I meant to post this a few days ago. We have a winner. If anybody brings their faith into the public square, especially running for office---it's open for a vigorous discussion. If we disagree it's not because of religious intolerance, but rather because it becomes a debatable issue. For Romney to say:
"We need to have a person of faith lead the country."
I can argue vehemently that we don't. Both can lead equally well or horribly bad. Religion doesn't put one on a higher morality plain---although Roy Moore might think so. GWB was supposed to be the chosen one because of his religious beliefs. How has he done so far?
Respondents didn't get around to describing him as "President" until 18th place. "Irresponsible" and "unconfident" round out the list, with "liar," "hypocrite," and "selfish" sprinkled in as well. That's what a 33 percent approval rating will get you.
Jim Wallis is back with more stupidity.
In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities...
What Democrats have been openly hostile? Whenever they talk about faith----they're labeled a phony. Duncan, Wallis will continually say this stuff so he has something to bitch about all the time----it doesn't matter if it's based on fiction. It gives him street cred for the cable news shows. Kos adds:
Here's the deal -- Republicans have claimed god as their own and perverted religious texts to justify some of the most divisive and hateful policies and discourse in our politics today...read on