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.

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.

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.

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 5:41 PM

Mark. My. Words.

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?

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

I cannot wait to vote against him.

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.”

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.