Analyzing and critiquing how a person interprets and practices their faith in relation to their world-view and political policies, especially in application of the law in a pluralistic nation, is a significant aspect of vetting.

Critics who don't understand religion may (and sadly often do) verge into intolerance & even bigotry.

And that's not a good thing.

But recognizing when leaders have theological positions that might harm or endanger others' rights or freedoms is necessary.

This is especially true for those who hail from religious traditions that value the life of the mind. Theology isn't a side issue, can't be compartmentalized. It is foundational to how people define basics like rights, human nature, and even to the meaning of the law itself.

I strongly suggest that both the media and Democratic leaders consult and learn from academics and legal theorists who understand the current conflicts in Catholic intellectual circles, esp regarding authority, women's rights, and the theology of law.

Ask Catholic leaders how to analyze and critique without failing into the trap of anti-Catholic bigotry (which is a real thing in America).

As a matter of fact, it is a form of anti-Catholic bigotry to FAIL to recognize that Catholicism itself is diverse and conflicted - there are many Catholics who hold controversial views (both left and right) that aren't necessarily in line w/ church or legal traditions.

To avoid discussing this is a form of ignorance and intolerance.

We regularly analyze Protestants on the bias of their theologies, practices-no one says it is "anti-Protestant bigotry" to talk abt the differences btwn Robert Jeffress (SoBap) and Michael Curry (Episcopal bishop).

We should be able to talk about a nominee's religious views as openly as we talk about that person's views on, say, originalism. Religion is part of any justice's interpretative grid (even if their religion is "no religion"). It is not the only thing, but it is one thing.