Rudy to social cons: Christianity means having a big tent!

posted at 11:58 am on October 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

The moment of truth has come and gone. Geraghty has reaction round-up. It sounds like he did as well as could be hoped: some solid applause lines, polite ovations at the beginning and end, but nothing transformative (although Reason’s Dave Weigel did detect the crowd warming to him near the end after an excruciating beginning). The Swamp has extensive quotations but you’re better off with Politico’s report, which pares it down to the best soundbites. Two money lines, the first of which amounts to asking vis-a-vis the third-party rumors, What Would Jesus Do?

Instead of pandering to the group, Giuliani held his ground.

“We’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive,” Giuliani said. “Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history, isn’t it? … I’m running for president of the United States because I believe I can bring us together. Strong leadership can help us find common solutions to our problems.”

And the second, zeroing in on the core difference between Mitt and Rudy that I mentioned the other day. In a word, authenticity:

“Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?” Giuliani told an audience of 2,000 at the Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summmit at a Washington hotel. “I believe trust is more important than 100 percent agreement.”

The audience, generally hostile to Giuliani, recognized the shot at former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and laughter and a few cheers spread across the room.

These WYSIWYG/straight talk passages seem to have come early, though, during the icier parts of his reception. It was the red meat Reagan/family/Catholic-school references at the end that had the crowd coming around. As Weigel says, “If he wins over religious right voters, he’s not going to do it by opening avenues of mutual respect. He’s going to get them through symbolism and pandering.” Now it’s on to the conference straw poll, where he’s a mortal lock to finish near or at the bottom. If he can figure out a way to win the nomination with the corest of core Republicans against him and a primary strategy that’s inviting defeat in the first four states to vote, he should be elected just for having the brains and balls to pull that off.

Exit question one: Why is he attacking Mitt? Mitt’s not his biggest problem anymore. Exit question two: If everyone loves Huck, how come he’s not raising any money?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Exit question one: Why is he attacking Mitt? Mitt’s not his biggest problem anymore.

Fred hasn’t really pandered all too much. He told Fox News that he wasn’t going to bow to Dobson, didn’t he?

amerpundit on October 20, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Why is he attacking Mitt? Mitt’s not his biggest
problem anymore.

I thought Hugh assured us all values voters are going to Mitt.

Seriously though: Because if he shifts Mitt voters they go to him. If he shifts Fred voters they go to Mitt. Besides, I’m not sure it’s even worth the trouble of knocking Fred at this stage for Rudy. Media is doing enough of it by itself – Fred is slow, doesn’t show up for days after the debate, etc. I’d just leave that alone for now

Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 12:05 PM

He told Fox News that he wasn’t going to bow to Dobson, didn’t he?

I didn’t suggest that Fred had pandered.

I thought Hugh assured us all values voters are going to Mitt.

Heh. Would the man who thought Harriet Miers would make a solid Supreme Court justice lie?

Allahpundit on October 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM

If everyone loves Huck, how come he’s not raising any money?

He talks well until his Nanny Statism comes out.

flipflop on October 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Heh. Would the man who thought Harriet Miers would make a solid Supreme Court justice lie?

Lol. In his defense though, it depends on what your definition of “solid” is. Or “make”.

Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM

He told Fox News that he wasn’t going to bow to Dobson, didn’t he?

Allahpundit on October 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Oh, I know that. But his goal at this was to show he wasn’t going to pander, but he agreed with them on many things. Mitt’s been pandering. Fred really hasn’t, at least to Dobson.

amerpundit on October 20, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Sorry, I quoted my original comment, Allah.

amerpundit on October 20, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Here is a post on Rudy from another thread that is more relevant to this discussion.

Rudy promises to appoint strict constructionist judges. More likely than not, it would require an entire first term to get the court into a 5-4 position and to wait for the docket to provide a case that would begin a rollback of Roe.

Post-Roe, what would be the next step for a Pro-Life president? Presumably it would be to sign Congressional legislation that restricted abortion at the federal level. Would the make-up of Congress likely be such that it would do anything more Pro-Life than make abortion “safe, legal and rare”?

There is a lot to question about Rudy but the tangible impact he can have on abortion has to be weighed against what you think about him on other issues.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM

I agree that you do need to open the tent. He laid it out for them. I actually thought the quote was a breath of fresh air:

“Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?”

Pam on October 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Christianity is all about inclusion? I thought it was about tough love.

Connie on October 20, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Okay Allah, let’s break this down…

As Weigel says, “If he wins over religious right voters, he’s not going to do it by opening avenues of mutual respect. He’s going to get them through symbolism and pandering.”

This is an oversimplification, there’s a element of truth to it, but there is a cutoff where it quits being true, which leads me to…

Why is he attacking Mitt? Mitt’s not his biggest problem anymore.

Because of the inaccuracy of the first statement, pandering only gets you so far, which is why Mitt can throw gazillions of dollars at the electorate in campaigning, and not get a damn thing for it, because his whole campaign is one big fat pander and its obvious to everyone.

Rudy knows that, he was sloppy in trying to argue honesty while reception to it was still cold, but its a work in progress.

Rudy’s primary campaign has to work on the same campaign principle as Hillary’s overall campaign, that he’s inevitable. If he has a real fight on his hands, he becomes much less so. Romney’s stalled out, and if Rudy can knock him down into the second tier or even out of the race, its one less competitor, plus it gives a boost to Team Rudy morale, and prestige for him, because it reasserts that he’s the kingpin.

He can then start trying to pick apart Fred, and given Fred’s rough performance thus far, Rudy can win over Fred handily if Fred doesn’t shape the hell up. Of course if Fred does shape up, I think the social cons might go with Fred and Rudy’s out…could be wrong, but that’s my reading of it.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Gotta hand it to Rudy here. I’d much rather he spoke his honest mind than pander for effect.

