Executive Speechwriting: Corporate, Weddings, Retirement

Friday, May 11, 2007

Giuliani Runs As Democrat(ish) Republican, Al Sharpton All But Moons the Mormons

Giuliani's a liberal. A Democrat claims a Mormon has no genuine faith. What's next?

Really. All true. Rudy's just as prochoice as Margaret Sanger. How prochoice is that? I'm exaggerating. Planned Parenthood founder Sanger was so prochoice, she was cool emphasizing the abortion of Catholics, the poor and African Americans, all as part of her view of also being pro-eugenics. Rudy's not there. He's killed off three marriages, but no African Americans.

Al Sharpton, after years of seminary study and biblical scholarship, was licensed and ordained a minister at the age of nine. Now, a minister without a church (think: Jesse Jackson) presumably for its political and legal conveniences, he gets to say he's the Reverend Sharpton. To me, he's just a doofus who wants to make the Democratic Party the religious party. He decided this week to say Mitt Romney, who happens to Mormon, isn't a real Christian. There's an interesting theological question, but not salient to any presidential campaign.

What does Hillary, a nonbeliever and a liberal, do? Worry about Giuliani bigtime if he wins the primary, and avoid Sharpton with a ten-foot pole.

1 comment:

@bdul muHib said...

I agree, whether or not Romney is a Christian doesn't pertain to his ability to lead. But it seems that Sharpton didn't bring this up- more questioning that he believes in God. This I find rather ridiculous- of course Mormons believe in God, and just because their faith was once severely racist (as were many Christian groups, and some even today) doesn't deny that they are theistic, or even that they are Christian. (Though it does bring up rather they are practicing the path of Christ.)

But what I do find rather salient is the ideas like this: Slate editor Jacob Weisberg threw down the challenge after reviewing some of Joseph Smith's more extravagant assertions. "He was an obvious con man," Weisberg wrote. "Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country."

I agree. There is an issue here of a church that believes in an obvious conman, and that operates contrary to all established archeology and anthropology. There are Mormons who choose not to believe core beliefs of their faith, like that Jesus isn't God, and that God was once a man. I'd like to know if Romney also recognizes Smith as a conman, and if he accepts current scientific principles of archeology, which run counter to his faith. If he doesn't, then I won't vote for him, as much as I wouldn't vote for a candidate so ignorant as to advocate that evolution isn't true but Literal Creationism. Those issues I think go a long way to indicating if a candidate is fit for office.

(And incidently, come to think of it, probably a reason Sharpton and others haven't raised the issue of faulty Mormon archeology more is that it would bring up the issue of faulty conservative Christian biology as well.)