I would like to make a few observations about last night’s primaries, in particular the themes and images struck by the candidates in their respective victory speeches. But first, permit me one unsolicited--and unoriginal--observation: Oh Good Lord what a friggin' mess the Democrat nominating process is!

Between pledged delegates and Super Delegates and the popular vote and secretive caucuses and Florida and Michigan, I confess to being utterly dumbfounded as to: a) whom the totality of Democratic voters (as opposed to, for example, Republican voters who gleefully participated in primary day festivities) actually favor, and, b) whether the whole convoluted process can in any way, shape, or form yield the most electable candidate.

But let’s get to the imagery and oratory, shall we?

Continue »

It is midweek. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has spoken and every national news outlet has gone to Code Red.

The fallout from the pastor’s triptych of fulmination (Moyers/NAACP/NPC) has whipped the punditry up into a frenzy. The pollsters are re-tabulating. The Super Delegates are posturing and re-positioning. The operatives are shouting their talking points. The moderators are appealing for calm.

Footage of Wright doing his (not un-amusing) “But-Black-Folks- Do-It-Like-This!” routine is being looped endlessly. As is the image of a tense Obama standing on a runway and looking like his head is about to explode.

And then, almost as an afterthought, the major news divisions all feel obliged to show a clip of Hillary Clinton.

It has a dreamlike quality to it.

Continue »

Standing on a tarmac yesterday a rather tense Barack Obama said of Jeremiah Wright: “He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign.”

True enough. But how exactly should the Senator speak in the aftermath of the Reverend’s recent attempts to McGovernize and Mondaleize his candidacy? Permit me to rehearse some possible responses to the existential threat posed by Wright. But please recall that none of the forthcoming proposals is particularly good. Like America's foreign policy options in Iran, the Senator’s alternatives in this crisis can be described as “bad” and “worse”:

Continue »

As with most analysts who cover the 2008 election I receive my share of spin-related e-mails (referred to from here on in as “Spreemails”) from the campaigns of those running for high office.

A Spreemail may be described thusly: a political infomercial directed exclusively at pundits in hopes of getting these clueless dimwits to tow a presidential aspirant’s party line in their forthcoming blogs, columns, radio shows, web videos, mixed media installations, etc. In an effort to quell the inveterate suspicions of aforesaid pundits, a Spreemail will often, but not always, contain references to credible journalistic and scholarly sources.

Continue »

It seems like an eternity since Senator Barack Obama’s winter of ascent. Remember the 12 consecutive triumphs? Remember Ted Kennedy and American University levitating off their moorings in Washington? Remember the 45-minute (!) victory speech on February 19th in front of nearly 20,000 delirious Texans?

But spring, as the jazz singers remind us, can really hang you up the most. March and April have brought with them some bad energy for the Obama camp. Was I the only one who saw an ominous portent in that cringe-inducing footage of some imbecile in Philadelphia hounding the Senator to pose for a picture and autograph his Cheese Steak? (Note to the Secret Service: the threat of being tasered is an exceedingly effective deterrent).

This has been the season of Rezko and Samantha Power and typical white persons and Reverend Wright and so much bitterness. As for the latter, the words are now well known. At a fund-raiser in San Francisco, Obama spoke of rural folks “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"

Continue »

There were many winners at Sunday night’s Compassion Forum at Messiah College and no discernible losers as far as I could tell.

For starters, the sponsoring and organizing group, Faith in Public Life, handled logistics superbly. FPL is setting an agenda and it is doing so with a “Big Tent” philosophy of letting different religious Americans bring their concerns to the fore. Last night a theologically diverse group of pre-selected clergy asked questions about euthanasia, environmental concerns, poverty, AIDS, the relation between science and faith, and so on. In so doing, they broadened the issue palette pertaining to religious politicking considerably. This is where Faith in Public Life is making a major contribution to national discourse.

Continue »

As I get ready for this Sunday’s Compassion Forum, I keep repeating to myself the French maxim: “Les absents ont toujours tort” (Who said that? La Rochefoucauld? When in doubt always say La Rochefoucauld).