Rudy’s got some challenges, but we have lots of worse choices we could make.

I’m still pulling for Fred, (despite the pathetic non-stop onslaught from our Fred-bashing parrots), but if our choice winds up being Rudy, I’d have no problem pulling the lever for him.

I also don’t believe hillery’s got a lock on ’08. Too many people, on both sides of the fence despise her. Her teflon’s not so non-stick these days with the increasing reach of the blogosphere and so many devestating video clips so easily at hand.

techno_barbarian on October 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Rudy’s absolutely right, of course. Christianity is SUPPOSED to be a big tent.

When it ceases to be, then Christians start living up to every close-minded stereotype that non-Christians apply to them.

And, sadly, that’s EXACTLY what people like Dobson have been doing.

Vyce on October 20, 2007 at 12:57 PM

“Christianity is all about inclusiveness.”

Sigh. Over two thousand years of Christian writings, Christian apologies, etc. and a politician, in an attempt to get votes, reduces it to a single sentence that uses the postmodern form of “inclusiveness” to describe what it’s “all about.” Oh well….can’t really blame him. With people like Rick Warren being viewed as the “modern evangelical” it’s no wonder he thinks Christianity is all about inclusiveness.

Weight of Glory on October 20, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Rudy’s right in that Mitt is all about pandering but he’s wrong in thinking he’s the only show in town. I’ll never trust someone who thinks one way but promises to act another way for my vote. I remember thinking that Bush wouldn’t dare try to sell America out to his Mexican buddies and that didn’t turn out well at all. There are other choices.

Buzzy on October 20, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud Rudy for not trying to be something he isn‘t. It’s just that he really has a hard time properly identifying what he’s trying to avoid being fake about.

Weight of Glory on October 20, 2007 at 1:04 PM

I think a lot of this resistance to Rudy is born of the fight we had over Bush and the GOP sellouts over amnesty. People don’t want a person who’s gonna pander 24/7, because they invariably go by polls to decide what to support, and become total sellouts who screw you over, on the flipside, you have stubborn people who follow their principles no matter what, and you end up in vicious firefights with the people that are supposed to be on your side.

I think this is a big reason why Fred is doing so well despite his lackluster performance, he strikes a balance, he isn’t a total panderer like Mitt, who would probably sell us out wherever he could if he thought it would boost his personal ratings(if elected), and he isn’t like Rudy(if elected), who might give us the same nightmare Bush did with amnesty, on more than one issue, and there is a limit to how many times you do that before you cause serious permanent damage to the conservative coalition.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Why is he attacking Mitt? Mitt’s not his biggest problem anymore

One reason is Rudy likes to attack. More local reason is New Hampshire. If Rudy can finish very close or win New Hampshire SuperDuper Tuesday is set up to leave him in the lead after Feb 5th. He just has to make sure Mitt doesn’t win Iowa, New Hampshire, and finish very strong in SC to puncture the perception that Rudy is inevitable.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 1:08 PM

he’s wrong in thinking he’s the only show in town.

Other than Mitt, Huck is the one guy whose polls are heading in the right direction. Huck is starting to experience a media boomlet and could finish strong enough in Iowa to jump into the top tier.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 1:12 PM

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Huck could push into first tier, until he gets smacked back into second tier where the Open Borders Nanny Stater belongs.

It’ll be Fred vs. Rudy by the time primaries hit, unless Fred totally F’s up, which I’m not going to discount entirely.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 1:17 PM

It looks like a Fred v Rudy showdown and I never discount a persons ability to F things up. Huck doesn’t stand a chance, not with illegal immigration and taxes being the only issues that Republicans can beat the DEMs on right now. The fact that those issues aren’t being pounded on day and night by our candidates concerns me greatly. I have very little trust in anyone right now.

Buzzy on October 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Christianity is not and has never been about “inclusiveness”. And even if it was, I wouldn’t want mass murderers in my tent anyway. About Rudy, I don’t really care what candidates “personally believe” as long as they do what I want, which I don’t really trust him to do.

Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM

I don’t want a candidate that ‘does what I want’. I want the guy that knows how to lead not react on his leash. While Rudy is my third choice…..hat tip to him for making his case.

Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Exit question one: Why is he attacking Mitt?

He’s going for an early win somewhere, most likely in New Hampshire or Michigan, and in those places Mitt is his main competition. If he can win one of the early states he’ll have some momentum and be able to take out Fred in Super Tuesday, who presumably won’t have the momentum and doesn’t have the potential to win any of the primaries until at least South Carolina.

sublime on October 20, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Huck could push into first tier, until he gets smacked back into second tier where the Open Borders Nanny Stater belongs.

Agreed that Huck is auditioning for VP, and could balance a ticket with Rudy at the top. Rudy would play well in the general in the North East. Huck could fight it out with Bill for the Arkansas electorals.

Anyone heading the ticket is going to have problems with social conservatives on a couple of issues. Fred might have the best mix of positions for them, however his lackadaisical style is making him the butt of a lot of jokes. Some passion in the next debate would help.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Fred totally F’s up, which I’m not going to discount entirely.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Heh. Good call!

Weight of Glory on October 20, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I don’t want a candidate that ‘does what I want’. I want the guy that knows how to lead not react on his leash. While Rudy is my third choice…..hat tip to him for making his case.

Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Yeah, works great till you have an Amnesty situation, and you’re trying to keep your stubborn idiot leadership from handing over the country to the socialist screwballs on the left for the next few generations.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Well at least he didn’t take a call from his wife.

He didn’t, right? I mean I can’t believe he would…

Ex-tex on October 20, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Understood…but how the hell are any of these guys going to pass muster with everyone? Sooner or later they all go on a scale and everyone has to pick one. So my candidate doesn’t win. What am I supposed to do….allow the Donks in?

