Just last week, an op-ed appeared in USA Today which could confirm the darkest and most hysterical fears among liberals that America might degenerate into a tyrannical and oppressive “theocracy.” Surprisingly, the left is hardly concerned at this development, and in fact endorses the idea, since the writer of the column was none other than Illinois Senate Democrat and presumptive “rising star” Barak Obama.

 

Thus, the situation proves that such pontificating among liberals is as phony as it has ever been. In truth, their contrived alarm at the threats of religious domination of public thought is no more reflective of sincere belief than their sporadic support for “religion” as a worthy component of public policy. Rather, they reveal continuing efforts to manipulate the voting public.

 

On the subject of religion, Democrats are as transparent as Islamists who claim to be interested in “peace.” Particularly during the past dozen years, monumental examples abound.

 

In the immediate aftermath of the ‘94 election, in which the “Christian Right” rose to prominence on the political scene and thereby turned electoral tides against the tenets of liberalism, shell-shocked Democrats recognized the critical need to present themselves as supportive of religion in American life.

 

Yet having been joined at the hip with pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and counterculture interests, this endeavor represented an insurmountable task. Nevertheless, the consummate political hacks within their ranks made the effort.

 

Among the first attempts by Democrats to bridge this gap was the vastly overplayed issue of “church burnings.” Of course, being Democrats, such demagoguery could not be pursued without infusing an element of race. So for the next few years, America was treated to an unending barrage of stories of “black churches” ostensibly being burned by white racists.

 

Ever the compulsive panderer, Bill Clinton led the charade by “recalling” the tragedy of church burnings during his childhood that, it was later learned, never occurred. Unfazed, Clinton engaged in gratuitous exploitation of the issue, such as his public promise to meet with football pro and Minister Reggie White, to discuss the issue.

 

Of course, once the cameras were gone, Clinton made no effort whatsoever to follow up. And in the aftermath of the ‘96 elections, the entire subject evaporated into thin air.

 

Since that time, virtually every Democrat who aspires to higher office seeks to give lip service to the notion that “religion” is highly esteemed and venerated among Democrats, but only between bouts of bashing true Christian principle to the delight of the Party’s anti-Christian base.

 

Al Gore, having once referred to Conservative Christians as the “extra chromosome crowd” (suggesting that they are mentally impaired), nonetheless saw the light and during the early days of the 2000 election season explained the purpose of mankind as being “to glorify God.” Dr. Falwell could not have said it better.

 

Had he been sincere (a dubious possibility at best), Gore’s words would place him at the extreme conservative end of the religious spectrum. But few worried at the prospect. This was merely more Democrat posturing.

 

Likewise, John Kerry claimed in his predictably shallow manner, that he would “prayerfully” consider the decisions he would make as President. Somehow, this caused no more alarm in his liberal camp than the possibility that he might be pro-military.

 

And no such list would be complete without mention of DNC Chair Howard Dean who, prior to making his infamous “Joyful Noise” upon losing the Iowa Caucuses, asserted to those ignorant Southern Baptists in Dixieland that, as a deeply religious individual, he was their kindred.

 

Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton has fallen into the same pattern, asserting her own spirituality just in time to lay the groundwork for her ‘08 run for the White House. Specifically, she assures us that Jesus Christ is an “open borders” kind of guy.

 

Ultimately, the dilemma that liberals continually find themselves facing, whenever the topic of “religion in America” confronts them, is that the enormous constituency known by many as the “religious right” defines its concerns just as inflexibly as it always has. That translates to certain unshakable and foundational moral principles such as respect for innocent human life, and the Biblical nature of true marriage.

 

Yet from Obama to Clinton, the futile effort is being made (and not for the first time) to persuade Christians that they should simply abandon such things, and substitute in their place the real issues of importance as defined by the American left. These include “choice” (abortion), “tolerance” (gay “marriage” etc.) and, of course “social justice” (which encompasses every aspect of the counterculture from affirmative action to the welfare state).

 

And if a few buzzwords are all that it takes to convince them to blindly follow (being that America’s Christian community is so gullible and simple minded), it is a small price to pay.

 

Time will tell whether the eloquent and articulate Senator Obama will be any more successful in this ruse than his predecessors. In any case, the left need not be alarmed that his statements reflect a recognition by the Democrats that the nation needs to return to its Judeo-Christian roots.

 

This latest shameless bout of pretentiousness by Obama, like those equally shameless Democrats before him, indicates nothing but continued and total contempt for those values. All is well within the Democrat Party.