The nature of Bush's religion

[Barliman Butterbur]

Aragorn 21 and I had been talking about the number of evangelical Christians in the world, and he said one thing about their numbers and I said another. So I got curious and went on a websearch to try to find out the facts of the matter. What I discovered led me far afield of the original query. What I found were descriptions of the nature of the Christianity that George Bush believes in. I was not looking for this.

I will not engage in any commentary, but merely post the links, in the order in which I came across them, to what I found. Those interested enough to pursue the matter will come to their own conclusions.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html
http://www.raptureready.com

Barley

[joxy]

The first site includes a statement that Bush prays every day. My opinions on the dangers of making implications are well known, but I doubt if anyone would claim I was wrong in taking the implication that the writer thought that praying every day was not a good idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
The site goes on to tell us:
"Among Mansfield's revelations is his insistence that Bush and Tony Blair have prayed together at a private meeting at Camp David. Blair has previously denied this."
Now, I have a personal dislike for Blair almost as strong as that so often shown by others for Bush, but it is a fact that he prays, at least as an appeasement to his wife, and I find it extraordinary to find another implication(!) that it is not a good idea for a president and a prime minister to pray together - and even that it is so obviously a bad idea that one of the parties makes a point of stating that he did not take part after all.

[Richard]

As for the faith of George. W.Bush I respect both sides on whether it is real. I realize that this is a touchy issue, and would like to know the rules of conduct on threads of this type. Richard

[Barliman Butterbur]

The first site includes a statement that Bush prays every day. My opinions on the dangers of making implications are well known, but I doubt if anyone would claim I was wrong in taking the implication that the writer thought that praying every day was not a good idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
The site goes on to tell us:
"Among Mansfield's revelations is his insistence that Bush and Tony Blair have prayed together at a private meeting at Camp David. Blair has previously denied this."
Now, I have a personal dislike for Blair almost as strong as that so often shown by others for Bush, but it is a fact that he prays, at least as an appeasement to his wife, and I find it extraordinary to find another implication(!) that it is not a good idea for a president and a prime minister to pray together - and even that it is so obviously a bad idea that one of the parties makes a point of stating that he did not take part after all.

No one objects to prayer in itself. Joxy — do me a personal favor — please —: read the article from the Guardian in the second link. Read about the specifics of the evangelical belief system, and the actions and behavior that naturally proceed from such beliefs. There is the act of prayer, and there is the content of prayer. Thank you in advance.

Barley

[joxy]

You only have to ask - but in this case your request had already been granted - I had already seen all the items!
And what an appalling revelation they offer! I'm truly amazed to discover the existence of these organisations and individuals who apparently firmly believe they are Christians, but who talk such utter nonsense.
Do these crackpots actually have some influence, on anything??
As I've said elsewhere I'm sorry to see my church listed beside organisations which are only marginally less dangerous than these, and now I'm all the more sorry that we haven't overtaken and left them behind, in the way that in this country we have overtaken and left behind all the established organisations. I suppose that the US is a special case as our counterparts have let down the universal church so badly by being reponsible for the widespread abuse which has come to light in recent years. I can only hope that when full amends have been made for all that, they will find themselves in a position strong enough to carry the day,
in expressing what the faith is really all about, in contrast to the wild and dangerous ideas I have been discovering from those references.

Of course, my comments on prayer remain intact -thanks BB for your response to them.

[Barliman Butterbur]

You only have to ask - but in this case your request had already been granted - I had already seen all the items!
And what an appalling revelation they offer! I'm truly amazed to discover the existence of these organisations and individuals who apparently firmly believe they are Christians, but who talk such utter nonsense.
Do these crackpots actually have some influence, on anything??

Unfortunately, they have if not a stranglehold, a dangerously firm grip on the machinery of American government from the White House on down, starting with Dubya and his minions. Now you know the reason for my all posts attempting to expose Bush for what he is and what he's trying to do, which certain gentlemen posting to these threads find so incendiary and "hateful," the possible truth of which they so vociferously deny.

Of course, my comments on prayer remain intact -thanks BB for your response to them.

My pleasure, as always.

Barley

[joxy]

I'm not sure which side of the argument has the lead in vociferousness!
As to the denying, I have to say that, if the denying we are talking about is a denial that Bush is linked to those weird people or shares their views, then I'm not at all sure that they're wrong. I've seen nothing actually to confirm those links.
Also, we have a problem about a word - where have I seen that happen before? ;)
All Christians are called upon to evangelise, so no-one has a reserve on the word "evangelical".
The Guardian doesn't use the word once in the article, so I have to say that we need a more accurate word to use here.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I'm not sure which side of the argument has the lead in vociferousness!
As to the denying, I have to say that, if the denying we are talking about is a denial that Bush is linked to those weird people or shares their views, then I'm not at all sure that they're wrong. I've seen nothing actually to confirm those links.

The denying is about whether there is any truth in the articles about Bush that I've been presenting. Far from denial, there is great pride in evangelical circles that Bush is an avowed, self-declared member of the evangelical (as Aragorn 21 defines it) wing of Christianity.

Also, we have a problem about a word - where have I seen that happen before? ;)

:D:D:D

All Christians are called upon to evangelise, so no-one has a reserve on the word "evangelical".
The Guardian doesn't use the word once in the article, so I have to say that we need a more accurate word to use here.

I simply used Aragorn 21's phraseology; he is the one who refers to this brand of Christianity as "evangelical" (and asserts that they and the Catholics comprise the majority of all Christians worldwide) and I simply went along with it for lack of a more accurate description. I figured he knew what he was talking about, and so used the term as he used it for the sake of agreement on its definition. I suppose one might find the "official" term for this brand of Christianity at Jerry Falwell's, Pat Roberton's or Oral Roberts's websites — but I'm not about to do it!

Barley

[Gothmog]

As for the faith of George. W.Bush I respect both sides on whether it is real. I realize that this is a touchy issue, and would like to know the rules of conduct on threads of this type. Richard
The rules of conduct on threads of this type as in all threads on TTF can be found Here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/faq.php?faq=rules_root) Hope that helps :)

[Eriol]

People interested in religious statistics would do well to visit www.adherents.com . I often peruse it, and it is always fascinating :).

[joxy]

You have presented rather a lot of articles BB, so those "certain gentlemen" have a difficult task in deciding what to deny!
I was trying to be more specific, to consider the matter of Bush's connection with or sympathy for those weird and wonderful web sites that you pointed me to, and whether it would be reasonable to deny them.

I understand the reason why you used the word "evangelical", but it really is not the right word.
An item at Eriol's link tells us that in the US the religious organisations with the most adherents are, in order:
Catholic, Baptist, Methodist/Wesleyan, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Judaism, Latter-day Saints/Mormon, Churches of Christ, Congregational/United Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assemblies of God,
with no mention of the word "evangelical".
From the list "charismatic" appears a likely candidate for being representative of those strange views, but they might be contained also within the Baptist and Assemblies classifications.
As Catholic is rated at 54 million, and the next in line is way behind at 34 million, with the rest trailing, it appears that the balance we have been quoted is somewhat inaccurate! It also appears that those strange people have a minimal representation.
I saw quite enough on their sites, and, like you, have no inclination to check up on Messrs Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberton, or Oral Roberts, so their official affiliations, if they have any, must remain unidentified.

[Richard]

the essence of christianty is servanthood. two good examples are Sam and Aragorn.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...
I understand the reason why you used the word "evangelical", but it really is not the right word.

Catholic is rated at 54 million, and the next in line is way behind at 34 million, with the rest trailing, it appears that the balance we have been quoted is somewhat inaccurate! It also appears that those strange people have a minimal representation.

Evidently those who belong to that group are in strong denial about it. (Eriol, thanks for that link!)

I saw quite enough on their sites, and, like you, have no inclination to check up on Messrs Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberton, or Oral Roberts, so their official affiliations, if they have any, must remain unidentified.

I've been watching and listening carefully to the cable news — they seem to use the term "the Christian Right" to describe "those strange people."

•••

By some strange chance/providence/fate, I ran across this passage written by Tolkien about war (from letter #312), from 1969, which is so eerily appropriate for these times and days and hours:

"...I have a feeling (more near a certainty) that God, for some ineffable reason which to us may seem almost like humour, is so curiously ready to answer the prayers of the least worthy of his suppliants – if they pray for others. I do not of course mean to say that He only answers the prayers of the unworthy (who ought not to expect to be heard at all), or I should not now be benefitting by the prayers of others. What a dreadful, fear-darkened, sorrow-laden world we live in – especially for those who have also the burden of age, whose friends and all they especially care for are afflicted in the same way. Chesterton once said that it is our duty to keep the Flag of This World flying: but it takes now a sturdier and more sublime patriotism than it did then. Gandalf added that it is not for us to choose the times into which we are born, but to do what we could to repair them; but the spirit of wickedness in high places is now so powerful and so many-headed in its incarnations that there seems nothing more to do than personally to refuse to worship any of the hydras' heads. ...."

Someone in these threads challenged me to describe what I thought was a "godly" man. I think Tolkien fills the bill quite nicely, as well as being — for me at least — a true Christian in the highest best sense. I am dead certain that he would not at all be in sympathy with the beliefs of the "Christian Right." I say this from long contemplation of the opening chapters of "The Silmarillion," which are in themselves sublime and beautiful and deep enough to form the basis of a religion on their own, one to which I would seriously consider subscribing.

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

This thread seems to have shifted emphasis into an examination of the nature of the type of Christianity to which President Bush belongs.

The American press (at least) seems to have been afraid to touch the issue, probably for fear of bringing down the wrath of millions of "evangelical Christians" upon its head. But it seems that this issue is absolutely basic to the understanding of Bush's thought process, and what drives his actions as president.

I did a Google search on the words CHRISTIANS AGAINST BUSH just to see what would happen. What happened amazed me. There are lots of Christians "against Bush," and what amazed me is the number of conservative and "evengelical" Christians who raise serious objections to his being in power, and serious objections to what they see as his giving a false representation of what they consider to be true Christianity. These Christians refer to themselves as not only "evangelical," and "conservative" and "to the right", but by a number of terms. Here is a selection of representative websites; the more of them you examine, the more you'll learn about non-Bush Christians and their beliefs on what is true Christianity:

http://christiansagainstbush.bravehost.com/
http://mnl_1221.tripod.com/kerrybush.html
http://dfa.bmgbiz.net/evangelical.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html
http://www.democrats.us/beta/forum/view_topic.php?id=1854&forum_id=3
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/investing/109072/latest/107
http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html
http://www.publicchristian.com/govtpolitics/chrvsbush.shtml
http://i.webring.com/hub?ring=fearbush
http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-uj0HeN+-ilad+Currents+984+-25-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/189785_valdez08.html

But I saved the "best" for last: the website on PBS's production of "The Jesus Factor," which outlines Bush's involvement with apocolyptic Christianity, and how he's dragging all of us into it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/. If Bush's religion had you worried before, you'll really be worried after examining this site. (Joxy: It looks like the term "evangelical Christian" is one that we'll have to accept as referring to a specific American-born and bred branch of the religion.)

