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 ...
bump
bump
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**
BTTT!
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 don’t believe Jindal is phony at all. Why do you say that?
I didn’t.
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.
LOL!
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.
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.