Posted on 07/31/2008 6:26:24 AM PDT by Ebenezer
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 ...
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?
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.
>>>“they’ve 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.
The intent of Article VI is that the government cannot apply a "No Jews May Apply" or a "No Catholics May Apply" or any other such qualification to prohibit an individual from holding an office. To suggest that the intent of Article VI is to prohibit voters from considering the beliefs of a candidate when deciding how to cast their vote is ludicrous beyond belief. A better example of a violation of the intent, if not the letter, of Article VI would be the staunch litmus test that democrats have regarding federal judges that would prohibit consideration of any devout Catholic (or for that matter evangelical protestant) judge who holds religious convictions regarding the sanctity of life.
Rudy and the Republican Nomination
The transformation of the GOP into Democrat Party Lite?It's not going to be DNC Lite; it's going to be a more moderate conservative party though; you all have had your foot on our necks for too long.
This country has to be governed in the middle; the world has moved on from the 50's.
The Contract with America will unite this party again. But we're not going to let you make abortion and guns the big issues this time around.
Thanks for posting the quintessential example of the “you all have had your foot on our necks” crowd that want to take the GOP to the left.
>>>so what’s your gripe with an article that details bobby jindal’s religious journey?
That it appeals to the same kind of religious hype and impulse which got us into trouble with Huckster Elmer Gantry and as the direct result of which we (the GOP and unhyphenated conservatives) now have a Democrat pol of unsavory personal character set to be our nominee for President.
I’m sorry, I don’t know how I can be any clearer or use more salient examples of the destructive and dangerous conflation of religion with the GOP and conservatism.
I’m no longer surprised about the truth of the phrase “Elephant In The Living Room”, and the capacity of people to deny the truth that is directly in front of them.
and so here we are to the left and the “foot on the neck crowd”, as represented by angkor, now wants to blame religious conservatives for that. there is so much insanity here it is hard to know where to begin to debunk it.
>>>>it’s going to be a more moderate conservative party though; you all have had your foot on our necks for too long.
Thanks, that shows how mistaken xsmommy is about what I’m trying to express here.
Just reinforced my first impression.
>>>>>it is hard to know where to begin to debunk it.
How to debunk the idea that the Elephant In The Living Room is not really an Elephant In The Living Room?
I’ve had this discussion many times on FR, and I can tell you how it ends.
>>>Just reinforced my first impression.
Ditto mine.
Wow, you are certainly projecting there.
Your own tagline and all of your statements on this thread make it clear that you want people with strong religious convictions to ignore them for the sake of politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.