dickwhitman

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

REMOVED

I'd have to say yes and no. If her beliefs are benign, like most Christians' beliefs are, then no I could care less and I'm sure those are the kinds of beliefs the Canadians don't mind. If she ruminates on daft Christian eschatological claims and believes that our foreign policy is playing some part in bringing these claims to fruition, then they do matter to me; I'm sure the Canadians would care if Mr. Harper or some MP started saying things like she does. I could care less if she goes to church every Sunday, prays to Jesus, and the various things that most mainstream Christians do and discuss publicly. However, her religious views go farther than that. If someone believes Christ will soon return, that some apocalyptic conflict will come with his return, and they're happy for it, then that is inseparable from politics. Like I said it doesn't have to outright deter her constituents from voting for her, but it isn't a topic that's off limits when it comes to discussion. In other words, if there were two Michele Bachmanns running for reelection on the same platform, except one of them believed in the end times business and the other one didn't, then voters like myself would be inclined to vote for the one that didn't believe in the end times business.

I trust that most Bachmann supporters don't agree with her religious fanaticism. With that said, we do elect people to the legislature rather than actually voting on policy for ourselves in referenda, therefore it does matter who we send to Washington. That is to say, her religious beliefs are pertinent when assessing whether or not one wishes to cast a ballot for her. It does't have to deter voters from voting for her outright, but they should take it into account.

REMOVED

I was unwisely optimistic about our conversation initially, and tried to find points we could agree on in the hope that his posts were sincere. I gave up after the first few "circles of what-might-be-called-thought" I followed him around. That is to say I have him on my ignore list now.

I agree with your first point, and I have said it myself in this thread despite the fact that someone is intent on ignoring it (the man with the surname of a former president and vice president in his username that is). I also agree with your second point. I'd prefer Mrs. Bachmann and those like her keep their madness in the open. If any of them are too off the rails for my taste, then I take it into account either at the polls or when passing value judgments on them (because I'm just that high and mighty). It has been my aim to extract a condemnation for her 9/11 statements, and at least a nod of disapproval for her comments on Obama's foreign policy (whatever one thinks of said policy). I don't think that's too much to ask for. I think I agree, at least in part, on your third point as well. She doesn't sound crazy in the linked article. However, I must point out that no one was taking umbrage because of her stance on the ACA (I'll also say that I'm inclined to agree with her statements made in the article). The thread is about her religious views, and how they're obviously "disagreeable" to put it mildly. She shouldn't get brownie points for occasionally speaking sense. Also in my defense, that isn't my comment you're quoting, and I don't think I ever condoned it either.

Because she's a nutbag. That's the view of the people who started this thread. Every time you're told this you seem to forget shortly thereafter. With that in mind, as well as my most generous contribution to the effort of holding your hand and walking you through the "why" of it all, I think my time in this thread is done.

No one said they didn't.

When have politicians ever been exempt from criticism?

No one here is questioning anyone's rights. Someone started this thread so that people could talk about why they don't like Michele Bachmann.