It seemed a response was in order:
It is inevitable that if you oppose Bush, his supporters will ask the above question. The right response is; Well, are you? George W.Bush supports gay "unions". You and I both know it is the same as marriage in God's eyes and that is what counts, isn't it? God is concerned about what is going on in the "union".Bush would have you believe, that is deceive you, that he is on the up and up but he is not. Kerry "opposes" gay marriages as well but both Bush and Kerry support gay "unions". Bush wants to amend the constitution and Kerry wants to let state constitutions decide it. Either way they both support gay marriage because marriage is defined by God as a bonding between two people, not a state license, and they both support the bonding because they both support gay "unions".. In most states common law defines these "unions" as marriage. Bush's vice president Dick Cheney openly supports gays, he disagrees with Bush's method but they both agree fundamentally and in fact his campaign manager is a gay lesbian. Make no mistake, George W. Bush supports the bonding of gay couples and that is the bottom line. He wants to have it both ways and he would deceive you into believing he opposes a man laying with a man but he does not because if he did he would come right out and say he is opposed to gay "unions". So much for his christian character & integrity. I wonder which is worse having a president who lets you know where he stands or one who is so willing to deceive you time and again to make you believe in him but more on that later.
You know there are more issues other than gay marriage or abortion that the christian should be concerned with but before that; did you know Bush supports some abortions. He does not oppose all abortions. Now abortion should be banned but are you not sick and tired of aligning yourself with a political party that primarily looks out only for the very wealthy and will stoop to all corrupt-like ends to achieve their favor only to end up throwing a few bones your way. You get a nod here and there from the Republicans on abortion but then they turn right around and kill them in Iraq. For all the rhetoric Reagan made on abortion he never really did anything about it. In the years since little has been done except for the late term abortion bill passed this year but even it is a virtually non-existent procedure. Bush is not for banning all abortions. He can be political about it as any politician. Why? because he does not want to completely alienate possible voters. In the 2000 debate on the issue of the abortion pill, he would not say he would overturn it, he would only say it was not his authority but it was clearly a question of what you want to do, not what is legal. In 4 years of office, even with a Republican congress, Bush has not once submitted legislation to ban abortion and the government clearly gives him the right to try to do so. Here again his integrity is not what some christians would believe. You know, a clear majority of the American people are against banning abortion and the Congress clearly votes against the stronger aspects of abortion law so the issue is really going nowhere until that changes and it has not changed since Reagan brought it in over 20 years ago. The point is I do not think it is wise to vote for a president on one issue, especially when little will be done about it and at the same time means supporting him when he is so misguided and wreckless on many other critical issues.
There are many criteria for which to consider an individual for president. How he represents christianity and this nation and whether his policies reflect a christian nation. That is: His honesty, integrity and character. Will he go to war only if he absolutely has to and does he realize the innocents that will die as a result. Will he represent the poor and downtrodden. Is he fair to the individual worker as he is to business groups and corporations. Does he have a sense of justice. How he is influenced by money and how firm will he stand by principles which may run counter to the interests of money. (Remember money is a part of that which if loved is the root of all evil). Is he intelligent enough to rightly weigh economic interests against the humane needs of his people. Indeed, there are many issues to consider out there when picking a president and if you do so based on only one or two issues then that is your choice, but if those issues are your only issues then you better be absolutely sure that your candidate fully and unequivocally supports them. I do not believe Bush measures up to that standard. There are men in this world serving power and money who are willing to go to any end to deceive you in order for you to vote them in and let them do the things they would like to do to serve power and money. I believe the Bush administration is primarily made up of these kind of men.
Why do the republicans support an amendment to ban abortion? Because it is just a law, not a social program that costs money, wealthy tax payers money, to support. The republicans rarely ever supported programs for the downtrodden or the forgotten. Do you really believe they are sincere about the aborted forgotten? What they are sincere about is that it gets their party votes by cutting into the christian voters who used to vote democratic in support of helping the poor and disadvantaged, and at the same time avoiding more taxes for their wealthy clients from the individual to the corporate. Nice and convenient but not very honorable. There certainly are sincere republican christians who are pro-life but we need to see all the issues and the whole picture for what it is.
