I believe that posthumous has the correct ideaology
in the core
meaning of his node. Religion
is important in choosing a leader, simply because its a very formal
mean of social control
, and a very powerful
one at that. Logicially, a person would want their leaders to be of the same devotion
as they are, to give more of a human, down to earth
, and controllable
nature to them. If a candidate
states that he is a devout Catholic
, then his beliefs are usually within a predictable
Fact of the matter is, Lieberman might help Gore win New York, but Gore was already slated to win New York. And like Bush says anyway, using a vice-president to further an election is idiocy, so I'm glad that neither party seems to have chosen their candidate just to win delegates.
What posthumous is really targetting is the concept of blind, idiot, uneducated anti-religious movements. These people are no different than racists, they choose to dislike people simply because of their beliefs.
But, the bottom line is this: it should always be your right to vote against a candidate for whatever reasons you so choose. If every redneck and skinhead in the US decides that they're going to vote against Lieberman because of his religion, they should have a right to do so. The Founding Fathers never laid claim that a vote must be justified.
And as a result, we probably will see a rather large lashing out against the Jewish community as a whole.