Last month, I noted that Amy Sullivan had advised the Democratic faithful that if they expected to have a prayer of winning, they had to learn how to simulate belief. Her article also documented the reasons it was bound to fail:

In order to attract the support of the faithful, Democrats need a candidate and staffers who understand their mindset and can speak their language. Unfortunately, the silence of Democratic presidential candidates on religious matters is matched by the cluelessness of the party apparatus... professional Democrats--the party operatives and Hill staff in Washington--are generally unfamiliar with, and sometimes even quite antagonistic to, religion. As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne observes, "The core problem for liberals is the extent to which they are viewed as arrogant and distant from the understanding of ordinary people. Their attitude toward faith is to look down their noses."

Well, as y'all have seen, apparently Dean got the memo. Christianity Today's Weblog observes, unsuprisingly, it hasn't gone swimmingly.

Dean has gone from:

[Dean] criticized President George Bush and his Democratic opponents for talking too much about religion. "I don't think that religion ought to be part of American policy," he told an interviewer.

To this sort of exchange:

"If you know much about the Bible—which I do—to see and be in the place where Christ was and understand the intimate history of what was going on 2,000 years ago is an exceptional experience," he said.

Responding to this comment, along with earlier statements that Dean has read the Bible cover to cover, a reporter asked the candidate what his favorite book from the New Testament is. He answered by citing Job, a book from the Old Testament.

"But I don't like the way it ends," he said. "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different. … I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later. … Many people believe that the original version of Job is the version where there is not a change, Job ends up completely destitute and ruined. It's been a long time since I looked at this, but it's believed that was added much, much later. Many people believe that the original ending was about the power of God and the power of God was almighty and all knowing and it wasn't necessary that everybody was going to be redeemed."

About an hour after his comments, Dean returned to the reporters to admit that Job was in the Old Testament, not the New. Still, he said, he likes Job. "It's such an allegory," he said. "It sort of explains that bad things could happen to very good people for no good reason."

Asked again about his favorite part of the New Testament, he responded, "Anything in the Gospels."

The New York Times columnist William Safire, who has written a book about Job, says that Dean is right about the existence of such interpretation of the ending of the Old Testament book, "though there's no other Job book in Scripture with an optimistic ending other than the familiar one. I think he means that some scholars believe that the Old Testament Book of Job that we know was amended by later rabbis fearful of portraying God as unjust."

Still, he takes issue with Dean's application, noting that the candidate told reporters, "I'm feeling a little more Job-like recently."

Safire concludes, "He identifies with the Gentile from the Land of Uz, now called Iraq, because he feels he is being unjustly punished for standing up to authority. How's that for chutzpah?"

Meanwhile, Dean's press secretary is doing damage control. "[Dean] obviously has read the Bible and knows the passages fairly well," Doug Thornell told The New York Times. "But just in terms of having a theologian's knowledge of the Bible, he doesn't want to pass on the impression that he does."

But if Dean doesn't want to pass on the impression that he's well-versed in Scripture, perhaps he should stop starting sentences with "If you know much about the Bible—which I do."

The real problem with Dean's approach to religious speech is less on questions like "What's your favorite New Testament book," and more with questions about his religion's applicability.

"At a breakfast here Saturday, Dean had an opportunity to discuss his faith when an Iowan asked what sustains the front-runner when his rivals are relentlessly criticizing him," The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei writes. "Instead, Dean shared a secular belief in the power of people to change government."

Yep, that about says it. As Dean puts it, his faith hasn't changed.