AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
That's because both candidates felt they had to explicitly and increasingly reject the religious elements of their native heritage -- Hinduism for Jindal, and Sikhism for Haley -- while playing up the Christian faith they both embraced as young adults. The issue appears likely to become a growing concern as Indian-Americans emerge on the national scene; there are currently a record six Indian-American candidates running for Congress, and at least two others running for statewide office.It is sad that the author of this article implies that the need to prove authentic Christian faith only applies to candidates who are Indians, immigrants, or non-whites. Like it or not, American voters have always been very skeptical of white,native-born candidates who are not visibly Protestant, but they have also been willing to overlook this in the end. Thomas Jefferson faced vicious personal attacks over his faith and theology when running for President - Jefferson referred to himself as a Christian, but denied the divinity of Christ, the trinity, and the idea that the Bible was God's word. Teddy Roosevelt fought off attacks on his hand-picked successor, Taft, who as a Unitarian was not seen as a 'real' Christian, and JFK felt compelled to tell voters that although he was a Catholic, he wasn't a very good one. This had absolutely nothing to do with race or immigration, so if Obama, Haley, and Jindal feel the need to shore up their 'Christian' credentials, it means that they are in the same club as Jefferson, Taft & Kennedy. I just don't see a racial or immigrant angle here.
November 10 2010 at 2:37 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply"Religious conversion should be a personal sojourn, but Jindal's and Haley's capitulation to an evangelical insistence on public religiosity and rejection of their ancestral faiths are galling to many."
Who decided that religious conversion should be a personal sojourn? Does such a statement combined with "capitulation to an evangelical insistence on public religiousity" look a little hypocritical to anyone else? Basically Dr Shukla is saying that only his way is correct-a way that supposedly says all ways are valid....just not the ones he disagrees with. Pffft! Those who believe religious belief/expression should be private (or none existant)are expressing a religious belief....just as those who believe religious expression/believe should be public are expressing a religious belief.
Pot and kettles.
A lot of this discussion is legitimate. But I have an additional 'take' on this.
I live in Lexington, South Carolina, and have met and listened to Nikki during the last 6 weeks.
Wouldn't it be easier to accept that Nikki Haley grew up and was influenced positively by Christians living their lives? She could have been one more person who listened to Billy Graham or the PTL program on TV, or met practicing Christians who explained who Christ is at Clemson university where she graduated.
Contrary to the popular media 90% of Christians are not hypocrites. They practice their faith in simple ways. Many are "real," kind, and considerate.
It is very cynical to assume that the only reason Nikki or Jindal "converted" to Christianity was 'to get ahead.' In America we can practice any religion.
Yesterday my motorcycle had a flat and two strangers seeing my predicament stopped what they were doing and plugged the leak without asking anything in return. The Indian owner of the gas station at 3 Fountains in Lexington walked over and said to me very seriously: the people in this area, they are very good and kind and then proceded to give me another specific example.
Thank you for this insightful article. As an American Jew born in the shadow of the Holocaust, I share the author's concerns but I believe that the younger generation is more open to people of any (or no) religious faith, race and sexual orientation. The Times They Are A Changing. And not a moment too soon!
June 26 2010 at 2:20 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyAloha Mr. Gibson,
Kudos for taking on this sensitive subject! For the most, I concur with your assessment of "assimilation and not acceptance", however, there is a deeper aspect of the assimilation process for us. As a grand- mother, an (Asian) American, I see much brighter future for my grandchildren. Our families are here because we believed in the "American ways" and we choose what value to take or leave for ourselves and our children, be it the "christian ways, or our old heritage traditions". Mahalo.
This quote in the article from The Washington Post's "On Faith" blog. "Religious conversion should be a personal sojourn, but Jindal's and Haley's capitulation to an evangelical insistence on public religiosity and rejection of their ancestral faiths are galling to many."
That may be so, but it does not gall as many or to the extent that the Gay agenda does. Why, if the Post believes the above, can't they also blog that sex is also a personal sojourn and does not need to be in our face.
Instead of giving the southern people credit for not discriminating against Jindahl and Haley based on their race this article suggests that the people would have discriminated against the two candidates based on their religion. The majority of the southern people would vote against any candidate who adheres to any religion that is anti-christian but all others would likely be accepted. Obama had a problem because as the article points out many people believed that he is a muslim. Those people also believe that muslims are anti-christian.
June 26 2010 at 2:20 AM Report abuse Permalink +8 rate up rate down ReplyFollow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners



Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
7 Comments