relevance

Submitted by bos (United Kingdom), Jan 1, 2008 at 08:05

the roots of faith, any faith, are irrelevent to the issue, and doubly so with regard to my comment. the suitability of any particular system of faith as guidance for a political leader is also not even closely related to the issue raised here which is actually the presidential suitability of a man who appears to have explicitly lied with regard to an issue deeply important to a huge number of the american electorate.

so instead of giving basic lectures on the athiests view of the roots of the monotheistic faiths, why dont you address how you think this dishonesty should colour the electorate's assessment of "Obama's political and leadership fitness". You should also remember that Obama has not announced that he is abandoning 'nonsensical' and 'naive' ideas, he has actually just pinned his colours to a different mast, a mast that happens to be the most popular faith in the land he seeks to rule.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".