Here are two reactions from people writing in to the show which reflect my own views, especially the first one:

Dear FRONTLINE,

The thought of a bunch of born-again evangelicals running this country scares me to death. I just don't see a difference between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists. Each feels that they have the only true path to God, and each feels that they must convice others of the fact by any means necessary.

Those who think that Bush's faith only makes him more sincere and well-meaning, need to remember that these people actually believe in a great Apocalyptic end to the world caused by a battle between "good" and "evil". They also insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels.

Wake up, America!! This is the most dangerous administration we have ever had. God help us all!

Sandra Cardet
Palm Springs, California

Dear FRONTLINE,

The President and all of the 'evangelicals' riding on his coattails have no business leading a country with a constitution that clearly draws a line between church and state. This, combined with his blatantly ethnocentric demeanor toward foreign nations, Islam and any other group or sect based outside of Texas, has done irreperable harm to the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the President's role is to protect the Constitution (including the plain-as-day 'Separation of Church and State') and to work for the betterment of the American people. Proselytizing and pushing his values on those of us who don't reside within the borders of the Southern Bible Belt/Texas isn't in his job description!

Ryan Swanson
Ellensburg, Washington

To be fair, there were also other sentiments supporting Bush.

Barley

[HLGStrider]

Sandra and Ryan truthfully scare me.

The idea of a persons faith disqualifying them from public service is a frightening one and by Ryan's standard it seems to me he thinks anyone with a strong faith should be cast out of public office.

I just don't see a difference between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists. Each feels that they have the only true path to God, and each feels that they must convice others of the fact by any means necessary.

This is only true when Christians start blowing things up, which in the past they have, but most of them aren't at the moment. I wouldn't have any problem with a fundementalist Muslim in office if he was of the branch that didn't believe in blowing people up. I have been assured this branch exists.

Those who think that Bush's faith only makes him more sincere and well-meaning, need to remember that these people actually believe in a great Apocalyptic end to the world caused by a battle between "good" and "evil". They also insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels.

I do. . .and I really don't see how that makes me a threat to society.

Sandra is a paranoid anti-Christian.

The President and all of the 'evangelicals' riding on his coattails have no business leading a country with a constitution that clearly draws a line between church and state.
So you can't lead if you are an evangelical? By this logic only agnostics would be capable of holding political positions.

Ryan, I would say, is simply misguided.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Sandra and Ryan truthfully scare me.

The idea of a persons faith disqualifying them from public service is a frightening one and by Ryan's standard it seems to me he thinks anyone with a strong faith should be cast out of public office.

As I said to Joxy, prayer is one thing, the content of prayer is another. On a variation of that: faith is one thing, the content of faith is another. A person’s actions proceed from his beliefs.

Evidently, the heart of evangelical Christianity includes these tenets:

•In the United States, several million people have an extraordinary belief. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth. [Emphasis mine]

•The believers are convinced that they will soon be rewarded for their efforts. The antichrist is apparently walking among us, in the guise of Kofi Annan, Javier Solana, Yasser Arafat or, more plausibly, Silvio Berlusconi.

•...here we have a major political constituency - representing much of the current president's core vote - in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelation (9:14-15) maintains that four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of men". [Emphasis mine]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

If the above be true, President Bush appears to believe in is a faith that depends on a coming apocalypse, a conflagration that will engulf the world, and he seems to be calling in every day to representatives of that faith for guidance for his part in bringing it about:

“ ...there's no question this is the most receptive White House to our concerns and to our perspective of any White House that I've dealt with, and I've dealt with every White House from Reagan on. The day he was inauguarated there were several of us who met with him at the governor's mansion. And among the things he said to us was, I believe that God wants me to be president.

“In the Reagan administration, they would usually return our phone calls. In the Bush 41 administration, they often would return our phone calls, but not quite as quickly, and sometimes not quite as receptively. In the Clinton administration, they quit accepting our phone calls after a while.

“In this administration, they call us, and they say, "What is your take on this? How does your group feel about this?” [Emphasis mine]

—Richard Land, director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention and friend and adviser to President Bush

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/land.html

Under ordinary circumstances, I’d agree totally with LG. But the tenets of Bush's religion, at the very least, give one pause for thought when a world leader subscribes to them and listens more to his religious advisors, his political ideologists and the captains of corporate America than he does to the American people, the majority of whom do not share these views — not by a long shot.

Barley

[joxy]

These expressions "evangelical" and "Christian right" appear then to have been hi-jacked for the convenience of media reporting.

I've said what I think about those web sites and their weird and wonderful beliefs - and indeed, certainties, from their point of view - but I have to add that there is no proof, and, I believe, no grounds for suspicion, that Bush both holds those beliefs and adopts his policies specifically in order to prepare for and to implement them. If he did, I'd be on "your side"!

Elgee has discerned the suggestion of "a person's faith disqualifying them from public service" and says it is "a frightening one".
I agree. As I said previously I consider it a point strongly in his favour that a president or any other leader, who is of a faith, should practice his faith, in prayer and by any other means within his constitutional limitations. This is a very different matter from trying to force his faith views on to anyone else; I don't see Bush doing that.

You tell us that: "evidently, the heart of evangelical Christianity includes these tenets", and follow that with the account by Mr Monbiot of beliefs which he claims to be widespread in the US, which he elaborates to "American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings." I don't see that as evidence that the teachings are the heart of "evangelical" Christianity.
Mr Monbiot says that : "several million people have an extraordinary belief"; I don't believe that more than the relative handful on those sites have that belief.
He claims that those weird beliefs constitute "a major political constituency"; I don't believe they do.
You say that: "If the above be true, President Bush appears to believe in is a faith that depends on a coming apocalypse, a conflagration that will engulf the world, and he seems to be calling in every day to representatives of that faith for guidance for his part in bringing it about". I don't think that your conclusion from "the above" is justified.
You claim that Bush: "...listens more to his religious advisors, his political ideologists and the captains of corporate America than he does to the American people". I believe the word "more" is wrong. All leaders should listen to, and indeed enquire from, all those constituencies, and I don't doubt that Bush does include the American people among those constituencies.

And now to Tolkien: I wonder what his frame of mind was when he wrote that letter. What were the particular circumstances in 1969 that produced that sombre frame of mind? Specifically, who were those "in high places" in whom "the spirit of wickedness..
..is now so powerful and so many-headed in its incarnations"?

And yes, the Silmarillion is very obviously a sort of religious account, and a very impressive and indeed moving one, but I am sure Tolkien would have been the first to say that his personal preference was for his own "real" faith!

[Barliman Butterbur]

These expressions "evangelical" and "Christian right" appear then to have been hi-jacked for the convenience of media reporting.

I've said what I think about those web sites and their weird and wonderful beliefs - and indeed, certainties, from their point of view - but I have to add that there is no proof, and, I believe, no grounds for suspicion, that Bush both holds those beliefs and adopts his policies specifically in order to prepare for and to implement them. If he did, I'd be on "your side"!

Well, it looks to me like he indeed holds them, judging by the PBS website. But you're a good man, Joxy — you want to see the good in every man, including Bush. I guess I fail that test.

Elgee has discerned the suggestion of "a person's faith disqualifying them from public service" and says it is "a frightening one".
I agree.

Ordinarily, I would too, but for the nature of the belief system under discussion.

As I said previously I consider it a point strongly in his favour that a president or any other leader, who is of a faith, should practice his faith, in prayer and by any other means within his constitutional limitations. This is a very different matter from trying to force his faith views on to anyone else; I don't see Bush doing that.

I won't argue it with you. We see the same man and the same actions from different standpoints. That's okay.

You tell us that: "evidently, the heart of evangelical Christianity includes these tenets"; I don't see anything evident about that.
You say that : "several million people have an extraordinary belief"; I don't believe that more than the relative handful on those sites have that belief.
You claim that those weird beliefs constitute "a major political constituency" I don't believe they do.

Please don't attribute the above to me; I was merely providing direct quotes from the Guardian article.

You say that: "If the above be true, President Bush appears to believe in a faith that depends on a coming apocalypse, a conflagration that will engulf the world, and he seems to be calling in every day to representatives of that faith for guidance for his part in bringing it about". I don't think that your conclusion from "the above" is justified.

Fair enough. I provided a source, and I came to a conclusion.

You claim that Bush: "...listens more to his religious advisors, his political ideologists and the captains of corporate America than he does to the American people". I believe the word "more" is wrong. All leaders should listen to, and indeed enquire from, all those constituencies, and I don't doubt that Bush does include the American people among those constituencies.

I guess the bottom line is his conduct, his track record. The man has done great damage. This stands apart from his beliefs, but I believe those actions proceed from his beliefs.

And now to Tolkien: I wonder what his frame of mind was when he wrote that letter. What were the particular circumstances in 1969 that produced that sombre frame of mind? Specifically, who were those "in high places" in whom "the spirit of wickedness...is now so powerful and so many-headed in its incarnations"?

I'm not sure. The letter was written in 1969, and the only thing that stands out for me for that year is the moon landing.

And yes, the Silmarillion is very obviously a sort of religious account, and a very impressive and indeed moving one, but I am sure Tolkien would have been the first to say that his personal preference was for his own "real" faith!

I daresay.

By the way, just learned of this (10/14/04), the German defense minister just announced that he is now willing to reconsider sending troops to Iraq if Kerry is elected president. I think this is going to become important news and a big item in coming days. It looks like a thinly disguised German endorsement of Kerry. Those Americans who are leery of international positive assessments of Kerry may get more determined than ever to get Bush re-elected. Those who are struck by this decision as a good sign may well be more determined to get Kerry elected president. We'll see what comes out of this.

