I’ve never been more on fire for the work that I’m doing. I hope that I’ll find a way to continue to pioneer this path for the Democrats. I’d love to be involved in continuing to build up the voices of faith in the party and providing the training and infrastructure on the ground to state parties, to future candidates, to reach out to these constituencies, because I just believe that the religious community can be the conscience and the soul of the Democratic Party, and the more we bring that back in, I believe, the stronger our party will be, the better we’ll be able to represent our positive vision for the future, and I think it’ll help us start winning elections again.Atrios, not a religious person at all as far as I know, takes exception to the arrogance implicit in Vanderslice’s assertion that “the religious community can be the conscience and the soul of the Democratic Party”. Observes Atrios: “[T]his is part and parcel with the basic messages people like me get regularly from people all over the spectrum, that atheists and agnostics lack a conscience and a sense of values, and these things only come from religion and the religious.”
Atrios is right. Theologically, too. Vanderslice’s unselfconscious remark, meant for her own brand of religious insider, reeks of the same kind of spiritual vanity we’ve seen all too often from the self-anointed “religious left.” “The religious community can be the conscience and the soul of the Democratic Party”? As in, nobody else has a conscience, or a detectable soul? Amazing how much unearned snottiness, to say nothing of bad theology, can be encapsulated in just a couple of definite articles.
I’d like to take all these hustlers, Jim Wallis, Mara Vanderslice, Brian O’Dwyer, and the rest of them, roll them up in a paper bag, and toss them into a room with nothing to read except the archives of Slacktivist. There’s what actual religious seriousness looks like. Meanwhile, speaking as a religious person, I’ll take Pharyngula and The Rude Pundit over the lot of them.