I looked up your previous post, where you made that claim, and like Fred, I can't see anywhere in the referenced article, here, where Peroutka says "to be catholic or protestant is unimportant".
As far as religious affiliation, in response to the question, "What is your religious affiliation and how will it affect your campaign and possible presidency?", he responded, "Well, I was raised Roman Catholic, I began then to be influenced by a reform Presbyterian movement. I actually attend a Protestant church now." Then he said immediately after that, "I don’t think the denomination is actually as important as we believe."; given that he was asked how his religious affliation would affect his campaign and presidency, I assume that when he says he doesn't think denomination is as important as we may believe, he's obviously talking about the political context (he must have become Presbyterian for a reason, so obviously the spiritual dimension is of importance to him, or he wouldn't have changed), and I agree with what Fred said; for my part, it's not of utmost importance to me which religious affiliation a candidate has, so long as he stands for and does, what's right... BTW, earlier in this same thread, I discussed my musing about whether or not to vote for a party led by a Mormon. Well, I did, recently, since that posting (not a national election, but a provincial one - I live in Alberta, incidentally). I may disagree with him on matters of faith, but I agree on matters of politics, largely, so I gave him and his party my support. They only got one seat, but they sent a message to the ostensibly rightist government, if they'll hear it, that they can't ignore their right flank, and should move to protect it next time, and this being Alberta, they may well do so...
Is that your blog? You've never discussed, as far as I recall, where you're from; are you from Zimbabwe? Your name sounds French to me... (Moi, je suis Canadien, et je parle un peu de francais; je ne suis pas parfaitment bilingue, mais je peux comprendre beaucoup plus que je peux parler.) I only ask, because I note that many of the posts concern topics we have discussed - and I recognize some of the articles as ones you've linked or posted here - and I note the characteristic use of all lower case letters, which seems, here at Turnabout, to be mostly characteristic of postings by you, Engelbert Wittig, and Eliecer.
Anyway, an interesting blog; while I of course disagree with much of it, and don't find it to be an effective refutation of other Protestants' attacks (e.g. I find it interesting how, in this post and also in this post too, both of which are ostensibly critical of Calvinism, the criticisms come from Calvinists themselves - hey, I'll be the first to admit our human failings, myself, and agree that we can improve on things - but the very fact that it is our own who are recognizing these things, means it's not symptomatic of the entire tradition, only of part of it... These have been posted or linked here before - at least, this one has; that's your blog, isn't it?); nevertheless, I am glad to see that person - it's you, isn't it? - standing up for what he believes, and articulating his Christian tradition.
Like Fred, I can't find it either...
I looked up your previous post, where you made that claim, and like Fred, I can't see anywhere in the referenced article, here, where Peroutka says "to be catholic or protestant is unimportant".
As far as religious affiliation, in response to the question, "What is your religious affiliation and how will it affect your campaign and possible presidency?", he responded, "Well, I was raised Roman Catholic, I began then to be influenced by a reform Presbyterian movement. I actually attend a Protestant church now." Then he said immediately after that, "I don’t think the denomination is actually as important as we believe."; given that he was asked how his religious affliation would affect his campaign and presidency, I assume that when he says he doesn't think denomination is as important as we may believe, he's obviously talking about the political context (he must have become Presbyterian for a reason, so obviously the spiritual dimension is of importance to him, or he wouldn't have changed), and I agree with what Fred said; for my part, it's not of utmost importance to me which religious affiliation a candidate has, so long as he stands for and does, what's right... BTW, earlier in this same thread, I discussed my musing about whether or not to vote for a party led by a Mormon. Well, I did, recently, since that posting (not a national election, but a provincial one - I live in Alberta, incidentally). I may disagree with him on matters of faith, but I agree on matters of politics, largely, so I gave him and his party my support. They only got one seat, but they sent a message to the ostensibly rightist government, if they'll hear it, that they can't ignore their right flank, and should move to protect it next time, and this being Alberta, they may well do so...
Is that your blog? You've never discussed, as far as I recall, where you're from; are you from Zimbabwe? Your name sounds French to me... (Moi, je suis Canadien, et je parle un peu de francais; je ne suis pas parfaitment bilingue, mais je peux comprendre beaucoup plus que je peux parler.) I only ask, because I note that many of the posts concern topics we have discussed - and I recognize some of the articles as ones you've linked or posted here - and I note the characteristic use of all lower case letters, which seems, here at Turnabout, to be mostly characteristic of postings by you, Engelbert Wittig, and Eliecer.
Anyway, an interesting blog; while I of course disagree with much of it, and don't find it to be an effective refutation of other Protestants' attacks (e.g. I find it interesting how, in this post and also in this post too, both of which are ostensibly critical of Calvinism, the criticisms come from Calvinists themselves - hey, I'll be the first to admit our human failings, myself, and agree that we can improve on things - but the very fact that it is our own who are recognizing these things, means it's not symptomatic of the entire tradition, only of part of it... These have been posted or linked here before - at least, this one has; that's your blog, isn't it?); nevertheless, I am glad to see that person - it's you, isn't it? - standing up for what he believes, and articulating his Christian tradition.