Tom Delay: Political hack, or nutjob? You decide.
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7500988/

What? WHAT?! Judicial activism? He's actually stupid enough to bring up judicial activism and Schiavo in the same breath? Wow. Just, wow. The Schiavo case is as clear cut a case of legislative activism as there ever was, and he's trying to turn it around into a judicial activism point. Yikes.

He's been quoted as saying that many many times in the last month or so. Judicial activism. I'm sure he wouldn't be saying that if the judges had acted in the "righteous" way that DeLay saw fit.

I honestly think the guy is slightly nuts. I've read some bios on him lately that make me cringe. He's said and seems to believe some pretty out there things.

Yes, becaue it's only judicial activism if you don't agree with the ruling.

Honestly, the courts practiced the exact opposite of judicial activism in this case.

One of the phrases absolutely guaranteed to raise my hackles is "judicial activism." Inevitably this is code for "didn't get the decision I wanted." Coming from Joe or Jane Average, I'm slightly more sympathetic; most people really don't understand how judges make decisions and what the limits are. I sure as heck didn't. But frankly, I would have expected Delay to know better.

In fact, I've already had the opportunity to read numerous cases where judges put in little footnotes that basically say "hello? bonehead legistlatures? we're being forced to apply your stupid law. you don't like it? change the damn law!" Only they say it in a more learned fashion.

nutjob.

I just love it when we can call someone who believes Christianity is the only way as a nut.

I wish Leo was here- I would like to hear his opinion, whatever it is.

DeLay isn't a nutjob because he believes Christianity is the only way. Everyone in America is entitled to believe that their religion (or lack thereof) is the only way. It's just that in a representative government, our leaders are expected to hold up the Constitution, not the Bible. A moral leader is a good thing. I just don't want my leaders to impose their morals on me.

And I hope that Leo recovers fast enough to get in on this thread, too.

"Definitive" "Comprehensive"

Someone who uses those kinds of adjectives to describe ANY religion, I don't care what it is, has a seriously distorted perspective.

I have zero problems with someone holding those sorts of personal views -- even "definitive" and "comprehensive". What our nation struggles with is the boundary between personal moral code and The Moral Code. Some people hold a moral code that compels them to establish standards to which they would hold all citizens -- not merely standards they themselves try to follow to the best of their own individual abilities. That is what makes me nervous. And moral codes can vary widely even within a group such as, say, Christians. Many Americans are adverse to what they see as paternalistic behavior.

It's an uneasy balance and the boundaries are not well defined. But once drawn they're difficult to alter. I think we need the system of checks and balances to make sure the boundaries aren't placed hastily and without contemplating potential ramifications.

Is this from a scary 3 am infomercial? Believing in something is all well and good, but his lack of respect - and apparent lack of knowledge - of other forms of worship and belief is astounding and frightening.

Now, now. I don't think that believing that Christianity is the best way for someone to operate is bad. I am a Christian (a cafeteria Catholic) and I believe it is the best way for me to operate. Nobody's calling me a nutjob. Well, maybe they are, but probably not regarding that.

I have trouble with anybody declaring that their religious practices are the only way. "Definitive," I believe he said. Religion, by definition, is based on a faith. No definitive answer can come from it, only ideas and things one *believes.*

There are very valid life questions answered by all kinds of religions. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism... those are a small portion, but I have known friends who practice all of those who've garnered strength and 'answers' (which, really, are just things you figure out for yourself with the guidance of the people and influences around you) from their respective choice of religion. Imagine if you were born into a different culture than your own. You'd likely feel the same sense of loyalty to the set of traditions into which you were born. Knowing that, how can anyone say that one is better than the other?

I'd even go as far as to say that one can garner strength and get answers without religion. One of the kindest, most integretive people I know lives his life with empathy for the people, animals-- planet-- around him. He acts with more 'Christian' behavior than, frankly, I do. And he doesn't believe in a higher power. That's what works for him. I don't begrudge him a system that works for him simply because my own system is different. I'm just glad that he's the man he is.

Believing in Christianity? That's one thing. Believing it's a definitive answer? That's negating its very nature as a religion. Why else do you think there are so many songs and psalms and verses about *faith*?

Exactly, so how does that make it "definitive" if no one can even agree on what it is?

It could be definitive for the individual; it's the application to a group that's problematic.