Sorry….I don’t work that way. Mitt might stop more abortions then Rudy or Fred might stop more abortions then Mitt, but one thing for sure…..no one will be able to stop abortions if Hillary gets in.

Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM

I’m not talking about actual positions, I’m talking style of governance, and THAT I think is the real debate people are having, they just don’t realize it yet.

Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM

“Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?”

Yes, Rudy, it most certainly is and I appreciate your honesty, if nothing else.

However, if “what you really believe in” happens to be gun control, abortion, gay marriage and Bob knows what else, then your honesty isn’t going to help you very much.

But at least nobody will be able to say that you pandered and that, Rudy, IS a big plus for which I have to respect you, no matter how much I disagree with your Noo Yawk “Conservative” (read: Liberal) policy standpoints.

It’s just not enough to get my vote in the primaries, is all.

Misha I on October 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM

“We’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive,” Giuliani said. “Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history, isn’t it? … I’m running for president of the United States because I believe I can bring us together. Strong leadership can help us find common solutions to our problems.”

Sorry Rudolph, but God is pretty damn clear about his laws: The first set he sent down on a pair of stone tablets.

You can be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-marrriage all you want, just don’t expect the Catholic Church to call those positions Catholic in the name of “inclusiveness.”

And Christianity isn’t about inclusiveness, you RINO piece of garbage. You sound just like the diversity squad: it isn’t the standards that matter, its the incluuuuuuuusiveness! This is the dealbreaker for me Ruthy. Go back to “Crossdressers for Christ” from whence you came.

BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 3:49 PM

“We’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive,” Giuliani said. “Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history, isn’t it?

No. And No.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Hebrew/Jewish Messianic prophecy.

It is built around the act of sacrifice. Love is a big part of it, yes, but the profound act is the sacrifice.

Christianity is absolutely not (or not supposed to be) about inclusiveness of every nutty theology that man can invent.

>>>

Rudy’s greatest asset if he wins the primary is he will be running against Democratic candidates that are nuttier than he is.

Lawrence on October 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Why is he attacking Mitt?

Because Mitt is his biggest threat. Just look at the Fred wackadoodles in this thread. They get one poll that puts Fred ahead and they start making all kinds of grandiose proclamations. Mitt is still leading in Iowa, NH, MI, and is very close in several other states. He has been gathering endorsements from well known evangelicals and even getting lots of support from Jeb Bush in Florida. Rudy’s right to attack him.

Rudy’s campaign team is very smart and on point. They aren’t making big mistakes and they’ve been the first to respond on many issues. I trust they are better educated on the focus groups and other insider stuff and they can see Mitt is the threat.

He don’t have to worry about Fred because it’s obvious from all the stupid mistakes they make that “What’s a dollar?” has his campaign being run by a 40 year old idealist who hasn’t figured out that she doesn’t have the life experiences to understand what motivates thinking conservatives. She knows how to speak to the most gullible, and that will take them a ways. Hell, it might even get them the nomination, but that would be as far as it goes. As soon as people find out (and Hillary will make sure they find out) that “What’s a dollar?” has a extensive history of aligning himself with scumbag terrorists, dictators, and unscrupulous employers, they will judge Hillary as the lesser of two evils and we will have to endure at least 4 years of her Marxist agenda.

OY VEY!!!

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Rudy’s greatest asset if he wins the primary is he will be running against Democratic candidates that are nuttier than he is.

Lawrence on October 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Rudy’s ignorance and windbaggery may keep me home on election night, if he keeps up this idiocy.

Fraud! is crossed off the list because his understanding of Christianity is that the Commandments do not apply to him, whether he’s running for election or not.

Ruthy is crossed off because his understanding of Christianity is that it is a pansy religion whose founder made the ultimate sacrifice so guys like Rudy could call themsleves Christian after two divorces, crossdressing, and supporting the destruction of innocent human life, all in the name of love and peace and flowers and inclusiveness.

Good job Ruthy, I hope Trump treated you well in that old lady getup.

BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Oh, and re: the “inclusiveness” of Christianity. We’re “inclusive” in the sense that we welcome any sinner who wishes to join us, provided that said sinner repents and agrees to change his sinful ways, doing his level best to obey the laws of G-d forever more.

It’s not about changing Christianity to suit the sinners, it’s about changing the sinners to embrace G-d.

If you want a “pick what you like, ignore what you don’t” buffet “religion”, become an Episcopalian (Bible optional) or join the United “Church” of “Christ.”

The end.

Misha I on October 20, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Misha I on October 20, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Absolutely 100% correct. Great post.

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Rudy to social cons: Christianity means having a big tent!

I don’t think there is enough canvas on the whole damn planet to build a tent that big. I suppose some poly sheeting could be used too, but there is not enough of that on the whole damn planet either.

MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Ruthy is crossed off because his understanding of Christianity is that it is a pansy religion

Rudy is Catholic, which isn’t a pansy religion. He went to 12 years of Catholic school and considered the priesthood for a time. His hasn’t lived his personal life in accord with Catholic teaching, but he has studied Catholic teaching enough to not consider it “pansy”.

Catholic politicians since JFK have had to reassure voters that they put the U.S. Constitution ahead of word from Rome. In part this may explain why Rudy views a religious belief on abortion as separate from his responsibility as a public official.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Christianity is not and has never been about “inclusiveness”. And even if it was, I wouldn’t want mass murderers in my tent anyway. About Rudy, I don’t really care what candidates “personally believe” as long as they do what I want, which I don’t really trust him to do.

Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Then you’re going against Christ’s doctrine.

Christianity IS all about including others – ESPECIALLY those who belief differently than you.

Even dying on the cross, Jesus was offering acceptance to the thieves dying up there with him.

Vyce on October 20, 2007 at 4:55 PM

God is pretty damn clear about his laws: The first set he sent down on a pair of stone tablets.
You can be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-marrriage all you want, just don’t expect the Catholic Church to call those positions Catholic in the name of “inclusiveness.”

