The Trouble With Rudy

Well, here we go. Nothing against Rudy, but people had better get used to it.

A federal grand jury has voted to indict former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik on charges stemming from the acceptance of free rent and apartment renovations, tax evasion and lying on his application for the job as head of the Department of Homeland Security, two federal sources and a source involved in the defense told ABC News.

Rudy was a Big City Mayor in the Blue Northeast and, unfortunately, that often equals corruption. I'm not suggesting Rudy is, or was, corrupt. But just like in New Jersey, New York politics are notoriously corrupt. And you know what they say about laying down with dogs. The Democrat controlled government of the city will be more than happy to unearth everything they can from the past to come to Hillary's aid. It will be a long, ugly and often dirty campaign - just what you'd expect with Hillary in the race. And Clinton, Inc. is good at that kind of politicking.

Add that to a less than smooth personal life and you give the media all the fodder they need to minimize the scandal effect on Hillary. That's one reason why I once posted that Romney may have the best chance among the top tier of Republican challengers of beating Hillary in 2008.

Comments

[seekeronos]

Romney:

That all depends upon the People's willingness to overlook:

(a) His Church of LDS (Mormon) membership... (truthfully, a minor thing for most people, but evangelicals will choke on it).

(b) His horrific flip-flop on gay rights/gay marriage/gay families adopting kids

(c) His horrific flip-flop on abortion "rights".

And a lesser point: his polished-to-a-perfect-shine machined approach (thus far) to this campaign. It's almost transparent what a faker this guy is... something just makes th ol' Spidey Sense go a-tingling whenever hear this guy speak.

[Dan Riehl]

I don't care about his religion. The discussion on abortion needs to move to a discussion about conservative judges, not religion. Everyone gets that, the grass roots evangelicals should get it, too.

[moldy]

"The discussion on abortion needs to move to a discussion about conservative judges, not religion."

What does this mean? Note: Asked with a neutral tone - I don't follow this subject in the US that closely ...

[Dan Riehl]

What does this mean?

The Constitution has no provision for abortion one way or the other. Roe vs Wade - the big win for abortion advocates is bad law according to most objecitve observers. So how the abortion issue should be resolved is a matter of law, not one of religion. All a conservative Supreme Court could ever hope to accomplish is to throw it back to the states and allow for a democratic solution at the state level. Rudy, Romney, even Thompson are advocating that - they can advocate for a conservative court without invoking religion, etc. That's the way to "win" the debate, understanding that winning simply means turning it over to what the citizens want, state by state, unless or until there is one clear national position - which there is not - not that activists on either side of the issue want, anyway. Any notion of a Constituional amendment to ban abortion is a false hope - it will never come to pass and isn't necessary.

If turned over to the states, we would likely see most states adopt sensible guidelines on abortion - parental approval, no partial birth abortion, etc.

[JustADude]

My view on abortions has always been that it was wrong to be decided in the courts like it was. Religious people have understandable objections to the concept. However having said that regardless of the extent the churches oppose abortion from a legal standpoint, my view of religion was that even if the law says it's a perfectly fine legal thing to do the positions of the church should be to witness to and by power of reasoning convince people of their side of the issue.
To me trying to make a religious impacting concept subject to law is somewhat a violation of church and state.

However religion basics do have a basis in our laws. The ACLU gets it just as wrong with their position that government must be total clean of religious influence is the other extreme. To me it's always been not to establish a national religion like the Church of England for example, something that is state sponsored.

[JustADude]

The grey areas are where a religion or more realistically a cult sect has as part of their practice something that independent of religion violates our other social secular laws.

For example no matter how much they base it in their theology or belief system, human sacrifice is not allowed because of our prohibition of murder.

Otherwise religions should generally be free to practice as mostly they wish and if other religions or seculars or atheists don't like their views, then persuade those in it to your side of the issue, don't try to legislate it.

[moldy]

"Roe vs Wade = bad law according to most objective observers."

Gotcha - in fact, now that I read your post, I realize I saw that Law and Order episode where Arthur/Thompson makes this point at the end. Thanks for the info.

[docweasel]

I previously wrote a long comment about Mormonism. The reason why I commented instead of doing a post about it is that it is currently affecting a close friend of mine. I see how they are using manipulation, coercion, guilt, and over-bearing full court press of "missionaries" coming over to her house, calling at all hours, pressuring her and pretty much playing on a very emotionally fragile person's vulnerability to get them into Mormonism.

I always had a knee-jerk negative reaction to Mormonism, and to be fair I didn't really know why.

Since, I've read a LOT about it from "Mormon survivors" and from Mormon apologist sites, where they try to justify the absence of proof that the American Indians are, in fact, a displaced tribe of Hebrews (DNA, archeology, linguistics all negate their claims).

