I haven’t posted many Comments of the Day of late, and that is due to my recent schedule and sloth, not the quality of the comments. Michael’s comment below on my recent post about politicians announcing that they have been “called” to the presidency shook me from my torpor, for it usefully details how not all divine callings are equally objectionable. Here is his Comment of the Day:
“I know many people who feel (or say) they have been called by God to do various things. These generally fall into three categories:
“Category 1. A person who feels that God has called them to do something that will benefit many people (other than themselves). The thing they are called to do requires a lot of training, hard work, and results in very little money or praise. They don’t generally tell people they were called to do this except as a response to the question “Why would someone as talented and smart as you be doing something so thankless and impoverishing?”
“Category 2. A person who feels that God has called them to fill a position of power, authority, or extreme skill. Such people pour themselves into preparing to best fill said position. They only admit that they are doing this in close confidence or when asked why they are going to such extreme measures to prepare themselves.
“Category 3. Someone who loudly announces they are called by God to do something. This something is usually something grand, resulting in money, fame, power, or a combination of the three. They generally tell people they were called in response to the question “Why should you be allowed to do this when you don’t appear to have the qualifications, experience, or work ethic required for such a lofty position?”
“People in two of these categories have much more of my admiration than people in the other.”
Ethics Alarms 
You say 2 of them are admirable; I say they are all clearly crazy.
Are you saying something can’t be crazy and admirable?
Nope. I just couldn’t find a snappy way to work that in. I can admire someone’s actions while believing their reasoning is contemptable.
Just curious . . . I liked “Michael’s” comment . . . who is he?
gbcalifornia
Check the guidelines. I require commenters to let me know who they are, at least with a valid e-mail, and the regulars who, like Lianne Best, Tom Fuller, Tim LeVier, Bob Stone, Julian Hung, Neil Penny and others, leave their full names have a special place in my heart. But it’s up to Michael to decide whether he wants anyone to know.
Jack, I have been stewing all day about your post and, I must say, I found your argument narrow-minded and frankly, typical of the East coast media-saturated snobbery. I don’t think anyone should assume that only conservative Republicans claim God is calling them. I know that there are Democrats who feel called by God to political office. But my belief that people, no matter what their stripe, can feel called by God to do something for the greater good is sure, and not naive. Inspiration comes in many forms. Some are transparent and claim that God called them. Others may not be so bold. Those without faith typically castigate those who claim it. I think there is room for both: the faithfull and the faithless.
Jack, I have been stewing all day about your post and, I must say, I found your argument narrow-minded and frankly, typical of the East coast media-saturated snobbery. I don’t think anyone should assume that only conservative Republicans claim God is calling them. I know that there are Democrats who feel called by God to political office.
I think you may need to reread Jack’s original piece. He never claimed only republicans do that. He only pointed out that two high-profile republicans for the highest office in the U.S. have done so. If Obama claims the same, I’m sure he would be added to the list.
But my belief that people, no matter what their stripe, can feel called by God to do something for the greater good is sure, and not naive.
Sure. A sucker is born every minute. Not you. The people who feel called.
Inspiration comes in many forms. Some are transparent and claim that God called them. Others may not be so bold.
It sounds like you think that person 1 and 2 don’t deserve the admiration, but person 3 does. Eesh.
Those without faith typically castigate those who claim it.
You mean rational people call other people out when they are irrational?
I think there is room for both: the faithfull and the faithless.
I think there’s room for both: the blind and the sighted. That’s cool, so long as we’re not talking about bus drivers.
I didn’t want to make you stew, Kathy.
I agree with most of what you say, but politicians announcing that they have been called, whether they are sincere or not, is manipulative. You have to judge a politician in the context of politics—they are angling for an advantage, and, frankly, that’s cheating. As I said, it is claiming an endorsement, a big one, without proof. I see it as a smaller version of the effrontery of announcing that God told you that the world would end. Michele Bachmann, not to put too fine a point on it, is a hateful and cynical bigot with dubious abilities. There is no way so strange and mysterious that would allow me to trust and respect a deity that would call on her to seek the reins of the US. The title, I’m sure you appreciate, was tongue-in-cheek; I’m not questioning God, I’m criticizing politicians who use God as a political prop. And that’s exactly what Bachmann and Perry…and to some extent Carter and Bush, have done. It’s cheating. I stand by that.
I do take issue with the “East coast media-saturated snobbery” assumption. My attitude toward public espousals of religion can be traced directly to my Loiusville, Kentucky-born and raised Dad, a Methodist who found any mixture of religion and professions irritating…except in your profession, where it is unavoidable and appropriate. There is a reason why I don’t sound like I was brought up in Boston!
Thanks for the comment…come again!
Well said, Jack. I never knew about your Dad or Louisville, Kentucky. I now like you all the more! Ha!