He knows the Catholic church isn’t going to move on those issues in his lifetime or his grandchildren’s lifetime.

While the RCC is very clear in its laws, sometimes it is harder to infer God’s intention–even the first set of stone tablets broke. Christ, himself, didn’t speak about homosexuality. If he viewed it as a horrible sin then Jesus could have made sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John recorded his teaching on it.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Christianity IS all about including others – ESPECIALLY those who belief differently than you.

Vyce on October 20, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Good point, Vyce. Within the political debate there are two significant definitions of Christion inclusiveness.

On one hand we have the Christian perspective that Christianity is open to include all sinners.

On the other hand we have the progressive politically correct perspective that Christianity should be inclusive in context of all religious theologies.

Problem is that Rudy isn’t clear about which definition he means. And just because he belongs to any given denomination doesn’t mean he understands the difference. And I’ve heard nothing from him (or any candidate) to date which leads me to believe he (or they) truly understands the difference.

Lawrence on October 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM

A thread turning into an unwinnable religious debate? Wow, never seen that on hotair.com before…

Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Well, as I said on the Quote of the Day thread, I would like to know what each of the candidates have to say about this from 1983: Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation

He says he would rather be honest. Fine. Then tell me that you believe Reagan was wrong to set these goals for America, because they were not “inclusive”:

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

[ . . . . . ]

The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.

The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is “to protect innocent life, both before and after birth.” This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.

This nation once discussed the sanctity of human life vs the quality of human life. And our President led the way in the debate. And our President led the way in educating the nation about the importance of being a nation that respects the sanctity of human life. Now we are reduced to applause lines of “Christianity is about inclusiveness”.

And, of course, we get the usual “YES! GO RUDY!” cheerleaders calling this brilliant.

As someone mentioned above, he sounds brilliant when he is beating down the “evangelicals” and those rotten Christians who care about the abortion issue. I wonder how brilliant he will sound when he turns out to be just like President Bush on the illegal immigration issue.

The more I read again about Reagan and the more I read the comments here and at other ‘conservative’/Republican blogs, the more I get the feeling that Ronald Reagan would not be welcome in today’s Republican Party were he running against the new savior of the USA, Rudy Giuliani.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Also, what is the difference between “Christianity is about inclusiveness” and “Compassionate Conservatism”. Haven’t we been suckered before by click campaign lines?

Also, other than seemingly understanding the “war on terror” and who are our Islamic enemies, both foreign and domestic, what is all the fuss about Rudy anyway? It seems that he is “qualified” for the Presidency solely because he was the mayor of New York on/after 9/11, he is charming in debates and speeches and he isn’t Hillary.

I can understand if people like the guy, but on a lot of blogs that I read, his supporters are a notch below the Ron Paul supporters in their adamant insistence that we must vote for Rudy or the country will be destroyed.

And I don’t believe many of the Rudy supporters even realize they come across that way to some people.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Haven’t we been suckered before by click campaign lines?

That was supposed to say “slick” campaign lines.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 8:02 PM

He knows the Catholic church isn’t going to move on those issues in his lifetime or his grandchildren’s lifetime.

While the RCC is very clear in its laws, sometimes it is harder to infer God’s intention–even the first set of stone tablets broke. Christ, himself, didn’t speak about homosexuality. If he viewed it as a horrible sin then Jesus could have made sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John recorded his teaching on it.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Jesus said nothing specific about abortion or mercy killings either, so I suppose those are all fine and good. Fact is, Jesus always referred back to the ancient laws which came from Moses. Before Moses even was a leader of his people God decimated Sodom and Gomorrah whose sins included, among others, sexual sins, sodomy being Sodom’s niche. There are also Moses’ laws regarding sexual immorality, and finally Paul’s New Testament letters on the subject.

However, it is convenient for the pro-gay lobby and other “big tent” Christians to ignore these theological underpinnings and just say “well uh, Jesus himself didn’t say anything against it that we have quoted, therefore he has no opinion.” It’s the same “logic” liberals use for protecting abortion and government nanny-statism because there isn’t a specific clause against their preferred change already in the Constitution.

BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 8:05 PM

his supporters are a notch below the Ron Paul supporters in their adamant insistence that we must vote for Rudy or the country will be destroyed.
Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 8:01 PM

The difference is that the Rudy supporters have excellent reasons for believing that and the Ron Paul loons are basically stupid a$$es who have no clue as to how the real world works.

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 8:13 PM

csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 8:13 PM

I understand that, csdeven, but just like many people here get on Ann Coulter, because of her abrasive ‘style’, the same goes for the abrasive vote-for-him-or-else! Rudy supporters.

Personally, I will not be voting for Rudy in the primaries. However, I will go against my principles and vote for a man whose principles are the opposite of mine, if the Republican candidate happens to be Rudy Giuliani. I don’t determine my values and principles and make decisions based on how other people act.

However, the same cannot be said for all the so-called “independents”. Aren’t Rudy supporters worried that they will push many voters to either Hillary (or whoever is the Democrat candidate) or a 3rd party candidate based on their annoying insistence that people must vote for Rudy or the country is destroyed?

I like Rudy as a personality and he adds a lot of positive things to the political debate on many issues. I feel the same way about John McCain, though I don’t trust the man as a politician whatsoever. But, I don’t want either one of them as the President of the United States.

At the same time I can appreciate the pros and cons of each candidate. I just don’t understand why things have gotten so vitriolic in politics here on the so-called ‘conservative’/Republican side.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 8:22 PM

So much hate for Rudy. It is sad. Sad, because it signifies a party that has lost itself. It has allowed itself to become so identified with the anti-abortion plank that that plank is going to kill off the party. Regardless of how you feel, you must realize that only a radical minority believes that all abortions should be illegal. We might be able to get that poor decision Roe overturned and the issue returned to the states, but in the long run the issue is a looser. Is it worth destroying an entire political party over?