The proverb translates as “those who are not present are always wrong” and my guess is that senators Obama and Clinton will discuss at length what they view as the wrongfulness of (the absent) John McCain’s policies, not to mention those of the party that he represents.

This raises the question as to why the Senator from Arizona declined the invitation to participate from the sponsoring group, Faith in Public Life.

Continue »

I greet the spring like characters in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: with relief, weary gratitude and ebullience. As the month of March expires I praise the sky and salute the sun. I smile toothily at forlorn pansies that cross my path.

Yet there is one rite of spring which leaves me decidedly glum. I refer to the start of baseball season. Compounding my despair is the veritable Cult of Baseball that predominates in the newsrooms of America. Question: How do you know it’s Opening Day? Answer: When half the (often secular) pundits nationwide are writing columns about baseball being like religion. Like their religion.

*******************************

Why credible opinion makers lack any modicum of objectivity when addressing this subject is beyond me. But it has not escaped my attention that nearly every psalmist of The Diamond lets slip something to the effect of “My dad used to take me to the ballpark.” The infection sets in early.

Continue »

That the 2008 campaign is drawing attention to the declining fortunes of American secularism is a point I have been making in these columns and elsewhere. It is with similar concern that I call attention to an overlapping (and under-discussed) trend that is coming into sharper focus this election season: the ongoing collapse of the distinction between the public and private sphere.

Let me start by adducing three seemingly disparate examples (bear with me):

Continue »

Analysis of the first quarter of 2008 suggests that Faith and Values Politicking is Like Skating--Check That: Speed Skating--On Thin Ice With a Little Vial of Nitroglycerin Stashed in a Recess of Your Skin-Tight, Oddly Eroticized, Aerodynamic Suit. Indeed, a glance at the past three months reminds us of the truism that playing the religion card may diminish electoral profitability.

Take, for example, Mike Huckabee. His disquisition on amending the Constitution to God's standards clearly antagonized secularists. It also led some religious non-Evangelicals to change their perception of Huck from “likeable, guitar-strumming Christian dude” to “dangerous Right-wing fanatic.” But my hunch was that patriotic Evangelicals were dismayed by the intemperance of those remarks as well.

Over in the Obama camp, the combustive properties of God Talk are now also well appreciated. The Senator’s published tributes to Jeremiah Wright were eagerly cited by opponents celebrating the nation’s one billionth viewing of the Reverend's YouTube philippics.

Continue »

Although I had initially conjured up the idea only to reject it as undemocratic, perhaps it is high time that we as a nation, believers and nonbelievers alike, consider the establishment of the 28th Amendment. Its majestic words would read as follows:

Section 1. The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to have the offending religious figure immediately deported to France

Continue »

About a decade ago I was researching a book that required me to spend a good deal of time taking in numerous and sundry varieties of African-American oratory. I look back at those visits to churches, Afrocentric rallies, and community activist gatherings with fondness. They certainly alleviated the archival tedium of an otherwise dull scholarly project.

That’s because there is long tradition of outstanding and invigorating oratory in African America. How outstanding and invigorating? So much so that an accomplished speaker such as Senator Barack Obama would still be considered to be a mere promising Triple-A prospect by the lofty standards of black public rhetoric.

Continue »

I want to preface these rather critical observations about Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” address with non-faint praise. As far as I am concerned the good Senator is unequivocally the most intelligent and intellectually sophisticated politician in America today.

Why am I, as with many other members of the professorate, so enthralled by him? Well, for one he doesn’t merely wish to solicit our votes, he wants to edify us as well. Yet in many ways this relentless quest to enlighten the electorate was one of the major problems with Tuesday’s oration.

Continue »

The following remarks were delivered at the opening of a debate which will be aired on PBS over the next few weeks (Yes, check local listings).

There were four participants debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” I was, as you might surmise, on the “pro” side and my teammate was the Reverend Barry Lynn. On the “con” side were “On Faith” panelist Chuck Colson and Bishop Henry Jackson. It was a wild ride, but a civil one.

