A Washington Post article on Kerry and religion

John F. Kerry, a lifelong Roman Catholic, carries in his briefcase an unmarked manila folder stuffed full of religion articles, scriptures, personal reflections — and a sermon the Democrat has been fine-tuning since the early 1980s.

In the latest iteration Kerry borrows the words of James, reputed brother of Jesus, to condemn President Bush’s leadership. “It is not enough, my brother, to say that you have faith, when there are no deeds,” Kerry told thousands of African American Christians gathered in Indianapolis earlier this month for the annual convention of the AME Church. “We look at what’s happening in America today, and if you have a conscience and if your eyes are open, you have to say, ‘Where are the deeds?’ For the last four years, all we have heard is empty words.”

The speech, based in part on James’s New Testament teachings on Christian social responsibility of nearly 2,000 years ago, was revealing, overtly religious in tone — and one of the rare times Kerry has expounded at any length about his views on faith during this campaign.

Outside of black churches or meetings with African Americans such as those at the NAACP convention yesterday, Kerry has been largely silent about the personal Catholicism that once inspired a flirtation with the priesthood and the Christian beliefs friends and family say guide his life and political thinking.

Amy Sullivan, a former aide to Senator Daschle, is quoted in the article, clarifies her statement on her blog and has a piece on similar themes up on The Revealer

Perhaps Kerry should have taken a page from Bush’s playbook. What Republicans have learned is that if a candidate asserts his religiosity vigorously enough, political writers will label him a “religious man” without asking what that really means or why voters should care. This hands-off approach usually favors Republicans, who get a pass from reporters reluctant to engage in Scripture-quoting contests, but it can also be seen in the treatment of African-American politicians, who are assumed to be more sincere about their faith, and in the way the press approached Joseph Lieberman’s religiosity.

This kind of coverage is not only inherently unfair, but it cheapens political discourse and does a disservice to readers and viewers. Until religion reporters Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times and Alan Cooperman of The Washington Post lent their expertise to the “Is John Kerry a Good Catholic?” story, readers would have been excused for thinking that the issue was one that pitted Kerry on one side against the whole of Catholicism on the other. That interpretation fit neatly into the “John Kerry isn’t really a man of the people” storyline that has already been launched in the campaign. Both religion writers led the way in explaining that, in fact, the debate reflects a deep split within the Church and that more bishops have spoken out to oppose the denial of communion for political reasons than to support it. Badly-needed context for this ongoing debate gives voters better ways to assess Kerry’s role in it.

However, reporters shouldn’t necessarily draw the lesson that they should entirely avoid the topic of a politician’s faith. Because they shirk their duty just as much when they fail to ask tough questions of candidates who bring their religion into politics and make their religiosity one of their selling points for office. Does Bush dissent from the teachings of his religious tradition, the United Methodist Church? Yes he does, on some critical political issues. Has he been reprimanded by leaders in his denomination? Yes, particularly on the issue of war in Iraq. And if political reporters want to make this a question of who’s a good Christian, then it is fair to ask why President Bush rarely attends church. The candidate who has staked his domestic policy on the power of civil society and of good Christian individuals to change lives isn’t an active member of a congregation – the very kind of organization in which he claims to have so much faith.