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

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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

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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

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.

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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?

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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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?

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.

[mousepod]

The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.
Tom DeLay

Spoiler:

of course, this was him talking about Kosovo in '99. hypocritical nutjob.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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, 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!

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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!

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.