As Prepared for Delivery

There is No Religious Freedom Without Freedom from Religion

Tonight we are debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” Let me state from the outset that I--a garden-variety Jewish atheist—wholly concur.

Continue »

Throughout the current campaign many pundits, myself included, have been riffing on variations of a theme entitled “what’s wrong with the Evangelicals?” But I think our definition of a perfectly functioning Evangelical polity is somewhat unrealistic. We are using the 2004 presidential election as a standard—and that’s a hard, nay, an almost impossible, standard to emulate.

Here are some of the unusual things that happened four years ago. First and foremost, in the person of George W. Bush, Evangelicals had themselves a keeper, an ideal candidate. In their eyes he was “one of us.” The leadership was squarely behind him, as was the rank-and-file.

Continue »

What does the failed presidential run of Mike Huckabee teach us about the standing of Evangelicals in politics today?

A great deal, I think. And as I embark on two posts devoted to this issue permit me to conjure up a handy slogan. Repeat it to yourself like a mantra, meditate upon it while you're on the elliptical machine, set it to the melody of the song “Maria” from The Sound of Music if you so desire. But remember: Evangelicals are not necessarily in crisis, they are in flux.

Continue »

In my next post I will perform an autopsy/eulogy of the 2008 Huckabee candidacy--the greatest thing to happen to Faith and Values politicking since George W. Bush identified Christ as his favorite philosopher (about which more anon).

But today I want to respond to the generally un-stimulating and jaw-droppingly repetitive comments made about my previous post. Most of these were submitted by self-identified secularists, liberals, atheists and outspoken critics of Georgetown University’s hiring practices (faculty members at Princeton, no doubt).

Continue »

Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”:

And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.

And you’d probably be thinking again of applying for Canadian citizenship -- just ‘fess up: you were scouting properties in northern Manitoba back around Thanksgiving 2004 -- if the former governor of Arkansas declaimed:

Continue »

Note to McCain operatives: Any and all attempts to malign Barack Obama as “all hat, no cattle,” "electoral eye candy," “eloquent but empty,” are doomed to fail.

Most Americans will find it difficult to reconcile those descriptions with the heady and effortlessly intelligent person they see on the nightly news. Most Americans will reject the argument that the fellow with the J.D. from Harvard who lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago is all fluff.

Continue »

Over the past month we have witnessed the emergence of a veritable sub-genre of political reportage: the don’t-count-Hillary-out-just-yet story. With its Yes She Can! effusions this type of journalism does not lack in counter-intuitive charms. But I think prudence (and a glance at the polls) dictates that we start thinking concretely about Barack Obama’s prospects in a general election.

Any discussion of these prospects must take into consideration the good Senator’s ability to reverse trends that doomed the Democrats in the last election. In 2004 Kerry/Edwards lost nearly four out of every five votes cast by White Evangelicals. Compounding the problem was the strange fact that the majority of Catholics voted against their co-religionist from Massachusetts.

Continue »

Over the past three years I have been making a variety of arguments about American secularism, nearly all of which were greeted with either apathy or derision. These arguments were made in scholarly articles and on this blog, but mostly in two books, Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics and The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously.

The “On Faith” editors have asked their distinguished panelists to consider one of these ideas: the contention that secularism has become a taboo subject in the current presidential race. Before getting to their comments--most of which enlightened me, some of which induced a bout of tachycardia--let me briefly outline some of the once-unpopular positions that I advanced.

The first argument was readily visible to those who studied the results of the 2006 mid-term elections. Namely, that the Democrats were starting to “get” religion. Doing so, of course, necessitated getting rid of excessive entanglement with secular policy positions, ideas, and candidates. Accordingly, I argued that the 2008 Democrats were going to abandon their traditional emphasis on issues pertaining to separation of Church and State (at least in their rhetoric). This they have done. As we will see below, the question remains as to whether this is just a ploy.

Continue »

I confess to being a bit confused by the goals of last week’s widely discussed New Baptist Covenant Celebration.

