Doubtful, of course, but in that case we're seeing a splendid example of similar thought processes: his column recently at the New York Times says many of the same things as a recent article here at the Nuke Free Zone, albeit with a good deal more experience in public life and the resultant authority. Here's one of the paragraphs that most closely echoes the Zone's main points:
Declarations of "faith" are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs. There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state. The other is rank hypocrisy. Having claimed moral authority to achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind.
Or, like the Zone said,
...the listener is intended to hear the statement "I am a man of faith" -- which is meaninglessly broad when spoken to millions of people at once -- and fill in the gaps in the way that that particular listener finds most personally favorable. ... challeng[e] a Republican who seems ready to claim a monopoly on Christian values on the specifics of the articles of faith they would bring to the table in governing. Employing such a response also affords an excellent opening to speak of one's own principles, especially those derived from one's own faith.
So it looks there's growing agreement: don't let them get away with pretty nothings. Drag the face-off back to real principles.
Good. Maybe the stage is set to start examining some of those principles.
Posted by William at November 11, 2004 08:52 PM