Skip to comments.Rebel With a Cause: [Louisiana Governor] Bobby Jindal's Spiritual Journey
Posted on 07/31/2008 6:26:24 AM PDT by rrstar96
In 1988, 16-year-old Piyush Jindal totaled his father's new car a few weeks before graduating from Baton Rouge High School. Piyush -- who then and now prefers the nickname "Bobby" he adopted from "The Brady Brunch" sitcom -- had to assess more than fender damage with his parents.
"Which God do you have to thank for your safety?" Mr. Jindal, now governor of Louisiana, remembers his mother, Raj, a practicing Hindu, inquiring after he escaped from the wreck. For the child of Punjabi immigrants who had announced his Christian beliefs the previous summer, the question was difficult.
Twenty years later, Mr. Jindal, a convert to Roman Catholicism, is being mentioned as one of John McCain's top choices for the Republican vice-presidential nomination. And his strong religious faith is often cited as a potential bonus for the ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Pelican State ping
Faith of Our Fathers ping
Hopefully he’s a closet Hindu who sacrifices chickens in his basement.
The kind of “Southern” guy who will take the Religionists on yet another ride down the path of phony spiritualism.
Just the kind of politician the GOP, Social Conservatives, Values Voters, and the Monomaniacal Single-Issue anti-Abortionists should be backing.
Frankly it no longer matters whether an alleged “conservative” cares about small government, low taxes, limited federal powers, and personal liberty.
It’s all about that hypen (x-conservative) and the best possible rendition of Elmer Gantry.
Your comments indicate that you are a narrow-minded bigot and a fool.
I’d love to have a “perfect” Conservative candidate, but there ain’t one out there on the national level...
Right on friend!
The ‘religious persecution’ whine is the most annoying bit of self pity/self delusion in the nation by far.
These people are so ‘brave’ by declaring their religious beliefs. Give me a break.
I was particularly impressed by this statement by Jindal:
"I don't know why I was struck so hard at that moment," said Mr. Jindal. "There was nothing fascinating about this particular video. . . . But watching this depiction of an actor playing Jesus on the cross, it just hit me, harder than I'd ever been hit before," he said. "If that was really the son of God, and he really died for me, then I felt compelled to get on my knees and worship him."
"It was liberating," said Mr. Jindal about his moment.
did you see this?
After reading the article, I don't understand where your "religious persecution whine" comment originated. There was no whining in the article, and no mention of persecution. It was a thoughtful article describing how Jindal came from Hinduism to Christianity. I pray that on your spiritual journey you too will find Peace, Joy, and Truth.
i hadn’t. thanks for the ping. very interesting read.
i am puzzled about your attack on his religious beliefs. where does this come from?
I thought so too. Although apparently some on the thread think the best strategy for “conservative” republicans to regain control is to kick the “religious right” to the curb.
is that what the point of the attack was? i couldn’t quite sift through the vitriol to get the point.
>>>>Your comments indicate that you are a narrow-minded bigot and a fool.
Slinging religious beliefs about the political marketplace is the tactic of charlatans.
>>>>>i am puzzled about your attack on his religious beliefs. where does this come from?
I believe in Article IV of the United States Constitution.
And what does that have to do with your hostility?
Yes, correct. I meant VI.
“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
>>>>And what does that have to do with your hostility?
Many conservatives (of the unhyphenated type) see the Religionist influence of the last 30 years as a destructive attack on conservatism generally and the GOP in particular.
That pretty much covers “my hostility”.
And yet your hostility to Jindal's Christianity is sort of a religious test in and of itself since it appears to disqualify his for the office of VP as far as you are concerned.
**Mr. Jindal, a convert to Roman Catholicism**
I don’t believe Jindal is phony at all. Why do you say that?
>>>>And yet your hostility to Jindal’s Christianity
My hostility has nothing to do with Jindal or with Christianity (probably since I am a Christian).
Is is 100 percent directed at those who make religious backgrounds, beliefs, or heritage either an overt or tacit political benchmark (or “test” as Article VI says).
I love it when the biggest religious bigots here on FR - and there are many of them - come back and say “Article VI only applies to the government, not to ME!” somehow conveniently forgetting that ****they are the government****.
Every line of the Constitution should be in every American’s heart.
**kick the religious right to the curb.**
Then I guess I would be there with you.
>>>>I dont believe Jindal is phony at all. Why do you say that?
Next question please.
This thread is posted in the “Religion Forum”; we discuss religious topics all the time.
Why are you attacking religion.
**see the Religionist influence of the last 30 years as a destructive attack on conservatism generally and the GOP in particular.**
Actually, reading your Bible, religion is going to save the conservatives, in my opinion.
