Which Party Presumes to Speak for God?

This double-standard has been driving me crazy for years: liberals can talk up God all they like without raising any eyebrows from the press. But the minute conservatives mention the G-word, it's a prelude to a fundamentalist theocracy.

I think the reasons for this are two-fold: 1, the press is liberal. Okay, so that's not exactly a Pulitzer-worthy observation.

And 2, the press knows that when liberals mention God, they don't mean it. They're just pandering to the inbred knuckle-draggers of the hinterlands. It's shameless and utterly dishonest, which is why, strangely enough, it's "better" than when a conservative mentions the Allmighty.

Um... okay, that's not really much of a newsflash either.

Paul Kengor at NRO finally writes what many of us have been screaming about for years:

Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation's presidents, including his most recent predecessor. I researched the Presidential Documents (the official collection of every public presidential statement); an examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush's 4.7.

Such pressure was never placed on Bush's Democratic predecessor. Bill Clinton's top year for presidential Christ remarks was 1996 — the year of his reelection campaign — when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.

Twice as much in an election year, you say?

Not to be cynical, but I question the timing.

More -- much more -- at the link.

And... Speaking of double-standards, I wonder if conservatives will also be allowed by the press to joke about killing political opponents.

Seems to me that John Forbes Kerry has already admitted to "cutting off ears, cutting off heads, blown (sic) up bodies, shot livestock and burned crops" and all the rest of it. By his own admission, the man has a well-documented (?) record of indiscriminate violence in the service of advancing a corrupt regime.

He's clearly a dangerous individual. One might even call him a "desperate loner with nothing left to lose."

I think we should take his threats seriously.