Put Competence First

So if the most-competent candidate is an avowed atheist, Cal will be voting for that person.

Anyone here believe that?

Nice comment locomoco. I totally agree. Cal copped out of this debate just as he and all the other right-wing non-thinkers cop out of every debate that involves religion and truth.

Cal, I feel for ya man, but, you are living in a box. Ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

Not every American is a Christian. And not every American believes in God. We are people too.

Nice comment locomoco. I totally agree. Cal copped out of this debate just as he and all the other right-wing non-thinkers cop out of every debate that involves religion and truth.

Cal, I feel for ya man, but, you are living in a box. Ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

Not every American is a Christian. And not every American believes in God. We are people too.

Really writes:

"Jeez. Even the 9-11 commission says that both administrations had blame in letting it happen"

You mean the Whitewash Report? Right.

Good article available on just that in the Harpers archives:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234

"Repeat this: partisanship opinions such as yours ignore facts, and just stir the muddy water to lead to no compromise between left and right."

Would that because Rs never admit they're wrong or apologize while at the same time demanding total capitulation from the LW? Gee, I don't know. Does anyone consider that to be "compromise?"

Happily, the days of the Republic Party are numbered.

Again, I hope you also enjoy 8 years of Hillary as your president.

9/11 happened under Bush's watch, but the bureaucracy created under him is just as much to blame. Clinton's inaction during his tenure and paying attention to scandal( getting his jollies on OUR time in the Oval office, and the cover up that followed) and the long process of
extracting himself from his self imposed trouble is also something to point to. He was too distracted to do anything about OBL and too political to risk any of left over lame duck political capital to do something about Al Qaida. then he hands the problem over to Bush and warns "Look out! I had my chance , do as I say, not as I did!)

Jeez. Even the 9-11 commission says that both administrations had blame in letting it happen.

Repeat this: partisanship opinions such as yours ignore facts, and just stir the muddy water to lead to no compromise between left and right.

KI-JANA writes:
"I agree with the comments on President Bush. If he could've just kept his head in the sand and crossed his fingers like President Clinton, maybe the U.S. would be in a different place right now."

You should consider getting your history from history, rather than from Rush "Drug Addict" Limpballs.

If anyone had their head in the sand (or, more likely, up their a*s) then it was bush who was told by Clinton that terrorism and - specifically Osama bin Laden - would be THE pressing issue of his presidency. Condi was briefed in depth by Richard Clarke and warned in great deal about the terrorism threat. She did nothing.

I don't believe the conspiracy guys who think bush planned 9/11. I think it's more insidious than that. I think bush thought that he knew how to handle HIS OLD BUSINESS PARTNERS the bin Ladens, and their bad-boy son bit him in the butt on 9/11.

Clinton captured and prosecuted every terrorist involved in the first attack on the WTC. What has bush done to capture OBL?

There's only one thing one needs to remember about the events of 9/11: IT HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH.

NOT Clinton's, NOT Poppy Bush's.

No, It happened on gw bush's watch because an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In the US" wasn't graphic enough to rouse a craven idiot like gw bush from his derelictions of duty.

Repeat with me:

9/11 happened on gw bush's watch.

9/11 happened on gw bush's watch.

9/11 happened on gw bush's watch.

9/11 happened on gw bush's watch.

Repeat as necessary.

Wiccan,

Just because the candidate is a "Christian", does not mean that my decision has been made. Being anti-life (or in favor of selfishly murdering unborn children), just means you're starting out wayyyyy behind the others on my scorecard. But that doesn't give the other candidates a free pass. I try to cast my vote based on as many informed issues as I know about, with each issue receiving a different weight.

And haven't we already tried the "Let's wait and see who attacks us before we raise a finger" approach? If President Clinton hadn't been so engrossed in winning popularity contests, maybe he would've seen the need to take out the Taliban and Osama's crew gathering in Afghanistan. Hitting Iraq was the right thing to do, it just wasn't done right.

"There are pro-life Catholics who might vote for a pro-life Baptist if the person's opponent was Catholic."

