From a pluralist standpoint (at least in theory) I supposed that was a good thing. Let people be and they’ll let you be. From a theological standpoint it was ludicrous. Baptists are Baptists; Methodists are Methodists; Neo-Reformed Unassociated Conglomerated Pentecostals are Neo-Reformed Unassociated Conglomerated Pentecostals for really important reasons within their respective creeds.

But if all religious belief is relative and inter-connected and Rove says he’s a Christian, who is Moyers (or anyone else) to say he’s not? And if Rove corrects Moyers, the least Moyers can do is offer a retraction. Seems like a Christian thing to do.

But what do I know? I’m an Atheist who voted for Bush in 2000 despite his profession of faith.

I don’t think Moyers was making any remarks on essential beliefs here–he was merely reporting as fact that Karl Rove has said he’s not actually a Christian, which Rove then categorically denied while Moyers continues to stand by his “facts.”

And to be perfectly clear I’m not saying Moyers ever said that to vote for a Christian because you are a Christian is an unacceptable mixing of church and state–that just always seems to be the underlying implication when people complain that Christians voted for Bush solely because he is one.

It is amazing how some think it is un-Constitutional that someone would let their religious beliefs inform their political views.