest and consistent in those beliefs and supports the political policies and positions that a given voters wants to see implemented?
So disagree with Bennet on politics, Mr. Erickson. Criticize any political inconsistencies he shows. Highlight any major moral failings that question his abilities to fulfill the duties of office. But please keep in mind that holding vague religious views that are different from your own is not, in itself, a justifiable reason to keep someone out of office. If the strongest argument you have against someone is the fact that he’s agnostic, perhaps you need to find some better reasons to oppose him.