May 15^th

 A column in today’s paper by Kathleen Parker merits attention. Ms. Parker is concerned that politicians on the left are leaning heavily on the Christian beliefs of those on the right. She begins by admitting the obvious, that religious folks, “… come in many stripes, checks and polka dots.” Then she goes on to complain that, “Members of the Christian right—evangelicals and Catholics especially—are treated to the sneers of lefties, academics, and certain but not all media.”

I’ll try not to sneer here, but it won’t be easy because I am a leftie and a retired academic. Some of these fundamentalists are criticized not because of their religious beliefs but because of their actions. For example I have no problem with the Reverend Huckabee’s fundamentalism. He seems willing to accommodate the religious beliefs of others but I disagree with his position on gay marriage; he is opposed to it. Now I would disagree with that position if Huckabee were of any religious persuasion or no religious persuasion at all; my disagreement with Huckabee on this matter has nothing whatever to do with his religion.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Huckabee is quite willing to deliberately mislead his audience regarding the country’s unemployment situation. (I’ll repeat it here for the infrequent reader: Huckabee claimed there are 93 million unemployed. He gets that figure by counting children, mothers caring for children, retirees and others not looking for work.) His religion does come into play for he is lying and most professed Christians would maintain that lying is not Christian, so he is a hypocrite as well.

Then we have the Catholic Church hierarchy; I’m speaking here not of Catholic individuals but specifically of the church hierarchy. When Jack Kennedy ran for President many in this country were suspicious that his religious beliefs would allow the Pope to control his political agenda. He had to work very hard to convince voters that he would not permit such control. Now, many years later, Jack would have a much more difficult time. In 2007 his nephew Patrick Kennedy was told by the Bishop of Providence R.I. that it would be “inappropriate” for him to present himself for communion due to his congressional stance on abortion. In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro got exactly the same message. Even the current more liberal Pope Francis, as Bishop in Argentina forbade “wayward politicians from receiving communion.” Benedict XVI in a visit to Mexico pointed out that politicians who advocated euthanasia or abortion were subject to excommunication according to Cannon Law.  It is obvious that this Church is more than willing to use its heaviest hand to force its religious agenda on those who do not share its religious views. That behavior, for many of us, is simply appalling!

What about those whose religious convictions lead them to believe physical events that are simply contrary to fact? In many cases that is irrelevant; if you have come to believe that you can become ruler of your own planet after death, as some Mormons do, this belief can have no practical effect on your government agenda. On the other hand if as Dr. Ben Carson believes, that “evolution is a myth” then this may seriously affect his push for funding certain kinds of biological research if he is elected to any office, let alone elected to the Presidency. Dr. Carson’s fundamentalist beliefs lead him to assertions of fact which are contrary to the evidence currently influencing most biologists researching this area. So is he being criticized because of his beliefs? Of course he is, but only because those beliefs could produce unfortunate results if he achieves the Presidency.

One might ask what happens to funding for medical research if we have a Christian Science President when Christian Scientists believe that the remedy for all illness is contained in the Bible. Ms. Parker doesn’t say.