Sunday, October 21, 2007

Not Getting It

I don't understand the concept of Rudy Giuliani as presidential material. He's running sentimentally on 9/11 while his performance before and after was somewhat questionable. Is his appeal that he isn't one of those crazy christianists, or one of the crazy christianist wannabes?

He actually seems to me to be the ultimate bureaucratic city worker. Keep the garbage picked up, keep the trains running on time, clean up the city square. President? I just don't see it.

I also don't understand the bizarre anti-Mormon resistance to Mitt Romney. Sounds like a big chunk of the religious right is rejecting a rightly religious person on the grounds that he's not a Christian. I guess Christians aren't the only group being 'persecuted' these days, eh? Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

I spent a lot of time with Mormons in my youth and, although I generally found them to be a one-off from most things I thought of as 'normal' as a youngster, I don't recall anything hideous or scary or threatening. As a whole they are very pro-family, pro-chastity, pro-service.


Anonymous eagle-eyed-milton said...

How dare Dobson speak for who Christians should vote for! I like Rudy and Mitt much more than Freddy. I think you are wrong on 2 points. He did take the biggest city in the right direction after Dinkins made a mess of it before 9/11...taking on crime...the Mafia and then the terrorists. He has more experience as presidential material than Hillary or Barack (Senators deal with laws...not running a monolithic organization).

And....Are Christians really rejecting Mitt? I like his squeaky clean image. You certainly must know that technically speaking, Evangelicals find Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims all factually incorrect regarding New Testament on Biblical principles to varying degrees). But I would vote for any man or woman who in any of those religions who has a great prior record in government office.

2:15 PM, October 21, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

I was simply musing. The Republican Primary is not my race and Rudy, Mitt, and Freddy are not my horses. I'm sure the Republicans will nominate whoever among the three they feel best represents them. I liked McCain; I'm sort of dispassionate about the rest. Christian, non-Christian, butcher, baker, candlestick maker... whatever. The fascinating dynamic here is that we've been told for years and years that a Republican can't win without the support of the religious right. I'm interested to see if true conservatives are finally ready to reclaim their party.

As I said, Rudy seems like a great bureaucrat. Good Mayors are bureaucrats by nature, that's their function. That's bureaucrat in the literal sense of the word, btw, not negatively connoted. (My dad brought this to my attention many years ago when I asked why, as a staunch Republican, he voted for the mayoral incumbent, a Democrat. He said that mayors were city administrators, mostly apolitical, and he voted for the guy who made the city run well.) Presidents, on the other hand, are not bureaucrats. There is a difference between the effective characteristics of a mayor and those of a head of state. I loved Ross Perot, too (how true did that whole 'sucking sound' thing turn out to be?), but I doubted that the characteristics that made him an effective CEO would make him an effective head of state.

I don't know if ALL Christians are rejecting Mitt, I was just reading about the results of so-called 'Values Voter Summit'. Since the christianists are the ones who seem to have co-opted the whole values thing for themselves (because the rest of us don't have any?), I just assumed. I should have remembered to put it in context: James Dobson thinks he speaks for all Christians like Al Sharpton thinks he speaks for all blacks.

I have nothing against Mitt as a Mormon. I would prefer Mitt in office than some Dobson acolyte trying to stuff his religion down my throat at every opportunity. I'm no expert but I put Mormons into the same category as Jews as far as continuously seeking wisdom and enlightenment through their religion. They seem (IMO) to find more spiritual value in asking questions than in having answers. Christianists (small "c") strike me as the opposite.

Although I've known a few earnest Christians, most of the ones I've encountered have been christianists who use their religion as a means to feel superior to others. Or - alternatively - they've immersed themselves in religion to find respite from guilt (to feel divinely forgiven must be an intoxicating thing). I don't mean to be offensive (I'm guessing you are a Christian?) but my views have been shaped by my experiences and, to be honest, most of my experiences with these people have been bad.

I'm ok with my agnosticism. I'd put the content of my character -- flaws and all -- up against my christianist peers any day of the week. If there's a God to condemn me at the end with all of the other non-Christians in the world, so be it.

P.S. How can anyone find Biblical principles to be "factually incorrect"? In what way are you implying that Bible principles are "factual"? Just curious... that's quite a statement!

8:26 PM, October 21, 2007  
Anonymous eagle-eyed-milton said...

I didn't want to start a religion debate, politics is more than enough to keep your blog busy :-)

Factually incorrect principles...perhaps I should have wrote 'fundementally' instead of 'factually' but I'm not as good a writer as you :-) Fundementally - meaning that when Bible historians determined what IS the Bible, they had a lot of documents to choose from. The origins being the 5 books writtten by Moses (Jewish Law) had to be the base and anything additional could not conflict. So in the New Testament, John 14:6
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Muslims say Jesus is only a prophet, and Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary...would be fundemenally incorrect principles to an evangelical Christian.

I would also say that 'feeling superior to others' is definitely against fundemental principles. But many "christians" don't read their bibles very closely do they?

9:31 AM, October 22, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

I was hoping my response commentary didn't seem disrespectful. I had just popped in to edit it but I see you've beaten me here. I figure there's nothing to be gained in the discussion by being needlessly inflammatory and, besides, I appreciate the participation.

Also... I readily admit that religion is not my forte... it's a very counter-intuitive thing for me. I would be happy to leave any discussion of religion to the religious except recently they've seemed kinda hell bent on taking over the country. (Jeeesh, it's like I can't stop myself.... argh!)

Ok, really for real... I'm done now. :-)

10:19 AM, October 22, 2007  
Anonymous eagle-eyed-milton said...

Since I read your column 'religiously' right after the Drudgereport and my cup of coffee...of course I'm going to beat you to your comment before you update it :-)

11:21 AM, October 22, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home