Today: Clueless Katie Worries Leaders Guided by Religious Faith Violate "Church-State Separation"
The Today Show | governsleast governsbest
 

With several news reports popping up in recent days documenting the decline of the The Today Show, Katie Couric seemed to be treading on eggshells this morning in her discussion of religion in politics.

She lacked her usual venom in attacking conservatives and 'the religious right.' But despite her attempts at self-restraint, her liberal light ultimately shown through.

The segment opened with a report of how Dems are trying to compete for religious voters. Did you know, for example, that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has formed a "Faith Working Group?" Gag me with a PC- translation gospel.

And in a statement that should chill traditional Catholics to the bone, Howard Dean was shown proclaiming that "the social program of the Dem party is almost identical to social program of Catholic church." With the minor exception of the killing of 40 + million babies since 1973, I guess.

In to discuss the issue was former Clinton mouthpiece Dede Meyers and the perpetually bow-tied Tucker Carlson, whom Katie by the way described as a "conservative" commentator. Wonder when Katie last described any of her guests as a liberal?

Exposing her profound cluelessness, Katie asked "is courting Christian conservatives or people of faith the new frontier?"

As Carlson aptly noted, "it's the old frontier," pointing out how Dems often campaign in black churches, and how Clinton would ostentatiously lug his Bible to church. Of course the tradition goes back much further than that. Anyone remember William Jennings Bryan, "Cross of Gold" speech of 1896, for example?

Even Dede had to agree with Carlson that appeals to religious voters are a time-honored American political tradition.

Katie seemed to be determined to suggest that there was something wrong or exclusive with Republican attempts to reach out to Christian conservatives.

Tucker rightly observed: "it's a simple fact that the most religious voters tend to vote Republican. And it's not a matter of a given faith. Joe Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, was far more popular among conservative Christians than other groups, showing it's more a matter of supporting someone of deep faith, rather than a matter of the particular faith involved."

Finally Katie could stand it no longer, and blurted out her real feelings in the guise of a question: "are Republicans overreaching by courting Christian conservatives too aggressively?" Of course Dede Meyers agreed.

Then came the clincher. Couric asked this profoundly ignorant question:

"What about the policy of separation of church and state that the Founding Fathers believed so deeply in? What role should religious beliefs play in decision making?"

As we know, there is no policy of separation of church and state. There is the Establishment Clause which, while providing that there shall be no established state religion, equally provides that nothing shall interfere with people's free practice of religion.

Beyond that, Katie seems to believe that it is somehow wrong or dangerous for politicians to be guided by their religious beliefs and that this somehow violates the Establishment Clause. How?

In any case by what would Katie like politicians to be guided if not by their most deeply-held moral convictions, founded in religion? Das Kapital? Mein Kampf? Alice in Wonderland? Silent Spring? Really, I ask, in Katie's mind, what should be the guiding light for people, including politicians, if not religion?