Except that people who believe their version of whatever belief system is definitive also tend to believe that anyone else claiming to share said umbrella belief system (but not conforming exactly) is a deviant and imposter. The two tend to go together. I'm not saying it's not wacky, but in my generalized experience people who think like this run the gamut from scary lunatic through entertaining eccentric and down to amusingly quirky. Some are dangerous, some are (mostly) harmless. I guess that alone doesn't bother me.

I am actually bothered by DeLay, but for different reasons. Politicians who are unethical are annoying. Politicians who constantly harp on their own perceived moral high ground are annoying. Demonstrably unethical politicians who nonetheless claim the moral high ground are enough to drive me batty.

There's an old joke. It's written from a Jewish perspective, but me thinks it would translate just as well to Christianity (necessary vocabulary - shul: Yiddish word for synagogue):

After a shipwreck, a young Jewish man managed to survive, stranded on a deserted island. He spent several years, building shelters, foraging for food, and learning the art of survival as he went. Miraculously, he was one day able to catch the attention of a military ship that passed by the remote island and was rescued.

Once recovered from his ordeal, he returned to the island with a camera crew filming the story of his survival. The shelters he had built were still in tact and he began to give the crew a tour. "Over here is where I slept," he said, pointing to a small but sturdy lean-to structure. "Behind it is where I stored my food," gesturing towards an ingenious pantry that he had built half burried to keep things cooler. "And most importantly to me, is this building, my shul. It was with God's help that I managed to survive." He continued the tour, pointing out the smaller immenities he had set up for himself. After a while, the crew noticed that he had not mentioned one large building, just down the beach from his shul. "What's the one?" one of them asked. "That?" he responded. "Feh, that's the other shul, I wouldn't be caught dead in there!"

But, wouldn't it make you vote against someone that crazy?

If I heard an elected official was proclaiming that the South Beach Diet was the only, definitive answer on how to eat, I'd be horrified that such a nutjob was in power. Insert your diet program here.

For crying out loud, isn't an elected official supposed to be open minded to ALL of his electorate? If I had voted for him, I'd think he was calling me an idiot for not recognizing the one true path. What a jerk!

Indeed, I don't recall any of the republicans crying "judicial activism" during the 2000 elections when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

Not surprising that he didn't answer on the subject of impeachment. I keep hearing the right saying that these judged should be impeached. I say "Go for it". But they never will because they know the judges haven't done anything impeachable. Just a bunch of hot air because they didn't get their way.

I'm glad that a lot of republicans are finally distancing themselves from DeLay. It must have been an interesting wake up call when they all dove head-first into the Shaivo issue only to find that they didn't have the public's support at all.

Personally, it doesn't bother me. Lots of people hold what I consider to be totally wackadoo ideas, and yet manage to accomplish their professional work. I don't care if they think the moon is made of green cheese, as long as they do their job. If my local elected official proclaimed that he felt the SBD was the one true way to eat, sure I'd think he was a little nutty. If he nonetheless understood and respected that his electorate have many and diverse eating preferences it would be fine with me.

Contrariwise, if my local elected official declared that the SBD was the one true way AND, as a result of his convictions, he was now sponsoring legislation to require all restaurant menus to conform to the SBD, I'd be mighty peeved.

I honestly don't think one has to be open-minded in the sense of embracing the validity of others' beliefs. However, I do think that one has to recognize that others are entitled to hold differening beliefs.

I should also add that I'm speaking toward the general. I suspect that some specific elected officials do NOT feel that others are entitled, under the laws of this land and the spirit in which it was founded, to hold differening beliefs. I find that objectionable.

nutjob

Christian Nutjob

Why do we have to choose between political hack or nutjob? Can't he be both?

:snap: