forgetting that Carter and Clinton were MUCH more open about their religion, and much more vocal about.
I'm not getting my point across. I'm trying to distinguish between being vocal about their personal religious beliefs and entwining their religiosity with public policy. The former can be annoying and I think is sometimes inappropriate. I do have a distaste for evangelical, in-your-face religious expressions from public officials, particularly divisive ones. There's a big difference, though, between that and merging church and state in one's platform and in the performance of one's official duties.
Yes, I'm aware of the stuff you're talking about. I was just as shocked as you over the incident re votes for Gore. I'm not crazy about any of it, but I don't get really exercised until there are government programs and actions at issue. I think that much of the media is like me, wanting to keep the secular secular, which is why I made the comment that I did. I see a big difference between Carter and Clinton on one hand and Bush on the other. And I don't think it's partisan on the part of the media except to the extent that the Republican Party is the political arm of US Christianity.
EDIT: Re your point about Bush haters, yes, I recognize that particular species. I just don't attribute everything negative said about Bush to that particular phenomenon. The Bush haters see everything in black and white just as the Clinton haters did. Most of us see pros and cons in everyone. There are sometimes reasonable explanations for distinctions that are not a function of knee-jerk Bush hating and I think this is one of them. I offered a plausible explanation, one that I happen to think applies. That's not to say that no Bush haters ever criticized Bush for his religiosity, only that there are other possible explanations for criticism. |
