The emphasis on religion is part of a national effort by Democrats to use religious language to explain their public policies. The Democrats got religion after last November's election in which "moral values" voters were perceived to have helped the GOP to victory.
But there is an important difference between being positive and constructive in the use of religion in the public arena and being negative and destructive. It's constructive for a Democrat to talk about the religious basis of his antiwar belief, just as it is constructive for Mr. Bush to talk about freedom as every person's God-given right. But it is destructive for Democrats to suggest that Mr. Blunt is not living up to his Christian beliefs because of his Medicaid cuts, just as it would be for a Republican to say that Ms. McCaskill is a bad Catholic because of her pro-choice beliefs.
Those politicians tempted to attack their opponents on religious grounds might first consult the Gospel of John: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."
Really an excellent editorial. And something that needs reinforcing frequently: hypocrisy is a personal pecadillo with GOOD SOCIAL EFFECTS, so its condemnation should be a matter for private reproval, rather than public self-righteousness. If you treat it as a public matter, you have done something very interesting: first, you have invited the standard to apply to you, and second, you have entered the fray of moral values with a handicap, since you can hardly suggest that giving up moral values is a good thing for people to do.