This video isn’t entirely necessary to watch in full, but irritated me as I watched it last night. Bible thumper comes on and says that homosexuality is against the word of God. Elliot Spitzer is very careful, saying things like “I respect your beliefs” but never addressing the obvious: the Bible says that adulterers should be stoned, as should women who have sex before marriage. If the Bible is the word of God, then you are disobeying God by not following these precepts. The problem with fundamentalists is that they are not fundamentalist enough. Crazy as that sounds – if evangelicals were truly forced to live in the world that the Bible dictates, they’d realize what a dystopia it would be. Does God want a dystopia? But Elliot Spitzer never mentions the ludicrous tenets of the Bible – and if stoning a non-virgin is kind of crazy, maybe homosexuality is evil is kind of crazy as well.
Furthermore, very sick of “I respect your beliefs.” Once religion is used to legislate – following religion as if it’s law – it’s no longer a “belief” but a political ideology. Commentators should not have to be so careful, as if religion is a “personal matter.” It’s hardly personal if they’re trying to bring these ideas into government. Religion is used as a shield – “I do not discuss my faith” – even if that faith guides policy. So someone like Michelle Bachmann can get a pass, and won’t be asked what she truly believes. Does she, for example, want the war of Armageddon? This is a valid question – ludicrous to normal people, but she’s a zealot.
Maybe there will be an article – “Does Michelle Bachmann want the war of Armageddon?” with an outline of Left Behind beliefs, but without asking her about it wherever she goes. If she is truly a Left Behind Christian, this a serious concern – in fact, it’s the most serious concern – and “I don’t discuss matters of my faith” is a disaster in the making. The religious test clause is a good one, a person should not have to be religious to serve – but if someone is deeply religious, the press needs to ask exactly what this means. Questions about the founding fathers are nice, but are only a surface reflection of a fundamentalist core.