Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (39)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Texas (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Baltimore (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Labor (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Health Care (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site