Also, when the Christian faith was started, it was different from Judaism, because Judaism was closed and only for Jews. Christianity was open to all, and unlike other mysteries from the East, Christianity spread through slaves, women and the less prominent members of the Roman empire. In that sense, it has always been more inclusive than other religions. Its doctrine that all of us re sinners also seems to be accepting of our faults, and allows for the inclusion of sinners, even sinners like Rudy.

tommylotto on October 20, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Also, when the Christian faith was started, it was different from Judaism, because Judaism was closed and only for Jews. Christianity was open to all, and unlike other mysteries from the East, Christianity spread through slaves, women and the less prominent members of the Roman empire. In that sense, it has always been more inclusive than other religions. Its doctrine that all of us re sinners also seems to be accepting of our faults, and allows for the inclusion of sinners, even sinners like Rudy.

tommylotto on October 20, 2007 at 8:24 PM

No one is suggesting we kick Rudy out of the faith and run him out of town on a rail, however, what kills him for me is because “Mr. tough talk” himself wants us to make an exception for him. Christianity gre by being inclusive of sinners, not sin. Guiliani doesn’t understand that, and I can no longer in good conscience vote for him.

BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM

BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Excellent point, BKennedy. What some of the Rudy supporters – and leftists – seem to want to use this “inclusive” buzzword for… is to be inclusive of sin, not just sinners. Christianity is known for loving the sinners, hating the sin. Supporters of ‘sin’ are now twisting this message to be loving the sinners and now be inclusive of ‘sin’ also.

People are not going to win over people of moral fiber with regards to the issues of abortion and the homosexual agenda with that kind of message.

Christianity, as I understand it, is about including everyone, those who do not commit ‘sin’ and those who do. But the message of Christianity is that one can be forgiven for their past ‘sins’ if they accept Christ and then change their ways.

And this is where I see our nation headed with this whole “inclusive” message. I see it as no different than the multiculti-diversity message. But, of course, with the multiculti-diversity message, we all know that diversity for the left does not include diversity of thought or political stance. That is obvious in the story about the University of Iowa. They want diversity of skin color, diversity of ethnic background, diversity of sexual orientation, diversity of sex and diversity of race. But no diversity of political ideology.

Is Rudy going to be another President Bush who insults his base and chastises them to be more “inclusive” when it comes to issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda and amnesty, but does not stand up to his domestic enemies? That is a question I need answered before I can support Rudy… and before I can support anyone for President with my vote.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 9:55 PM

So much hate for Rudy. It is sad. Sad, because it signifies a party that has lost itself. It has allowed itself to become so identified with the anti-abortion plank that that plank is going to kill off the party.

This is the problem tommy. YOU characterize any person who might be against Rudy to be simply against his ‘pro-choice’ stance. That is not the case. That’s ONE problem with him, yes.

The party has lost itself because so many in the party actually think he is a ‘conservative’. He isn’t in any sense. Look, I haven’t said this before because people would be appalled and think I was a ‘bigot’. But I bet there are plenty in the REPUBLICAN party (5-10%) who either will not vote or vote for someone else BECAUSE Rudy is Catholic. He’s also short and bald (physical appearance works against all of our candidates other than poster boy Mitt). I bet lots of Catholics voted for Bush last election because Kerry was pro-choice also.

I understand lots of conservative commentators now are Catholic – O’Reilly, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Robert Spencer, probably even MM and Ann Coulter. . . and I have nothing against Catholics personally. I even appreciate their contributions as Christians.

Include Rudy’s solution of taking guns to solve a crime problem, embracing illegals to solve the illegal immigration problem, having the police and firefighters of NYC hate and distrust him, and you have someone who is not attractive to a lot of people who have been Republican for a long long time.

It is not just the ‘abortion issue’. That’s the simple thing that allows you to disregard all of the other issues with his candidacy. If he were not mayor of the media capital of the world, he wouldn’t be a front runner now.

I was in NYC at 2:00 am in Washington park in 1989 with a buddy of mine. We were 18 and we had a great time. Met a few very friendly drug dealers (didn’t become customers), a guy named ‘sue’ helped us find the subway, and we generally had fun. Rudy characterizes the city as cesspool and then takes credit for changing it. He probably deserves some credit. But there are a lot of people responsible for the success of NY. Not the least of which the success of wall street while he was Mayor.

Don’t simplify the reason people don’t want to vote for Rudy to this one issue for your ability to demonize people who are pro-life.

ThackerAgency on October 20, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Jesus always referred back to the ancient laws which came from Moses.

If you want to rely on Mosaic law, you are certainly right. Though, there is much in the Torah that Christians disregard. There are many areas of morality (care for the sick, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc.) that Christ chose to teach directly on. Homosexuality was one he could have had recorded in one of the Gospels but as God he chose not to.

You are also correct regarding Saint Paul. He was an intense thinker and there is much to find about love and spirituality in his work. Saint Paul’s writings have done nearly as much as Christ’s words to shape Christianity. Still, though it would seem if homosexuality was such a problem for God, Christ might have addressed it directly.

Catholic and most Protestant churches condemn homosexual acts and I’m not suggesting they change. Rather, in relying on the Torah or Saint Paul (who Thomas Jefferson called “The first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”) they are less persuasive to people who are more inspired by Christ than by a particular church.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Rudy characterizes the city as cesspool and then takes credit for changing it. He probably deserves some credit. But there are a lot of people responsible for the success of NY. Not the least of which the success of wall street while he was Mayor.

Much agreed. Rudy was a good mayor of a very liberal city and he was inspirational on 9/11, but New York City’s economic boom was not his doing alone and by September 10, 2001 Rudy had worn out his welcome among the majority of New Yorkers. While Rudy was a true leader following 9/11, that doesn’t make him an instant expert on foreign affairs.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 10:36 PM

So, does the soul enter the body at birth (“inspired” by the breath of God)?

