John Roskam dreams of a world where religious conservatives can be free to express their bizarro ideas without fear of being snickered at by cold rational secularists.

In this country [Australia], a politician speaking about religion also faces the risk of something worse than being thought a nutter. It’s just as possible that anyone who admits that their religion influences the way they vote in parliament will be accused of being a dangerous theocrat intent on introducing the moral majority into Australia.

Oh, pshaw, John. Everyone knows theocrats aren’t dangerous. They just want to siphon a bit of the power to themselves. Who wouldn’t, with God on their side?

But who’s John Roskam? Well, the executive director of the blandly-named-so-as-not-to-arouse-suspicion Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank. He’s argued that culture wars are indicative of a healthy and vibrant society. Lovely. Usually the Australian system of quarantine works pretty well, but it doesn’t seem to apply to ideas from America. He also complains that

When it comes to gaining promotion, conservative candidates need to be at least twice as good as their left-wing opposition. In the face of this, conservatives simply give up.

Think someone’s having trouble getting on in Australian academia? Poor chaps. You’d think they’d empathise more with minorities.

Back to the article.

There is also a contradiction in the way the media reports political and moral statements from the churches. Contributions on “social justice” issues are welcomed, but contributions on avowedly “moral” issues are not. The implication is that it’s entirely appropriate for politicians to pay attention to religious leaders who preach about the treatment of David Hicks or the evils of WorkChoices, but when those same church leaders start talking about abortion or euthanasia politicians should ignore them.

There is a reason why people should ignore church leaders: Basing your ideas on imaginary people leads to real problems.

God is imaginary, and religions are man-made institutions. Their leaders have no more moral authority than anyone else. So I’m glad to hear them say that people shouldn’t be locked up without a trial, or that working people shouldn’t be pitted against each other to benefit business. These are things that anyone with a conscience could say are true. But if they’re going to say that abortion is wrong, or that euthanasia is wrong, I’m going to ask why they think so. And if it’s because of the presumed opinions of imaginary people, then onto the Bozo pile they go, whether they like it or not.

The Priest Class can’t help itself. All that political power, and all they can do is hanker after it. Until they argue that the political power somehow belongs to them, and enough people believe them. Too bad we have people like Roskam to make their arguments for them.

Hitchens:

Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

I do hear this from some Latter-day Saints, partly concerned that Romney’s presidential bid has thrust their (in some ways secretive) faith under the microscope, and partly worried that Romney won’t carry the day because of the resulting criticism. They call it ‘religious bigotry’, and it may indeed be that for a portion of the electorate. But it’s also a real worry when a major candidate thinks that God lives on planet Kolob, or that peoples’ skin colour can be changed because of their moral behaviour.

Refusing to vote for someone because they believe fairy tales is not bigotry. It’s an acknowledgement that the job of president may require some critical thinking. As Hitch says:

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment.

Worth reading.