Kerry and Conversion

With the rise of the secularist/religious split on matters of culture, law and politics, sniping between evangelicals and Catholics has decreased remarkably in the last twenty years. There are still occasional signs of tension, however, especially when a vocally moral evangelical is pitted against a purportedly amoral Catholic in the race for President.

Marvin Olasky, the intellectual guru of compassionate conservatism, recently wrote a column in which he characterizes himself and Bush as not having had "to save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviors. John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party."

In his speech last night, Zell Miller indicated that he "can identify with someone [like Bush] who has lived that line in 'Amazing Grace,' 'Was blind, but now I see.'" Given that this line was delivered in the midst of a maelstrom of Kerry-bashing, the implication is clear: Kerry is still blind, or (more charitably) that he simply lacks such a "road to Damascus" moment.

Catholics are "born again" (born of the flesh and born of the spirit), but most lack the singular conversion experience of evangelicals, instead being gradually formed as Christians through a series of deliberate decisions. Why on earth would calling attention to this distinction be relevant in today's religious and political climate? Is there enough lingering anti-Catholic sentiment among the GOP's evangelical base that Olasky or Miler might think that an "us versus them" signal holds promise? Maybe these are just stray comments, but they struck me as holdovers from a thankfully bygone era.

Rob