Or does the soul enter at the first division of the unified cells?

Or at 3 months, when the central nervous system coalesces enough for a proto-brain to serve as a place for the soul to hang onto?

Because, without a soul, there is no “being”.

And without it, there can be no argument about removing mere tissue.

The true argument is about soul-ification.

When does that start?

And how do they prove it?

Soul-o-meters?

Scientifically, after the primal brain and functioning nerves and beating heart are present, a “viable” human being has emerged enough to protect, legally.

Whether it has a soul or not at this stage is a matter of faith.

Faiths disagree about the moment of the soul‘s entry.

Science cannot decide this.

So it decides on biological feasiblility.

After the first trimester, medicine has determined that it is crude and cruel to abort the developing being.

Because we are ending a creature whose “thinking” and “feeling” may have begun, however primally.

In another decade, the moment of this biological “awareness potential” may be pushed back further.

Meanwhile, those of us who are already born need to survive the War declared on us by Islamofascism.

Rudy gives a mixed message on many things, but he’ll fight for our survival.

And the debate about the soul can progress on his watch.

If it comes down to a half-full glass of Rudy or a whole mug of Hillary, I know where my vote goes.

No more stains on the Oval Office rug.

profitsbeard on October 20, 2007 at 10:37 PM

No more stains on the Oval Office rug.

Ha ha. If Hillary is elected, she won’t leave Bill alone in the Oval Office for 5 minutes–at least not with an intern.

Good points regarding when the creation of a “being” or “soul”. I agree on the importance of fighting radical Islam. I have some issue with Rudy, but I concur with your priorities.

dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM

“We’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive,” Giuliani said. “Christianity is all about inclusiveness.

As other posts have stated, Christianity is not at all inclusive. It’s exclusive.

Speaking of Jesus Christ in Acts 4: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Jesus said in John 14: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

You can call Christianty a lot of things but inclusive is not one of them. Every soul on earth is invited but it’s a “take it or leave it” invitation. No big tent here folks… move along.

Mojave Mark on October 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

After the first trimester, medicine has determined that it is crude and cruel to abort the developing being.

since when does ‘medicine’ (whatever that means) decide public policy?

I look at it like this. There is nothing that is not alive that does not develop. From the moment a human being starts to develop, that human being has rights given to it by its Creator. Any type of arrested development from that point would be snuffing out what would otherwise be a productive life with rights.

So, I’m not so in step with Catholics that I believe contraception is a ‘sin’. But I do believe that once conception has occurred, any attempt to disrupt development is tantamount to murder. I would only approve of an abortion if having the baby would endanger the life of the mother. That’s my personal stance on abortion.

ThackerAgency on October 21, 2007 at 12:35 AM

I just don’t understand why things have gotten so vitriolic in politics here on the so-called ‘conservative’/Republican side.
Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I’m sure that will all calm down as time moves along. As soon as certain candidates are eliminated we will all get behind the nominee.

Even though Fred is furthest away from conservative values, people are frustrated that he has failed to deliver and they don’t see another true conservative. I think they are slavishly hanging onto the image of a candidate they want, but doesn’t exist in the current field. So, we are looking to nominate whoever will keep the nightmarish dems out of the white house. That means Rudy or Mitt and many people see them as RINO’s.

csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 12:50 AM

csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Well, just going by the 2004 GOP Platform, Rudy and Mitt are RINOs.

However, I wonder, if Rudy wins the nomination, would this mean that the GOP platform would change? Would the GOP then become a party that is pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage and pro-amnesty, since these are the stances of the Party’s Presidential nominee?

And, if that is the case, that the platform of the GOP would change to match its nominee, it would seem to indicate that those in the party who are pro-life, pro-marriage amendment and anti-amnesty would then become RINOs themselves and current GOP-voters who are pro-life, pro-marriage amendment and anti-amnesty would be without a political party.

However, if I am wrong, and the GOP platform would not change, then what sense does it make to have the leader of the Party be against most of the Party’s platform?

With regards to your statement that we’ll all get behind the nominee, I agree. However, in the meantime, all this mud-slinging within our own side can easily be used by the Democrats to attack the eventual nominee.

In addition, after months of calling each other idiots for supporting whatever nominees we were supporting, is everyone going to just kiss and make-up and say ok I’ll vote for the guy that I thought you were an idiot for supporting all this time and you called me an idiot for not supporting?

What I worry about is that once the nominee is chosen, after all this mudslinging, many people are going to come away very unsatisfied with the choices. And then all the Democrat nominee has to do is sling some mud and show that the Republican nominee is not really that much different than the Democrat nominee and they can then snag some Republican and “Independent” voters.

But I hope you are right and that when push comes to shove, GOP voters will end up getting out the vote for the GOP nominee.

That said, I would be interested in knowing if the GOP platform would change to a liberal platform if Giuliani were the nominee. And, if not, how the GOP would explain having a ‘conservative’ platform with a Presidential nominee who is not in line with most of its platform issues.

Michael in MI on October 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM

There is nothing that is not alive that does not develop. From the moment a human being starts to develop, that human being has rights given to it by its Creator.

When the founders said that “All men are created equal” they really meant only “men”, and not all men. They also didn’t define “when” men are created. You make a good point for it happening at conception, though others would say that a pregnancy doesn’t occur until implantation. Others would say that something like a blastocyst is not a human being but rather the raw material that one develops from.

dedalus on October 21, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Rudy characterizes the city as cesspool and then takes credit for changing it. He probably deserves some credit. But there are a lot of people responsible for the success of NY.

ThackerAgency on October 20, 2007 at 10:05 PM

How much credit does Rudy Tooty deserve for New York City’s crime rate going down?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Note that crime rates were dropping for the three years before Giuliani took office. And they continued to drop after he left.

