This just goes to show the absolute lack of professionalism inherent in Purdue's approach to the job.  A good leader should run for office (whatever that office may be) with the intent of serving the people.  He clearly has a radical right religious agenda and has abused his authority in order to get what he wants.  It amazes me how exclusionary our elected leaders are and their attitude that if somebody disagrees with them than they don't represent those particular people.  

I remember a conversation that was being had with a member of the religious right though I can't remember the specific person.  I think it might have been Jerry Falwell.  The interviewer asked what would happen to people of all other religions and non believers if the religious right had their way and managed to establish a theocracy.  His response was something along the lines of "These other people would still have their rights and would be protected but we would be in charge."  I was thinking to myself, "That's easy to say when you think your church will be the one in charge."  What supporters of theocracy don't seem to get is that they will be just as much slaves as everybody else should that happen.  It's unavoidable that if a theocracy is established in a country then only a small handful of people will have any real freedom and those would be the ones in power.  The rest of us would be hung out to dry, including the fundamentalist christians.

by Ross Raymond on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:43:47 PM EST

The recent rise of patently unconstitutional legislation being passed might mean one of two things.

First, it could be a sign that a large number of real theocrats have gotten into office and believe their religious ideas make valid laws. They are hoping that 200 years or precedence will be overthrown. They are politically naive.

Second, and I think more likely, they know that the alliance between the religious right and the republicans is nearing an end and are trying to shore up their credibility with religous voters. It is a cynical attempt for politicians to say: "I supported your religious platform and voted for it, but the courts stopped it from become law. See, I did my best, so keep voting for me."

I don't think either tactic will work. Moderates will become energized by the over reach (as is happening in SD) and those pandering to the religious fringe will (eventually) be voted out.

-- Policies not Politics
by rdf on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:11:08 PM EST