Is Jesus in favor of democracy. The comment below was copied from another thread. It's valid here too. Baptists beware. You're being blind sided for hell awaits at the pleasure of the pope. Jesus said so.

>>Does anyone know? When Jesus comes again on a cloud to claim the His throne will there be FREE ELECTIONS? The answer is obvious, NO!

Thus democracy, the whole idea of people controlling their own destiny is ridiculous. There's just one thing left to do. Find the true religion and turn the destiny of man over to it's high holy one. That's been done already.

Matthew 16:18 (Jesus speaking)
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

AND

Matthew 16:19 (Jesus speaking)
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Notice that Matthew 16:18 dose not say churches.

It's the pope, successor to St Peter who shall run the "kingdom of God, Earth" while we await the return of Jesus. And he has the arbitrary power to condemn anyone to hell. Has he condemned all non Roman Catholics to hell? He has no requirement to announce his actions.

Lucky for us the Bible is a proved hoax.

Yes, things are really bad here in America. I can’t begin to understand the anguish an Episcopalian has to go through in order to hold his nose and vote for a Baptist. Oh, if only everyone just thought the same about everything!

Cal Thomas for President!

and Forrest Gump for Secretary of State!

Ki-Jana-

This may come as a surprise, but there are many Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans who are against abortion. Would an atheist who is anti-choice earn your vote over a Christian who is pro-choice?

As to your remark abut New York, I'd bet anyone other than Bush and his merry band of neo-cons would have gone after the ones who ACTUALLY did us harm, instead of lying us into a war against someone who didn't and couldn't. But truth and competence never were their strong points, anyway, now were they?

I agree with the comments on President Bush. If he could've just kept his head in the sand and crossed his fingers like President Clinton, maybe the U.S. would be in a different place right now. Well, New York probably wouldn't exist anymore, but hey, tough luck right?

The question posed by On Faith is absurd. How can one ignore their religious convictions? Sure, I'm willing to vote for the best candidate available when the issues are trivial in nature, but how can I vote for someone who finds it perfectly acceptable to kill unborn children?

Considering the Bush administration's ineptitude and proven record of incompetence, you would think from this column that Cal is against the Bush administration. But other columns show just the opposite. Locomoco has it right. Cal only compared christian religions and makes no mention of non-christian candidates. As Cal has shown in other columns, his world is very small and comfortable. This column again shows his hypocritical personality and the boundries of his small little world and mind.

Cal writes:

"If one can have competence and real faith, that would be the ideal, but a regular church-goer who is not a good leader is a lose-lose for all of us."

Christopher responds:

Of course, the key here is what Cal is calling "real" faith. He has already made it clear in his July 4th column that some forms of religion are not real, not legitimate, and beyond the pale:

"I wonder about a person's judgment if he, or she, has embraced paganism...Having judged incorrectly concerning the great "I Am," would a pagan be considered wise enough to judge temporal things?"

This suggests that Cal is either lying concerning his claim to put competence first, or he considers all Pagans (including such people as U.S. military veterans) to be incompetent as human beings by default because they have no "real faith." So its easy to get around the *"no religion test" for public office* issue if you instead institute a "competence test," and then only allow those of your religion to be competent. See how that works?

I was surprised enough by Cal Thomas' teaser line "...we ought to vote for the most competent person rather than one who might use religious language, but not mean it," that I had to read the whole post.

Unfortunately, as liberal a statement as this teaser might seem to be, Thomas turns out either inadvertently or wilfully to have swerved right past the real question -- should we seek candidates with a specifically "Christian" moral/ethical foundation, versus an "other-faith" or a "nonbeliever" foundation?

Instead, he slaps on his blinders and limits his analysis only to different flavors of Christians (e.g. Catholic vs. Baptist). Even when striving to convey openmindedness, his language betrays him: "church" goers vs. non "church" goers. Not, mind you, "synagogue" or "mosque" goers -- let alone coven members!

He thereby shows that either he's completely missed the point, or that he knows the point full well but is simply trying to steer the debate in a different direction in order to distract us from addressing it.

"but a regular church-goer who is not a good leader is a lose-lose for all of us."

As the past seven years have proven, huh, Cal?