Wrong.

Steve Waldman.

I was thinking about the readers who suggested that I had been unfair in claiming a liberal hostility to evangelical Christianity. Fair point, I thought. I probably should have said "many liberals" rather than caricaturing liberalism per se…

The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

Every candidate for whom this secular liberal has ever cast a vote has been religious. Clinton—religious. Gore—religious. Lieberman—religious. Kerry—religious. Edwards—religious. Durbin—religious. Daley—religious. Bayh—religious. Right down to the mayor of my current small town of residence in Indiana—all of them openly religious. Some of them are even evangelical Christians, even if not the conservative brand.

And if Kerry had not won the nomination in 2004, and instead it had been any of the other Democratic contenders, I would have been casting a vote for a religious candidate, too.

I’ve voted for evangelical Democrats, Catholic Democrats, Protestant Democrats, Jewish Democrats.

I have not, however, voted for any atheist Democrats—not because I wouldn’t, but because there aren’t any to vote for.

Give me a break with the liberals don’t support religious candidates swill. If that were true, none of us would ever vote. And give me an even bigger break with the alleged impact we supposedly have on the party’s image and approach. If that were true, we wouldn’t be looking at a field of all religious candidates in every bloody election.

The only people to whom Democrats don’t seem religious enough are people who want to continue to push the ridiculous meme that there’s only one brand of religion in this country. Try asking someone who isn’t religious. I can assure you none of them will see a shortage of religiosity on any Democratic ticket.