Skip to main content

View Diary: Rebuttal to the front-page criticism of Jindal (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Jindal's article proves (6+ / 0-)

    why separation of church and state is so important.  Personally I don't care which religions don't like other ones, as long as it doesn't affect me.  Everyone should be free to practice (or not) what he or she desires, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

    End the Iraq occupation!

    by Unstable Isotope on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:47:39 PM PDT

    •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And attacking a politician for a statement of religious belief is beyond despicable.  I thought we did not want religious tests for office?

      Whoever made that ad does a disservice to all who wish to keep religion out of political campaigns by making the rather mainstream religious beliefs of Mr. Jindal an issue.

      I cannot wait to hear the intolerance which will spew forth if Romney is the Rep. candidate.  

      It is a stain on this community.

      The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

      by TastyCurry on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tests of Craziness (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        When someone says "every faith but mine is wrong", including millions of people in their own state, then those people - and the rest of us - need to know that they said so. Because they are running for governor, and are publicly stating that they do not respect the faith of millions of their desired constituents as much as that of other millions.

        Just because your beliefs are not dis/provable doesn't mean that you are worthy of respect for having them. If I believed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster rules the Universe, and doesn't grant souls to females, and I insist in public that this is unquestionably true while asking the public for power over life and death for all of my state, then I deserve ridicule. Just because one specific bigotry is popular doesn't make it acceptable in someone with power. It certainly doesn't make it acceptable to keep it secret.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:58:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not the point. (0+ / 0-)

          The point is, of course, that every version of Christianity with the exception of Unitarianism claims to be the "one true path" or that every other version is wrong.  Just because most so-called Christians are too insecure in their belief to accept this aspect of their faith is beside the point.  The point is that truly believing in the truth of your own faith should not disqualify a person from office any more than belief in nothing should.

          You are setting up a religious test for office, essentially saying that you can believe anything you want, but not too strongly.  Thus anyone who really believes that their religion is correct would be excluded.  It is a religious test.

          The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

          by TastyCurry on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:34:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No Theocrats (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And that's why we don't like people

            You're stuck on Jindal being a "Catholic problem", when that's just the flavor of his theocracy problem. We don't want anyone who's so religious that they deny the possibility that other people's faiths might be more valid than their own, though they are counting on being right based on their own faith.

            There is a religious test for office. It's nondenominational. People who don't accept other people's faiths as just as likely as their own unprovable faith are not entitled to the privilege of power over those people. Especially when they respond to revelations of their past public, but little noticed, broadcasting that intolerance, with rhetoric that merely confirms their bigotry.

            Yes you can believe anything you want and hold public office. But not so strongly that you reject what others believe when you all have equally little - zero - claim to certainty. Truly believing your own faith does not exclude accepting that others' faith could be correct. Whether you believe in something, something other people find comedic, or in nothing supernatural at all.

            Faith is different from other ways of knowing. It can be certain but also nonexclusive. You are wrapping faith in the kinds of reliability of knowledge that it doesn't have. Which is the way that theocrats these days underwrite their faithy certainty with the machinery of logic. It's fake, it's a trick, and it has no place in positions of secular power.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:50:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It could be said . . . (0+ / 0-)

          that claiming to be a Christian, a religion which claims absolute truth, without accepting this claim, is a much more dangerous form of hypocrisy, or "Craziness," than actually believing in the truth of your faith.

          The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

          by TastyCurry on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:37:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site