You know the one. It took place in Atlanta. Its most prominent impresario was President Carter. Something like 15,000 delegates from 30 organizations representing 20 million Baptists came to witness. It seems to have been a happy, soul-affirming and diverse affair. The New York Times describes the uplifted participants as “blacks and whites, old and young, Northerners and Southerners, Democrats and Republicans.”

Although I have never personally experienced anything soul-affirming--that's because I do not possess a soul--none of this confuses me (Though for reasons that will become clear, I think the presence of Republicans may have been overstated). What confuses me is the dogged insistence of the conference organizers that this was not in any way, shape, or form a political gathering.

Continue »

It seems like just a few months ago--October to be exact--I was chatting with a person working for President Bush who was anticipating a plum new job in the Giuliani administration.

Sure, there would be some rough sledding with Hillary Clinton in the fall. She’s a formidable candidate. But in the end, my overconfident Muscatel-quaffing lunchtime chum looked forward to serving another commander-in-chief who would make national security his top priority.

My conversational partner was mistaken. So were those pundits and pollsters who also viewed America’s Mayor as a lock. And as I articulate a few less obvious reasons to explain Giuliani’s stunning plunge let me begin by noting that Giuliani himself erred by accepting his party’s nomination for the presidency in August 2007.

Continue »

On "The God Vote This Week," On Faith co-moderator Sally Quinn asks me about Obama's religious fervor, Bush's surprisingly godless State of the Union and Giuliani's impersonation of a nice guy. Watch the show now.

Over the past few weeks I have been tracking an intriguing trend: assorted presidential candidates are acknowledging that nonbelievers might actually be decent, patriotic Americans.

The first raising-of-the-glass to the godless occurred a few weeks back. Mike Huckabee, under tough cross-examination by Tim Russert, asserted that “he wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists” to posts in his administration. “I probably had some working for me as governor,” he went on to observe. Who knew?

Continue »

On "The God Vote This Week," On Faith co-moderator Sally Quinn asks me about the God Talk from Obama, Clinton and Edwards on the campaign trail in South Carolina. Watch it here now.

It was John Edwards, I thought, who made the best impression at Monday's Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate. But the real story emerging from last night is that the Democrats are fielding not one, not two, but three credible, thoroughly electable choices for high office.

If voter turnout in caucuses and primaries is a reliable metric, then it seems that Democratic voters are, shall we say, motivated. My surmise is that the vast majority of Blue-staters will rally enthusiastically around any of these candidates in a general election.

Can the same be said about the fractured Republican base? If John McCain wins the nomination will Giuliani supporters--out of some previously undetected sense of loyalty to the GOP--work phone banks for him late into those autumnal nights? If Mitt Romney gets the nod will Mike Huckabee’s large--though not overwhelmingly large as South Carolina showed us--contingent of Evangelical backers grace him with their ballots?

Yup. It was a great night for the Democrats.

Continue »

This past Monday, as most of America now knows, Mike Huckabee effectively told the Constitution that it had better get right with God. In so doing, he committed the single most egregious Faith and Values’ blunder of the 2008 campaign.

In a follow-up interview with Steven Waldman and Dan Gilgoff, the former governor of Arkansas conceded that he may have phrased it “awkwardly.” Yet his subsequent responses to their insightful questions did little to suggest he did not mean what he said.

I will get to that fascinating interview next week. But today I want to return to Huckabee’s original words--words which will haunt this relatively young politician throughout his career:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Continue »

Now that we have examined Mike Huckabee’s views on wifely (and husbandly) submission, it is time to turn to another important issue that came up in last week's GOP debate. Namely, his assurance that as president he would never impose his faith on other Americans. He made this claim in response to a question posed by Carl Cameron--a question that itself raised some questions:

Cameron: Governor Huckabee, to change the subject a little bit and focus a moment on electability. Back in 1998, you were one of about 100 people who affirmed, in a full-page ad in the New York Times, the Southern Baptist Convention's declaration that, quote, "A wife us to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." Women voters in both parties harshly criticized that. Is that position politically viable in the general election of 2008, sir?

