While I'm anxious to see Virgil Goode out of Congress, I have not been overly excited about the Perriello campaign so far. My reservations have nothing to do with policy positions; for the most part I agree with the positions stated on the Perriello for Congress website. Rather, my concerns are with Tom's openly religious motivations for his positions. This is a concern that a number of people have expressed to me over the last several weeks.
I met Tom Perriello for the first time tonight at a campaign event in Martinsville. My wife and I expressed our concerns to Tom, pointing out that the mix of religion and politics has not had a good track record over the last decade.
Tom's response was interesting and unexpected. He made a distinction between religion in legislation (which he says he opposes), and religion in politics. He said that religion does have a place in politics if for no other reason than to understand the motivations of politicians. If a politician is casting a particular vote for religious reasons, that motivation should be public, not rationalized.
I have to say I found Tom's response rather refreshing. Rather than a simple platitude, he addressed a difficult issue directly. I still have concerns about religion in politics (the Bush years can't be erased in a single night!), but I feel a lot better about Tom's campaign. This November, instead of just voting against Goode, I'll be voting for Tom Perriello!
Understandably, many on the left fear the mingling of religion and politics, because they have seen it result in moralizing legislation that is distasteful to anyone who believes in personal freedom, and the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and the legacy bequeathed to us in the Declaration of Independence.
All I think Tom is saying is that his public sense of right and wrong are informed by his religious beliefs, and in a country where the overwhelming majority of people say they believe in G-d, he is not alone. And there is nothing wrong with that all.
Our moral sensibilities are influenced by many things -- our experiences, for one thing. Perhaps the literature and music that has influenced us. Why should religion be excluded from this list of influences that makes us what we are?
This is quite a different approach than the moralizing crusaders of the right wing, who view religion as an unalterable, self-justifying truth. If someone opposes abortion on the grounds that G-d opposes it, or sees homosexuality as a sin, then there really is no discussing the matter.
But if someone says, "From my reading of the Bible I have concluded that...," then respectful and meaningful discussion of how someone ought to reflect that lesson in their lives can follow. Sometimes they will agree with me, and sometimes they won't, but that is all right.
When you talk about religion in public life, too many progressives see the former, and not the latter. Leaders like Tom, however, hold the promise of changing that perception, and if he and others are able to do so in districts like VA-05, then we will be on our way to building a nationwide majority for a truly Progressive era in America.
I have no interest in a candidate -- or even a minister -- who says, "The Bible says XXX and that's the answer."
I have a little more interest in a candidate who says, "I have read the Bible, and what I think it's getting at is ..."
Best is, "I have read the Bible, and Jefferson, and Darwin, and King, and I have concluded that ..."