October 14, 2005

ELECTORAL MATH IS PRETTY SIMPLE:

Kansas Senator, Looking at Presidential Bid, Makes Faith the Bedrock of Campaign (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 10/14/05, NY Times)

[Senator Sam] Brownback, an evangelical-Protestant-turned-Roman Catholic from Kansas who attends services in the two faiths each Sunday and once washed an aide's feet in a gesture of humble devotion, is contemplating a big bet on a resurgence in traditionalist faith that he hoped to find in the monastery's numbers.

He came here to assess the potential for a Republican presidential primary campaign centered on opposition to abortion and support for God in public life, while back in Washington his current role as the Republican most publicly questioning the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers is becoming the first big test of his long-shot campaign.

"The thought does come into my mind," Mr. Brownback, 49, conceded with a furrowed brow in an interview. "But then I really work at saying: 'No, this is not about that. This is about what is good for the country. This is not about presidential ambitions.' "


A Catholic who wants the GOP nomination isn't going to block an Evangelical from the Court.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 14, 2005 8:36 AM
Comments

OJ:

Somewhat off topic, but I am curious (seriously) why an Evangelical would become Catholic? No Evangelicals in my circles and all the Catholics are born and raised.

Posted by: Rick T. at October 14, 2005 10:37 AM

We're all going to become Catholics eventually.

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2005 11:09 AM

Why would an Evangelical become a Catholic? Suggest you take a look at a very interesting book (which O.J. should review someday, hint! hint!), Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.

Posted by: Mike Morley at October 14, 2005 11:46 AM

The two Catholic websites I visit most, JimmyAkin.org and MarkShea.blogspot.com are former Evangelicals and are now Catholics. If you want to know why they converted, they'll probably tell you.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 14, 2005 11:54 AM

He probably married a Catholic. Interesting, though, that Miers went in the opposite direction.

OJ: Everyone but you and me, as neither of us can swear the Nicene Creed.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 14, 2005 12:09 PM

Why not?

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2005 12:45 PM

Why can't I or why can't you?

Posted by: David Cohen at October 14, 2005 1:07 PM

Either/or

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2005 2:06 PM

I assume my reasons are obvious, but at least I can get past the first line. You don't believe in one G-d, eternal. You've said that, just as our existence proves our Creation and G-d's existence, G-d's existence proves His Creation and thus the existence of His Creator. It's gods all the way down. A god that is not eternal, but created and is not one, but at the bottom of a ladder of gods, is not the G-d of the Nicene Creed (or of the Schma, for that matter).

Posted by: David Cohen at October 14, 2005 6:47 PM

Ending the human schism is worth accepting a creed. I've no problem with the eternality of God.

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2005 6:50 PM
« OHIO ON THE TIGRIS: | Main | THEOS CAN FIGHT DIRTY TOO: »