Replies

Yeah, but the fact remains that President Bush and the WH allude to her religious beliefs too often, as if it was one of her qualifications. Unwise IMO. Her religious beliefs should be (or at least should have been) irrelevant to this nomination.

A person's religious beliefs are never irrelevant. To the contrary, those beliefs determine not only that person's destiny in this life, but for all of eternity.

BTW, what constitutes, "too often"? And who determines that?

A person's religious beliefs are never irrelevant. To the contrary, those beliefs determine not only that person's destiny in this life, but for all of eternity. Nonsense. This is not a religious or spiritual post. The Constitution explicitly tried to nip the idea of religiously-motivated appointments in the bud. Because once you admit that "religion can be a qualifier", you open up the door for all sorts of bad decisions to be made, because now you're relying on whatever the president's religious beliefs are to make a good decision. And right now I suspect you and the President agree on many religious issues -- but what happens when a future President differs from you and nominates again on religious beliefs you want no part of? You already opened the door. And the mention today was one too many if you ask me. To tell you the truth, it speaks more of a WH that has little to stand on to speak well to Mier's nomination than that Pres. Bush is explicitly considering religion. But I still stand by my points.