Huckabee: You know, it's interesting, everybody says religion is off limits, except we always can ask me the religious questions. So let me try to do my best to answer it.

Continue »

In light of the responses to Friday’s post, I get the distinct impression that some of you are hankering for a little exegetical action.

A few commentators have argued that Mike Huckabee was absolutely correct when he claimed last Thursday that the Book of Ephesians teaches us that: “as wives submit themselves to their husbands the husbands also submit themselves [to their wives].”

But I am sticking to my guns. His "egalitarian" reading of that Scripture strikes me as extremely problematic. But more to the point, he is evasively backing away from the less-than egalitarian conclusions of the Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention—conclusions which he enthusiastically endorsed in a 1998 USA Today advertisement. First let's deal with the Scriptures. Then with the SBC report.

Continue »

At last night’s intermittently entertaining GOP debate in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee was asked about a 1998 USA Today advertisement in which he and 130 other signatories endorsed the Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention.
One of the lines from the report that Huckabee and others praised a decade ago reads as follows:

“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

For months now, bloggers have been mulling this over -- something that the diligent Fox News staff must have picked up on (Though the ad, I as best I can tell, only appeared in USA Today and not The New York Times , as Carl Cameron's question indicated). Huckabee responded calmly, with the demeanor of a professor clarifying a popular misconception expressed by a well-meaning, but utterly misguided, freshman.

Continue »

As I think about what lies ahead for the Republican Party the phrase “pier-sixer” keeps coming to mind. What, pray tell, is a pier-sixer? While its precise etymology is uncertain, it may be said with impunity that it refers to some type of horrifically violent, physical altercation.

Having grown up in coastal Brooklyn--fertile ground for those who participate in horrifically violent, physical altercations--I always imagined a pier-sixer as follows: a few dozen beefy Merchant Marines are standing on an abandoned Red Hook wharf in the early hours of a hopelessly cold February night. The Merchant Marines have consumed significant quantities of spirits. And they are kicking one another’s heads in.

After last night’s victory and on the basis of recent Republican history I am now projecting an all-out pier-sixer in the days leading up to the South Carolina primary of January 19th. It is certainly a prize worth fighting (dirty) for: Since 1980 no Republican who has lost the Palmetto State has ever won the GOP presidential nomination.

Continue »

Now I esteem Chuck Norris and three-chord Rock as much as the next guy, but I am still a tad skeptical about Mike Huckabee's chances of winning his party's presidential nomination.

It seems doubtful, for example, that he will carry New Hampshire--if only because Evangelicals there do not comprise anywhere near the 38% of Republican voters that they do in Iowa. It is estimated that about 18% of the Republican electorate in New Hampshire is Evangelical (versus, incidentally, a whopping 53% in South Carolina).

Continue »

The inimitable Democratic advocate and aforetime Michael Dukakis campaign manager, Susan Estrich, was recently quoted on Fox News as saying: “But when the Republicans nominate Huckabee? Honey, I’m dancing at the Inaugural ball.”

Dancing? Honey, if Huckabee is selected by the GOP crack out your limbo poles in January 2009. Buy enough Twister mats for 10,000 socked feet. And tell Howard Dean to stop his childish hoarding and to share his Xavier Cugat LPs with us all!

But exactly how ebullient should Democrats and others be about last night? Howard Dean must be happy because Democratic voters came out in droves. The Obama people, for their part, have every reason to be delighted. True, the Democratic caucusing ritual is so convoluted that its results must always be interpreted with caution.

Continue »

I suppose this top-ten list should be prefaced with a disclaimer -- something to the effect that I loathe top-ten lists, that they simplify a complex reality, that they are the solvent of critical thinking skills, that they pose a national security threat, etc., etc. But the truth is that I rather fancy them. In small quantities -- like those cookies that come in seasonal gift baskets with oddly doughy consistencies and 73 grams of saturated fat per serving.