Barley

[joxy]

I've corrected my two errors of attribution, and apologise for making them.
As you say, the bottom line is what the man has actually done, and I agree that, like most politicians, he has done damage,
he has done things that were wrong, of which by far the most outstanding was the attack on Iraq.
Where we disagree is in the reasons for doing wrong things. To cut a long and elaborate story short, the commentators are suggesting that he is aiming to set off Armageddon and take the credit for it. I exaggerate?!
Just for the record, and I'm very sorry to diverge from Elgee on this one, I do not "insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels"; I believe in Armageddon no more than I believe in Noah's Flood. Revelation in particular does have its poetry, but I rate the poets of Genesis higher than St John the Divine. And Tolkien isn't far behind with the Silmarillion....

The German minister's announcement baffles me; what difference does the presidency make to German government policy?
That government is currently in deep internal difficulties; the ministers must be clutching at straws to disentangle themselves. :rolleyes:

[Barliman Butterbur]

I've corrected my two errors of attribution, and apologise for making them.

Apology unnecessary!:)

As you say, the bottom line is what the man has actually done, and I agree that, like most politicians, he has done damage,
he has done things that were wrong, of which by far the most outstanding was the attack on Iraq.

Where we disagree is in the reasons for doing wrong things. To cut a long and elaborate story short, the commentators are suggesting that he is aiming to set off Armageddon and take the credit for it. I exaggerate?!

That seems to be the case, at least that's how I see it, especially after going fairly deeply into that PBS Front Line coverage. You are not exaggerating. After all, the man has said, and to a number of people, that he believes God commanded him to be president. Gerald Boykin, an American army general has said, "You know why Bush became president when he lost the popular vote? I'll tell you why: because God wants it, that's why!" There are too many of these types in important government positions, and I think that eventually the news media is going to have to take a daily look at this business of the Religious Right working its way into American politics and law.

Just for the record, and I'm very sorry to diverge from Elgee on this one, I do not "insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels"; I believe in Armageddon no more than I believe in Noah's Flood. Revelation in particular does have its poetry, but I rate the poets of Genesis higher than St John the Divine. And Tolkien isn't far behind with the Silmarillion....

The scary thing is, that the "evangelicals" believe it literally and seem to be trying to manipulate world affairs to bring it about — again, that PBS article gives it credence, as well as some of those other links I posted.

The German minister's announcement baffles me; what difference does the presidency make to German government policy?
That government is currently in deep internal difficulties; the ministers must be clutching at straws to disentangle themselves. :rolleyes:

We'll see how that plays out in the coming days. Anyway, you (and if not you, certainly a few others ;)) will probably heave a sigh of relief when I say I am dialing back on this stuff. It suddenly came to me that once I posted the items about the nature of Bush's religion, I felt a kind of closure. I needed to get this stuff out on these boards in order to show why so many people are worried about Bush, and I did that.

Even if Bush is thrown out of office, the problem is still there, because the American Far Political/Religious Right is never going to give up. It will retrench, learn from its mistakes, and press on — just as will the other side.

Barley

[joxy]

....he believes God commanded him to be president.
"Commanded" is rather a strong word; did he actually use it?
If it was more of a matter of him seeking guidance in prayer as to whether he was a fit person to seek the office, I would consider that a perfectly normal thing for any person of faith to do, something highly commendable. Prayer is not answered with commands, but people of faith are capable of sensing a response, and gain from their prayer a mature and responsible ability to examine themselves and determine their own capabilities.

[Barliman Butterbur]

"Commanded" is rather a strong word; did he actually use it?


This is my current understanding, subject to correction. I'm trying to hunt that down. If I can't find anything to that effect, I'll let you know.

Meantime, here's something for you to chew on:

"When the president lets God tell him what to do, it violates the spirit of democracy. In a democracy, it is the people, not God, who make the decisions. The president is supposed to represent the will of the people. Yes, he must seek the best advice he can get and use his own best judgment. That means relying on facts, intelligent analysis, and rational thought-not divine inspiration. Once the president lets God's voice replace the human mind, we are back in the Middle Ages, back in the very situation our revolution was supposed to get us out of.

"If Bush lets God make foreign policy decisions, is he violating not just the spirit but the letter of the law? The Constitution gives him the right to make foreign policy. It does not say what should or should not go through his mind in the process. It certainly does not forbid him from consulting God. But it does protect us from having any religious belief determine our laws and policies. Did Bush violate the First Amendment's separation of church and state? The answer is not totally clear." [Emphasis mine]

Details at: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

What I emphasized puts its finger on what I consider to be one of this president's most dangerous policies: subverting secular laws and policies meant for the benefit of everyone to favor a particular religion at the expense of everyone else.

EDIT: Joxy, thanks for keeping me on my toes! The word "command" was not used. Here is the exact quote:

"Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'"

Full details at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1076027,00.html

And again (quoting Richard Land in the PBS Front Line Series "The Jesus Factor"):

"I will tell you this: The day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor in 1999, there were several of us who met with him at the governor's mansion. Among the things he said to us was — and this goes back to my Lincoln analogy — he said, "I believe that God wants me to be president."

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/land.html

As far as I'm concerned if I "felt like" God wanted me to do something, I'd sure take it as a command. And if I felt like that, there would be a lot of people in white coats coming for me, and classifying me as suffering from a disorder known as delusions of grandeur — not the sort of person I'd want in the White House with the power to launch a pre-emptive war!

Barley

[joxy]

The president is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Is that correct? Does it have a foundation in law?
Here, members of parliament, once elected, need not, and often should not, represent the will of "the people".

The remarks garnered from Mr Bush call for some consideration, some weighing up. He certainly says some odd things.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Is that correct? Does it [that the American president represent the will of the people] have a foundation in law?
Here, members of parliament, once elected, need not, and often should not, represent the will of "the people".

The remarks garnered from Mr Bush call for some consideration, some weighing up. He certainly says some odd things.

"Presidency of the United States of America
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Duties of the office

The Constitution succinctly defines presidential functions, powers, and responsibilities. The president's chief duty is to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed, and this duty is performed through an elaborate system of executive agencies that includes cabinet-level departments."

The excerpt above is taken from a full article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=231541

The ultimate point: any American president is elected by and is beholden to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives in the congress, etc. He is responsible to their wishes in that sense, not primarily to what he thinks any religion's God wants him to do. That is to place himself above the law. And the argument that he is responsible to "a higher law" just doesn't wash. That is opening the door to lawlessness, and a terrifying "anything goes" policy. We want a president answerable to and if necessary removable by, the people — not a Roman Emperor with divine or otherwise godlike powers to make any decision at all and run roughshod over the laws of the land, twisting them and changing them to suit his personal agendas and the agendas of his cronies. I think you get what I'm driving at: that's pretty much what we have now, and the whole world is suffering because of it.

Barley

[joxy]

I think there is a possibility that my scepticism over the idea of Bush seeing himself in the role of one of the horsemen of the Apocalypse has been apparent here, though I have certainly expressed my opinion that Revelations is a less agreeable work of poetry than Genesis. I was surprised to find in The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper much to be preferred for accuracy and common sense, in my opinion of course, to the more frequently quoted Guardian, an article which goes some way towards establishing that Bush is indeed looking to play a prominent role in Armageddon. The article shares my feelings about the value of St John the Divine's writings, but makes a very interesting point that they are actually regardly highly in Islam, and that Islam shares their prophetic visions. I have e-mailed an opticially recognised scan of the article to BB, and would repeat it for anyone else interested.

[HLGStrider]

I actually didn't get into this discussion because I wanted to defend the faith of our president. I just feel there is a great misunderstanding of evangelicals, of which I am one and most of my friends are (I think Baptist is one of the many denominations lumped into Evangelical, but I could be wrong. I'm very lousy with labels generally). I think that the press missunderstands them greatly and sort of views them from a skeptical distance. I have noticed this in the religion section of my local paper. I think it was the A.P. that recently laid off their religion-correspondant and decided not to cover such issues seperately anymore.

Just for the record, and I'm very sorry to diverge from Elgee on this one, I do not "insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels";
I'm simply curious why that would be a bad thing to do. For one thing, I don't take Revelation "literarly" because it is obviously written in very vague terms. All prophecies are. Read Isiaih.

A lot of my friends say Revelations is their favorite book of the Bible. I think this is because it is the book of the Bible that is the hardest to understand and no one knows for sure what they are talking about and it is a lot of fun to speculate. . .which is one of the reasons that when most people say they believe the second coming will occur as predicted their prophet of choice is not St. John by Jerry B. Jenkins or Tim LaHaye.

So I am curious about what Joxy means that he doesn't take it literally? Does he not think the world will eventually end or that there will be a second coming?

Now, as for people assuming Iraq is part of the war of the Apocolypse, I think you will find that this sort of thinking has been going around for ages. Everytime there is an earth quake or a war people automatically think to "For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." (Matthew 24:7-8)

If you read on it talks about people being persecuted for their faith and such.

Now how many times have all the things listed happened? Famines have been a part of history. Earthquakes, undoubtably. Pestilence, of course.

And every time they do, Christians look at the sky and say, "Gosh, is this it?" We do our best to predict it despite Christ's "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." (Matt. 24:36).

The last four years have been eventful. My grandmother, who has expected the end of the world since 1977 or so (Cold war, Nuclear Holocost sort of thing at first, I'm sure), is forever pointing out how what is happening meets the criteria. She was doing this in Clinton's presidency because there is a prophecy somewhere (I don't know the verse or the exact phrasing) that says "Things that were once hidden will be shouted from the rooftop."

Her logic was that the president's affair was something that once would've been hidden and when she thought about how we now have satalite TV that comes from dishes on the roof top. . .Must be the end times.

We have grandma on tape telling us that it was useless video taping family gatherings for prosterity because the world could end and if it did there would be no prosterity. This was in 1987.

When 9-11 came it seemed to fit a TON of Biblical prophecies. There is one somewhere that says something about ships out at sea watching towers burning. When Billy Graham gave the prayer at a memorial it was broadcast all over the world, which according to my grandmother fulfilled that every nation and tongue would hear the good news before the end. I think all Americans were expecting another catastrophe and for awhile it looked as if we were going to have one after another after another. There were thousands of internet scares (Klugerman virus, anyone?), some numbskull teenager trying to put a smiley face on the map with mail box bombs, and anthrax. My grandma thought the world was going to end right then and there.