I would say the nutjob aspect comes from the implied idea that christianity is the only answer and will save the world....I seem to recall another nutjob that has similar views about the muslim faith, he was so radical about it that he had some planes fly into some really tall buildings. I swear, if people were more tolerant of other faiths and thought about it a bit to look at the similarities in them all, the crap that goes on in this world would be greatly diminished.

I will not respond to attacks about this post, the comparing of Delay's comments to Usama are only there to give some perspective to the words uttered by both and the dangers of such idea's. I in no way intend to say that Delay is the same as Usama, however the idea's that other faiths are wrong is a dangerous one and an idea that has us in the predicaments we are in right now.

I believe that is what DeLay is saying-- that Christianity is definitive for all. "Christianity is the only... answer." That's a closed-minded statement, in my estimation.

Food for thought:

OR

As you can see I replaced "Christaniaty" with 2 other religions. Now would he be a nutjob or entitled to his views?

Imagine for a moment that our President and the Congressional majority were Orthodox Jews. They kept Kosher. Now imagine them outlawing the consumption of pork, shell fish and other non-Kosher food based upon their religion. Sure, he has the choice to just not partake in the consumption of said food but instead they decide that the rest of the country should not be allowed to parktake in the consumption of pork and other non-Kosher food because it's against the religion of the people in charge of the country.

What would you do? I highly doubt people would sit by quietly and let this happen. Would they be anti-Semetic? Would they be anti-Judisim? Or would they just be citizens who think the government stepped over the line.

And I guess I don't have a problem with him believing that. He's welcome to think that his brand of Christianity is the answer -- even the ONLY answer. Neither he nor anyone else is welcome to require me to live as if his or her brand of Christianity was the only answer.

Stated another way -- he's welcome to believe that wearing lederhosen on Thursdays is the only possible way to ensure eternal salvation. He might believe that anyone NOT wearing lederhosen on Thursdays is doomed to burn in the eternal hellfires. That alone wouldn't necessarily prevent him from being a good legislator. But don't expect me to run off now and change into short pants because it's for my own good, dammit.

Besides, I'd look awful in leather shorts. I'll bet they chafe.

Welcome to believe that his beliefs are definitive, of course. However, I still think that someone who believes that their own beliefs are definitive has a distorted view of reality. Nevermind that Delay wasn't even talking about his own beliefs, but rather Christianity in a more general sense. Now there's a REAL perception problem if one calls "Christianity" definitive. If no two people can agree in full as to what Christianity teaches, then how can one rightly declare the whole of the religion definitive?

I have my own beliefs, shaped largely by my identity as a Jew. However I'm not so deluded as to think that there is no chance that I'm wrong. I believe I'm right, but that doesn't make it definitive, let alone the only definitive answer.

Having been raised a basically fundamentalist Christian, I remember distinctly the infighting over beliefs and practices between Christians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. Do we baptize when born or when the child makes a choice? Do we sprinkle or emerse? On and on it went. There is not ONE WAY - even within Christianity.

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:

Hmmm....

Certainly not judicial activism in this case. The judiciary pretty much kept their hands off this. Do I believe there is judicial activism? Certainly. Was Schiavo an example of it? No.

I am not disturbed by Delay's faith nor his proclaimations about Chirstianity being the only answer. I would not be disturbed by a Muslim saying the same thing about his faith. For those that have faith, their faith IS the only way. I've never been someone who buys into my faith being OK for me, but it may not be the way for everyone. This is not to say everyone must believe the same as I do, but when I have faith, it is real to me to the point of being the only thing that makes sense. What disturbs me far more is someone like a Randall Terry who uses his faith as justification for murdering abortion doctors. Not OK. Or someone who claims to have faith but will not stand up for the principles thereof. Now, does that mean I expect perfection? Certainly not - we are all human, and the tenets of my faith say we are all sinners.

Also, it is impossible for anyone of faith not to have that influence their political decisions. Faith is the basis for a moral code, and a moral code influences how you vote. I know many say not to impose a morality on someone else that they may not want, but all legislation legislates some form of moral code. This is why we can vote out the members of congress that we don't like should we disagree with their actions. It could be the Delay gets voted out.

There is a congressman from Michigan - John Conyers - who is a socialist. He runs as a democrat, but he admits to being a socialist. I have no idea why or how he keeps getting reelected. I suppose many feel that way about Delay.

Tha ballot box is where this type of stuff should get dealt with. Personally, I think the dems have specifically targeted Delay as an act of vengence for the ouster of Daschle, but that's another thing all together.