The public's business

If we all shared your particular religious beliefs, we'd all agree that your questions are the only appropriate ones to be asking. But I reject the idea that secular beliefs deserve preferential treatment: secular humanism is only one system of beliefs, among many. Politicians need to answer all the questions relevant to the people they intend to reach - so the implied suggestion that only secular concerns matter is disturbingly "theocratic" - even if what you worship is human rather than divine.

It appears now that the tea party is largely made up of frustrated right wing christians, the kind that populate pat robertson worlds and neighborhoods ... frustrated that their takeover of the republican party did not result in their takeover of the country.

They are upset that the GOP promises to pander to their concerns, then forgets them after having won office, having achieve the power the GOP wants.

So they're now taking over the tea party movement, in another attempt to drive out of the GOP anybody who won't cater to their theocratic demands on our country.

Hey, at least we now who these freaks are now. They aren't hiding behind the GOP anymore, they're out in the open.

Yes, and after we've dispensed with questions about one's religious and sexual idealogies, wouldn't it be nice (I mean really nice) if the candidates actually discussed issues.

What is relevant is the candidate's sincerity, i.e., can her or his word be trusted? There is a long list of past candidates whose genuineness was and is impugned. Swift Boaters cast doubt on John Kerry’s service record in order to imply he dishonestly inflated it for political purposes. Max Cleland’s heroism was denigrated by aspersions that his wounds were self-inflicted due to his clumsiness. Today Richard Blumenthal is being lambasted, rightfully, for falsely claiming to have served in Vietnam. It is and has been fair game for charges of political opportunism to be directed at any candidate that claims recognition for false acts or insincere memberships in groups or organizations. It is a valid and fair question to wonder how sincere Paul’s religious beliefs are (which he wears on his sleeve, for political gain) if he voluntarily joined a group that satirizes religious belief and believers. Whatever a candidate throws out to the electorate to garner their support is open to question and comment. If you want your beliefs to go unchallenged, don’t publish them; many past politicians, e.g., Lincoln, have remained mum or non-committal when questioned about their particular faith, not seeing it as a subject related to seeking public office.

Twenty years ago I'd have agreed with Silverman that religion was a private matter. Now we have candidates like Angle and O'Donnell who run on their religion and are suspected of being closet Christian Reconstructionists. Their religious beliefs are a critical matter of public concern. If candidates are not willing, as JFK did, to declare that their private religious beliefs will not govern their public actions, then I'm entitled to know what their beliefs are.

The frequency with which religious faith is brought up in political campaigns serves to demonstrate that humans are still thinking in the same superstitious ways, believing in the supernatural (god) which humans conceived tens of thousands of years ago. We like to think of ourselves as civilized, yet we still think primitively.

I, too, wish for a world in which a candidate's political views are more important than their religious beliefs, however, I'm not very optimistic that this will happen.

I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone....
==========
Rosie
==========
Business Savings Accounts

If one runs for political office in SC they might as well forget it if they don't claim some form of religion. Pathetic but that's the way it is these days. There is good cause for those of us that believe in an absolute secular government to be worried about our country's future. I never thought I would live to see the day where I would worry that we could become a Theocracy.

Why faith matters in politics
In two prominent political debates with Tea Party candidates, the issue of religious faith has come up. In fact, I suspect that it comes up in most political debates but the this week, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section is only focused on these two debates when they asked: Faith up for debate?

It is important to note that even though the Tea Party claims to be an anti-tax group, they are really more concerned with religion than taxes. This is why Christine O’Donnell is focused on Creationism in the classroom and pushing laws which prohibit pornography and masturbation. Rand Paul of course stresses his “pro-life Christian” position just as his father did when he wrote a position paper claiming that America is a Christian Nation.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/9JzbSU

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.