She doesn't now. I sort of range panic by how much my grandmother is reacting to something because she tends to get wound up. Not just politically or religiously. If you want to name anything she can get excited and worried about it (Like my mom possibly having an Ulcer or some ingredient in something or other causing cancer. . .she just needs something to fret about). I truthfully haven't heard her mention aN end times prophecy in two years.
However, a lot of your points (Barli) on Armegeddon, I haven't really heard before or can't really see how they are derived from Revelations. The bit about the Jews converting or burning, for instance? I was always under the impression that it was a Christian theological point that the forces of evil are forever trying to wipe out the Jews but they will not succeed and the Jews will be provided for on the last days because they are held in God's hand. I may have just gotten this from my grandmother who keeps trying to find out whether my family has Jewish blood or not because she thinks Judaism is "cool" for lack of a better word. I have inherited quite a bit from her.

My own take, as an evangelical, is that Christ will return and the world will end and bad things will happen before he does, but bad things have always happened, and it is useless to speculate.

That seems to be the way most Evangelicals live.

Also, seeing that the laws are executed does not mean following the will of the people. It can mean exactly the opposite at times.

[Barliman Butterbur]

However, a lot of your points (Barli) on Armegeddon, I haven't really heard before or can't really see how they are derived from Revelations. The bit about the Jews converting or burning, for instance? I was always under the impression that it was a Christian theological point that the forces of evil are forever trying to wipe out the Jews but they will not succeed and the Jews will be provided for on the last days because they are held in God's hand. I may have just gotten this from my grandmother who keeps trying to find out whether my family has Jewish blood or not because she thinks Judaism is "cool" for lack of a better word. I have inherited quite a bit from her.


Truth to tell, LG, I haven't heard of them either until recently.

What I want to point up is simply this: we act on what we believe, whether our beliefs are true or false or right or wrong. When we believe with all our hearts something that is in fact objectively not the case, then that can be a cause for disaster.

I think your grandma has created a lot of needless heartache and unhappiness and fear for herself over the years trying to jam reality into her belief system — it's a shame. But it's no different from anyone believing anything that is in fact not the case, and experiencing needless suffering as a result.

What concerns me is when many people share a belief that is in fact, at least to me, nothing more than a fable — a dangerous one if one believes in it enough to act on it. What concerns me is when many people in power believe in fallacies — secular or religious — and try to force reality to fit the fantasy and in so doing take the whole world down a destructive path. That's my take on neoconservatism and that's my take on the tenets of evangelical Christianity. That these two beliefs got linked together in the destructive synergy that is in play at the moment scares the hell out of me.

Barley

[Ciryaher]

What I want to point up is simply this: we act on what we believe, whether our beliefs are true or false or right or wrong. When we believe with all our hearts something that is in fact objectively not the case, then that can be a cause for disaster.

So if someone actually believes something--anything--that cannot be proven "objectively", they are a liability? I guess that's why you like Kerry, because he doesn't know where he stands, from where I'm looking.

I don't question Bush's faith. In fact, all things aside, that's what I like most about him, long before anything else. His faith is something I respect, and the fact that he doesn't cast it aside for popularity or sweep it under a rug or throw it to the wind is refreshing to me in modern-day politics. It's ironic that our previous President's "christianity" is not questioned, despite the fact that he committed adultery, and yet we get a President who actually holds to his beliefs, and he is criticized. It's no wonder I'm rapidly losing faith in this nation.

And since someone mentioned the "evangelical" beliefs regarding Islam...there is a strong group of Christians (and I am one of them) that Muslims would consider to be "Zionists" (and I acquired that knowledge from my Egyptian friend, Osama). These "Zionists" believe in the utter invincibility of the nation of Israel following its prophesized reformation following WW2 and that all nations will eventually turn against Israel only to be defeated because the Jews are God's People and they cannot fall. It's strange to think that there are Christians that hold the Jews in such high regard, but it's very much true. I think that I am relatively rare in that I also hold the Muslims in high regard as well...but that's a subject for a different topic.

[joxy]

I'm simply curious why that would be a bad thing to do. For one thing, I don't take Revelation "literarly" because it is obviously written in very vague terms.
In response to a quotation: "They also insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels." your concise reply was "I do", and that was why I offered my note of regret when expressing the opposite opinion. I made no reference to anything being "bad".
To express my opinion as concisely as possible: I do believe in "the second coming", but not in the apparatus described by St John the Divine as being the method by which it will be brought about.

[HLGStrider]

In response to a quotation: "They also insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation and of the entire gospels." your concise reply was "I do", and that was why I offered my note of regret when expressing the opposite opinion. I made no reference to anything being "bad".
To express my opinion as concisely as possible: I do believe in "the second coming", but not in the apparatus described by St John the Divine as being the method by which it will be brought about.Thank you, Jox. That makes sense.

However, the people who were quoted seemed to say it was a bad thing, and I would like some good reasons why (If we can leave out the bits about Jews burning and such which, truthfully, must be a very fringe amount of Evangelicals because I have always noted Evangelicals being closer to the views Cir was refering to as Zionistic.).

If one believes Evangelicalism is a bad thing then one believes a large amount of the Christian community is engaged in a religion that will have bad results and I would like some proof. Most of my acquaintances are Evangelicals, as I have said, and I see no harm in them. . .and little in me;).

I think your grandma has created a lot of needless heartache and unhappiness and fear for herself over the years trying to jam reality into her belief system — it's a shame. But it's no different from anyone believing anything that is in fact not the case, and experiencing needless suffering as a result.
Then you would be wrong. My grandmother is the worrying sort but also the sort who lives her life despite the worry. She may be convinced the world will end soon, but she still added on a porch, an upper story, and a garage to her house in that time. (She used to design houses professionally and whenever she gets bored she puts in an addition). A lot of Christians I know believe the second coming is going to be soon. It doesn't really determine how they live their lives from day to day. They never sit down to wait and they never worry about it because to them it is a good thing. It's a lot like waiting for true love.

You know how that is, I'm sure, being older than me and married and all.

Love comes when it comes. You live your life and hope for it and want it, but you don't quit college or your job to go searching for it. You just wait and then one day the one you love walks into your life and you embrace her.

That's a lot like what it is like for evangelicals. God gave us a beautiful world and the ability to lead wonderful lives. We know that someday he will return to take us to a better world. Just like a single man with a good life who knows he will be happier when he meets the woman he will someday love but doesn't sit down and mope because she hasn't come yet but goes on with the life he has until then, and is possibly very happy in it.

Christians aren't called the Bride of Christ for nothing. We're waiting for our lover to arrive and until then we are keeping busy.

Grandma is the ultimate example of this. She waits frantically and jumps on every possible sign that it is coming. However, she is a bit like a girl who gets carried away day dreaming about it. . .like how I am about getting married.

I know that I will someday meet a man and have my mutual love affair-marriage I have always dreamed of. Most of the girls I know have this hope/belief/dream. However, most of them are quite content to go to college until then and aren't really looking for true love at this point. I, on the other hand, am eying every man I see in between the ages of 19 and 30 with keen interest and pulling petals off daisies to see if they love me or love me not.

Am I causing myself harm? Well, I could be wasting my time, but I like my dreams, and I will keep them.

It's very similar.

Now, my grandma does get herself worked up at times. You can't stop a person from being a worrier. I don't think that her beliefs about the second coming have caused her heart ache or fear. Her beliefs involving cancer have. Her beliefs involving my mother's "ulcers" which turned out to be heart burn did. The second coming, no, that just keeps her dreaming about one day meeting her groom.

Which is exactly what I mean when I say that a lot of people don't understand Evangelicals. I think what a lot of the press thinks about when they hear about a group waiting for their Saviour to return is one of those mass suicide groups. I truly believe it will happen. I don't know when. All I know is that I am going to keep my heart prepared and take what wonderful things God has given me in this life and live them to the fullest. . .because another thing Evangelicals (and all Christians) believe is that they will be called before the throne after the Second coming to account for what they have done with their life. . .and if they spent their entire life watching the sky with a telescope they won't have done much.

What concerns me is when many people share a belief that is in fact, at least to me, nothing more than a fable — a dangerous one if one believes in it enough to act on it.
Show me how my belief is dangerous. I just outlined it above. That is the belief of the mainstream Evangelical, and I believe that of the president.

Fable is a strong word, even when dampened by "at least to me." It's like saying "It is scary when people believe something that is a lie, at least to me."

At least to me has no meaning. It is either a fable or it is not. It is either a lie or it is not.

What concerns me is when many people in power believe in fallacies — secular or religious — and try to force reality to fit the fantasy and in so doing take the whole world down a destructive path.
Again, strong, unfounded words. You can't prove that it is a fallacy. I sincerely doubt you can prove the path is destructive, anymore than I think you will be able to prove that Bush went to war because of these beliefs (And also for Oil and also for revenge because Sadaam tried to kill his father and also because he hates Arabs and also because. . .).

That's my take on neoconservatism and that's my take on the tenets of evangelical Christianity. That these two beliefs got linked together in the destructive synergy that is in play at the moment scares the hell out of me.
Most people are scared of things they don't understand, and it is very obvious you don't understand Evangelical Christianity. I would hazard to say you don't understand the non-Evangelical brand either, just from other discussions with you. Coming from the inside of it, I haven't heard any plans for us to destroy the world just yet but maybe I haven't been let in on them by the grand Poohbah yet.

[Valandil]

I don't see the point to this thread at all. Evangelical Christianity is widely diverse. I (and my church) believe some of what is indicated, but not all. There is even much disagreement (and allowance for such disagreement) within my church on the finer points. We CERTAINLY reach different conclusions on appropriate actions and behavior, two terms mentioned early by BB.

To take one set of very extreme subset of views on these matters and attribute them to President Bush simply because he claims to be an Evangelical Christian is GROSSLY oversimplistic.

You've only scratched the surface of a very complicated set of beliefs. You'd need to do a lot more research to fully understand it, including a great deal of study from the Bible.

We Christians learn to live by faith... and we learn to let God work, not to try to step in and take over His Work for Him. We who believe that Christ will return one day (it's certainly a Biblical teaching) come to understand that you can't pin a date on it... that it may be tomorrow or it may not be for another thousand years or more. We learn to 'live in such a way as though Christ could return each day, but to plan as though we'll live out our lives without seeing His return.'. :)

[Barliman Butterbur]

I don't see the point to this thread at all. Evangelical Christianity is widely diverse. I (and my church) believe some of what is indicated, but not all. There is even much disagreement (and allowance for such disagreement) within my church on the finer points. We CERTAINLY reach different conclusions on appropriate actions and behavior, two terms mentioned early by BB.

