On the other hand, that stumble failed to distinguish him at all from the current president that everybody on the other side considers such a man of the Book. (The "Book" part should have alerted everybody that it wasn't likely in GWB's case.)
I like my leaders to be secular. I roll my eyes when they try to make a display of their religiosity. I feel smugly satisfied when I realize that they (at best) only vaguely understand of what they speak. This raised-Baptist agnostic who hasn't cracked a Bible in years could out-scripture them all without breaking a sweat. Poseurs.
If it were up to me, there would be a federal law mandating that all such questions to political candidates be answered with, "My religious beliefs are a private matter between myself and my god."
Yikes... isn't that a bit extreme? I think it's reasonable to want to know about candidate's religious beliefs - I'm certainly interested - and I would imagine talking about thise beliefs is covered by the first amendment!
Yes, it's a bit extreme, but hey, that's my neurosis and I'm sticking to it. And luckily, federal law isn't up to me or you'd all owe me huge taxes, as this wine habit is getting steadily more expensive the more I learn.
Ostentatious religiosity is a curse of American politics, I agree. But that's the game we're playing. Why Dean continues to tie anchors around his neck -- the bikepath conversion, comments like these -- baffles me. The dems should not nominate this guy: he is a tool. And tools shouldn't be major party candidates for the presidency.
Even more amazing that this is a guy known for his straight talk... but maybe that's because he's so bad at executing a simple deception?
Posted by paul | Link to this comment | 01- 4-04 10:32 PM
On the other hand, that stumble failed to distinguish him at all from the current president that everybody on the other side considers such a man of the Book. (The "Book" part should have alerted everybody that it wasn't likely in GWB's case.)
I like my leaders to be secular. I roll my eyes when they try to make a display of their religiosity. I feel smugly satisfied when I realize that they (at best) only vaguely understand of what they speak. This raised-Baptist agnostic who hasn't cracked a Bible in years could out-scripture them all without breaking a sweat. Poseurs.
If it were up to me, there would be a federal law mandating that all such questions to political candidates be answered with, "My religious beliefs are a private matter between myself and my god."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 5-04 9:45 AM
Yikes... isn't that a bit extreme? I think it's reasonable to want to know about candidate's religious beliefs - I'm certainly interested - and I would imagine talking about thise beliefs is covered by the first amendment!
Posted by paul | Link to this comment | 01- 5-04 10:36 AM
Yes, it's a bit extreme, but hey, that's my neurosis and I'm sticking to it. And luckily, federal law isn't up to me or you'd all owe me huge taxes, as this wine habit is getting steadily more expensive the more I learn.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 5-04 2:39 PM
Ostentatious religiosity is a curse of American politics, I agree. But that's the game we're playing. Why Dean continues to tie anchors around his neck -- the bikepath conversion, comments like these -- baffles me. The dems should not nominate this guy: he is a tool. And tools shouldn't be major party candidates for the presidency.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01- 5-04 3:46 PM