Secular America
Pope Ratzinger, the most powerfully regressive voice on contraception and religions other than Catholicism, got front-page treatment today:
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attended an event called the Faith Forum, fumbling around in public about their love for an incarnation. Get a pew, you two.
And India is worse. This is a country where gurus get star slots on the Times of India op/ed page. The way some nations force politicians through arbitrary pander gauntlets is ridiculous. At least when Hillary Clinton slams shots of photo-op whiskey, we can acknowledge it for the silliness that it is. But with events like the Faith Forum, we’re obliged to keep the rolling of the eyes to a minimum. To suggest one’s personal faith is precisely that, is to turn campaign season killjoy.
Imagine if interviews for easier jobs than the presidency were conducted this way:
Machine shop boss: How many times did you attend church last year?
You: I’m not sure that’s relevant. I’m good with a lathe.
Billy Brown-Noser: I’ve never touched a machine before, but I’ve got calluses from prayer beads and listened to 250 homilies last year.
Boss: Billy, you’re hired!
(Five minutes later, Billy loses his fingers in a gruesome machine shop accident.)
Where’s my six-shooter? We’re going duck hunting.
on Monday, April 14th, 2008, 11:59 pm in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Politics, Religion › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
*ha*
but isnt that the fundamental problem with democracy. Unlike a for-profit corporation where one typically tries to hire the person who is best suited to boost the ebit, the democracy tries to hire people who ‘get along’ well with others. So most of us elect people based on who they feel echoes their thoughts / personality the most. I’ve said this earlier. All the rationalizing around an election is back-fill. Sort of an intellectual humbuggery. One chooses who one ‘likes’ the most and then builds a story around the choice. Of course, the positive spin to this is that the candidate with the highest emotional intelligence is best able to appeal to the masses by convincing them (s)he is the one they want.
*i’m dozing off so will stop before my run on sentences run off with y thoughts *
Manish,
Sportin’ a new Krrish look, I see?
You need an inspirational leader more than a micromanager– a Branson rather than a Jobs– but the prez stills needs to be a solid manager. Which has little to do with public professions of faith.
Sharp eyes! It’s the lazyman fringe :)
A gay presidential candidate has a higher chance of success in the U.S. election than an atheist or an agnostic candidate, as long as he or she proclaimed their ardent belief in god and religion.
Inspire to do what, exactly? To vote for the inspiring leader?
I agree with Khoofia. To add to that, you seem to have decided on a candidate and now rationalizing about his inspirational nature!
To do the actual work, and to push broad changes rather than merely tinker.
To do the actual work, why does one need to inspire? I suppose we are talking about the presidential contenders here and not a corporate manager who is driving his sub-ordinates to work. So a presidential contender need to inspire who exactly? The government bureaucrats to push for change? The people to make the change?
And what broad changes are we talking about here? Change everything that is current? To me, the inspirational leader thing is meaningless. Sometimes, the inspirational leaders are the ones to watch out for. They have in their armor, power to inspire not just to do the right things but to do wrong things as well.
p.s.I totally agree with your post about a candidate’s faith. It ought to be nobody’s business.
Perhaps you’ve never had an inspirational leader? You get more done with more creativity and fewer resources.
Thank you, Manish! You’ve cleared that up very well.