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 ...
then please explain how it is violative of the Constitution for the voting public to look at a ballot through the prism of their faith, when casting their vote.
Just for the record, I’m all done with this thread.
that's just it, i have NO IDEA who you meant, i was grasping trying to make sense of the silly nickname. Sorry it didn't spring immediately to my mind bc i have NEVER supported mike huckabee for anything. Wait a minute, as one of your RELIGIONISTS, shouldn't i have been unthinkingly supporting him because he is a born again Christian/pastor of some stripe? but i did not. Because while i do look at candidates through the prism of my faith [traditional Roman Catholic; not Rudy Giluiani-esque Catholic in Name/RINO], it is not an unthinking, unreasoning process. it is a weighing of different factors. You are painting with a very broadbrush, a very narrow segment of religious conservatives with your RELIGIONIST rant.
okay, that’s fine. but it is obviously due to your inability to make yourself understood and not for a lack of willing listeners who will debate you civilly and honestly.
I notice that you have NOT answered my question, so I will rephrase it. Which SPECIFIC parts of the GOP platform do you want removed?
What does Huckabee have to do with ANYTHING?
Individual have EVERY RIGHT to use ANY METHOD they wish in determining who they will and won't vote for.
And despite what you and your libertarian ilk think, "We the People" ARE NOT the government. We ELECT the government, this is a constitutional republic. You seem to think that this is a pure democracy, the Founding Fathers realized that YOUR method would soon collapse into anarchy.
There are PLENTY of anti-FReeper, anti-conservative sites for the "get your foot off our neck" crowd to go to.
It's odd that he left the thread without ever IDENTIFYING which portions of the GOP platform were so offensive to his libertarianism.
No, it prohibits the Federal government from requiring them at all. It's not a manual of advice for voters.
I actually want the GOP to remove your religious agenda from my political platform.
What religious agenda is included in the political platform? If you are talking about abortion, the pro-life position is often informed by one's religious beliefs, but there even athiest physicians who have come to the conclusion that the pre-born baby meets any reasonable scientific definition of a living human being and thus support the pro-life position -- not from religious belief but from science. If you are talking about support for religious freedom and a stand against the expanding encroachment by judicial fiat against religious expression, (which I'm not even sure that is in the GOP platform) the issue is really one of taking power back from the courts and returning it to the people. How about a specific listing of the "religious agenda" items you want removed from the GOP platform.
I want the conservative movement to exclude religious sentiment as an expression of legitimate conservative discourse.
Well, I want you to exclude hostility toward those who openly identify themselves as Christians as expressions of legitimate conservative discourse. Your diatribes against those whom you call "religionists" have no place in 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.
If the GOP were to take a strong position in favor of your approach and tell the "religionists" to *#*# off and go form their own religious party, the result would be the death of the GOP as it would go the way of the Whig party. In fact, that is pretty much what happened to the Whig party when it took the same approach you are recommending with regards to the Abolitionists. Good luck with that.
Based on the level of rationality he displayed, I don't think that is odd at all. Quite to be expected in fact.
Apparently angkor believes that if Huckabee had not been in the primary race and enjoying the monolithic support of the "religionists" (a supposition not supported by any evidence that I ever saw), then the GOP would have nominated a solid Reagan Republican (or maybe a Goldwater Libertarian) rather than McCain. Of course this position completely ignores the fact that there weren't any solid conservative choices in the running that ever had anywhere near double-digit support in any of the polls -- with the possible exception of Fred Thompson who appears to have waited a little to long to announce his intention to run.
I can tell you how it ends, too. It ends with one individual throwing up his hands and saying "I'm done with this thread" and running away like a scared little girl rather than addressing specific relevant questions asked of him.
My guess is that he was holding out for MoRon Paul who is certainly NOT a conservative and is actual more of a populist anarchist than a libertarian.
"Jindal, in his last term, had an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 100, with 96 for both terms. In addition he has consistently taken the No New Taxes pledge proposed by Americans for Tax Reform.
"...In 1991 he was a young Hill staffer working for U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery. One day McCrery asked him to look over some Medicare plans being proposed in committee. A couple of days later, he brought back to the boss a totally revised system that was so impressive McCrery introduced him to Louisiana Governor Murphy J. Foster Jr.
"A few years later, Jindal, at the age of 24, was appointed Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. He took hold of the state's Medicare program, which was running at a loss of $400 million, and in three years produced a surplus of $200 million.... If Jindal gets a chance to debate Hillary Clinton, Hillary will be fumbling for her cue cards."
And Angkor: Google is your friend.
Non sequitur. There was nothing about “religious persecution” and no whining in the article. Did you notice?
He answers questions about himself, dealing with his education, his religion, his political principles, his experience, his goals. He doesn’t play on his religion for votes. You are misrepresenting Jindal without research, without evidence, and without cause.
Who applied a “religious test” in this article or on this thread? Names, quotes, links...
Uh... did you notice there’s nothing in the article about alleged religious persecution?
That doesn’t mean they have to kick their Christianity out the door, though. If a person is a true Christian, it stays with them day and night. It can’t or shouldn’t be turned off and on like a lightbulb.
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.