In an ironic twist of fate, Al Sharpton is taking a ride on his own apology tour for his comments regarding Mormonism and Mitt Romney during a debate on "Is God Great?"
I guess his critics ignored Chrisopher Hitchens, whose new book asserts "God Is Not Great" and "Religion Poisons Everything."
So if you criticize part of a religious practice... conservatives can call it bigotry... but if you criticize all religions... they give you a free pass?
Here is my problem with this whole scenario. Wasn't Sharpton's critique in the context of Moromonism's former Hamite racial theology.
Until the Glorious Revelation of 1978, blacks were excluded from priesthood and in some circumstances, membership in the Church of Latter Day Saints.
So for Sharpton, Romney calling him a bigot was a case of the pot calling the kettle... well, you know.
But then again... Doesn't this go towards Christopher Hitchens point (if he really has one)?
Why are elected officials and candidates rarely considered without some public acknowledgement of faith or religious practice? Most religious tests were prohibited before the U.S. Constitution was even drafted!
But that certainly didn't stop the obnoxious Glen Beck from asking Rep. Keith Ellison:
"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'"
Beck goes on to explain that Somalian Muslim immigrants voted Ellison into office. For some reason he failed to mention that Ellison received 56% of the vote in a district that is 73% white. But somehow, Beck conveniently sidelined those facts, and instead targeted the fact Ellison wanted to take his oath of office on the Koran as opposed to the Bible.
While Ellison's political genius shined when he decided to swear in using Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran... what was largely missing from the debate was why should it matter?
And of course, let's not forget Faux News falsely reporting that Obama attended an Islamic Madrassa... until simple journalistic research revealed that madrassa means school and the one Obama attended was not the terrorist recruitment camp conservatives drummed it up to be.
Did that stop the "journalists" at Faux from attacking Obama? Of course not! So several weeks later, it was revealed that Obama was not a Muslim, but instead a practicing member of religious separatist cult! At least this is true if you are the ostensible Sean Hannity. He doesn't seem to like the idea of a doctrine that "uplifts the black community." And even worse, Rush Limbaugh (who must have been off his pills that day) said:
They're African-centric. They refer to themselves as an African people, and that somewhat disturbs me from the viewpoint of, well, do they consider themselves Americans? Do they consider themselves Christians?
Hmmm... if you are disturbed by people who consider themselves African, does that make you more of a bigot than those who merely identify as African? And, if "they" believe differently from the way you believe, are "they" really less of a Christian?
Does it really matter?
Well, in fact, Obama is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ whose liberation theology of social justice has become an issue for many faith voters--conservative as well as progressive.
The list can go on.
Giuliani, like John Kerry, faces questions of his Catholic faith--even within the Church, as one prominent Manhattan parishioner would deny him communion because of his political positions (along with several private matters that were very well publicized).
Edwards almost seemed baffled by why he would even be asked the question about who was his moral leader.
Almost as baffled as the Republican contenders who were asked if they believed in creation.
So if this is where the political discourse is with the issues of personal faith, then what role should personal faith play in public policy?
Or maybe, that very question itself is the problem...
Perhaps if we begin our discussion with of the most thoughtful and genuine public discourses on faith by Barack Obama, as he addressed the limitations of such discourse in his "Call to Renewal" Keynote Address:
If we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
Sadly, insular faith is the legacy of Falwell, and even worse... cynical religiosity has been championed by the Bush Administration.
If this country is to move in a new direction, perhaps we must renew our obligations for one another to pursue social justice--creating inclusive policies that recognizes the rights of all--not only as a political value, but also as a moral one.