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 ...
This has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING on the thread.
Are you one of the Paulistinians who is upset that MoRon Paul didn't get the nomination? Is that's why you bring up the individual states? It's okay, just keep your poster board and magic markers, make sure you don't run out of weed and 2012 will be here before you know it.
So, is your solution (1) the "religious right", who were such a vocal and critical part of Reagan's base, should just go away (in which case we end up with a democrat lite candidate like McCain for the GOP and President Obama next January); or (2) the "religious right" should just shut up and vote for your favorite republican because where else do the have to go anyway?
>>>>>make sure you don’t run out of weed
Yep, it usually ends with the fuming and sputtering and ad hominem attacks.
Fine I’ll retract that statement, I’ve gone back through your posting history and it’s obvious that you are a libertarian who happens to agree with conservatives on fiscal policy and guns.
>>>>>>you want people with strong religious convictions to ignore them for the sake of politics.
Nope, I don’t want that at all.
I actually want the GOP to remove your religious agenda from my political platform.
I want the conservative movement to exclude religious sentiment as an expression of legitimate conservative discourse.
And I want you to form your own religious party and run your politics on your own steam, not on the back of conservatism and the GOP.
Is that clear enough?
Uh, no. I am not the government, which is why the Constitution distinguishes between "We the People," who wrote it, and the government, which is what it describes. It's why the Constitution has a Bill of Rights, to protect the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government.
And Article VI limits the government, and the laws it enacts. It places no limits on the freedom of citizens to evaluate candidates for office based on their religion, or anything else.
>>>>>It places no limits on the freedom of citizens to evaluate candidates for office based on their religion, or anything else.
Who said it did?
It cautions that religious tests are not a good thing.
Then please be specific, what PRECISELY do you want removed from the platform?
And I want you to form your own religious party and run your politics on your own steam, not on the back of conservatism and the GOP.
Let me get this straight, so you want all of the conservatives out of the GOP?
And what does ANY of this have to do with Article IV of the Constitution?
The Founding Fathers were referring to European laws, specifically the English law mandating that certain officeholders be members of the Church of England. It was about SPECIFIC denominations.
What the "religious right" that you and your ilk seem to despise is addresses are almost exclusively MORAL issues that are common to nearly ALL traditional religions.
>>>>> Let me get this straight, so you want all of the conservatives out of the GOP?
No, I want the Religionists and those who promote religion as an instrument of government (or vice versa) to find another home for their activities.
>>>>And what does ANY of this have to do with Article IV of the Constitution?
You cannot connect the dots between a WSJ article wholly about Jindal’s religious beliefs, and the Article VI caution against religious tests??????
I’m sorry, it just can’t be parsed into any simpler terms.
>>>>>MORAL issues that are common to nearly ALL traditional religions.
I guess I missed the moral dimension of voting for the Huckster Elmer Gantry this year.
>>>>>>The Founding Fathers were referring to European laws, specifically the English law mandating that certain officeholders be members of the Church of England.
I see, that’s quite distinct from the many discussions right here on FR about Romney’s Mormonism. Do you think Jindal’s parents might be Hindu? And Huckster sure kept his credentials as an ordained minister out of the debates, didn’t he?
Elephant In The Living Room.
>>>>>Uh, no. I am not the government, which is why the Constitution distinguishes between “We the People,” who wrote it, and the government, which is what it describes.
That’s disingenuous. You know what I’m getting at and you completely refuse to address it.
Elephant In The Living Room.
religious tests BY THE GOVT in selecting officeholders. the Constitution guarantees individual freedom, including freedom of thought, to choose elected officials by whatever basis individuals deem prudent.
WHO in God's name are you talking about here? do you mean Mike Huckabee? if so, SAY SO, and leave these hyperbolic appellations out of the discussion. no wonder you can't be clear in what you are attempting to say.
i am afraid your elephant in the living room is invisible to everyone except to you and your cohorts who harbor irrational fears about believers approaching the election booth and looking at the ballot through the prism of their faith. i don’t know if you are a libertarian or a liberal or both, but you are not a conservative. but then maybe you don’t hold yourself out as one. i don’t know.
>>>>>WHO in God’s name are you talking about here? do you mean Mike Huckabee? if so, SAY SO, and leave these hyperbolic appellations out of the discussion.
You know exactly who I mean, no need to hide it under a clumsy attempt at an insult.
>>>>>>no wonder you can’t be clear in what you are attempting to say.
I’m being very clear, it is your own refusal to listen that’s getting in the way.
That’s a common symptom of:
The Elephant In The Living Room.
(”That’s not an elephant, it’s a coffee table.”)
>>>>religious tests BY THE GOVT in selecting officeholders.
Here we are again, for the third or fourth time.
I won’t argue out of a tautology.
>>>>>i am afraid your elephant in the living room is invisible to everyone except to you and your cohorts
I’m afraid you’re all too wrong.
Bear in mind i have never engaged in a discussion such as [religion in the GOP] this on FR. i have seen you around, know you live in my area, and generally thought you were an okay sort, so i was taken aback by this hostility and anti-religious fervor, which i haven't seen since the big PURGE of April '08. So don't impute to me something that your so-called "religionists" have said, because i haven't said anything on this topic to date. and don't assume i know what they have said because i had never heard your pet name/term til today.
i have to say the image that comes to mind here is of you standing there saying OH MY GOD, don't you get it? you people are so STUPID, it's SO OBVIOUS, all the while explaining nothing, and interspersing silly nicknames and terms of art known only to you.
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.