Now, I should ask ...Are you for someone who is willing to bring death and destruction down upon innocent women and children at all, never mind doing it based on pre-emptive reasons and if that wasn't enough, then misleading the American people in order to do it. Let me repeat the emphasis on pre-emptive. You see it is wrong in the first place, but to bomb Iraq because of what you think and what you fear may happen is, according to precedent, wrong even in the secular world but most assuredly is wholly unchristian. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq was no imminent threat, Iraq was not tied to the terrorists, Iraq never threatened to attack the US nor ever killed one American citizen and the Iraqi people, once we went in, in fact did not welcome us as Bush proclaimed they would. If that is not enough our president endorsed limited "torture" of captured Iraqis which set the climate for the kind of mentality that ran down through the military ranks into the abuse and torture of Abu Graib prison inmates which has humilitated the U.S. around the world and turned the arab world against us and increased the rank and file of terrorist groups like nothing ever before. Is this a man led of God? Of course not. The Lord picks leaders but as we know, unfortunately, they often do not obey Him. Bush primaily works for the interests of the very wealthy, weather it be for money or oil and there is plenty of both in Iraq. In pursuit of those things he has made a shambles of this nations Christian witness. Bush will not step forward and take responsiblity for misleading the American people on Iraq, the Iraqi prison fiasco, his administrations leak of a CIA operatives identity, allowing 9-11 in the first place while he was supposed to be protecting the U.S. etc etc. Have you ever heard him say "I take responsiblity for anything"? So many others in these situations have stepped forward to take responsiblity even as Prime Minister Blair did on Iraq, but Bush? Not hardly. Unless I'am mistaken, taking responsiblity has something to do with honor, character, integrity and courage. You can believe what you want to believe from others, about Bush, or you can think for yourself, truly seek God and see through the imagery to the truth of it. Consider how many people out there say they are a Christian. Bush says he's a Christian, says he prays and goes to church but the Word of God says you will know them by their fruits. The bottom line.
It is unfortunate that some Christians become so blindly loyal to Bush they will not listen to all the facts. If it is because their church leaders say so then that is not good enough. Down through history, in the Bible and in Revelations, Jesus admonished the church such as in the case of the church of Laodicea, Smyrna,etc. Churches have fallen into error many times so it is not unreasonable that this is going on now and, it seems, the only reasonable conclusion that one can reach today is that it is, again, going on now. If the church can be in error on fundamental things as the Lord said, then they certainly can be in error where government is concerned. If America removes Bush from office now, there is a chance, a chance that the rest of the world may still consider us a Christian nation.
It is inevitable that if you oppose Bush, his supporters will ask the above question. The right response is; Well, are you? George W.Bush supports gay "unions". You and I both know it is the same as marriage in God's eyes and that is what counts, isn't it? God is concerned about what is going on in the "union".Bush would have you believe, that is deceive you, that he is on the up and up but he is not. Kerry "opposes" gay marriages as well but both Bush and Kerry support gay "unions". Bush wants to amend the constitution and Kerry wants to let state constitutions decide it. Either way they both support gay marriage because marriage is defined by God as a bonding between two people, not a state license, and they both support the bonding because they both support gay "unions".. In most states common law defines these "unions" as marriage. Bush's vice president Dick Cheney openly supports gays, he disagrees with Bush's method but they both agree fundamentally and in fact his campaign manager is a gay lesbian. Make no mistake, George W. Bush supports the bonding of gay couples and that is the bottom line. He wants to have it both ways and he would deceive you into believing he opposes a man laying with a man but he does not because if he did he would come right out and say he is opposed to gay "unions". So much for his christian character & integrity. I wonder which is worse having a president who lets you know where he stands or one who is so willing to deceive you time and again to make you believe in him but more on that later.
You know there are more issues other than gay marriage or abortion that the christian should be concerned with but before that; did you know Bush supports some abortions. He does not oppose all abortions. Now abortion should be banned but are you not sick and tired of aligning yourself with a political party that primarily looks out only for the very wealthy and will stoop to all corrupt-like ends to achieve their favor only to end up throwing a few bones your way. You get a nod here and there from the Republicans on abortion but then they turn right around and kill them in Iraq. For all the rhetoric Reagan made on abortion he never really did anything about it. In the years since little has been done except for the late term abortion bill passed this year but even it is a virtually non-existent procedure. Bush is not for banning all abortions. He can be political about it as any politician. Why? because he does not want to completely alienate possible voters. In the 2000 debate on the issue of the abortion pill, he would not say he would overturn it, he would only say it was not his authority but it was clearly a question of what you want to do, not what is legal. In 4 years of office, even with a Republican congress, Bush has not once submitted legislation to ban abortion and the government clearly gives him the right to try to do so. Here again his integrity is not what some christians would believe. You know, a clear majority of the American people are against banning abortion and the Congress clearly votes against the stronger aspects of abortion law so the issue is really going nowhere until that changes and it has not changed since Reagan brought it in over 20 years ago. The point is I do not think it is wise to vote for a president on one issue, especially when little will be done about it and at the same time means supporting him when he is so misguided and wreckless on many other critical issues.
There are many criteria for which to consider an individual for president. How he represents christianity and this nation and whether his policies reflect a christian nation. That is: His honesty, integrity and character. Will he go to war only if he absolutely has to and does he realize the innocents that will die as a result. Will he represent the poor and downtrodden. Is he fair to the individual worker as he is to business groups and corporations. Does he have a sense of justice. How he is influenced by money and how firm will he stand by principles which may run counter to the interests of money. (Remember money is a part of that which if loved is the root of all evil). Is he intelligent enough to rightly weigh economic interests against the humane needs of his people. Indeed, there are many issues to consider out there when picking a president and if you do so based on only one or two issues then that is your choice, but if those issues are your only issues then you better be absolutely sure that your candidate fully and unequivocally supports them. I do not believe Bush measures up to that standard. There are men in this world serving power and money who are willing to go to any end to deceive you in order for you to vote them in and let them do the things they would like to do to serve power and money. I believe the Bush administration is primarily made up of these kind of men.