To take one set of very extreme subset of views on these matters and attribute them to President Bush simply because he claims to be an Evangelical Christian is GROSSLY oversimplistic.

You've only scratched the surface of a very complicated set of beliefs. You'd need to do a lot more research to fully understand it, including a great deal of study from the Bible.

...

Thanks for your post, Valandil! I think another voice was sorely needed here.

I was watching C-SPAN last night, listening to Al Gore give a blistering speech at the Georgetown University School of Law about the Bush administration's dishonesty and incompetence ("We have a rarity in American history," he said, "An administration that is at the same time both dishonest and incompetant"), and the catastrophes in for us all if Bush is re-elected (because of the promise of more of the same). But the thing that Gore said that struck me most in the light of these threads about evangelical Christianity is, that Bush is a religious poseur, wearing the mask of a Christian evangelical in order to persuade real evangelical Christians to go down his path and follow his policies. Why? Because Karl Rove and the gang understand that there are enough of them to push Bush over the top and get him re-elected.

This idea outrages some of those who have posted to these threads, because they believe that Bush really is who he claims to be: a true Christian. Considering what he has done: gone into Iraq with NO plan whatsoever for war's end, resulting in needless death and destruction everywhere; tilting the entire economy to favor the well-heeled and big business, it is clear to me at least that he is not a true man of God no matter what he says.

I would hate to think that evangelical Christianity is peopled solely (or at all!) by the likes of Bush, Ashcroft, and DeLay.

Here are excerpts from Associated Press and Reuters reports:

===============================

Oct 18, 9:27 PM EDT

Gore: Bush Deceived Public on Iraq

By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore on Monday accused President Bush of intentionally deceiving the public about the reasons for invading Iraq and said he is so ideologically driven that he refuses to admit - or even learn from - his mistakes.

"It is beyond incompetence - it is recklessness that risks the safety and security of the American people," the former vice president said during a speech at Georgetown University.

Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000 and loser of that bitterly contested election, complained that Bush's refusal to budge from "a rigid, right-wing ideology" has led him to forbid any dissent and ignore warnings that may conflict with his assumptions about Iraq, tax cuts and other policy issues.

"He is arrogantly out of touch with reality," Gore said. "He refuses to ever admit mistakes. Which means that so long as he is our president, we are doomed to repeat them."...

Gore touched on many topics, but saved his sharpest critique for Bush's Iraq policies. He said evidence from the 9/11 commission and other reports shows the invasion of Iraq was Bush's first choice rather than his last.

Worst of all, Gore said, was that Bush and his Cabinet purposely created the false impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network and that the Iraqi leader was somehow to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - a notion that 70 percent of the public once believed, according to polls.

"This was not an unfortunate misreading of the available evidence, causing a mistaken linkage between Iraq and al-Qaida," Gore said. "This was something else - a willful choice to make a specific linkage whether evidence existed or not."...

===============================

Bush Governs from "Love of Power"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush governs from a "love of power" and right-wing ideology rather than religious beliefs, and he has yet to hold anyone in his administration accountable for mistakes, former Vice President Al Gore said on Monday...

"I'm convinced that most of the president's frequent departures from fact-based analysis have much more to do with right-wing political and economic ideology than with the Bible," Gore said in a speech at Georgetown University.

"It is love of power for its own sake that is the original sin of this presidency," he said.

He painted the Bush administration and its "right-wing" supporters as pursuing policies for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the rest of the country.

"The essential cruelty of Bush's game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals and then cloaks them with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans ... who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world," Gore said.

"And in the process, he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities," he said.

"Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged," he said...

===============================

Gore also brought out that there are more and more Republicans speaking out in dismay and outrage about where Bush and his minions have taken the Republican party.

He also brought out how the GOP uses intimidation against those it sees as its enemies, and engages in total denial and dismissal when confronted with facts that fly in the face of its neoconservative and power-lusting ideology.

A real Republican is one who is fiscally and morally responsible. The GOP has been co-opted by a bunch of immoral thugs, and has bamboozled millions of good honest Americans to go along with them.

However it goes, eventually the undeniable truth will out. I just hope not too late.

Barley

[Valandil]

Thank you Barliman... I appreciate your answer! :)

Oh yes - I'm not totally thrilled by every Republican who makes a claim to Christianity... and have long thought that the party is widely taking Evangelical Christianity 'for a ride'. Just looking at the Supreme Court appointments under Reagan and Bush Sr. (the main reason Christians were widely recruited by the Republicans beginning in 1980) - they're a mixed bag - NOT a group that will stand up for the 3,800 innocent Americans killed every day by abortion (800 more innocent Americans EVERY day than al Queida killed in a SINGLE day!). There's also the cynicism exhibited by former Governor Ryan here in Illinois toward the Christian segment of the Republican party - and the outright opposition to some issues held dear by Christians among other party leaders (both in Illinois and across our country).

But *sigh* what can we do? At least they give lip-service to abortion. Let me tell you, if the Republicans and Democrats switched sides on the abortion issue, I'd cross-over immediately! In fact, that's how things were in the 1960's, I believe - and many prominent Democrats who are now pro-choice were initially pro-life (including Sen Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, I believe). However, they seem to have done what was politically expedient themselves. (EDIT: and in 1998, I voted for (Glenn?) Poshard, a pro-life Democrat, for governor here in Illinois. He was widely abandoned by his party over the issue, although he had spent his political life supporting those of the party with whom he disagreed - and Ryan, also ostensibly pro-life, was narrowly elected. I chose Poshard over Ryan because I thought his pro-life convictions ran deeper (and indeed - after his election Ryan reversed himself) and because I 'smelled a rat' - and sure enough, all kinds of scandals surfaced shortly after his election and Ryan was an ineffective one-termer, likely to soon face criminal charges).

Iraq - hard to say, and a very complicated issue.

George Bush Jr - I don't know him personally, so also hard to say.

Al Gore - hardly an impartial commentator.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Thank you Barliman... I appreciate your answer! :)

You must understand: I am just as infuriated by Bush's tactic of masquerading as a man of God and taking evangelical Christianity "for a ride" as you put it, as I am at the things he has done (a needless war that has deprived thousands of families of their beloved children; alienating us from our allies and squandering our political capital; damaging the economy; running up the biggest debt in history). You cannot imagine my frustration at the success the right wing has had in convincing good people that they are the answer to the country's problems — the very ones that they created! That he has fooled so many good people just makes me beside myself.

Someone PM'd me the other day asking why I put up so many "anti-Bush" posts. The reason is simply that I want to punch through the right-wing lies and ideological rhetoric with some truth. Of course this means nothing to those who believe what the Bush administration is putting out.

You mentioned that Al Gore is hardly impartial — neither am I, neither are you, and neither is anyone with a strong point of view. Does that mean that because Gore is espousing a strong view that it's all lies? Do we not examine what he says for the truth of it?

As for the abortion issue — that goes beyond politics. It is a moral issue that belongs to everyone.

I suppose I should make my own take on abortion known. I believe that if the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy she should have that option, as well as should she have been made pregnant by a rapist. I think that to outlaw it altogether is knee-jerk doctrinaire, heartless and cruel. I also believe that if an ultrasound shows that she will give birth to a monster (this is the technical term for a grossly physically/mentally deformed fetus) whose life will be a psychological and financial misery for itself and its parents, abortion should be an option. We can go round and round about that; I'm not willing to debate it, that's just what I believe.

But my main point is: Bush is a liar and a powermonger: he is out for his rich pals at the expense of the rest of us, and one of these days — too late, methinks — even the most diehard of his supporters will finally see that he has endangered the country and the world with his disastrous policies and his appalling mindset. And if gets re-elected there will be four more years of his insanity.

Barley

[joxy]

As I understand it these people who have hi-jacked the word "evangelical" are never going to vote Democrat anyway, so Mr Gore was hardly making a "blistering" point when he said that they will persuaded, by the wilder religious claims from or about Mr Bush, to push him over the top - they surely don't need any persuading beyond the fact that he is a Republican!

On the other hand, to Valandil, you say "To take one set of very extreme subset of views on these matters and attribute them to President Bush simply because he claims to be an Evangelical Christian is GROSSLY oversimplistic.", but the point that is being made here is that it is apparently well-known that Bush does have extraordinary extreme views, along the lines that he is due any day now for an active role in Armageddon! If the point is correct, and substantial suppport has been given for it in the form of links to a selection of wild web sites, then there is surely something to worry about in terms of his current situation of leadership, and its possible continuation after the election.

[Valandil]

... but the point that is being made here is that it is apparently well-known that Bush does have extraordinary extreme views, along the lines that he is due any day now for an active role in Armageddon! If the point is correct, and substantial suppport has been given for it in the form of links to a selection of wild web sites, then there is surely something to worry about in terms of his current situation of leadership, and its possible continuation after the election.

Those particular web sites seem to have an anti-Bush bias... and IMO would tend to highlight or exaggerate the most extreme and *dangerous* sounding things.

Kinda like saying, 'Every Muslim is a terrorist.' It's ludicrous.

[Valandil]

:
:
:
As for the abortion issue — that goes beyond politics. It is a moral issue that belongs to everyone.
:
:
:

Yes - but politics sure has put its arms around the issue, hasn't it? ;) :p

[joxy]

Well of course the sites show a bias; they show a lot more than bias; their only reason for existence is to express opposition for Bush, with or without genuine grounds for that opposition.
I was surprised at their content, and I'm far from convinced that it has any truth in it at all, but people here seem to believe it.

Regarding the far more important topic, of abortion, is the figure of 800 killlings every day really accurate?
If so, I am horrified, and I appeal to everyone here who expresses horror at equally vile, but less numerous, atrocities, to divert some of their thought to how this terrible situation came about, and then some of their energy to how it can be ended.

[Valandil]

...Regarding the far more important topic, of abortion, is the figure of 800 killlings every day really accurate?...

No... 3,800 each day - in America alone (I was saying that was 800 more than those killed by terrorists on September 11, 2001 - which was right about 3,000). One million, four hundred thousand every year for almost the past 32 years. You do the math.

[joxy]

Thank you and my sincere apologies for taking the wrong figure.
That statistic has to be by far the most horrific that has ever been calculated and reported in the history of humanity.
It shames the very word "humanity".
After that - and while it continues - we deserve Armageddon!

