The Old Switcheroo

“He never expressed a desire to dominate or subjugate any other religion.“

Not that it would have to be explicit or even another religion; a Christian could be uncomfortable with the overt and encroaching legislative values without finding a broad difference in faith.  Adding a binding moral stigma to misogyny overlaps and subjugates religious freedom.  It’s implicit in the express promotion of a narrow Christian theology that lesser Christians exist. The theology that was elevated at his former law school is such; it is an institution that has consistently stated focus on dominating the state’s agenda with a particular cultural interpretation of the Bible. 

A side note would emphasize that the candidate attended and was given undergraduate degrees by separate and well-accredited institutions before joining a questionable activist university in his 30’s to write a thesis titled “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade”. 

I think the intense purpose of the institution, combined with the relevant subject matter of the thesis in this conversation really outweigh the casual dismissal of the matter altogether as simply being a part of the past.  Written 20 years ago, but then, when was it disavowed?  Was it ever? 

“Deeds simply changes his mind to whatever is most popular and convenient at the moment. Deeds does not seem to have any fundamental values to which he ascribes.“

Deeds is a pluralist.  This is true.  He holds favor on certain issues, but ultimately he is not bringing a rigid agenda to the task of administration and this is a strength, to have flexibility in uncertain times. That the notion of a popular cause is somehow also a negative attribute seems strange for the observer of democracy.  Are you criticizing him for being responsive to the public?

Changing from a luke warm opinion to a separate luke opinion for the sake of exterior motivations is qualitatively different from those opposed interior motives that turn religious radicalism into moderation.  It is different.

McDonnell espoused a fairly totalitarian view of how religion and the state should interact and this was reasoned through religious thought.  When a person finds policy evident through religion, there is something personal attached to that conviction. Further, it is without account for how another will find their religion expressed upon the issue and creates to dynamic effect that relationship of dominance and subservience to another’s religion.  Personal or popular controls to this sentiment are of no consideration in the egoism of religion, for better or worse.  It only knows subjugation.  And this is in contrast to the parallel drawn in the snippet above, that reason is relative, but equal when it is certainly not.