Fashion and Faith and Values

The sartorial grading of the candidates is irrelevant to whom we should elect as president. The philosophy of the candidates along with the policies they are going to pursue are. Religion is relevant only insofar as the candidates religious beliefs will affect his or her policies. This would include atheists as well. Though God knows no candidate would have the guts to admit they were an atheist. For example President Bush has allowed certain religious beliefs affect his policy on stem cell research. That is something we should know about and ask the candidates about. Has anyone asked the candidates what specific policies they avow would be determined in whole or in part by their religious beliefs? If you have found such an insightful question asked by our major media representatives, let me know. To say we are a pluralist society does not imply all religious beliefs are consistent with our American values. For example any religious belief that would deny religious freedom to our citizens cannot be tolerated because it contradicts the Constitution of the United States that protects us from being persecuted by the State for what we believe. That includes the right to believe that there is no God or that religion is a remnant of a past tribal way of life. We can respect the religious beliefs of others as long as they are not destructive of the human values of -to quote Jefferson- "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (well-being)." There are limits to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution as there are limits to all our rights and freedoms. While there is no wall high enough to separate church and state as long as there are religious United States citizens, still the constitution forbids the Federal Government from favoring or persecuting any religious community or non-religious person as long as they live within the laws. So religious belief as such should not be a determining factor for who we elect under our constitution. If a candidate does not understand that, she or he cannot swear to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and therefore, should not be elected President.

Rachel's concerns about the role of money strike me as valid. (Oscar Wilde famously said that only shallow people don't judge by appearances.) While a refined look from select inexpensive pieces is possible for women, it's my understanding the appearance of men in suits is a function of money spent, unless they're built like Brad Pitt. Is this true, dear male readers?

Oscar Wilde famously noted only shallow people don't judge by appearances. Rachel's concerns about the role of money are valid. While a refined look from carefully selected inexpensive pieces is possible for women, it's my understanding that the nature of mens' suits makes their appearance a function of what they spend, unless they're built like Brad Pitt. Is this true, guys?

"Keyes raises a good theoretical question: if God Himself were to come down to earth and wreak havoc with our cherished constitutional liberties would an American president be obliged to take Him on?"

Damn straight an American President would, and that same President and leaders of all the nations would have to get together to destroy God because the sheer fact of solid proof of ITs existance means a threat to the world. At any moment IT, GOD, could come in a do or undo things like making fissionable material unfissionable and the reverse. Wreaking economies by killing or lifting millions of people to heaven. Rearranging the land masses into a more aesthetic shape.

Another thought, if GOD were to come down what would preclude the existance of other Gods such as Siva, Vishnu, Apollo (who admitedly might be rather hard to fit into the cosmic heirarchy given what we know about astronomy these days) etc?

Finally, if Alan Keyes et al think GOD is their GOD and they speak for IT, perhaps Keyes, Huckabee, etc should be considered prophets for the new era -- and we should ask them to ask GOD to stop global warming. That would be a neat trick, and might be worth electing a guy president for, no? Or course of a modern prophet could get GOD to stop global warming, why would he or she WANT to be President? I mean talk about Power....

I missed the debate. What was the context and the point of Mike Huckabee's quoting or citing of Matthew 25:40 ("The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.')?

In this verse, Matthew relates Jesus's encouragement of his covenant brothers [including covenant sisters, since Aramaic and Greek along with many other languages tend to have the masculine subsume the feminine] of many nationalities to care for each other. Often people interpret the verse and surrounding passage to be about serving the world (which we do as Christians), but this particular passage is only about taking care of those who are in covenant with God through Yeshua [Jesus]. What did Mike try to comunicate through the use of this passage?

Do campaigns pay for candidates' clothing and grooming, or do the getups come from the candidates' own personal budgets?

Seems like there's a powerful correlation between a candidate's personal net worth and Mrs. Berlinerbrau's approval rating.

Let's see: the R's hold a stupid/meaningless/worthless "debate," and the first two commentators on Jacques' column take him to task for writing a column that perfectly reflects the worthlessness of the debate.

Seems to me Jacques hit it just about right with this one.

I'd ask for a show of hands on who thought the debate had any redeeming value, but the only thing I learned from yesterday's embarrassment was that we don't do a show of hands these days.

I am dumber for having read this.