Hell to pay
Hell, it has to be said, has not of late had the media attention that once it commanded.
Brimstone is seldom mentioned.
That has now changed with not one but two references to the inferno in a political context.
Firstly, had descended upon him after he forecast in 2008 that the worst recession for 60 years was upon us.
In retrospect, that looks like comparative optimism.
At the time, though, it was regarded as a betrayal of his party's Panglossian verdict that all remained for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
According to Mr Darling, Downing Street formed part of the hellish legion sallying out to attack him.
Presumably, some eager Special Adviser saw it as his/her role to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer right. David Cameron reckons it was the departed Damian McBride.
Or, perhaps, Alistair had one of those full and frank exchanges with his neighbour for which Number 10 is so renowned.
Gordon Brown insists he never instructed any briefing against his Cabinet colleague.
But that hellish image? I mean, come on.
Can you think of anyone - anyone at all - in the Prime Minister's present circle who could conceivably adopt the role of Mephistopheles: the Prince of cunning, the champ of calculation, the lord of manipulation? No, thought not.
Alistair Darling, I think we may safely assert, was speaking figuratively.
It fell to me to interview the Chancellor in his Edinburgh home on the morning in 2008 when the row broke.
He looked notably drawn and tense, certainly. But there was nothing to indicate that the origins of this were anything other than worldly.
Speaking figuratively
To our second hellish reference, then.
Did you catch the Cardinal on GMS this morning?
Keith O'Brien said he had advised Labour's Holyrood leader Iain Gray that he hoped the Pope had a word or two with him during his planned Scottish visit.
To be precise, he said to Mr Gray:
"I hope he gives you hell for what has happened over the last 10 years."
He was speaking figuratively, wasn't he? Of course he was.
in areas such as the family and marriage.
He was responding to a speech by the Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy in which he sought to reach out to those of faith.
"Reach out", that is, by persuading them to vote Labour.
Lest there be any doubt, Mr Murphy was quite explicit here.
He was not merely seeking to engage with faith groups.
He explained that Labour had a lead over the Tories among the religiously committed at the last General Election - and that required to be "replicated".
This, said Mr Murphy, could be done by an effort to "reflect and respect their values and aspirations."
Philosophical dichotomy
The Scottish Secretary was addressing diverse faith groups, including those which are salient in his own East Renfrewshire constituency.
He was in no way confining his comments to the Roman Catholic Church.
However, it was the Scottish Catholic leader who responded most vigorously.
Right, said the Cardinal, if you're respecting our values, let's start with tax breaks for marriage. And civil partnerships - we're not happy. And abortion......
It strikes me that there is a philosophical dichotomy underlying all this.
By definition, faith groups sustain unchanging beliefs.
They base those convictions upon a credo, what they hold to be revealed divine truth.
For example, when seeking a foundation for their way of life, those in the Judaeo-Christian tradition will turn to Exodus and Deuteronomy, not a party manifesto or think tank or focus group.
Those of faith seek to spread those beliefs, to inculcate faith in others: these days, mostly by evangelism - although there are occasions, in history and today, when more directly persuasive means have been deployed by some.
Theocracy or democracy
Crucially, the views of faith groups are not altered by changes in society nor by opposition from a predominantly secular community.
Indeed, they may often be strengthened by such criticism.
By contrast, a democratically elected politician has to act within the ambit laid down by that very mandate.
They cannot, must not, act without the fiat of the people. If they do not follow that course, they are ejected from office.
The can listen to the views of faith leaders. Of course, they can. But they will always balance those views with other elements in society, reaching a view which, they hope, best reflects prevailing opinion and the best course of action.
I suspect that Cardinal O'Brien, being an astute, intelligent man, knows that perfectly well.
Indeed, he insisted that he did not expect political parties to follow his dictat. He knows well that would be a theocracy, not a democracy.
However, he was understandably taking an opportunity, presented by Mr Murphy's speech, to advance the agenda of his particular faith group.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.