Crime in New York peaked in 1990. Giuliani did not take office until 1994.

MB4 on October 21, 2007 at 2:16 AM

How much credit does Rudy Tooty deserve for New York City’s crime rate going down?

Good points, as always. On another note, I worked in 7 WTC for about a decade during the 90′s. I remember after the first Trade Center bombing hearing that Rudy was going to put his emergency management center in 7 WTC. I recall thinking, “gee that seems kinda dumb.”

dedalus on October 21, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Rudiani…the upfront liberal? I do not think so. Listening to Laura Ingraham’s show last week, we were treated to an interview Charlie Rose had with Rudi years ago where America’s Sanctuary City mayor was bragging how he was a liberal and not really a true republican. At least he was honest then. Now, this windbag is trying to paint himself as some born-again right winger with a moderate view of baby skull crushing.

I cannot wait to vote against him.

saved on October 21, 2007 at 7:52 AM

The libs and the MSM WANT Rudy so bad it makes’em spit!
Hillary can run to the right of ole Rudy and WIN!

Rudy is a guarenteed loser against Hillary. WHY do ya think the MSM (and hotair’s own on-site Hillary hack, tommylotto) is pushin’ him so hard??

Ex-tex on October 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Michael in MI on October 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Well, the mud slinging isn’t a problem. I want to dig up all the dirt now, because if we miss something, the Clinton’s will certainly find it and then our guy is done before it even starts.

That is why Fred is a no go. He gave advice to terrorists, lobbied for a dictator and engaged in other activities that are not conservative values. People will hold their nose for a RINO, but they will not vote for someone who looks like a terrorist supporter. So, here we have Fred who worked in the same profession as Abramoff and was involved with terrorists like Lynne F. Stewart. Both issues, when compared to the Marxist Hillary, makes her look like a saint.

Rudy has promised to appoint strict constructionist justices, so we are just going to have to trust him. Lets put this in context…..even with the shamnesty bill that Bush tried to shove down our throats, I don’t think you’d find one conservative that would rather have Kerry as president. The same is true here. As bad as Rudy my appear, Hillary will be much, much, worse.

csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Ex-tex on October 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Being contrary for the sake of it is not a rational argument. If the MSM started pushing Fred on us, you, being a Fred supporter, would agree with their assessment.

csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Wassup with saying Rudy is pro gay marriage. He is not. Never has been. It comes down to abortion again.

You claim he is a sinner, because he will not support the outlawing of all abortions. People of good faith and equal religiosity can have different opinions as to when a clump of tissue becomes LIFE. There is no guide-post in the Bible and you are lying if you say there is. You are taking your interpretation based on nothing but your opinion and saying anyone who disagrees with you is a sinner. How Christian of you. How inclusive.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM

You claim he is a sinner, because he will not support the outlawing of all abortions. People of good faith and equal religiosity can have different opinions as to when a clump of tissue becomes LIFE. There is no guide-post in the Bible and you are lying if you say there is. You are taking your interpretation based on nothing but your opinion and saying anyone who disagrees with you is a sinner. How Christian of you. How inclusive.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM

People of good faith and equal religosity can have different opinions.

When those opinions differ with those of the Catholic Church (for Catholics like Rudy) then those good faith opinions are still wrong.

Of course Rudy is a sinner. I’m a sinner. Everyone on God’s green earth is a sinner! The only two people in history without sin are Jesus and Mary. “Sinner” isn’t an insult, it is a state of being applicable to all living human beings.

Rudy isn’t a sinner for believing Christianity should be inclusive and lenient of more kinds of sin, he’s just wrong.

BKennedy on October 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I meant to say that ‘there is nothing that is not alive that develops’. If it develops, it must be alive. Sorry about that.

ThackerAgency on October 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Tell me where God has stated when life begins, or keep your opinions to yourself. You could be wrong, the pope could be wrong, Dobson is probably wrong. He who claims absolute knowledge of the workings of God and nature, displays an un-Christian lack of humility.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 2:30 PM

He who claims absolute knowledge of the workings of God and nature, displays an un-Christian lack of humility.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 2:30 PM

You have a point.

But the exact same could be said for the ones claiming that Christianity is all about “inclusiveness” when Scripture doesn’t with one word suggest such a thing. As a matter of fact, if you read Scripture you’ll see quite a few things suggesting just what Christian “inclusiveness” is all about.

Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, not to mention all the tribes trying to destroy Israel. Oh, and the eternal curse of G-d placed on anybody who curses said state.

I’ve said it before in this thread (as have others even better), but apparently it didn’t take, so here it is again: Christian inclusiveness is all about offering a home to sinners willing to change their ways. We’re all sinners, I was pretty high on the high score list of Sin when I found G-d, so to eliminate sinners from the list of prospects would be sort of silly, not to mention that Christianity is all about making people stop sinning.

Remember the story about Christ and the prostitute? If you read it carefully (it’s not all that long, so an afternoon should suffice even if you move your lips as you read), you’ll notice that the Son of G-d didn’t say “hey, you guys! Quit throwing stones at her! How is she supposed to do her business picking up tricks if she has to dodge rocks all day long? So cut it out and let her go about her business, will you?”

He said, instead: “Go forth, and sin no more.”

Thatisall.

Misha I on October 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Does Rudy get any points for this quote:

“First, I will veto any reduction in the impact of the Hyde Amendment or other existing limits on abortions or the public funding of abortions. I will support any reasonable suggestion that promises to reduce the number of abortions.”

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 4:17 PM

displays an un-Christian lack of humility.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 2:30 PM

There is no ‘Christian-like’, there is no ‘WWJD’. Christian means you believe Christ is Lord, the Messiah sent to sacrifice himself for your sins. Was it ‘Christian-like’ when Jesus ‘vandalized’ the Temple?