[HLGStrider]

Barli, it really doesn't make sense that you in the first post of this thread attack Bush for being a Religious Fanatic and then later on say he is putting on his religion for political reasons. You can't believe both and be sane so I think you should tell us which one of the two views you truly hold and get it over with.

I hope it is the religious fanatic one because you once told me you would never second-guess another persons faith when I said I knew someone who was Jewish by culture more than religion (even though I knew this from the man's words rather than from guessing about him as you seem to be willing to do with Bush.).

heartless and cruel. I also believe that if an ultrasound shows that she will give birth to a monster (this is the technical term for a grossly physically/mentally deformed fetus)
Heartless and cruel more aptly describes a technical term that calls a human a monster.


I truthfully am more afraid about liberals than I will ever be about Bush. It seems that the party is losing their minds. I'm in an art class with a bunch of people who in their spare time talk politics. They talk about Conservatives in public in a way I would never talk about Liberals in private or with a group at GOP Headquarters.

For instance, my art teacher was talking about how the Bush campaign had a chance because of the low IQ of the general American population. I don't know. Maybe I am extremely sensitive but it seems to suggest to me that he thinks those who vote for Bush (which I have already done. Oregon has a mail in ballot system and I mailed mine off yesterday) are stupid. He didn't say this to me. It was in a conversation with one of his pals across the room, but I was immediately struck by the presumptiveness of the comment, even in private.

Also, sane people, or at least people who appear sane, are sitting there making comparisions to Bush and Hitler. Maybe I missed the Holocost. They could be hiding the death camps somewhere in Utah near Area 51. Maybe I am naive, but I think this sort of rhetoric qualifies as "over the top."

I don't like Kerry's views and think he'd take the country in the wrong direction. If I didn't think that I wouldn't be voting for Bush, but I don't think he is the devil, and I think when someone reaches that point of fanatacism they are disqualified from rational conversation. I wouldn't talk about politics with that group for money.

I think Bush is a sincere Christian. I think Kerry is a believing Catholic who has strayed from the Catholic doctrine in many key points, the abortion one being the most key.

I will always vote for the Pro-Life canidate. My brother was suggesting a possible Guiliani ticket for '08 and we got into a debate because I said, "I'll vote Constitutional Party then." He said since the Constitutional party was a no-chance and the Democrat would win if enough Republicans did that, I should vote for Guilani as the "lesser of two evils." and I said "No. Couldn't do that in good conscience. I'll go Constitutional and send the party a message."

Which I will do if it comes down to a pro-abortion Republican in '08 though my ever predicting brother says it is more likely to be McCain and since he isn't my senator I have never taken the time to look up his pro-life record, so I'd have to if that came up.

Bush and Cheney both have perfect pro-life records and Kerry has a horrendous one. I don't know about Edwards. I don't really care because the Co-Pilot seat is lack luster. It was obvious from the begining for me who to vote for.

[Valandil]

Nice post elgee. Total agreement on what we call people with deformities (anyone wish to ask real live adult humans with deformities if they'd rather have been aborted? Or what they think of being called 'monsters'?) and on your other comments regarding abortion and party platforms... I was seriously concerned in 1996 that we'd see a pro-choice Republican nominee - and was relieved that we did not.

...For instance, my art teacher was talking about how the Bush campaign had a chance because of the low IQ of the general American population...

Yes - I love this about the Liberal / Democratic viewpoint. For the 'party of the common people' they're awfully condescending of them. :p

Also agree with your comments on the degree of strong feelings those of the left have toward administrations which are more toward the right. As we see from a few other threads in this forum (which I think I will stop even addressing), some seem to subscribe to the notion:

"I am against Bush, therefore any bad thing I hear rumored about him MUST be true!!!"

which is really quite unreasonable... and puts a halt to any chance at serious dialog.

[Valandil]

Thank you and my sincere apologies for taking the wrong figure.

Oh - no apology needed. Perhaps I was unclear.

That statistic has to be by far the most horrific that has ever been calculated and reported in the history of humanity.
It shames the very word "humanity".
After that - and while it continues - we deserve Armageddon!

Agreed on all counts. As to the last - yes we do, and always have. But God is gracious and kind. To date He has long refrained from treating us as our sins deserve. :)

Perhaps though, some of those who read this thread could see why I, who believe each of those killed by abortion every day is actually a full-fledged human being - feel I can do no other than vote for Bush. The Supreme Court is perhaps our best chance to stem the current tide of abortions in America. There has not been a new appointment to it in many years (none for either Clinton or Bush Jr). Kerry has clearly stated that he would not consider any justice who opposed the landmark case, Roe v Wade... with President Bush, they have a chance.

[HLGStrider]

I thought, to be fair, I better add that there are "Kerry is the Devil" totally insane Republicans out there. However, we are hearing very little from them this season. I am sure I could find their websites if I wanted to, but I don't want to, so I am not going to.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Barli, it really doesn't make sense that you in the first post of this thread attack Bush for being a Religious Fanatic and then later on say he is putting on his religion for political reasons. You can't believe both and be sane so I think you should tell us which one of the two views you truly hold and get it over with.

Are you SURE I actually said that he's a "religious fanatic?" At this moment, I would say that he has some degree of religious belief, AND he uses Christianity for political gains whenever it suits him, which as far as I'm concerned, is all the time. Now you can call me "insane" or even a flip-flopper :p of which I am neither, just because I hold views you don't agree with. You really should be careful about whom you easily call insane, because others could easily make the same case for your views. Let's keep it civil here, shall we?

...guessing about him as you seem to be willing to do with Bush.

If seeing the same takes on his behavior in article after article after article in news media both national and international is guessing, then I'm guessing.

Heartless and cruel more aptly describes a technical term that calls a human a monster.

Now here is where we indeed have a true difference of opinion: where life starts. I am against what I would call "abortions of convenience," as are you. But if a woman has been made pregnant through rape, or if the pregnancy endangers her life, I believe she should have that option.

If the child is so severely deformed or greatly brain-damaged that it cannot under any circumstances lead a fruitful life, that it needs constant special equipment and hospital care, I think that abortion is a viable — and humane — option. Why should a child be forced to live a life under such circumstances if it means a life of hardship, pain, misery and bitterness for both child and parents? I think that in this case abortion should be available as an option, even if not chosen. Which is better, a life of misery, or death? I believe there are worse things than death, one of them being an agonized and tortured life.

Should they have wanted the child alive and loved it enough, and had the spiritual grit and financial wherewithal to raise it with love, that's something else again. But what would happen to such a child — needing 24-hour care — when the parents were too old or weak or financially unable to provide the care, or when they died? Then what? I am not talking in theory here: such cases are real-world, not that rare, and need to be addressed, no matter what the family religion may be.

I truthfully am more afraid about liberals than I will ever be about Bush. It seems that the party is losing their minds. I'm in an art class with a bunch of people who in their spare time talk politics. They talk about Conservatives in public in a way I would never talk about Liberals in private or with a group at GOP Headquarters.

That doesn't mean that all liberals are that way; you can't form that generalization just from that experience. Not all liberals are horrible people, any more than are all conservatives. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican party has been taken over by extremists, leaving the genuine conservatives in a position of powerlessness, they need to take back their party and re-establish genuine moral and fiscal responsibility. It may be starting to happen, I just hope not too late.

For instance, my art teacher was talking about how the Bush campaign had a chance because of the low IQ of the general American population.

Judging by the general content of television entertainment programming and movies these days; by the spread of comic books as serious literature for adults; by the general ignorance of history and science of the average person; by the number of "shout shows" on TV that pass for "political discussion;" by the phenomenon of road rage; by the general crudeness and rudeness endemic in today's American society, I'd say he has an excellent point!

I don't know. Maybe I am extremely sensitive but it seems to suggest to me that he thinks those who vote for Bush ... are stupid.

He may indeed believe that, but that's him, not all liberals. You simply can't make that kind of a generalization. For me, those who vote for Bush either have something to gain from it (being rich and benefiting from the tax laws, for example) or they truly believe the picture that the Republican party paints him as being. In other words, I believe there are a lot of good honest intelligent Americans who have been bamboozled by the party line, mainly because they want to believe that it's true. For those who believe Bush is an extremist, extreme opinions are generated. But even at that, they should be made in a responsible manner.

Also, sane people, or at least people who appear sane, are sitting there making comparisions to Bush and Hitler.

I have never personally heard or read that anywhere. Those who would say that are indeed gone off the rails.

I don't like Kerry's views and think he'd take the country in the wrong direction. If I didn't think that I wouldn't be voting for Bush, but I don't think he is the devil, and I think when someone reaches that point of fanatacism they are disqualified from rational conversation. I wouldn't talk about politics with that group for money.

I have never heard of anyone saying that Bush is the devil, although it could certainly be in very extreme cases. No thinking liberal would say such a thing.

I think Bush is a sincere Christian. I think Kerry is a believing Catholic who has strayed from the Catholic doctrine in many key points, the abortion one being the most key.

For me, no sincere Christian would take a country into a war with no plans for its end (the chaos, destruction of infrustructure and cultural treasures and loss of life in Baghdad and other places in Iraq is the direct result of ignoring the advice of the military, and adhering to that damnable neocon insanity), too few troops, too little equipment, and draining financial resources from it by giving a tax cut to the rich during wartime. No sincere Christian would start a war and deliberately set up the Halliburton crony situation. No sincere Christian would leave hard-working families twisting in the wind by outsourcing their jobs and calling high unemployment a myth. No sincere Christian would create the biggest deficit in American history and call it Republican fiscal responsiblity. No sincere Christian would rack up the prices of prescription drugs so the drug companies profit at the expense of our seniors. This man does NOT have our good at heart. As for Kerry, he represents for me a way out of the mess Bush has gotten us into.

I will always vote for the Pro-Life canidate.

I understand that. That's your main issue, as well as for other people posting here. My main issue is getting rid of Bush because I believe he is the most dangerous-to the-country/to-the-world president ever to hold the office. He is for the rich at the expense of everyone else. He attempts to jigger the laws and stack the courts with right-wingers who want the Christian extreme right and/or the well-heeled to eventually hold dominion over the country by forcing their religous doctrines and the consequences of their financial greed onto everyone. That's why I say that when it comes to Christianity, he's a fraud. Everything he's done, I say, is against all true Christian morals and ethics, and the morals and ethics of anyone else's ethical belief system.

