Sexism and "religionism"

Okay, I know you've heard this sentiment before, but try to imagine the application of similar words to a male candidate:

The Sexy Puritan
Sarah Palin embodies a powerful new Christian right archetype. What could that mean for America?

This article offends on two levels: First, because it sexualizes the candidate and reinforces the perception that Democrats have lost all respect for women. Second, because it slams the woman's faith -- thereby making hash of Democratic attempts to pretend that they don't hate evangelical Christians.

Don't misunderstand me: I haven't lost my own antipathy for fundamentalists of all stripes -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu. But at least I'm honest about my irreligion -- unlike a certain candidate who advertise himself with the words "Committed Christian," even though everyone knows damned well that his church attendance was always a political charade.

Remember when FactCheck.org used to be friendly territory for Democrats? Now they expose many of the inane tales about Palin. No, she did not advocate teaching Creationism in schools. No, she is not a Dominionist. No, she did not try to get Harry Potter banned from the library.

What differentiates these yarns from the "Obama as Muslim terrorist" silliness? Is it necessary to ascribe monsterhood to someone whose political philosophy differs from yours?

(This right-wing site claims to have proof that Axelrod has directly manipulated the so-called "netroots" to spread anti-Palin smears. The Kos connection to a fake video is particularly noteworthy.)

If Democrats try to argue that religious belief, in and of itself, disqualifies one from office, aren't they feeding -- no: justifying -- fundamentalist fear-marketeers?TV preachers and apocalypse-mad hucksters have made millions selling wild tales about an upcoming time of Christian persecution. Some anti-Palin rhetoric makes that paranoia seem like prophesy.