Why do the republicans support an amendment to ban abortion? Because it is just a law, not a social program that costs money, wealthy tax payers money, to support. The republicans rarely ever supported programs for the downtrodden or the forgotten. Do you really believe they are sincere about the aborted forgotten? What they are sincere about is that it gets their party votes by cutting into the christian voters who used to vote democratic in support of helping the poor and disadvantaged, and at the same time avoiding more taxes for their wealthy clients from the individual to the corporate. Nice and convenient but not very honorable. There certainly are sincere republican christians who are pro-life but we need to see all the issues and the whole picture for what it is.
Now, I should ask ...Are you for someone who is willing to bring death and destruction down upon innocent women and children at all, never mind doing it based on pre-emptive reasons and if that wasn't enough, then misleading the American people in order to do it. Let me repeat the emphasis on pre-emptive. You see it is wrong in the first place, but to bomb Iraq because of what you think and what you fear may happen is, according to precedent, wrong even in the secular world but most assuredly is wholly unchristian. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq was no imminent threat, Iraq was not tied to the terrorists, Iraq never threatened to attack the US nor ever killed one American citizen and the Iraqi people, once we went in, in fact did not welcome us as Bush proclaimed they would. If that is not enough our president endorsed limited "torture" of captured Iraqis which set the climate for the kind of mentality that ran down through the military ranks into the abuse and torture of Abu Graib prison inmates which has humilitated the U.S. around the world and turned the arab world against us and increased the rank and file of terrorist groups like nothing ever before. Is this a man led of God? Of course not. The Lord picks leaders but as we know, unfortunately, they often do not obey Him. Bush primaily works for the interests of the very wealthy, weather it be for money or oil and there is plenty of both in Iraq. In pursuit of those things he has made a shambles of this nations Christian witness. Bush will not step forward and take responsiblity for misleading the American people on Iraq, the Iraqi prison fiasco, his administrations leak of a CIA operatives identity, allowing 9-11 in the first place while he was supposed to be protecting the U.S. etc etc. Have you ever heard him say "I take responsiblity for anything"? So many others in these situations have stepped forward to take responsiblity even as Prime Minister Blair did on Iraq, but Bush? Not hardly. Unless I'am mistaken, taking responsiblity has something to do with honor, character, integrity and courage. You can believe what you want to believe from others, about Bush, or you can think for yourself, truly seek God and see through the imagery to the truth of it. Consider how many people out there say they are a Christian. Bush says he's a Christian, says he prays and goes to church but the Word of God says you will know them by their fruits. The bottom line.
It is unfortunate that some Christians become so blindly loyal to Bush they will not listen to all the facts. If it is because their church leaders say so then that is not good enough. Down through history, in the Bible and in Revelations, Jesus admonished the church such as in the case of the church of Laodicea, Smyrna,etc. Churches have fallen into error many times so it is not unreasonable that this is going on now and, it seems, the only reasonable conclusion that one can reach today is that it is, again, going on now. If the church can be in error on fundamental things as the Lord said, then they certainly can be in error where government is concerned. If America removes Bush from office now, there is a chance, a chance that the rest of the world may still consider us a Christian nation.
2 comments :
You say, "He wants to have it both ways and he would deceive you into believing he opposes a man laying with a man but he does not because if he did he would come right out and say he is opposed to gay 'unions'. So much for his Christian character & integrity."
I am no proponent of Bush, however, I am even less enamored with fundamentalist "Christians" who revel in their judgments - and who ignore the fact that there is a vigorous debate among theologians as to what Jesus really intended in the context of His time and place regarding loving committed gay relationships.
Am I to judge your Christian character and integrity? - or dare you judge mine? That is for God to decide.
Thank you for reading and posting on my blog. That remark was made in dealing with staunch right-wing christians who have no problem making such judgements whether it's Bill Clinton or whoever. I thought I would turn the tables on them you might say. It is relative to his political christianity and I make no judgement about Bush's personal christianity and am not one of those who question his salvation but I do have an opinion about the christian quality of his administration and that is what I'am trying to convey but it is difficult to resist giving the "Right" a taste of their own medicine.
I personally believe God strongly opposes gay relationships. I base that on his position on it in the old and new testaments. Sodomy or homosexulaity was so repugmant to God that he decreed that anyone engaged in it be put to death and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be an exclamation mark in history about the way He feels about it. In the new testament Paul states in his first chapter in his first book Romans that a man lying with a man is sin. He begins with this when preaching about the sins of men so the emphasis is there. But this is not about God hating people but instead God hating sin. God loves all people and would have them turn from their sin. My attitude about this in not about a facist need to control others as is exemplified by some on the right but is a desire those escape that which is pulling them down. God wants the best for all of us and that is why He forbids somethings because with all the wisdom it took to create the world He also knows with that same wisdom that certain things or acts will eventually destroy people. It is fundamentally about His love for us. Anyway, again, thanks for your thoughtful post.
Post a Comment