My brother ... said since the Constitutional party was a no-chance and the Democrat would win if enough Republicans did that, I should vote for Guilani as the "lesser of two evils." and I said "No. Couldn't do that in good conscience. I'll go Constitutional and send the party a message."

Your brother is absolutely right. Many times we must vote for the lesser of two evils, taking things one step at a time, building toward something better, if that's the only way to do it.

There is NEVER an excuse for not voting! Not to vote stacks it in favor of the other side, which is EXACTLY what the conservatives want: one of their favorite political ploys is demoralizing the citizenry into not voting, because it gives them more votes on their side. (And I will but mention all the Republican efforts presently in place at actually sabotaging the voting process.)

Bush and Cheney both have perfect pro-life records and Kerry has a horrendous one. I don't know about Edwards. I don't really care because the Co-Pilot seat is lack luster. It was obvious from the beginning for me who to vote for.

Excuse me: the pro-life issue alone is NOT enough to elect a president on. A U.S. president is responsible for much more than that. Reality trumps ideology, and those who are so invested in ideology that they are blind to reality are making a disastrous error for themselves and everyone else.

And no president nor politician has the right to attempt to legislate his religion into everyone else's law.

Barley

[joxy]

<Elgee: I will always vote for the Pro-Life candidate>
I understand that.

<to Elgee> ....the pro-life issue alone is NOT enough to elect a president on.
Your understanding didn't last long BB!
Given the horrendous figure that Valandil gave us I'd rate the issue the only one that mattered - but I haven't a vote.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Your understanding didn't last long BB!
Given the horrendous figure that Valandil gave us I'd rate the issue the only one that mattered - but I haven't a vote.

Human life is paramount, joxy. However quality of life is also paramount.

I took a lot of time and care laying out my beliefs in hopes that I would at least be understood if not agreed with. I'm sorry you didn't take the rest of what I said into consideration.

Barley

[joxy]

I think you know me well enough to understand that I did read and consider all you wrote. It deserves and will receive thought
and reflection, though I am not sure whether this is the right place to discuss a subject that calls for individual consideration.
That is why I then made only the briefest of comments, on that one small point.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I think you know me well enough to understand that I did read and consider all you wrote. It deserves and will receive thought
and reflection, though I am not sure whether this is the right place to discuss a subject that calls for individual consideration.
That is why I then made only the briefest of comments, on that one small point.

Ah, thank you! I look forward to your PM!

Barley

[HLGStrider]

Are you SURE I actually said that he's a "religious fanatic?"
No. In fact, I am pretty sure you didn't. I am saying you posted links to sites that say he is and I personally wouldn't post links to sites that said things I disagreed with without a "disclaimer" saying that I disagree with them if I was using them to make a discussion, so I assumed you agreed with them.

You really should be careful about whom you easily call insane, because others could easily make the same case for your views. Let's keep it civil here, shall we?
I didn't call you insane. I said you can't believe George W. Bush is a Religious Fanatic and a Religious Faker at the same time and be sane because the views are contradictory, and it seemed, due to the content of your first post and the content of later posts, that you were holding both views. Actually, I was just trying to incite some clarification, which I got, but it still doesn't explain why you posted links you don't agree with in the first place. I guess maybe to see if others agreed with them, but if so you could've been clearer about it.

If seeing the same takes on his behavior in article after article after article in news media both national and international is guessing, then I'm guessing.
But you also posted new articles/sites that said the opposite, that he is firmly devoted to his beliefs, even fanatically so, so you do have to personally decide which articles to believe, and if so I think, by your own standard, you should fall back on his word because I wouldn't want to be in the position of judging what is in a man's heart. It's tricky to do so.

Why should a child be forced to live a life under such circumstances if it means a life of hardship, pain, misery and bitterness for both child and parents?
You can't force someone to live. You can force someone to die.

Humans will never know whether a hard life is worse than no life and we weren't given the responsibility to decide, thank God. Taking it into our own hands is therefore the ultimate of un-wisdom. We never know what might have been, what we did destroy. There is always some doubt that the death we thought we just "sped" was actually avoidable.

Judging by the general content of television entertainment programming and movies these days; by the spread of comic books as serious literature for adults; by the general ignorance of history and science of the average person; by the number of "shout shows" on TV that pass for "political discussion;" by the phenomenon of road rage; by the general crudeness and rudeness endemic in today's American society, I'd say he has an excellent point!
A lot of Americans share your/his view on that. . .but how do we know that we are among the number of Americans that are above and not below. How do we know that we are smart and not the ones being deceived by political rhetoric? How do we know that we are really the intellectual elite?

Oh we can guess, and say 'Because we read this and this and talk about this and this and do this and this." But really it is just guessing and we are only trying to cover our rear-ends with snobbery. Second guessing the American public is dangerous. . .especially if you are only doing it because you think they disagree with you, which is what he was doing.

He may indeed believe that, but that's him, not all liberals. You simply can't make that kind of a generalization.
I wasn't because I know plenty of sane ones as well, though perhaps I should have specified that. My point was that in this race the "HITLER-BUSH" variety is increasing and they seem to be the most obvious. If you haven't heard Hitler Bush comparisons, you really aren't listening.

For me, no sincere Christian would take a country into a war with no plans for its end
The Christian religion actually says very little about war and a lot of what you say is second guessing motives, so I don't think you can make all those statements. I would say to myself often "How can a true Christian support something as horrible as abortion?" but there are abortion-Christians, and I have to learn to realize this. I think they are misguided and if they studied their faith they would change their views, but I don't reasonably doubt their Christianity.

I think "If Bush truly understood-examined his Christianity he would not have gone into Iraq" is a perfectly reasonable stance. "Bush can't be a Christian because he went into Iraq" isn't particularly and leads one to guess what is in a man's heart.

Excuse me: the pro-life issue alone is NOT enough to elect a president on. A U.S. president is responsible for much more than that.

Reality trumps ideology, and those who are so invested in ideology that they are blind to reality are making a disastrous error for themselves and everyone else
Two issues in this.


Prolife issue: the number of babies aborted every year is much larger than the amount of people killed in the war, in terrorist attacks, in crime, in car crashes, because of faulty health care. For me it is the ultimate issue because it is HUGE.

Thankfully, I also agree with the GOP on most other issues, so I probably won't have to make this choice often, but I would not give my vote to a president who would turn his back on the unborn.

It isn't the only issue, but it carries the most weight.

Second:
Reality trumps ideology? Aborted babies are very, very, very real. Ideology is present in EVERY issue. If you don't believe something about an issue, you don't really have a reason to make a decision about it. Reality is that abortion exists and that it is deadly. Reality is that one president will stop partial Birth abortion if he can and the other will let it run with no hidrance whatsoever. That is very much reality.

In many ways it is more real than the War in Iraq because we don't know how that will turn out. Abortion, on the other hand, has one pretty concrete result when that baby is pulled part way out of the womb, stuck with a sharp object in the skull, and murdered. It never turns out good for the baby.

[Barliman Butterbur]

LG: Cutting to the chase:

Thanks to many on this board, including you, I have had some education on the number of abortions going on in America. I wasn't aware of its extent, I am now, and I share your horror. I agree, something must absolutely be done (and not blowing up abortion clinics and the people in them). But the job of president is extremely complex and many-faceted, all issues demanding their fair share of attention. A president cannot make abortion the number one issue and still do a good job.

In another thread (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=16457&page=2&pp=15, starting with Post #29), I brought up an article from the New York Times by Ron Suskind, outlining the scary possibility that Bush has subsituted prayer for reality. One of his aides said in effect, "We're an empire now [!!!], and we create reality. We have it over you people who merely comprise 'the reality-based community.' The world doesn't run on reality anymore." (Check the full article.) If this is true, Bush's clear-eyed confidence is coming from what he gets from his prayers, not from dealing with the disastrous realities that he has set in motion both abroad and domestically.

Abraham Lincoln was a very religious man. He once said, "Many times I am driven to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go." And, he did not neglect to deal with the realities of the Civil War! He kept his eye on reality!

But never mind that it happens to be Bush in the White House this time; I am frightened to death of the prospect of any man or woman who's running the show, depending for answers to crucial problems and situations strictly on what is coming from inside his or her head, and who discounts the necessity for consulting reality. Anyone who dismisses reality is no one to be in charge of anything, let alone a country.

I think "If Bush truly understood-examined his Christianity he would not have gone into Iraq" is a perfectly reasonable stance.

I absolutely agree with you. I do believe the man does not understand his Christianity.

Barley

[Valandil]

Abraham Lincoln was a very religious man. He once said, "Many times I am driven to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I have nowhere else to go." And, he did not neglect to deal with the realities of the Civil War! He kept his eye on reality!

But never mind that it happens to be Bush in the White House this time; I am frightened to death of the prospect of any man or woman who's running the show, depending for answers to crucial problems and situations strictly on what is coming from inside his or her head, and who discounts the necessity for consulting reality. Anyone who dismisses reality is no one to be in charge of anything, let alone a country.

Not sure what you mean... do you say you have as much objection to President Bush's prayers regarding the war in Iraq as you would have had for President Lincoln's prayers regarding the Civil War in the US?

I absolutely agree with you. I do believe the man does not understand his Christianity.

C'mon Barly - you know what she means... she's saying that it's a reasonable argument for a person to make, if they can back it up. The opposite argument can also be made though. Please don't take her quote out of context - she made many very good points in her post, and does not deserve that kind of treatment.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Not sure what you mean... do you say you have as much objection to President Bush's prayers regarding the war in Iraq as you would have had for President Lincoln's prayers regarding the Civil War in the US?

I have no objection to prayer per se in either case. I say however, that prayer alone, without dealing with the realities that prompt it, is not enough. Jim Wallis, a very sincere evangelical Christian who used to be close to Bush, pleaded with him to consider the reality of the situation, and not simply rely on prayer, dismissing reality.

C'mon Barly - you know what she means... she's saying that it's a reasonable argument for a person to make, if they can back it up. The opposite argument can also be made though. Please don't take her quote out of context - she made many very good points in her post, and does not deserve that kind of treatment.

