Having Your Cake...and everyone elses (Update)

Following the context of Obama’s speech below, there’s not one person’s writing that I’ve read who has more talent than Jaz. He’s just a natural writer. We’ve been known to debate a few items here and there but with this one I just don’t understand his interpretation.

I made a comment on Lisa’s blog where I agreed with her that Rev. Wright’s comments were going to be burdensome to Obama. I agreed he was going to have to distance himself and would have to do it quickly and probably forcefully. Then at the end I said a few years ago I told people it would be hard to beat Obama on issues and charisma, it would be his middle name and his church that would cause the most trouble for him.

I’m assuming Jaz replied to that last sentence of mine stating that a relationship with a pastor (Obama’s most definitely) is about issues; further arguing that it’s dismissive to attempt to separate issues from the philosophy that shapes and defines those issues. In essence, Obama’s relationship with his pastor is the guiding philosophy that shapes his issues. Jaz concludes, “[s]omething as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.”

So what we have is that religion is philosophy that guides political issues. Fine with me. But as soon as I bring up former presidential candidate and current VP hopeful Mitt Romney, Jaz says the same interpretation of religion and issues doesn’t apply.

“Jaz, I would think that someone who openly, proudly, and vehemently supported Mitt Romney would want to do is make religion an issues argument. The church Romney belongs to and regularly attends believes that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and when Jesus returns he will return to Jackson Co. Missouri to setup the New Jerusalem. They also believed until 1978 that black people were second class citizens and were punished by God.”

Jaz says by mentioning Romney I’m classically trying to derail the argument:

“Mentioning Romney in the context of this discussion is classic Chris obfuscation (or ‘derailing’ if you like). The strategy being, if he muddies than waters enough around all of these various distinct discussions, then out of the confusion and murkiness will arise a vindicated Barack Obama, rising out of the ashes of the discussion like a phoenix.”

Right then we see two very different standards.

Jaz already previously stated that a relationship with a pastor and one’s religion is the philosophy that guides political issues. Separating the two was “dismissive” and something as “transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed .” But for Romney Jaz completely dismisses and compartmentalizes his very own logic by stating that religion for Romney simply only “informs” his decisions on political issues and that there is no similarity between the two situations. Talk about derailing. But Jaz didn’t derail my argument, he derailed his own.

The point of the matter is if religion is the guiding philosophical principal to political issues, like Jaz originally said it was, then it applies to both parties—to politicians everywhere and not just to Barack Obama. If the Jaz standard is that personal faith personally reflects political issues, then Mitt Romney who is an ordained priest in the Mormon Church is also bound by that same Jaz standard. You can’t separate the two. Romney’s faith can’t merely inform his political issues while Obama’s completely guides his. Or if you do separate the two don't insist the other person is derailing the argument.

*Update:

As I was posting this one, Jaz posted another reply on Lisa's site. After reading his latest I understand much better where Jaz is coming from on this. It's about spiritual guidance and not about religion. Though that distinction is hard to make, technically speaking Jaz does make sense. But I still don't see how one can separate Romney from his spiritual guidance and not Obama. Not only is Romney an ordained priest in the mormon church, he's also a prophet and a spiritual leader in his own right. Obama's merely a member of a church-- a member who has routinely rejected his former pastor's comments and actions. If a priest is believed to be only "informed" of his faith and guidance on issues how can a member be held to a higher standard? If anything, one would think a priest would be much more inclined to use his spiritual guidance as advisement to their political issues than say a layperson.