comparative religion

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Apr 30, 2007

The Washington Post reports-- and contributes to-- a lot of muttering about the fact the 5 Supreme Court justices who composed the majority in the partial-birth abortion case are all Catholics.

Is it dangerous for public figures to bring their religious beliefs into public life? Much chin-scratching on that issue, with a scholar named Mark Silk trying to find consensus:

Speaking generally rather than to the case at hand, Silk said Americans want balance in their public officials. "We want people of faith, but we don't want them making decisions based on their faith."

Thank you, Washington Post. Now we pick up the day's New York Times, noticing the front-page photo, above the fold, of a presidential candidate speaking in a church. The candidate, the caption notes, "cast his presidential campaign in biblical terms."

"It is difficult to tell," the Times story says, "whether [the candidate's] religious and political beliefs are fused or simply run parallel."

But oddly enough, the Times story carries not a single quote from a skeptic worrying about religious influence, or a scholar questioning whether it's proper for a politician to impose his personal beliefs on the public. When Barack Obama does it, it's OK.