In his column today, P-I columnist Joel Connelly attacks my Counter•Intel column from last week.

Connelly begins:

We have, especially in this “unchurched” corner of America, a faction that actively mocks religion and seeks to stigmatize people of faith.

Accurately and bluntly, it’s the last form of bigotry that is socially acceptable.

A case in point: Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., recently committed the secular sin of voting to deny federal dollars to Planned Parenthood. He also has supported federal funding for faith-based organizations.

On Seattle’s Capitol Hill, The Stranger set out to explain these votes in terms of Reichert’s religious affiliation: He is a member of the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.

Connelly is referring to my column. Indeed, using Reichert’s recent (losing) vote to deny Planned Parenthood federal money, I wrote:

Reichert’s hardcore vote is noteworthy because it’s one in a series of Reichert votes—with the exception of his meaningless vote, practically speaking, with the Democrats on Terri Schiavo—that abandons facts on the ground apparently for the dictates of his religion. Other votes include his vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; his vote allowing federal dollars to go to faith-based organizations even if those organizations have discriminatory practices; his vote for stricter abortion parental notification laws; and his vote against stem-cell research. Reichert did cast later votes for stem-cell research—thanks to his tough reelection campaign in an increasingly liberal district— but they seem meaningless and politically calculated given his previous vote and given the safe margin by which his party rejected the idea.

Until the Bush era, it might have been considered tacky to report on a politician’s religion. But Reichert’s GOP—which pushes moral values and and intelligent design and abstinence-only education and limits on abortion rights—has made religion a political issue. Reichert did not return my call to talk about his politics, but given his vote last week, the time for being polite about religion is over.

Sure, it makes us uncomfortable to bring up someone’s religious beliefs—this is traditionally a private matter. But when private matters start undermining public policy (women’s health) and when moral superiority is used to win elections (remember the moral values vote of 2004—the election that swept first-time GOP candidates like Reichert into office), it’s time to make things uncomfortable for those who would force their religious values on others.

Connelly also ends his column calling me a “bigot.” (Actually, he doesn’t name me, I’m simply “the author” at The Stranger.)

His main gripe seems to be that I didn’t confirm that Reichert’s votes were related to Reichert’s conservative religion. Connelly writes, “In reading The Stranger, it became evident that the author of the article about Reichert had not talked with Reichert.”

It probably “became evident” because I acknowledged as much in my column. I wrote: “Reichert did not return my call to talk about his politics.”

It’s also evident, reading Connelly’s column, that he didn’t talk to Reichert (or me, for that matter, before calling me a bigot.)

I called Reichert’s office for the story, and I told them exactly what I was calling about. I was told he would call me back. He did not. (In doing the reporting, by the way, I also found that Wikipedia had posted inaccurate quotes about Reichert’s supposed religious extremism. My reporting caused Wikipedia to take the comments down. Connelly makes no mention of that.)

I agree with Connelly that my article would have been better if Reichert had called back and talked about his votes and his religion. (The Seattle Times’ David Postman, who was also uncomfortable with my article, was fair enough to contact me and ask me directly about it. He did not follow up with an article.)

However, given the GOP’s exploitation of religion and values, I believe the onus is on Republicans who vote to dictate morals (and health care options) for others to prove they aren’t channeling their openly right-wing religions and those religious agendas. Connelly, having not spoken with Reichert himself, fails to make the case that Reichert isn’t voting his religious values.

(I had the courtesy to call Connelly for this Slog post, and Connelly acknowledges that he did not talk to Reichert for his column. He reports that he plans to talk to Reichert about it. I’d like that chance as well.)

The fact is, Reichert’s wing of the GOP has become an elitist Christian bloc, and they need to be called on it. Questioning whether Reichert takes his marching orders from the Christian Right doesn’t mean I’m a bigot, it means I’m paying attention.