I deeply believe that the Mormon religion is inherently racist, sexist, intolerant of other religions in a very offensive and intrusive manner (they may have already 'baptized' your own relatives by proxy, to allow them the option of 'choosing mormonism' so they can finally get into heaven, even after a life of sin by being, say, a Catholic or Protestant. I believe these practices and policies of sexism, racism and intolerance to be an integral part of the Mormon religion, and in fact the BASIS FOR the religion. The subjugation of women and the preaching of inferiority of 'dark people' is rampant in the literature they give to potential converts.

I read my friend's "How to be a Good Mormon Woman" cover to cover- its a horrifying tract that seems to be based 18th century opinions of the inferiority of women, and how they should submit to being basically their husband's chattel and unquestioningly submit to almost anything he might do or command, because he is particularly chosen for the received wisdom of God, and not the wife.

This all goes beside the point that the religion is based on a mythos every bit as unfounded, unsubstantiated by history, fantastical and outlandish as Scientology. If you know the history, you know what I mean. Maybe that's why their tactics so closely resemble Scientology. Its based on the tradition and testimony of ONE MAN. There's too much tomfoolery and ridiculousness to even go into on a comments page, and its far beyond the issue of "faith" that other religions demand. Its more like an insistence on dementia.

I think an objective reading of the tactics, beliefs and recruiting practices of Mormonism qualify it for the status of a cult, not a religion. And a repressive, opportunistic and abusive cult it is.

For this reason, I dismiss Romney out of hand. He tries to avoid the Mormonism issue or brand those who bring it up as bigoted or biased. I would seriously vote for Hillary before I'd vote for Romney, and that is saying A LOT. I think a lot of Republicans would do that or sit home if Romney, with all this money and organizational advantages, does manage to game the primaries and win the nomination.

The American people rightly suspect that Mormonism is not in line with American values.

[Purple Avenger]

Is it too early in the race to question the timing?

[seekeronos]

Fred! and quite a few others here have the correct take on the abortion issue the gay family issues of detaching it from the Federal interest. These things are "state's rights" issues, and appointing strict construction constitutionalist justices for the SCOTUS will help remove the blight on our society that has been the continual badgering of both sides in the abortion and gay family questions.

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, just as attempts to block gay marriage and adoptions of families by gay couples by way of legislation like the FMA will never pass muster. But a solid, conservative SCOTUS will ensure that the older rulings be reviewed and overturned, and will continue to kick those cases of judicial/litigator activism which attempt to legislate out back down to the states.

Long story short, appointing the strict conservative SCOTUS justices is what we need.

The (Federal government of the) united States have no prevailing interest to adjudicate social issues like this that differ so widely amongst the many States.

HOWEVER... for Romney, I see the Mormon issue coming back up because he is not likely to public repudiate his Mormonism in such a fashion as to appear flavourable to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but at the same time as not entirely rejecting "Christian" values.

The simple fact is most conservative Christians reject Mormonism and the LDS "church" as a wildly heretical cult.

The only sure-fire way for Romney to win over the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalist Christians (these two are not necessarily one and the same) would be for him to reject Mormonism and ask Jesus to be his Saviour and Lord. And though that is not very likely to happen... like Guliani, he is willing to say whatever he thinks will get him elected.

If anything, he is a very polished and effective salesman, especially getting elected as a GOP governor in an extremely powerful left-wing stronghold state. He is like Guliani in that regard... and not too far from Hillary either, for that matter.

Naturally, this sort of naked lust for power and the willingness to claw their way to it is a very important quality for anyone seeking high office, up to a point... and Romney has those qualities in spades - with all the charm IMHO... of a 19th century snake oil barker.

I say that to underscore what Docweasel said. On the surface, Mormonism has the appearance of being "just another Christian denomination", but it is as every bit cultic and removed from the fundamental teachings and doctrines of the Bible and Jesus Christ as Scientology or the Watchtower Society (Jehovah Witnesses).

[docweasel]

re:seekeronos:

From what I've read, Mormonism cannot be called a "Christian" religion at all. First, they do not believe in the Trinity, and therefore do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is merely the Son of God, sent to Earth as a human. He is not himself God, nor is he A god, he is merely, Jesus, the Saviour, a man. This goes against the very heart of "Christian" faith.

From what I can figure out, Jesus is, as they believe anyone who goes to heaven is, an angel. All angels are humans who have been admitted into heaven. The Book instructs you to offer to shake hands if you meet an Angel, because if you can feel his hand, its really an angel- demons are only spectral so that's how you can keep from getting fooled.