What follows is my list of the nine biggest Faith and Values developments of the 2007 campaign (plus one facetious question):

Continue »

In my last post, I asked Democrats to identify the GOP presidential aspirant who had the greatest chance of being crushed like a vulgar mosquito by either Clinton or Obama or Edwards on Election Day.

Now it is your turn, esteemed Republican voter. Who is your cherished McGovern? Your beloved Mondale? Your hard-to-top Dukakis? Your oh-so-kind Kerry?

Who do you want to see grinning unsuspectingly, drenched in a cascade of balloons and confetti, arm draped around a running mate, swaying a-rhythmically to music piped in over the massive sound system (Led Zeppelin's "Fool in the Rain," perhaps?) at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August?

My contribution to this discussion about the biggest potential loser consists of risk-assessing the candidates’ Faith and Values liabilities. And let me stress that for the first time in recent memory the Democrats have far fewer of these than their GOP counterparts

Continue »

I know many registered Democrats who are exemplary, civic-minded Americans. They do not view national elections as mere contests, games in which their “team” must emerge victorious at any cost.

No! For them, the electoral process is about gaining acquaintance with the two most qualified candidates for the presidency. Their sincerest hope is that the GOP selects the best person for the job. This assures that the issues which most concern our citizens will receive their most serious hearing.

The question I am about to pose is not for this type of Democrat:

Which of the current front-runners do you want to win the GOP’s presidential nomination, if only because he will be trounced by either Hillary or Barack or John? Put differently, who do you want the Republicans to designate as a winner, knowing full well that he will be a loser come Election Day?

As always, when it comes to ethically dubious endeavors, I am here to help. What follows is a brief analysis of the most glaring Faith and Values liabilities of the leading Republican contenders (A Democratic version of this exercise will follow shortly):

Continue »

The God Talk was kept to a cathedral-like whisper at Thursday’s Democratic Debate in Iowa.

Joe Biden cited one line from a Catholic hymn. Barack Obama referred to his church in passing. Hillary Clinton spoke of children reaching their “God-given potential.” And that was the sum total of religious rhetoric at an event which, in terms of set design, graphics, and color schemes, looked like it could have been staged circa 1983. Aesthetically speaking, this was the garage band of presidential debates.

Mike Huckabee knows a thing or two about garage bands. At Wednesday’s GOP debate (sponsored by the same news organization) he showed that he also knows how to collapse the distinction between the private and the public. During that segment of the broadcast where candidates aired their promotional videos he opined as follows:

Continue »

Precious little was said about Faith and Values during last night’s Republican Presidential Candidates Debate held in Johnston Iowa.

Mike Huckabee cited Matthew 25:40 (It wasn’t his first time and it won’t be his last). The former governor of Arkansas also insisted that faith must drive a politician’s judgment and value system. A clear sign, indubitably, that he: 1) does not share John Kerry’s concerns about candidates wearing their faith on their sleeves, and, 2) can be expected to thump the Bible hard in the coming weeks.

Then there was Alan Keyes. When he wasn’t chastising the moderator (and others) he reminded us that the Constitution is subservient to the Creator. Not an uninteresting formulation, actually. Article II, Section 1 demands that a president must “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Call me a talmudist, if you must, but Keyes raises a good theoretical question: if God Himself were to come down to earth and wreak havoc with our cherished constitutional liberties would an American president be obliged to take Him on?

Aside from that, there was little God Talk at last night’s encounter. The proceedings were civil and sedate, though not overwhelmingly substantive.

And this is where my post would conclude had not my wife--a New York fashion stylist currently living in exile--wandered into the room. Her impromptu comments on the sartorial strengths and weaknesses of the men assembled on stage livened up an otherwise dull evening. Our shared observations are noted below:

Continue »

I once had a student--oh what a funny kid!--who when called upon to read passages aloud would recite them in a thick, nearly incomprehensible, Scottish brogue. He first stumbled upon this innovation during a discussion of John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (about which more anon).

His attention to historical detail led him to speak like a seventeenth-century Scottish guy (even though Locke was born in Britain). His comic sense led him to speak like an old seventeenth-century Scottish guy. What led him to pronounce certain gutturals with those harsh, mucusy inflections one hears in modern Schweizer Deutsch is anyone’s guess.

