I Finally Agree With Hannity On Religion

Earlier this week, Sean Hannity interviewed Republican presidential contender Governor Mitt Romney (transcript). At the very end of the interview I nearly snarfed my beverage because Hannity actually said something I totally agree with:

"HANNITY: You know, Governor, I've had many, many friends that are members of LDS, Latter-Day Saints, Mormons, and I know you probably are frustrated, because I know every interview I've seen you in, this issue keeps coming up. It does not come up for any other candidate. And it's really troublesome to me, because it seems like they are creating for you a religious litmus test. And I will tell you, fundamentally, I view this as unfair. Your thoughts?"

Booyeah, Mr. Hannity. Booyeah!

What he appears to be saying is that we need to take religion off the table in the context of the politics and especially the presidential campaign, and to disregard the religious preferences of the candidates. It's "fundamentally unfair," and Mr. Hannity is exactly right. Of course, I would add that it's unconstitutional to mix religion and politics all around, but you know -- baby steps onto the elevator.

So on this day in March of 2007, I would like to pledge my support for Sean Hannity as he endeavors to strip religious litmus tests from the presidential election discourse. Today, religious litmus tests. Tomorrow, the use of the phrase "litmus tests." Baby steps onto the bus.

Surely, Mr. Hannity will strive to adhere to the secular issues of the campaign. If we should take Hannity seriously -- and he seems like a serious man -- we can logically conclude that Mr. Hannity won't apply this standard to the Democratic candidates. Candidates like Senator Obama, whose church Hannity has compared to a cult. Or what about Congressman Keith Ellison? Mr. Hannity compared Rep. Ellison's use of the Qur'an to being sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf. That seems fundamentally unfair.

American democratic politics is about debate, participation and compromise. The framers of the Constitution understood that religion and faith don't permit compromise. They understood that the establishment of religion by the government could limit participation by excluding minority religions. And they knew from centuries of Christian governments, wars and persecution, that debating issues of faith was impossible. Faith implies a blind adherence to certain moral and ethical principles, and when faith is broken down in the context of a debate, the faithful will never concede.

While the iron's hot, we should take Hannity at his word and strike religion from American politics. With Hannity leading the charge, maybe he could convince John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly to make the same pledge. Sadly, though, Hannity clearly became caught up in his man-love for Governor Romney and didn't really mean what he said across the board. Oh, Hannity, you and your man-love (Dick Cheney's going to be jealous, Sean). But no religious litmus test for Governor Romney -- test the Democrats all you want...

You're not a Christian? Damn you. You adhere to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution? Damn you. You see the danger of fundamentalist Christianity bleeding into American lawmaking? Damn you. (It's worth noting that the first veto by James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, was against a bill which appropriated federal money to a church for helping the poor. A faith based initiative, if you will. It's also worth noting that Thomas Jefferson was blasted in the press and by political opponents for being a deist -- he didn't believe in, among other things, the divinity of Jesus.)

For a brief moment, I really thought Hannity was sliding towards rational and independent thought. But then I realized that to attribute rational thought to a zealot like Hannity was... fundamentally unfair.