Levity aside, they also contantly refer to the Protestant and Catholic Churches as "great whores" or "harlots" "prostitutes" (those formulations appears A LOT), "abominations", "creations of Satan" etc. in their literature. They are more aligned, at least "racially" with Jews, of whom they "believe" they are a lost tribe.

Just a tip, should you meet an angel, some someone purporting to be Jesus.

[TheSpartan]

So you're blaming Dems for Rudy being corrupt? So much for the party of personal responsibility.

[dumbblonde]

doc,

My own experience with Mormons has been much different than yours.

There are Mormon families in our local school system, Mormon kids on the soccer teams, Mormons who work in our City facilities, Mormons in my neighborhood, local businesses owned by Mormons, etc etc. Both of my daughters have friends who are Mormon. A man who works for my husband is Mormon. Every member of our family has personal, daily contact with Mormons.

Every Mormon family that I know is a family I am proud to know. The parents devote a tremendous amount of time to their families, the schools, the sports teams, the Scouts, and the community in general. The kids are respectful and polite. They don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or sleep around - and they don't lecture or scold those who do. We've been invited to Mormon birthday parties, baby showers, and wedding receptions. We've never been made to feel different or "less than." We've never been preached to, nobody has ever made an attempt to convert us. In fact, unless someone else brings it up, they don't even discuss religion - which I find refreshing, in comparison to the behavior of many of the born-agains I know.

[dumbblonde]

Regarding Mormonism as a "cult", and "religions" vs "cults":

Is there really much difference?

Both the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster define a cult as: "A system of comunity of religious worship and ritual."

American Heritage defines Religion as: "A belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe."
Merriam-Webster defines Religion as: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

I'm sure that some among us will rush to find definitions of these terms which are more supportive of their beliefs - which can then be used to tell me: "See, you are wrong! They aren't the same thing! See?!?!".

But when you get down to the brass tacks, it's simply a matter of: What I believe is Religion. What you believe (if you believe differently than I) is a Cult. My book is the Truth (see, here is my "proof"). Your book is Blasphemy. I am Right. You are Wrong. There still might be hope for you, if you come to your senses and believe as I do. Otherwise, too bad for you.

Oh, I've stepped in it now :)

[docweasel]

I believe Mormons are different in A. their recruiting methods B. the way they try to enforce adherence to strict standards of behavior and tithing C. the harassment of members trying to leave D. the very pernicious racist, sexist and intolerance inherent in the basic tenets of their religion.

blonde (I don't like to call you dumb, even if you call yourself that :p ):
I'm sure you've met Mormons who were very pleasant. However, read their beliefs. I'm sure there are racists and sexists and intolerant bigots who are very personable. As Mark Twain said, the devil isn't going to have a pointed tail and be a monster, he's going to be a slick salesman, an attractive and reasonable guy.

Robert Redford, with whom I rarely agree, had some very cogent thoughts on this recently. All Mormon men 19-20 spend 2 years practicing to con people about their religion. My own friend only gets the real facts out in dribs and drabs about the most disgusting and disquieting parts of their religion. Its a process, and its very reminiscent of Scientology, which also gives you the really crazy parts as you move up.

I believe there might by good people in the Mormon religion, but they are either ignorant, in denial or, frankly, intellectually vapid. Its not alright to belong to a "religion" that preaches hate and holds beliefs in the inferiority of blacks (in fact, all dark skinned people), women and preaches obscene hate at other religions as part of their main raison d'etre. Sorry, that just doesn't wash.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html

Investigate the religion if you don't believe me. Google "Mormon Intolerance" "Mormon Survivors" "Mormon Abuse" or any of those and you'll get a a disturbing picture of the lifestyles going on in those families you might think, on the outside, are very cordial and decent.

Here is a page of some of the most pernicious quotes from the Book of Mormon, which they, btw, believe LITERALLY (I think Christians who believe in the Bible as literally the word of God are also deluded and dangerous, for what its worth- as a young Catholic I was taught it was mostly parables and metaphors, and bad translations, political infighting, sectarianism and other causes had changed the text over the centuries so it could in no way be thought of as the word of God, but merely a guide from which to take lessons, as well as a sketchy history of Judeo-Christian traditions and stories, but a great deal of it was fables, meant to teach, not to illustrate actual happenings, like Methuselah actually living 900 years or even the plagues of Egypt actually occuring as written in the Bible, but with more natural explanations.

I don't want to get in a huge argument about it on Dan's blog so I'll say no more about it, if you care to respond I'll rest here. I respect your opinon, but I disagree vehemently

[dumbblonde]

doc,

My post is not a statement for or against Mormonism. I'm simply reporting my own personal observations about people (admittedly, a miniscule percentage of the greater Mormon community) who I see and interact with on a daily basis. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BobInStamford]

Well lookie here - the patriots are squabbling over the relative virtues of a Scientologist v. a Crossdressing fetus-hater.

