Religion in Elections

One of the reasons that I read multiple accounts of events, especially from known opposing viewpoints, is that there can be edification in both slants. Case in point, this article by Kenneth Anderson in The Weekly Standard. How Bill Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard) ever allowed this essay to escape his censorship is one of the great mysteries of history. The fanatically Republican editor allowed commentary like this on his site: On the one hand, religion has been regarded as something that can be shaped by rational discourse and necessarily sometimes even the application of political and state power. An individual in this light must consider the rationality of his or her religious beliefs and subject them to reason. On the other hand, religion also has an accidental and immutable quality to it which, in the extreme case of one's eternal soul, can force an individual to the most harrowing choice. Liberal toleration has always taken account of both of these things. "Liberal toleration" as a good thing?? Now, make no mistake, Anderson proceeds to thrash the actions of current "left liberals", but to even suggest that "liberal toleration" has religious import that Neo-Conservatives should emulate is a statement that Kristol would presumably not allow. This next part would also have given him goosebumps: The firm demand of the state for conformity to neutral standards is what--contrary to the claims of the multiculturalists--provides the grounds of liberal toleration...Taken together, the demands of religious groups for ever stronger and expansive special accommodations must eventually result in profound and antagonistic standoffs and conflicts. Indeed, we have gone too far with special accommodations for religions that depart from neutral governance. Keep in mind that Jerry Falwell the Religious Right, more than any other single force in the last 20 years, has been responsible for Republican success at the polls. To suggest that religious groups have harmed the government is a covert admonishment of the current strength of the Republican party. After this discussion, Anderson blasts Mitt Romney for playing both sides of the proverbial coin: To be sure, there was something good and liberal in part of his answer, and we should start with that. Romney said--correctly as a matter of deep liberalism--that for him to give representations as to the content of his faith would make him a representative of that faith, rather than of the people, who are of many faiths...But he did so, unfortunately, in a typically Romney-like way, with a corrupt little wink-and-nod to his evangelical inquisitors--oh, but don't worry, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind," etc...It is corrupt not because it is untrue, but because it aims to let him eat his cake and have it, too. He rejected demands to explain his faith, but did so while letting his interlocutors know that he was really one of them. Something "good and liberal"...wow. This section, however, definitely demonstrates the crux of this essay, which is the not-so-subtle undertones of religious/ethnic intolerance. Anderson discusses the dual-pronged issues within religion - the rational portion as well as the immutable, 'irrational' portion. The fact that this is true is beyond discussion. However, the blend between these 2 portions is the subject of ever-increasing debate. Anderson suggests one possible blending of the 2, the abuse of which he terms "multi-culturalism". Whether or not his particular blend is accurate - or even acceptable - will probably never be decided. Anderson himself asks the question: The issue then is: If neither all-in nor all-out is the answer, are there principles that can help define what religious questions should be in-bounds and what should be out of bounds in a tolerant, liberal polity? He goes on to try to frame this (poorly, in my opinion), but he also admits that this framing would be indescribably difficult. He finishes by explaining that the issue in discussion is not about a particular candidate, or all of the candidates: It is about this country and the rest of us and our long-term relationship to liberal toleration at its hour of grave need... Our "long-term relationship to liberal toleration"... Bill's red pen must be out of ink.