ruminator
An unusual mind
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Posts
- 20,828
I think a politician can make vague religious references but when it used as a basis for national policy it crosses the line.
Here's an exerpt and link to an article that shows how the line gets blurred from law to accepted common practice. Regardless of my personal views, is this a question to pose a candidate? I'm not a Dean supporter but this illustrates to me that the original founding principle is being compromised.
Here's an exerpt and link to an article that shows how the line gets blurred from law to accepted common practice. Regardless of my personal views, is this a question to pose a candidate? I'm not a Dean supporter but this illustrates to me that the original founding principle is being compromised.
<clip>
THE OTHER day, I was reading an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in Newsweek when I had to stop and check that it was indeed Newsweek and not, say, Christianity Today. Yes, it was indeed Newsweek. And, after a series of questions about a variety of public policy issues, Dean was asked, out of the clear blue, the following question: "Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?" For the record, Dean's somewhat cagey answer probably did little to assuage doubts about his religious faith: "I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I'm saved or not is not gonna be up to me." The real issue, though, is why this question even came up in a political magazine. Do we now have a religious test for public office -- something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America?
<clip>
full story
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...e_new_discimination_against_the_nonreligious/