Surge on!

[dumbblonde]

Bob,

You use the term "patriot" as if it were a derogatory term. How sad for you.

[templar knight]

blonde, BobinStamford, aka HairyBob, hates his country, anyone who loves it, and is one of the Leftoids who advocate one-world government. He is also most likely a gay vegan since he hates meat, women and patriots. He serves no useful purpose in this world, other than driving his German car around and proving himself to be a hypocrite of the worst variety, since he is also an AlGorebot. He's one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" type of pukes.

[docweasel]

Funny how its always the leftists who disparage people for "gay" tendencies and accuse conservatives of being secretly or latently gay, as if it were a bad thing, while at the same time calling conservatives intolerant.

[seekeronos]

"--- I think Christians who believe in the Bible as literally the word of God are also deluded and dangerous... ---"

Perhaps so, if the direction and *application* of their literal belief in God's Word is not focused on (their) becoming more conformed to the image of Christ, and winning souls to Christ.

There is a very thin line between being "dogmatically correct" and being Scripturally correct.

I believe that God's Word 100% accurate, inerrant, and true (TR/KJV arguments aside) ... and some of it is certainly allegorical, prophetic, and didactic in nature; the rest being a literal framework of God's revealed will to Mankind.

That said, I do not see much profit in quibbling over whether or not Methuselah really lived 969 luni-solar years or solar years or lunar years - suffice it for me to say that he lived an incredibly long time either way we try to slice it. More importantly, his long life (as well as those of other antediluvians) was illustrative of God's forbearance and mercy toward mankind, that they should repent of their sins and trust in their Creator (Jesus).

Or for that matter, any other part of the Bible which Thomas Jefferson would (and did) profess to be "so much rubbish and superstition"; no, rather...

... I say with St. Paul that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect*, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3:16-17, KJV. *the word "Perfect" as used here, is translated from the Greek "artios" which means "completely qualified" or "adequate".)

Furthermore, that for the non-Christian... that one cannot be expected to fully (or even partially) understand the Bible in the manner which God desires us to know Him; it is at best, an academic read. For those who truly desire to know the "mind of Christ", (1 Corinthians 2:16) they must first be converted and saved by a true confession and knowledge of what Jesus has done for them - from the heart, confessed by the mouth. (Romans 10)

This is markedly different from cults (and DB, I hope this may better illustrate for you a key difference between true, living Christianity and the cultic imitations of it with which Lucifer has lured people astray) ... with promises of "hidden knowledge' and "mysteries" and degrees and orders of this and orders of that.

All of that sort of thing has its trappings in the original cult of Babylon founded by Nimrod (contemporaneous with King Ninus or Sargon the Great) in Babel some forty-two centuries ago. The "hidden knowledge" and "secret rituals" (whether it be "magicked underwear" or baptisms for the dead, or secret oaths to the "god of light")... it is all pointing back to that Serpent who first deceived our ancestors in the Garden of Eden with lies of how "we can be like gods", if only we listen to the devil.

True Christianity, and the Word of God, exalts only Christ. No secret handshakes or veiled dances or other weirdness. Just a simple command to accept and trust the Creator, and obey His perfect plans for our lives:

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you saith the LORD thoughts of peace and not of evil to give you an expected end" (Jeremiah 29:11, KJV)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[dumbblonde]

"This is markedly different from cults"

No, seek. It isn't. You have missed my point. This is my fault, as I did not state it clearly. I do not have the luxury of sitting at my computer for long periods at a time in order to write lengthy, thoughtfully worded posts. I will try to do better.

The word "cult" is one of those troublesome words without a universal agreed-upon definition. In the words of Leo Pfeffer: "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."

However, if you care to use the dictionary definition of cult, Christianity fits the definition, as do other major "religions".

Christianity in all of its various forms is at its core a community with, most importantly, a shared religious belief (a belief that Jesus is Christ, and a belief in the teachings of the Christian Bible) and less importantly, shared ritual (for example: prayer, baptism, religious weddings, observance of certain days as having religious significance, etc).

Christianity at its fundamental core is a cult (again, shared religious belief and ritual). One may consider Christianity his "religion." However, if one is a Christian, he is by necessity also a part of the larger community of Christians, or the Cult of Christianity. The two cannot be separated.

The adherents of any cult of course believe the teachings of that cult to be "true." The "truth" or lack thereof of *any* religious belief is beside the point I am trying to make in this post, and a point I do not care to argue.