And David begat Amy, and Amy...

...oh, please, make it stop. Steven Waldman is the latest David Brooks disciple (he actually calls him "my favorite conservative") to spout off about Kerry's so-called "religon problem" in a piece for Slate called "John Kerry's dubious approach to religion." (Yes, I loaded Slate to read it. Blame Atrios. Find the link there. Some things I just won't do.)

"...if Kerry's uncomfortable with religion then he's uncomfortable with Americans," he writes, declaring that "If Kerry's really secular, he's abnormal." The problem is that there's no evidence offered, perhaps because there's none existing, that Kerry is "uncomfortable with religion," or "really secular."

Indeed, as Hendrik Hertzberg has written in The New Yorker,

"Kerry’s biography contains hints that his Catholicism is somewhat more devout than was that of his political hero and role model. Kerry was an altar boy, and as a youth he considered the seminary and a career in the priesthood. There is no evidence that any such thoughts ever crossed the mind of the first J.F.K."

And as Kerry himself has written in this excerpt from his book "A Call To Service" which I found at Beliefnet, where Walman is the editor-in-chief,

I am a believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic. And being an American Catholic at this particular moment in history has three particular implications for my own point of view as a candidate for presidency.

The first two follow directly from the two great commandments set forth in the Scriptures: our obligations to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and to love our neighbors as ourselves. The first commandment means we must believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. They may not always be that clear, but they exist, and it is our duty to honor them as best we can.

The second commandment means that our commitment to equal rights and social justice, here and around the world, is not simply a matter of political fashion or economic and social theory but a direct command from God. Christian bigotry and intolerance are nothing less than a direct affront to God's law and a rejection of God's love.

There is a third facet of being an American Catholic. To a larger extent than Catholics elsewhere, we have supported and relied upon the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state to guarantee our right to worship and our liberty of conscience...

That sounds like a man confident of and comfortable with his faith, if clearer than some about the risks of extending private devotion into the public sphere. So does this.

"My entire person is affected by my belief structure, by the values given to me both through my parents and through religion," he said. "But I don't make decisions in public life based on religious belief, nor do I think we should. I think there is a separation of church and state."

and this

"...if you're a person of faith, as I am, it's your guidepost, your sort of moral compass, your sustaining force if you will, in everything that you do. But I think that even as that is true, I've always -- maybe it's a little bit the New Englander in me or something -- you wear it in your heart and in your soul, not necessarily on your sleeve."

Based on the ease with which I found those passages, it seems to me that if he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve, John Kerry has no trouble addressing the issue clearly and resolutely.

The other end of the argument put forth by Waldman and Sullivan is that while Kerry may be a man of personal faith, he's under the influence of the 'abnormally' secular forces in the Democratic Party that have silenced him on the subject. It's easy enough to demonstrate that he hasn't been silenced, and, thankfully, Digby has done some heavy lifting in setting the rest of the story to rest, noting that

All this infighting is, once again, playing into established Republican talking points to our own detriment. It simply is not true. Democrats are as religiously observant as Republicans and with the exception of the fundamentalists and extreme Christian conservatives, religious people vote with the Democrats as much as with the Republicans. (If we are going for Christian Right votes then might I suggest that we also adopt some racist rhetoric and promise to cut taxes for the rich. Those votes are ours for the taking.)

At least Waldman's spew issues from a demonstrably regressive outlet, as opposed to Amy Sullivan's avowedly progressive perch at The Gadflyer. In either event, citing David Brooks as an authority does little to advance the validiity of their arguments or the credibility of their progressive credentials.

And in the end, they're just wrong.

Enough.