June 6, 2007
The Dems challenge the GOP in the holier-than-thou department
Reported in the news yesterday:
In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God.
Clinton stood by her actions in the aftermath of former President Clinton's admission that he had an affair, including presumably her decision to stay in the marriage.
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values.
"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said in response to a question about how she dealt with the infidelity. –Associated Press
Let me be clear: I am not against religion. Quite the contrary, in fact. As an aspect of private life, religion can give meaning to an individual’s existence in a cruel and impersonal universe. Most of the diehard atheists I have met are gloomy, fundamentally pessimistic people. I would be, too, if I believed that life had no spiritual basis.
But when politicians wear their faith on their sleeves, they inevitably muddle the separation between church and state, and cheapen religion in the process. The Republicans have been doing both for the past eight years; now the Democrats apparently feel a need to talk about their religious beliefs on the campaign trail.
I don’t care about Hillary’s marital travails---or about her religious beliefs. I care about her positions regarding public policy: taxes, the Middle East, North Korea, etc., etc.
To quote Anwar Sadat: “No religion in politics, and no politics in religion.”
Or, to quote Jesus Christ: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
oes any of the other ex-presidents have a spouse or a child who might be up for the job?