I missed the Democratic forum on religion last night, but if Sully's account is any inkling of what I missed then I'm happy that I just sat on my ass and played online poker:
"It was a spectacle at once spiritually crass, politicallly vulgar and democratically corrosive. It didn't help that the theologically-challenged moderator, CNN's Soledad O'Brien, asked questions like: "What's the biggest sin you've ever committed?" Just when you think cable news cannot get any dumber, someone like Ms O'Brien slinks onto a stage.
"But the implications of the debate were more worrying. We have had terrible problems grappling with the religious right these past few years, but we may have just begun to adjust to the power and emergence of the religious left. The rhetoric would have done evangelical statist, Michael Gerson, proud. And when you see three leading Democratic candidates fall over each other to endorse faith-based initiatives, and insist, in Clinton's words, on "injecting faith into policy," or, in Obama's words, basing politics on a "Biblical injunction," you realize that George W. Bush really has had a legacy. He has decisively increased the religiosity of public debate - as well, of course, as its fatuousness."
Don't blame Bush, blame Regan. He's was the first whore to jump in bed with Jerry Falwell. Personally, I have no problem with people calling on their faith and spiritual beliefs in their decision making, but I have a problem with endorsing faith-based initiatives. Unfortunately, pandering to the born agains does have it's advantages. Just ask Karl Rove.
Also, it's a bit disturbing to hear John Edwards say:
""I'd have a very hard time telling you one thing," the ex-senator said. "I'm about to turn 54, and if I've had a day when I haven't sinned multiple times, I'd be surprised.""
Internet porn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment