Tuesday, June 21, 2011


A Republican candidate for president who publicly says he is not overly religious.  That kind of breathtaking honesty alone seems to demand a serious look at the  man.  I'm not saying being irreligious is a good thing.  But I'm about done with people running for high office trying to out Christian each other.  Time was when religion was understood to be an essentially private matter.  Dwight Eisenhower (one of my favorite modern presidents) didn't even bother getting baptized until after he was elected president.

Memo to the GOP.  We are electing a president, not a patriarch or church elder.


gdelassu said...

Can I say that I, a democrat, would be delighted if Republicans were to nominate Huntsman. Not because I think he would be easy to beat. Quite the opposite, I think that he would be a very formidable opponent.

Unlike so much of the Republican party nowadays, however, he does not strike me as stark, raving mad. I would feel much more comfortable if I knew that, regardless of who gets elected, the country will be in sane hands. I have not had that feeling since 1992.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing that people want a president to be "religious". No. Depth of conviction isn't likely among the voters and never among candidates. The fullness of presidential piety is expected to be a long face at the occasional "prayer breakfast". And no "prayer lunch" or dinner, either; we ain't fanatics! If you took all the presidential statements of a vaguely religious nature over a hundred years I bet you couldn't tell a protestant from a catholic or a unitarian. If we get a mormon it won't make a ripple of differeence.