I recently read three interesting columns on religion in politics and politicians who try to show how religious they are.
Faith vs. the Faithless
David Brooks
New York Times - 2007-12-07
Brooks wrote a good analysis of Mitt Romney's speech on faith about the conflict between those who want religion to be very much part of public discourse and those who want to leave religion as a private matter.
Brooks thinks the speech was a good one, but he is not enthusiastic about it. Rather than various religious points of view competing in the public square, Romney maintains that those with "faith" are being victimized by the faithless. "Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?" "There was no hint of ... the religion most people know–the religion that imposes restraints upon the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings."
The Times also wrote "The Crisis of Faith", 2007-12-07
"A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office."
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune wrote "The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply" about the religious test several candidates are expecting; that is, one must believe in a single god. Agnostics, atheists, and humanists need not even try. They seem to ignore the provision in the U.S. Constitution "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office".
I read Chapman's column in the 2008-01-02 Star Tribune; his latest column available on the Chicago Tribune web site was 2007-12-23. He did write several on religion in presidential politics.
