Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP Sen. Candidate Todd Akin "had to be carried out by police" (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think candidate beliefs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Uwaine, GreenMother

    can be relevant, but there are standards of fairness involved.

    For example, if a candidate professes unalterable loyalty to the written orthodox doctrine of one sect or another, it is reasonable to evaluate someone according to what that orthodoxy might mean as it relates to public life.

    But there are few people of any religious tradition who adhere to any doctrine in its entirety, plus words often mean different things to different people.  What it means for one person to be Catholic or Mormon or spiritual but not religious, can mean something very different to someone else.

    But when a candidate says or writes what they believe, particularly as it relates to important matters of public policy, I think it is fair game, and I have never shied away from doing my best to understand and report on the matter as fairly and factually as I can.  

    I do observe that this is a standard that is not practiced as nearly as widely as I would like to see. Religious bigotry is an issue, and as any bigotry always is, it is borne of ignorance.

    So with the subjects of sex, politics and religion, the things one is not supposed to talk about in polite company, it is important to really know what we are talking about before venturing very far into it. In my case, since I talk about these things all the time, and certainly don't always know everything that I need or want to know about any subject, I try to be very careful, and be acutely aware of what I know, what I don't, and what I need to find out. Humility is a good thing.

    I know there are those who would disagree with me on this, but my view is that there is no realistic way to suppress religious viewpoints in public life. So the question is not whether they will be expressed, and whether or not we should write about them when they are, the question is how to do these things. Its part of the ongoing American experiment -- in the best sense of that term. We are a religiously plural society, and it is necessary for all of us who value religious pluralism, the rights of individual conscience (AKA religious freedom) and separation of church -- to get really good at it.

    •  thank you for this...nt (0+ / 0-)

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:02:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well that's exactly it. A person can't be excluded (0+ / 0-)

      for office based on religion, but how he/she uses it to make decisions should definitely be up for consideration. John F. Kennedy is one of the famous cases vis a vis vetting by the public. But the evaluation should still be made.

      The Kennedys, Al Smith, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Geraldine Ferraro, Rick Santorum, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sam Brownback & Paul Ryan may all be Roman Catholics, but how their religious belief interacts with their politics (or their judicial rulings) is very different.

      What stunning is how Mitt Romney has gotten an almost free pass regarding his beliefs and their effect on his judgement.

      "Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake." - Jon Stewart; The Daily Show

      by Uwaine on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:45:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excactly. Their freedom ends where mine begin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bfbenn

      Akin and his fellow party members have made it very clear, abundantly clear that they will use their religious tenets to harass and silence women, and homosexuals, and people who are not white.

      So in effect they MAKE their own religious test. I don't really care about your religion [you meaning anyone] unless YOU make it an issue that I need to care about.

      Akin, Romney, Ryan, Santorum, Bush JR, etc., they have made religion a pillar in their style of governance, to the point that they purposefully single out perceived rival groups for discrimination, while favoring perceived allies with special perks.

      That is unethical on so many levels.

      Bush JR, refused to allow certain minorities their religious symbols on Veteran Headstones, in Veteran Cemeteries. They had to fight for that, and still, they can have that symbol in a special cemetery specially made for them on private property. So it's still back of the bus.
      There is so much more--Faith Based Initiatives for starters, Gog and Maggog, the list goes on and on.

      Ryan is a puppet of the Catholic Hierarchy which seeks to force us all to live like we are Catholics, even though that would violate the laws of this land.

      Romney is a NeoCon Wind Vane. He wants to get Mormonism into the mainstream and will pal with people who have for years, printed anti-Mormon tracts, and made anti-Mormon films to get this accomplished. He cannot be trusted because he isn't calling the shots.

      I don't care what church  a person goes to in theory. But when they try to use their power to force me to live as if I am a member, there will be problems. Then I will scrutinize their campaign through the rubric of religion, because I feel compelled to as an act of self preservation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site