As for WWJD, Jesus would resurrect Himself and heal the sick. We can’t do ‘what Jesus would do’ even if we wanted to because we are not God.

Does Rudy get any points for

It’s not about ‘scoring points’. That’s the problem with the entire process. It’s about LEADING. It’s about providing a positive vision for a great country with unprecedented resources and potential. He’s not conservative. No amount of ‘points’ he might score with statements will change that.

I always admit that ‘I could be wrong’. That’s why I willingly agree to allow other people believe what they want to believe. But if I want to vote for a liberal pro-choicer, I’ll vote for Hillary. I’d prefer a CLEAR distinction between the TWO CHOICES other than ‘He’s not Hillary’.

Tommylotto, you are begging for a third and fourth party candidate. It’s going to happen because everyone but Hillary can claim that they are ‘better than Hillary’. Rudy doesn’t have that claim exclusively.

ThackerAgency on October 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM

ThackerAgency on October 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM

My prediction. You will be a vocal opponent of Rudy through out the primary process in hopes that some other abortion-hating or faux abortion-hating (that’s Mitt and Fred) candidate will be the nominee. You will fuss and pout and threaten to stay home or go third party, until Rudy wins on Super Mega Ultra Tuesday. Then, when the choice is really narrowed down to Hillary and Rudy, you will vote for Rudy. This prediction applies equally to all the other militant Rudy haters.

Mark. My. Words.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM

until Rudy wins on Super Mega Ultra Tuesday.

What are the odds on that one tommylotto, given that Rudy is pissing off the social cons left and right. You know, the people who, unlike the blueblood sellouts, vote in the primaries?

BKennedy on October 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM

BKennedy on October 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Mark. My. Words.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Mark. My. Words.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 7:41 PM

A Big Red “Circled X,” is a marking, isn’t it?

BKennedy on October 21, 2007 at 7:50 PM

But the exact same could be said for the ones claiming that Christianity is all about “inclusiveness” when Scripture doesn’t with one word suggest such a thing. As a matter of fact, if you read Scripture you’ll see quite a few things suggesting just what Christian “inclusiveness” is all about.
Misha I on October 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I find the fact that people are justifying their political opposition to Rudy by referring to what they think the scriptures say unseemly. By inclusiveness Rudy was not implying that Christians accept non-Christian philosophies, but that the blessings of Christ are available to all. Regardless of your race, creed, color, religious backgroup, etc. — you can accept Christ as your saviour. He died on the cross for all mankind, not just the Jews.

We could go back to the intolerant ages of the heracies of Arianism, the Inquisition, or the Reformation. However, modern Christianity tends to be more tolerant and accepting of the fact that different people can read the scriptures in different ways. It is un-Christian to damn someone because they have a slightly different understanding of the composition of the trinity. Likewise, Rudy was trying to explain that this same inclusiveness of modern Christianity should extend to those who (of equal good faith and religious piety) have a difference of opinion of when in gestation a clump of flesh becomes life with a soul.

And you know what. He is right.

tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 8:09 PM

What are the odds on that one tommylotto, given that Rudy is pissing off the social cons left and right. You know, the people who, unlike the blueblood sellouts, vote in the primaries?

Some of the big states on Super Duper Tuesday are California, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey–choc-full of blueblood sellouts as well as middle-class Republicans who are liberal on social issues. Rudy will feast in those states unless Mitt sweeps Iowa, NH and SC.

dedalus on October 21, 2007 at 8:54 PM

I find the fact that people are justifying their political opposition to Rudy by referring to what they think the scriptures say unseemly.

Why? To some of us, Scripture is important and we actually believe that G-d meant what He said when He said it. If some people like that find Rudy’s positions in direct opposition to Scripture, it would indeed be unseemly for them NOT to oppose him. I have had it up to here with people who call themselves “Christians” and add “as long as it isn’t in the way of what I want to do.”

By inclusiveness Rudy was not implying that Christians accept non-Christian philosophies, but that the blessings of Christ are available to all.

That’s your interpretation of what he said. If that was indeed what he meant, then I’d have no problem with it, because he would be right.

But the bottom line is this: The blessings of Christ are available to all who embrace his teachings and promise to live by them forevermore. Where you come from doesn’t matter. Where you’re going and what you intend to do from here on out DOES.

However, modern Christianity tends to be more tolerant and accepting of the fact that different people can read the scriptures in different ways.

First off, I have very little patience with “modern Christianity” because it sounds too much like the sort of lukewarm spittle that I ought to spit out of my mouth. If you don’t like the rules, fine. Find another club. I don’t care.

Second, and more importantly, I’m perfectly tolerant of people interpreting Scripture differently. They can do it the livelong day for all that I care. I’m not about to lop their heads off or burn them at the stake because of it, because it’s no skin off of my nose. But I still believe they’re wrong. Dead wrong. Absolutely wrong. Being tolerant of isn’t the same as “agreeing with.”

It is un-Christian to damn someone because they have a slightly different understanding of the composition of the trinity.

It is silly for anybody to damn anybody for anything, since no mortal holds that power. Believing that they are damned because of it is perfectly reasonable. If you didn’t feel that way, I’d have to wonder if you really believed in what you purport to believe in in the first place. Either you’re right or you’re wrong. If you’re wrong, you’re damned. End of story. Sorry if that’s not “inclusive” enough for you.

Misha I on October 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I don’t think much of Rudy’s analogy os Christianity is as “big tent”, many are called but few are chosen. If Rudy is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him. I do not want to see me not supporting him and allowing a Democrat to be POTUS; especially Mrs. Clinton. As a Christian, I appreciate Dr. Dobson’s predicament with having to support the lesser of evils; but our Christian faith and evangelical call would fare much better with Rudy than the leading Democrat,Mrs. Clinton.

apostle53 on October 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM