I found myself in a discussion on religion and politics last night (no, really I did). I won't name any names, but the person stated an opinion that although prevalent isn't regularly discussed even in my social circle (which should be running out of nasty things to say about the president by now). That opinion being that George Bush is as far from the Messiah of modern-day Christianity that many paint him out to be. In fact, as this person pointed out, "I just can't imagine how anyone could call that man a Christian, and I don't know why the Christian Right is still backing him?"
Neither do I, so I decided to do a little digging into some Christian resources and compare and contrast the behavior of the man that has come to lead the modern Christian revolution that threatens civil rights, wages endless war and from time to time bends the truth. Sounds like an interesting spin on the Sermon on the Mount.
First, let's get one thing out of the way. Christianity (or ANY other religious belief) has no place in the governing body of the United States of America. Before anyone's head explodes, that is not in any way an Anti-Christian statement. I happen to be a man with a belief in God and consider myself an (extremely flawed) Christian. But this has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with a system of government implemented hundreds of years ago that expressly forbade governing from religious text.
Every day the Christian Coalition crowd harps on and on about the values of our founding fathers, but neglects to inform their followers that the same founding fathers believed in a secular government, despite their personal beliefs. Need proof, well, let's start with the Constitution of the United States of America. Often people quote the 1st Amendment as "FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" However, the actual wording handed down from the "wise old dead white guys (as Charlton Heston would say)" is, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Still need more proof? Let's try out the Treaty of Tripoli, shall we? In the early days (y'know, the founding father days) the United States began to encounter problems when trading with the various theocracies of the world. In response to these issues the U.S. Government drafted "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," to official declare it's stance on theocratic government... later shortened by historians to the "Treaty of Tripoli." This document reads:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
So, now that we've established that the founding fathers did not intend for our great nation to be one steeped in religious doctrine, what does that say about GOP tactics of infusing their names with Evangelical Christian principles? Are the claims being made by the administration simple ignorance (hard to believe from such a highly educated bunch) or are they a more deliberate method of public deception using icons that instill patriotism?
Furthermore, is jingoism a Christian principle? Hardly. One of the most basic teachings of the Bible is to follow the word of God above all else, and yes that even means The President of the United States. Consistently, the Bush Administration spin machine has painted opposition as Anti-American, then tarred Anti-American's with the Anti-Christian brush. The simple fact of the matter is this, it is not only possible, but often necessary to oppose American ideas to more closely follow Biblical teachings.
Direct yourself to Proverbs 28:13, "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion." From his drug and alcohol problems as a young man to his mishandling of governmental issues the President has repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for his own mistakes. He has used every tool at his disposal to spin, hide and erase records that indicate wrong doing, hardly the character of a truly Christ like figure.
Not only is George W. Bush's personal character contrary to the word of God, but his policies fly in the face of what Christ claims to be important. His administration has cut funding to programs that clothe the needy, feed the hungry and help in the imprisoned. This administration even opposes health care systems for the sick and dying.
Quite simply put, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some form of a higher power. The majority of those Americans believe that particular higher power is the Christian God, and a large percentage of those individuals are Bush voters. It's extremely important for us all to realize that pro-life shouldn't equal Republican (in the same way that pro-choice shouldn't equal democrat), and that despite your own beliefs most Christian people aren't Pat Robertson in the same way that most Muslims aren't Osama Bin Laden.
It's time for the left to embrace it's religious side, and for those on the left without a religious side surely you can embrace a few Jesusey ideas, y'know, love, peace, good will, compassion, helping your fellow man and most importantly, EQUALITY for all people.
Neither do I, so I decided to do a little digging into some Christian resources and compare and contrast the behavior of the man that has come to lead the modern Christian revolution that threatens civil rights, wages endless war and from time to time bends the truth. Sounds like an interesting spin on the Sermon on the Mount.
First, let's get one thing out of the way. Christianity (or ANY other religious belief) has no place in the governing body of the United States of America. Before anyone's head explodes, that is not in any way an Anti-Christian statement. I happen to be a man with a belief in God and consider myself an (extremely flawed) Christian. But this has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with a system of government implemented hundreds of years ago that expressly forbade governing from religious text.
Every day the Christian Coalition crowd harps on and on about the values of our founding fathers, but neglects to inform their followers that the same founding fathers believed in a secular government, despite their personal beliefs. Need proof, well, let's start with the Constitution of the United States of America. Often people quote the 1st Amendment as "FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" However, the actual wording handed down from the "wise old dead white guys (as Charlton Heston would say)" is, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Not just freedom of, but a clearly defined freedom from.
Still need more proof? Let's try out the Treaty of Tripoli, shall we? In the early days (y'know, the founding father days) the United States began to encounter problems when trading with the various theocracies of the world. In response to these issues the U.S. Government drafted "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," to official declare it's stance on theocratic government... later shortened by historians to the "Treaty of Tripoli." This document reads:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
So, now that we've established that the founding fathers did not intend for our great nation to be one steeped in religious doctrine, what does that say about GOP tactics of infusing their names with Evangelical Christian principles? Are the claims being made by the administration simple ignorance (hard to believe from such a highly educated bunch) or are they a more deliberate method of public deception using icons that instill patriotism?
Furthermore, is jingoism a Christian principle? Hardly. One of the most basic teachings of the Bible is to follow the word of God above all else, and yes that even means The President of the United States. Consistently, the Bush Administration spin machine has painted opposition as Anti-American, then tarred Anti-American's with the Anti-Christian brush. The simple fact of the matter is this, it is not only possible, but often necessary to oppose American ideas to more closely follow Biblical teachings.
Direct yourself to Proverbs 28:13, "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion." From his drug and alcohol problems as a young man to his mishandling of governmental issues the President has repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for his own mistakes. He has used every tool at his disposal to spin, hide and erase records that indicate wrong doing, hardly the character of a truly Christ like figure.
Not only is George W. Bush's personal character contrary to the word of God, but his policies fly in the face of what Christ claims to be important. His administration has cut funding to programs that clothe the needy, feed the hungry and help in the imprisoned. This administration even opposes health care systems for the sick and dying.
Quite simply put, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some form of a higher power. The majority of those Americans believe that particular higher power is the Christian God, and a large percentage of those individuals are Bush voters. It's extremely important for us all to realize that pro-life shouldn't equal Republican (in the same way that pro-choice shouldn't equal democrat), and that despite your own beliefs most Christian people aren't Pat Robertson in the same way that most Muslims aren't Osama Bin Laden.
It's time for the left to embrace it's religious side, and for those on the left without a religious side surely you can embrace a few Jesusey ideas, y'know, love, peace, good will, compassion, helping your fellow man and most importantly, EQUALITY for all people.
10 Comments:
I, too, have made that statement. While I do not consider myself to be a Christian, I find it difficult to believe that ANY religion that promotes peace and truth and those types of virtues would willingly ally itself with a man who so obviously has no virtue and no morals.
I couldn't agree more. Every religion has it's own group of wackos associating their beliefs with the religious beliefs of the group.
Except for Scientology... there are no wackos in Scientology.
Excellent point on keeping religion and governemnt apart. Both have nothing to do with Christ.
as for your first point, show me where W has ever lied to the people as president of the US. I don't mean some vague intepretation of something he said taken out of context but something he flat out lied about. It doesn't exist. The problem the left has is people like Bush make their own smallness luminate. If you are a liar or a cheat or a thief or someone with a low standard of values you will always watch those you consider better then you for any smidget of inaccuracy as proof that you, yourself aren't as bad as you think you are.
You will also try to appoint whackos like Robertson as the spokesman of a group you fear. I have been a Christian as long as I cn remember and have never heard anyone quote robertson or Falwell. i have often seen cringes to their comments because they know that small people will always try to associate their love for God with some whacked out remark one of these false shepherds make.
As for Bush i think the trouble the left has with him is they know he comes across as not being as smart as them, he often doesn't speak the line of the press or the less informed but he always wins and always gets his way. Show me one President other then Reagan or Nixon who has accomplished so much.
By the way you have a pretty cool blog.
Thanks for the positive comments on the blog, mysterious stranger.
If you consider President Bush's "accomplishments" to be taxing the poor back to the stoneage, starting illegal wars, shredding international credibility and sending the American public into a constant state of panic then no... no other president has accomplished so much.
