As predicted last Thursday, the anti-religious nonsense has begun to flow with the nomination of Amy Cony Barrett for SCOTUS.  On Friday, the host laid out what he saw as the rules for this game.  His opinion is that the people vetting Judge Barrett may not apply a religious test of any sort, as prescribed in Article VI of the constitution (sounds like there is a blog title in that somewhere?), but that the press is free to make arguments about faith all they want.  Well, the press can say whatever they want, but that does not mean they are right and that does not mean they should go unchallenged.

And so into the fray.

We will be reserved in what we do and do not address here.  Common, ordinary, anti-religious drivel will be allowed to pass relying upon res ispa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself.)  But every now and then someone is going to say something that needs to be addressed.  The first such piece appeared in the NYTimes Saturday by Elizabeth Bruenig.  Ms. Bruenig deftly acknowledges that anti-religious bigotry is real, but then goes on to claim there reman legitimate concerns.  (“Well, black people do have equal rights, they can’t help it if they are not smart enough to use them”)  It is as if bigotry is measured not by the prejudice, but by the ugliness or taste with which it is delivered.

But having set herself up to appear as one of the well-meaning, nice bigots, Ms. Bruenig then begins her actual argument with a real whopper:

The United States is unusual among nations: We are a country founded along the contours of a philosophy. That philosophy, liberalism, is the logic that underlies our founding documents and our national ethos of individualism, self-reliance, liberty, equality and tolerance. Whether we live up to those values is another matter; they are our reason for being, and the principles that bind us together.

Is Ms. Bruenig describing the French Revolution or the American founding?  Is she addressing what really happened, or some fantasy version of history.  I do not dispute that liberal philosophy played an important role in our founding, but it was far from the only influence.  Direct Christian thought played a major role in our founding as well.  Further, classical liberalism has roots in Christianity itself.

Secondly, she ignores church history.  She quotes Locke extensively and his inherent distrust of Catholicism, completely ignoring the fact that Locke was born while The Reformation was still on-going, and that the Roman Catholic Church of Locke’s day was an extremely different organization than the one we encounter today.  Not to mention that some anti-Catholic bias may have made its way into Locke’s thinking as the then fledgling Church of England was still struggling to establish a separate identity and authority.

Finally, there is this, “Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations.”  Neither does any other self-respecting faith expression, Christian or otherwise.  That completely ignores that fact that moral and legal obligations are different things.

But the most stunning thing about this piece is the “been-hear-done-this” feeling of dejá vu I get writing this response.  Change the particulars and I have had these same arguments concerning Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith all those years ago.  This is political opposition, playing on religious bias.  It is therefore a promotion of bigotry, disguising itself as anti-discriminatory.  So regardless of how reasonable Ms. Bruenig sounds, or how scholarly her argument seems she is just another anti-religious bigot.

Besides, whatever sway Ms. Bruenig may hold in the American public, the Senators that will vote on Judge Barrett’s nomination are prohibited by the constitution from applying a religious test.  So in the end, unless our Senators wish to ignore the constitution, all Ms. Bruenig has done is reveal her own bigotries.  I think we may see a lot of that over the next few weeks.  It’s just sad really.