A lot of my LDS friends were unhappy about Michael Kinsley's Time Magazine piece, on which my Article VI co-blogger John Schroeder briefly commented. I suspect there has been much pointed response to Kinsley in the blogosphere, but I have made a point of not reading any of that.
Why, you ask? Well, there is not much new in Kinsley's piece; in fact, it is really only a rehash of Jacob Weisberg's now-infamous New Republic article from last December. Weisberg had said, "I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism."
Kinsley, in contrast, does not limit that analysis to Mormonism.
To Kinsley, any belief in the miraculous disqualifies a
candidate from serving as president. For him, any candidate who
believes in the literal truth of the Old Testament, the New Testament,
the Book of Mormon or the novels of Jane Austen is probably too
credulous to be President.
What claptrap. Kinsley's piece simply oozes with condescension toward anyone who does not share his view of life and the world.
I'm sure many agree with Kinsley; but if recent polls are anywhere close to correct, I'm just as sure that the great majority of Americans disagree with him.
Notably, the Kinsley-Weisberg worldview might have some appeal in the general election, but it is not going to be a problem in the Republican primaries. Without consulting any polls, it sure seems to me that the great majority of those who agree with Kinsley are Democrats.
That is not a slap at Democrats, just my guess based on general experience. My point: Romney's so-called "credulity" will not be a problem in the primary cycle of the presidential race. It will probably come up in the general election if the Governor is the GOP nominee.
Which is why I think the most remarkable part of Kinsley's piece is his apparent belief that candidates ought to be grilled publicly on why they believe in their religion:
Above all, we need to see some struggle. Precisely because all religious doctrines are hard to believe, believers and nonbelievers alike have an interest in how a candidate who claims to be deeply religious deals with religion's improbabilities.
" Religion's improbabilities ." I love that phrase. Imagine, if you will, Michael Kinsley moderating a debate involving the Republican candidates for president. Here are some questions he would presumably like to ask:
- "So, Senator Brownback, you are a Catholic. Do you really believe the communion wafer and wine become the literal blood and flesh of Christ in your mouth? And if so, how is it that you can accept such an improbability?"
- "Governor Romney, you have said you love your faith and believe your faith. One of your church's teachings is that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith to show him where metal plates were located that Smith eventually translated into the Book of Mormon. Many Americans find that story improbable. How can you believe it, and if you do, why should Americans who don't believe it vote for you?"
- "Governor Huckabee, you are a Baptist minister and have sermonized on the stories in the New Testament. You've said you have no doubt, for example, that Jesus walked on water. Yet many Americans find that story to be more like a legend then an account of actual events. How is it that you can accept such an improbability? If you do, why should Americans who don't accept it vote for you?"
It's one thing to say you don't believe in the Bible or in miracles. It's quite another to say that anyone who does believe in such things should not be trusted to serve as president of the United States. In fact, it's downright un-American. But that doesn't mean Kinsley's nasty brand of skepticism won't be used — a lot — in the general election, especially if an unabashed religious believer like Romney gets the Republican nomination.