If you do not wish to see Religion Forum posts, do NOT use the “everything” option on the browse. Instead, browse by “News/Activism.” When you log back in, the browse will reset to “everything” - so be sure to set it back to “News/Activism.”
oh so you are of the “they’ve had their boots on our necks long enough” belief system. ok. thanks.
>>>>Why are you attacking religion. This thread is posted in the Religion Forum; we discuss religious topics all the time.
One cannot criticize the religious tests of potential GOP and “conservative” candidates in the Religion forum?
Or is religious influence on the GOP and conservatism something that is not allowed to be discussed?
nothing in this story, of Bobby Jindal's religious journey, bespoke of any religious test. YOU injected your own personal animus on that subject to an otherwise benign thread on the religion forum.
Recent changes to the software resulted in the Religion Forum posts being intermingled with News/Activism by default. Some posters - even oldtimers - were shocked to see such disagreements for the first time.
And so I let them know - as I let you know - if you do not wish to see the disputes, do not use the "everything" browse option.
>>>>>>nothing in this story, of Bobby Jindal’s religious journey, bespoke of any religious test.
Paragraph 3: “his strong religious faith is often cited as a potential bonus for the ticket.”
Even when it is written in black and white and there for all to see, the true Religionist will deny that any kind of religious test is employed against conservatives and GOP candidates.
I did notice a jump in religious material.
Just for the record, I have nothing against religion but I have very grave concerns about the intermingling of religion and politics.
So if this material appears in News/Activism it will certainly get my (concerned) attention.
again, your personal animus colors your perception. there are those who would consider religious faith to be a bonus in a candidate. you see it instead as a disqualifier. my TEST in deciding to vote for a candidate is whether they are prolife or not. i don’t care if they are an atheist. maybe your TEST would involve a candidates position on illegal immigration. people of faith, people of NO faith, have their own TESTS in considering candidates. going off half cocked because a potential candidate’s religious background is being discussed only demonstrates your animus.
>>>>you see [religious belief] instead as a disqualifier.
The core of your misunderstanding is that I see it (as does Article VI) as a completely irrelevant non-issue.
And religion also has nothing to do with conservatism whatsoever.
The conflating of religion and politics is in fact destructive and dangerous.
What did George Washington have to say about that?
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.How about John Adams?
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
There are tons of quotations from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin making exactly the opposite points, and it is completely disingenuous to pretend they weren;t speaking about two different contexts of expression: private and public.
No need to beat that dead horse, you know exactly what I’m saying and what they said.
>>>theyve had their boots on our necks long enough belief system.
Don’t understand the reference.
So are you suggesting that in my evaluation of two candidates -- one of whom is hostile to Evangelical Christianity and its interpretations of Scriptural principles and one of whom professes Christianity and supports my interpretation of Scriptural principles as they apply to current topics of concern -- when I base my choice in part on the respective philosophies of the candidates I am casting my vote in violation of Article VI of the Constitution?
i see the eradication of religion from politics and the marketplace of ideas as demonstrably destructive and dangerous. Article VI prohibits a religious test, however it does not prohibit religious people from holding office. A candidate’s faith, just like what books they enjoy, whether they have pets, or children, is going to be a matter of interest. Some people may vote for a candidate because he has a German Shepherd, other’s because he is a man of faith. People cast votes for a variety of different reasons, religion is merely one of them. secular progressives run amok will be our undoing as a nation.
apparently angkor would PROHIBIT consideration of a candidate’s religious beliefs, in his interpretation of the Constitution.
>>>>>supports my interpretation of Scriptural principles as they apply to current topics...... when I base my choice in part on the respective philosophies of the candidates I am casting my vote in violation of Article VI of the Constitution?
That a particular political position happens to mesh with your religious beliefs is irrelevant, because it could very well simultaneously mesh with those of the atheist, the Hindu, the Jew, or the Buddhist. Morals and ethics are not usually the province of some specific religion, but usually are common to the polity.
Beyond that, why would a candidate be discussing the doctrinal and sectarian issues that are pertinent to a specific faith? What’s the point?
Dissing the intent of Article VI as you have done above is no different than dissing Amendments I to X, IMO.
>>>>Article VI prohibits a religious test, however it does not prohibit religious people from holding office.
Yes, that’s the point made over and over and over again by our Founders.
so what’s your gripe with an article that details bobby jindal’s religious journey? your response seems way out of proportion to the article and to this subject in general. people are going to vote for religious people for office because they are religious. it’s not prohibited by the Constitution and there really isn’t a darn thing you can do to stop them. so, again, why are your panties in a twist about this piece?
These people are so brave by declaring their religious beliefs. Give me a break.
BRAVO! Somebody needed to say it. I've always called "BS" since Father Healey kept telling us that Catholics were "persecuted" in the United States, despite the fact that Catholic politicians ran our state, and that declaring oneself a Catholic opened one up to "persecution." Yeah, we are living in Stalin's USSR.