My students and I loved it. So much so that by mid-semester we implored him to unleash his impersonation on all the theorists we studied in the “Introduction to Secularism” seminar. Gentle reader, you have not glimpsed joy until you hear the sentiments of Voltaire, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Arendt, Russell and Sartre (especially Sartre) being spoken by a fellow who sounded like a sheep herder from the Mormaerdom of Angus.

Why am I mentioning all of this? I have found myself thinking incessantly about Locke since Mitt Romney’s Faith and Values speech last week.

Continue »

Sometime in the coming weeks I will point out that far from being a speech in the Kennedy mold (as advertised and as spun), Mitt Romney’s Faith and Values address marks a complete and long-coming reversal of JFK’s (and 20th Century America’s) understanding of the proper place of religion in public life. The Golden Age of American Secularism, as I call it in my forthcoming book, is over.

But rather than dwell on these troubling verities, permit me to momentarily bask in my own wonkish glow. In a radio interview with the Washington Post’s Emily Freifeld on Wednesday I was asked what I thought Romney might speak about on Thursday.

For months now, I have been sort of waiting for a (GOP) presidential candidate to play the secular card. He would, I always imagined, cast all of those decent, hardworking, non-believing Americans and believing ones who advocate separation of Church and State in the role of public enemies. He would charge that they are unraveling the nation’s moral fiber. He would depict them as Willie Hortons with advanced degrees, furloughed by the Democrats and a liberal judiciary.

My hesitant response to Ms. Freifeld was to suggest that Romney just might--who knows?--take on the secularists. Think, after all, of how much mileage the old Moral Majority got out of the boogeyman of “secular humanism.” That worked pretty good.

Well, yesterday Mitt Romney done went and did it!

Continue »

Mitt Romney is scheduled to give a major address about Faith and Values this Thursday. What with all the "Kennedy in Houston" spin and parallels being bandied about it might be helpful to take stock of what we have learned about his campaign thus far.

Media representations of Mitt Romney’s religiosity have oscillated between two opposing themes. The first might be called Romney the Mormon.

No shortage of journalistic angles here. Will anti-LDS prejudices surface as White Evangelicals (among others) consider a candidate who enthusiastically shares their agenda? How closely does the former governor of Massachusetts live by the precepts of his religion? And what exactly are the precepts of his religion, anyhow?

Continue »

On Friday I devoted 99% of my 20/20 vision to a peculiar question asked by a participant in the CNN YouTube Republican presidential debate. You remember the one—a fellow named Joseph from Dallas dangled a King James Version of the Bible directly in front of the camera and asked: “Do you believe every word of this book? And I mean specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand.”

Continue »

At Wednesday night’s Republican CNN/YouTube Debate Joseph from Dallas pulled off the complex feat of simultaneously creeping out a good part of the nation all the while provoking three GOP presidential candidates to bear their scriptural souls. His question, asked with more than a smidgen of menace, was phrased as follows:

I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book [he places the cover that reads “Holy Bible” in front of the camera]? And I mean specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand [turning the spine of the text to the camera indicating that it is the King James Version]. Do you believe this book?

Continue »

It is my opinion -- and I’ll concede that I am probably not inner-tube floating in the American mainstream here -- that persons of questionable moral scruples can make perfectly good presidents.

I will refer to this way of thinking about national leaders as The French Model in honor of François Mitterrand. When the president of France died in 1996 his long-time mistress was in attendance at his funeral. Anne Pingeot’s appearance at his grave (with her child by Mitterrand) surprised absolutely no one in the Hexagon. That none of his other mistresses (and their little ones) had the common decency to pay their final respects, now that was surprising.

Of course, Mitterrand’s hyper-ambiguous Vichy past cautions us against fetishizing a public servant’s categorical right to privacy. For our purposes, we must understand that the French Model denies the existence of any correlation between personal ethics and political competence. And in this way the French Model is radically different from the approach we have had stateside for the past few decades.

Continue »