Thank God.
However, if you're interested in real presidential accomplishments may I direct you to Franklin Roosevelt's saving of the world, John F. Kennedy's unflinching support of civil rights, and Bill Clinton's economic wizardry. I'll happily trade any of these for any and all of Mr. Bush's.
I do thank you for reading and I hope to hear from you again!
cory, I appreciate your zeal for the home team but neither Kennedy nor Clinton accomplished any of the two success you refer to. The civil rights movement Kennedy imposed was the wire tapping of MLK Jr. If you revisit the history books you'll find all of the civil rights accomplished during the 60s did not happen on JFKs watch. LBJ and Nixon did far more for civil rights then giving lip service. Today Bush continues the civil rights movement by not just talking about it but by appointing people of color to positions of power. Though the poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and the latten bed-wetting racist like Teddy Kennedy call Bush a racist neither has done one damn thing to help the civil rights movement in the USA. These types dwell on the uninformed opinions that make up at least half of our great nation. As people point finger at those they think are dissing them these type like Kennedy and Jackson fill their mansions with ill-gotten wealth.
Further, Bush's appointing of people like Condi Rice will move Blacks closer to the prize then anything Clinton or Kennedy ever did. When Ms. Rice stands at the White House 1/20/09 and accepts the position of the next president of the USA you'll agree with me.
Clinton had less to do with the economy then you or myself. Most of the economic success in the 90s had more to do with the tax cuts in the 80s then anything else. Saying Clinton had anything to do with it is like saying Phil Jackson was a great basketball coach when he had Jordan or the LA Lakers. When in relity all he had to do was just roll the ball out onto the floor. I can assure if any of the economic plans that Bill or Hitlery wanted to impose on our economy we would all be working in sweat shops making the Chinese rich.
As for FDR you make a good point. I'll accept his accomplishments even though they have created a lot dependency in our culture. Though he had little patience for blacks or poor people he understood the power of the soap box and used it well.
My question is how do you tax anyone into poverty? And how do you figure the war in Iraq is illegal? And what do you mean shredding international credibility?
Poor do not have money to tax. Congress voted to go to war. And we still remain the envy of the world and that's where the weariness of the other countries omes from.
Don't blame me for the truth i just found it that way.
Psh. Christians.
KYRiceJr here,
o.k., Pirate must be part of the 27% who agree W has us heading in the right direction,,and as an example of being taxed into poverty I will serve as an example,, though I have recieved raises through getting advanced degrees (read tuition increases of 55 % for grad school in the last 7 years) in the last 3 years I actually have less spendable income becasue I always get passed into another tax bracket ,,,and until I pass the wonderful $100,000 platueau (never gonna happen) I will continue to carry the burdent of King George's tax cuts. As for Condi, she should wear a big yellow T on her attire like the kid on South Park
The telling statement about Pirate, as he speaks about GW: "Show me one President other then Reagan or Nixon who has accomplished so much."
I don't think it really needs more explanation.
People who blindly support the Republicans in power -- not just the Dick Cheney/Karl Rove gorilla administration, but also the local McConnell/Fletcher gubernatorial mosntrosity -- simply because they are Republican "Conservatives" and "Christians" are looking at neither facts nor history.
"Liberal" is not a bad word. "Left" is not a bad word. Demonize as much as you like, but there is no decent argument in support of the current administration. They are morally bankrupt and driven only to benefit themselves. In the global scope, the power of the United States is in decline and you can thank these jokers for that. It is just astonishing the amount of global political capital George Bush wasted with his backwoods redneck attitude and utter disregard of the rest of the world in the wake of September 11, 2001. Astonishing. And yes, I said it. The leadership of this country panders to redneck culture and that's a damn shame. Thank you very much, state of Texas. Thank you very much, indeed.
Aaron, you do realize that by messing with Texas you have incurred the wrath of not Stone Cold Steve Austin, but Cowboy Troy as well.
May God have mercy on your soul...
weak. the uninformed fella talking about taxes obviously has no idea what he speaks of. When he does met the $100k mark as i have many times then he can bitch how much taxes he pays. My guess he pays nothing and gets earned income crdit which is money from the productive side of the aisle.
Post a Comment
<< Home