She made a statement that I agree with as I understood it. Leaving her statement out of this, so that there's no problem with what she said, take my statement alone: I do not believe that Bush understands true Christianity. If he did, according to my understanding of Christian decency, he would have listened to his advisors when they told him that the way he went to war was inviting prolonged disaster, and not those damned neocon war mongers. He would not have caused unemployment to skyrocket and call it a myth. He would not have underfunded the No Child Left Behind program. He would not promote outsourcing of jobs. He would not have cut off overtime pay for a whole class of Americans. He would not attempt privatizing of Social Security. He would not have set up a situation where seniors have to pay sky-high prices for drugs and make it illegal to get them from Canada, or to allow price negotiation. Etc., etc., etc. *sigh*

Barley

[HLGStrider]

I don't think Barli seriously thought I meant that statement as I listed it as a "reasonable alternative" to a statement I thought was "unreasonable." I believe something can be reasonable and still wrong. Logic and reason are finite, after all, so there can be a reasonable stance that is incorrect.

And I do disagree with that statement, which I think was pretty obvious. I'd say it is much more likely, from your posts, that you misunderstand Christianity than Bush does.

Then in your last paragraph you bring up so many issues at once that we can't really discuss them clearly. Each of them deserves their own thread. . .and all of them can be seriously disagreed with. If reasonable people can disagree with them, and I know from experience that they can, and if we had room to discuss each one in turn orderly, I probably could as well, then there is no reason to belittle Bush for disagreeing with them.

That's what I don't care for in this presidential race.

We have been given two canidates. One is clearly on one side of the ideological ring and the other clearly on the other. Both of them do have moderate points and points where I am not sure of their status, but in generally, I know where it stands, and the difference between each of them is ideological.

And yet this year no one is capable of having a decent 'Are Tax Cuts Like Bush's Good or Bad for the Economy?" discussion. Instead they begin ranting about "Tax cuts for the rich" on the left or 'Kerry wants to raise your taxes" on the right. Now, I love the tax cuts. My mom is a logical tax payer and has informed me that through increased child-credit, our family has been advanced by them. I am a minimum wage earner who basically payed no taxes last year and doesn't have a family to support so they didn't touch me personally, but my parents are about on the 50,000 income level, by no means rich, and I think it can be reasonably argued that the tax cuts are good. I also think there is some reasonable, but incorrect, arguement on the left that they have done some harm. But instead of getting that debate, we get rants.

Also, almost everything you listed has no clear cut answer, and in many cases no answer at all, in Christianity, because Christianity is not a political philosophy. It is a religious philosophy which can guide political decisions, but only in the vaguest way.

Outsourcing of jobs, for instance? I'd like to see you back that up Biblically.
No Child Left Behind? The only sort of education you are going to find much about in the Bible is homeschooling, to tell you the truth, as it assumes that teaching is being done by the parents (train up a child in the way he should go.) because there wasn't much of a public school system back then in Jeruselum.

There is no clear cut stance on War in the Christian community. If you go back in Christian history you will find the pacifists (Menosimon) and the militant (Zwingli). You will find the religious generals and religious pacifists and all manner of in between. If you are expecting Christianty to answer political problems, then you really don't understand it.

However, individually, it can help a person make decisions. There is very little Biblical that can be done for my current decision whether to stay at my current job or try to get a higher paying one. However, I can pray to seek guidance so I make the right decision. I'm guessing Bush's seeking for guidance is more like that, in many cases.

All of what you listed can be argued about logically. There is no need to bring about questioning a politicians religious heart into the debate. It is unfair and arbitrary.

[Dr. Ransom]

I do not believe that Bush understands true Christianity. If he did, according to my understanding of Christian decency, he would have listened to his advisors when they told him that the way he went to war was inviting prolonged disaster, and not those damned neocon war mongers. He would not have caused unemployment to skyrocket and call it a myth.

Bari, you are playing into the hands of your political enemies on this topic. Christianity is in essence, a politically neutral religion. Jesus wasn't, and isn't, a Republican. He had another purpose entirely.

What Christianity requires of its followers is morality. We are to take care of the poor for instance. Whether we do that by the Republican ideas (and traditional charity concepts, such as those discussed in the book The Tragedy of American Compassion such as helping the poor help themselves) or the Democrat ideas of socialism and government handouts (I do not attempt to hide my bias) has nothing to do with morality, only political opinion. In a certain sense, I don't really care if a Christian is on the left or the right.

However, thought we can reconcile our differences in some areas, others are totally not acceptable for the believer. The Democratic Party has been hijacked in the later half of the 20th century by the self proclaimed religion of secular humanism, and there are few "old liberals" left. This belief system has areas that blatantly violate the moral law, and Christian beliefs. Abortion is the primary example. No Christian can rightfully support this type of murder any more than they can (and tragically many did) support Hitler. Though things like just war theory and economics are debatable; being Pro-Abortion stands in clear violation of 200 years of constitutional practice, and the moral law. Additionally, it is interesting to note that while atrocities have been committed ILLOGICALLY in the name of Christianity; more blood has been spilled in the 20th Century by Atheistic/Secular Humanistic beliefs than the last 2,000 years of Christianity COMBINED. Though much of the disparity can be attributed to more efficient killing machines, disregard for atrocity remain the LOGICAL outworking of a belief system that does away with any higher moral guide. Who is really more dangerous?

In short, though you may disagree with Bush, you have little argument that can be used to attack his morality (unless he purposefully lied, and so forth). However, your candidate has not stayed so neutral on moral issues. I with democrats like Truman and FDR were running against Bush so we could have real political debate, but unfortunately, the "new morality" of secular humanism that drives the democratic party right now makes the choice very clear for many Christians.

I do not presume to know the heart of President Bush, but as a Student of Theology and Biblical studies I do not see any blatant areas where he is in violation of Biblical precepts. There are areas I disagree with him on, but they are areas of politics, not faith. I do not vote for Christians BECAUSE they are Christians either, Christians can be as incompetent and foolish as the rest of humanity. I will vote for Bush because I agree with his Public Policy more than Kerry. I also believe President Bush has superior morals to Kerry. Enough said?

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I believe something can be reasonable and still wrong. Logic and reason are finite, after all, so there can be a reasonable stance that is incorrect.

On this, we are in complete agreement.

...I'd say it is much more likely, from your posts, that you misunderstand Christianity [more] than Bush does.

What I understand is this: that a president who is believing Christian (OR Buddhist OR Jew OR Muslim OR Hindu OR secular humanist) must employ serious thought about the reality of things as well as what he gets from prayer, and listen to others when they have things he needs to know. Bush and his ideologues are living in an ideological bubble that dismisses the reality of the consequences of their actions. A direct quote from one of his aides, and this reflects the view of the entire administration: "We're an empire now, and we create our own reality." Is that terrifying in its hubris or what???

I believe that such a man — a believing Christian (OR Buddhist OR Jew OR Muslim OR Hindu OR secular humanist) — would not trash the economy and take the military into harm's way without listening to his counselors. Does not Christianity promote doing good and not harm?

in your last paragraph you bring up so many issues at once that we can't really discuss them clearly. Each of them deserves their own thread.

It's what they have in common: they involve destruction in their aftermaths that could have been avoided had the president truly had the health and welfare of people in mind.

We have been given two candidates. One is clearly on one side of the ideological ring and the other clearly on the other...the difference between each of them is ideological.

What do you mean by ideological? To me (and I believe the definition is correct), an ideologue is one who follows a specific philosophy without regard to reality, and/or who spins reality to match the ideology. By that definition, Bush and his bunch are ideologues and Kerry is a realist.

And yet this year no one is capable of having a decent 'Are Tax Cuts Like Bush's Good or Bad for the Economy?" discussion.

Having philosophical discussions about Iraq, or oursourced jobs or rising drug prices is inappropriate. It accomplishes nothing. What you call a "rant," I call a real concern.

...Christianity is not a political philosophy. It is a religious philosophy which can guide political decisions, but only in the vaguest way.

I take you at your word. In that case then, it appears that Bush needs much more guidance than Christianity can give him, but he has not taken any. Even Jim Wallis (for instance) pleaded with him to listen to his military and financial advisors about the consequences of his actions, and for his troubles, he is now persona non grata in the White House. And Wallis is a highly responsible highly reputable evangelical Christian.

Outsourcing of jobs, for instance? I'd like to see you back that up Biblically.

How about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? I am not being facetious: Bush is ignoring basic morality and decency, the kind that appears in all religions and ethical philosophies.

There is no clear cut stance on War in the Christian community. If you go back in Christian history you will find the pacifists (Menosimon) and the militant (Zwingli). You will find the religious generals and religious pacifists and all manner of in between. If you are expecting Christianty to answer political problems, then you really don't understand it.

I expect Christianity to provide moral guidance that leads to moral actions. I expect Bush, that if he's a moral Christian (and once again: OR Buddhist OR Jew OR Muslim OR Hindu OR secular humanist), to not be engaged in actions which have caused needless suffering and death. He claims to be guided by Christianity, but I don't see anything in his behavior that shows it. Indeed, what I see in his foreign and domestic policies are actions that have brought death and destruction abroad and financial hardship at home.

...I can pray to seek guidance so I make the right decision. I'm guessing Bush's seeking for guidance is more like that, in many cases.

That may very well be, but it's not enough. He must pay attention to his advisors, and he must pay attention to the consqences of his actions. He must deal with the details of the hard questions, and not depend on Condoleeza Rice to hand him predigested notes on them, as he has done since the beginning.

...There is no need to bring about questioning a politicians religious heart into the debate. It is unfair and arbitrary.

Elgee — with respect — anyone running America is legitimately open to inspection from every angle imaginable. The fate of the country and the world depend on it.

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

Bari, you are playing into the hands of your political enemies on this topic.

Wow! That's a pretty strong description, isn't it? I really don't believe I have any "enemies" on this board.

Christianity is in essence, a politically neutral religion. Jesus wasn't, and isn't, a Republican. He had another purpose entirely.

What Christianity requires of its followers is morality. We are to take care of the poor for instance. Whether we do that by the Republican ideas (and traditional charity concepts, such as those discussed in the book The Tragedy of American Compassion such as helping the poor help themselves) or the Democrat ideas of socialism and government handouts (I do not attempt to hide my bias) has nothing to do with morality, only political opinion. In a certain sense, I don't really care if a Christian is on the left or the right.

However, thought we can reconcile our differences in some areas, others are totally not acceptable for the believer. The Democratic Party has been hijacked in the later half of the 20th century by the self proclaimed religion of secular humanism, and there are few "old liberals" left.

I agree that there are few "old liberals" around these days, as there are few "old conservatives." We have become so polarized and extreme that it is frightening to me. It is very hard to dial back from an extreme position.

This belief system has areas that blatantly violate the moral law, and Christian beliefs. Abortion is th