Senator Kerry, Faith & Politics

Hugh Hewitt recently made an unlikely comparison between John Kerry and Stan Laurel. Frankly, I don't get it.

John Kerry is intelligent, smart, calculating and cold.

Stan Laurel is simple, simple, simple and lovable.

John Kerry is a man of many words.

Stan Laurel is a man of few words.

John Kerry isn't funny.

Stan Laurel is funny.

John Kerry has a wife named Teresa.

Stan Laurel has a friend named Ollie.

John Kerry has spent his life running.

Stan Laurel has never been seen running.

I will certainly grant Hugh the one point that both men are famous for their whining, but beyond that I still don't get it.

If I were to correlate John Kerry with an entertainment figure I would probably choose Wile E. Coyote.

Both have long, narrow faces.

Both are determined.

Both run and run but never get what they want.

Both never seem to give up and quit.

Both have great ideas that usually manage to backfire.

Plus, it's hard not to feel sorry for both of them.

It is true that Wile E. Coyote says very little if anything except for holding up a sign that says "Help" every once in a while. This is in contrast to John Kerry who often says more than he should and, so far as I know, has never held up a sign that says "Help." For that matter, I am not aware that John Kerry has ever fallen off a cliff, landing with a puff of dust on the canyon floor below, either.

Nonetheless, I am much more comfortable with this analogy for one other reason: The Acme Company and the Democratic National Committee have been equally valuable in helping their particular client to succeed....that is to say, to succeed in running flat out into rock walls painted with illusory train tunnels and soaring high into the sky with rockets tied onto their backs where they subsequently implode.

John Kerry's speech on the Senate floor yesterday was just as much an attempt to "catch and eat" the Republican majority as Wile E.'s rock catapults are used in his attempt to "catch and eat" Roadrunner. And just as successful.

Kerry seems to have a problem with Republicans seeking support from people of faith. He seems to have a problem with Republicans using "faith" as a platform by which to communicate their political agenda.

This is ironic since Kerry has never seemed to have had a problem seeking support from people of faith himself. Nor has Kerry ever seemed to have had a problem using "faith" as a platform from which to communicate his own political agenda.

It's odd that I can never recall John Kerry speaking to a white congregation, only African-American ones. It will be interesting to see what color the "people of faith" will be when they appear with Senator Frist this coming Sunday evening.

I wonder if Black faith does not really count as "faith" for Kerry. And why does he believe that it is only Republicans who "appeal to religious division?"

In 2004, John Kerry, spoke "at a predominantly black church with veterans of the (civil rights) movement."

Kerry sprinkled his remarks with scriptural references calling for matching faith with deeds.

"We need to remember those words as we march forward against a sorry politics where too often words suffice, where deeds aren't demanded," said Kerry, ridiculing promises Bush made during the last election.

Let's see, this sounds suspiciously as if Kerry was saying, "My scripture and faith move us forward while the scripture and faith of my opponents produce 'ridiculous promises,' 'sorry politics' and 'words without deeds.'"

The news article that described Kerry's Sunday church presentation also stated that,

Taking his campaign to the heart of the deep South, Sen. John Kerry said Sunday he faces the same "politics of last resort" that confronted marchers seeking equality in the civil rights movement.

This sort of sounds like he is implying that the people who worship at George W. Bush's church are no different than "Bull" Conner, George Wallace (who was a Democrat, by the way) or the KKK (of which Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was once a member).

Just one year after this church "sermon" the same John Kerry, now standing on the Senate floor, has the nerve to state,

Forces outside the mainstream now seem to effortlessly push Republican leaders toward conduct that the American people really don't want in their elected leaders, inserting the government into our private lives, injecting religion into debates about public policy where it doesn't apply.

Dear me, no! We wouldn't want to "inject religion into debates about public policy" would we? Except, of course when injecting religion into debates about public policy "does apply?" And when is that, Mr. Kerry? When you speak during Sunday morning worship services in African-American churches, quoting scripture and suggesting that Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular, are attempting "to divide the nation along racial lines?"

Is that injecting religion into a debate about public policy where it does? or does not apply?

It seems that it is permissible for Senator Kerry to rally African-Americans from their church pews to rise up against the empty promises of Republicans but it is not permissible for Senator Frist to rally 1,000 Christians from many different denominations, races and economic backgrounds to rise up and protest the Senate minority's blocking of the nomination of conservative judges to U.S. Appeals Courts.

Please, Mr. Kerry, people of faith can be led by that faith to arrive at different conclusions about political policy. It is disingenuous indeed to suggest that it is improper to take a political stand based, either in part or in whole, on one's faith.

I have never heard a Republican leader say that "my faith is better than" someone else's. What they do say is what I believe you would wholeheartedly agree with, that "my faith has led me to affirm certain core values in relation to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that appear to be different than yours."

In the end the issue at hand is not really one of religious faith at all. It is not religious belief that determines American law and policy but those who are elected to office by a majority vote and those who are nominated by them to appointed office. If that majority happens to include a large group of voters who share common values drawn from similar religious beliefs, it is both unconscionable and unconstitutional to state that the public expression of that faith is somehow "crossing a line" that should not be crossed or somehow corrupting the political system.

It is not wrong for Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or anyone of any other faith (or no faith at all) to vote their conscience as a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Jew. Nor is it wrong for a politician to honestly do the same.

John Kerry has neither spoken nor acted like a Stan Laurel. He has acted like a cocky coyote who has plunged, with confidence, into a situation that is too deep, too complex and too fast for him to fully understand. As always, there will be consequences. Just ask Wiley E.

Those watching the show will get a big laugh out of it. "Beep. Beep."