Just amplifying a point made yesterday by Ace and today by Sean Davis. Forget about whether Scott Walker thinks Obama’s a Christian or even the more basic question, contra Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher, of whether Obama actually is a Christian.
Do the mostly sympathetic reporters who cover him believe he’s a Christian? Do they believe he’s the sort of serious Christian that he professes to be at, say, the annual National Prayer Breakfast? Davis wonders.
The media’s religious treatment disparity [between the parties] makes perfect sense once you consider a few things: 1) rather than just reporting the news, the real goal of many so-called reporters is to protect Democrats while attacking Republicans, and 2) many of these reporters themselves actually doubt the religious authenticity of the Democratic politicians they so admire (that dynamic alone explains why Obama received little pushback during the 2008 campaign when he claimed that his faith required him to oppose same-sex marriage; when non-Democrats do they exact same thing, they’re attacked as hopeless theocratic bigots who hate civil rights).
Why do they ask probing theological questions of Republicans, but not Democrats? Because they they think Republicans will defend core theological principles if they’re attacked, and because the reporters believe those defenses will alienate the Republicans from the electorate. It’s why Hillary will never, ever, ever be asked if she believes Christ was literally born of a virgin and literally rose from the dead after three days and then literally ascended into heaven, where he literally decides whether you will go to hell or not. It’s why Barack Obama will never be asked how his Christian faith informs his belief that there’s nothing wrong with butchering a perfectly healthy and viable 38-week old baby in utero…
Hillary needs to showcase her softer, more spiritual side? Perfect, they can help her with that. Obama needs a graceful way to oppose gay marriage so he can avoid alienating a religious voting bloc? By all means, that’s his right. Affirmations of faith are fine, just so long as D.C. media don’t think the liberal politicians making them really believe in all that silly God talk.
Obama’s beliefs are textbook Ivory Tower liberalism in nearly every way but one, and that one conveniently happens to be a prerequisite to holding higher office in a heavily Christian country. Obama being a devout Christian is a bit like your local gender studies professor being really into guns. It’s possible, but … come on. Nearly 20 percent of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion and roughly seven percent identify as either agnostic or atheist, but the total number of admitted atheists among Congress’s 535 members currently stands at zero. Even among the very secular left, you simply do not profess disbelief if you want to wield power in the United States. (Barney Frank felt safer politically coming out as gay while in Congress than he did coming out as an atheist.) And the media, which strongly favors Democrats and itself includes many people who identify with smart-set liberalism, understands this and lets them slide on it. That’s why, as Davis says, Obama’s been given a total pass for claiming in 2008 that he opposed gay marriage as a matter of faith. They didn’t take his position seriously because they don’t take his faith seriously. He’d “evolve” when it was safe to do so, they thought, and they were right. When forced to choose between Christian orthodoxy and left-wing orthodoxy, he’d choose the latter every time. That’s a Christianity they can respect. In the end, as long as Obama’s faith continues to lead him to the doctrinaire liberal position on virtually every policy choice, it’s academic whether Obama sincerely believes or not. A Christianity that’s a handmaiden to the progressive agenda in all respects is a faith, maybe the only faith, worth respecting.
That’s why they stay away from hard questions for Democrats about when life begins and whether Christian grandmas should have their businesses shut down for refusing to cater gay weddings. If Christianity is useful only to the extent that it serves progressivism, why would you highlight contradictions between the two? Why would you press Hillary on her supposed experiences with the Holy Spirit? Either she’s lying outright, as “boob bait for the bubbas,” or she’s telling the truth, in which case the “party of reason” is set to nominate someone who’s talking to the same invisible forces that that retrograde Republican goon Scott Walker is. Rest assured, if Walker announced this afternoon that he’d prayed on it and concluded that his faith required him to undo the collective bargaining law in Wisconsin, the media would have the greatest respect for this pious man of conscience who bravely defied his party to serve the Lord, i.e. liberalism. As it is, Walker insisting he’s not sure what Obama really believes, despite the fact that the media clearly isn’t sure either, is a grievous offense. When they start to care that Obama lied transparently about what his supposedly deeply held faith required him to believe about gay marriage six years ago, then I’ll care about Scott Walker not taking Obama at his word.