On what basis does the non-theistic and practical atheist make moral
choices, which include going to war and capital punishment? One might
answer, "the Constitution," but to many liberals the Constitution is a
"living document" subject to constant interpretation, re-interpretation and
revision to match "the times." So is it the times that shape such a
presidential candidate, or something more permanent?
Democrats, most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have
invoked God and Scripture during their campaigns. But theirs is a selective
reading. Their theology meshes with the political objectives of their party
and personal ideology. They quote Scripture about caring for the poor and
interpret that to mean higher taxes and bigger government. They ignore those
passages that speak of the inner life.
Conservatives can also practice a theology of political convenience,
cherry-picking those subjects that rally "the base" and tickle the ears of
the church-going, while ignoring mandates that make them uncomfortable, such
as opposing racial discrimination, injustice and poverty. They want lower
taxes and smaller government but often are not willing to take up the slack
and get their hands dirty to help the poor, unlike the One they claim to
follow. Not always, but mostly.
While Kinsley asks some good questions, who among the journalists and talk
show hosts has the background to ask them directly of the candidates? Those
without theological training or experience in faith often find such
questions embarrassing because they don't want to face ridicule from their
mostly secular colleagues. But to hide these issues in the catacombs of
journalism is a poor excuse. The questions should be asked of both the
religious and the secular to help voters make up their minds which ones best
adhere to godly principles and to determine what standards govern the ones
who do not.