It amazes me that someone could miss the point so completely. There’s a difference between public life as in, “what we do in public,” and public life as in, “what we do as public servants.”

A public servant brings his personal values and life experience to the office. You can’t separate the two and, aside of from religion, nobody is ever asked to. It’s absurd to suggest that a religious person should simply set aside his way of life and way of thinking when he gets to Congress.

Don’t vote for a religious person if you really believe that’s it’s dangerous. (Although, blaming religion for Bush makes about as much sense as praising religion for Martin Luther King, Jr.) But don’t patronize religion by saying “it’s fine as long as you leave it behind when you get to power”. Do you not realize what kind of insult that is?

For rape victims.

Read the links to see how callous his attitude was.

Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life?

You know why? Because it’s Connecticut, and it’s frankly considered embarrassing to talk about religion publicly there. Especially when one is running for public office. It’s tacky.

And let’s all remember the real issue here: we have the Democratic Party establishment lining up to support Lieberman even if the Democratic voters in Connecticut decide that they do not want him to be the Democratic nominee. It’s not *his* seat, and Schumer and Salazar and Boxer should just stand right the hell back and state unequivocally that they support him in the primary, but if the voters decide they don’t want him, then they will support the choice of the voters.

Hillary Clinton’s figured this out, why can’t they?

So it’s not just the birth-control thing.

It amazes me that someone feels comfortable expressing their utter hatred of religion so openly. Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life? It’s incredibly offensive to suggest that public life must a God-free. That’s just one step short of saying, “You’re ideas and values are just do ridiculous to talk about in public.”

It amazes me that someone could miss the point so completely. There’s a difference between public life as in, “what we do in public,” and public life as in, “what we do as public servants.” The guy in the White House right now is a good example of just how creepy and dangerous it can be to conflate a political duty with a religious one.

problems Lieberman has pointedly ignored, such as universal healthcare and protecting reproductive rights.

a zealous faith and a commitment to women’s rights are not mutually exclusive.

You’re grossly misrepresenting Lieberman’s position as “anti-choice”. There’s absolutely no indication that he opposes abortion rights. All you can point to is that he doesn’t supports forcing Catholic hosptials to offer contraception. You’re welcome to disagree but it’s dishonest to paint him with the same broad stroke as Dobson.

one of the reasons I so disliked him personally is his willingness to talk about his faith. I think the religious faith is a strictly personal issue and should not be mentioned by politicians on the campaign trail.

It amazes me that someone feels comfortable expressing their utter hatred of religion so openly. Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life? It’s incredibly offensive to suggest that public life must a God-free. That’s just one step short of saying, “You’re ideas and values are just do ridiculous to talk about in public.”

I suspect everyone’s playing it safe– sticking with the expected winner, no matter his politics. I’m sorry it’s so, but at least it’s explicable.

I’ve always thought that middle America has just been waiting for the day an elderly Orthodox Jew from Connecticut would bring his social conservatism to the Democratic Party.