To be honest, I thought the “anti-Catholic” charge against Schumer et al was overblown. But I’ve been re-thinking that, in part after reading Peter Beinart’s angry denunciation of the Republicans making the accusation. Beinart writes, “A three-year-old could see the logical fallacy here.” He continues, “Democrats dislike Pryor’s views on abortion and gay rights–they don’t care whether he came to those views through Catholicism, Judaism, or by reading Edmund Burke. As it happens, almost half the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who voted against Pryor’s nomination are themselves Catholic.”

Well, I must be 2 1/2 years old, because I think there’s merit to the logic. Imagine if the Agriculture Committee announced that no nominee for a senior position in the Dept of Agriculture could get the job if he holds “very, very deeply held views” against the mixing of milk and meat or on the eating of pork. Now this prohibition could be based in totally secular rationales. But it would still result in barring anyone who’s kosher from getting the job. In short, no Jews (or Muslims) need apply. And this is what Schumer is in effect saying because he does not believe that someone with such “deeply, deeply held views” could enforce a law he does not agree with in his private life.

Now, someone might say in defense of the policy, “Well, not all Jews are Kosher.” And that would be true. But it’s also true that the test would bar devout and observant Jews. In other words, it would prevent sincere adherents of their faith from serving in public office. That’s a particular no-no in the United States of America.

But you can take religion out of it. What if we amend the Constitution on gay marriage? Will this mean that gay, particularly ones with “deeply, deeply held views,” need not apply? My guess is that a conservative who said gays cannot serve in public office because they cannot separate their private lives from the professional duties would get in quite a bit of trouble (just look at the screeching over boy scouts). The relevant question is whether Pryor or anybody else can do the job, not whether they dislike the job they might have to do.