Those Unstable, Superstitious Christians

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    By David Limbaugh

    Why does it make so many on the Left uncomfortable that President Bush openly professes his reliance on God in performing his official duties?

    Actor Richard Gere has joined in the chorus led by Ralph Nader and others condemning President Bush for mixing his faith with his governance. "One thing I've learned in my life is never to trust anyone who thinks that he exclusively has God on his side," said Gere to a crowd of like-minded Hollywooders.

    Gere's brilliant insight followed a recent statement by perennial presidential aspirant and equal opportunity nuisance Ralph Nader lambasting Bush for not divorcing his faith from his public service. Nader was apparently disturbed by a passage in Bob Woodward's new book.

    Woodward reports that when Bush was in the process of deciding to attack Iraq he prayed "for the strength to do the Lord's will." This "revelation" reportedly prompted Nader to tell the Christian Science Monitor, "We are dealing here with a basically unstable president … a messianic militarist.

    A messianic militarist, under our constitutional structure, is an unstable office-holder. Talk about separation of church and state: It is not separated at all in Bush's brain, and this is extremely disturbing."

    Hold on a second there, Ralph. One with a messianic complex would regard himself as a savior or liberator, according to dictionaries I've consulted. In the statements Nader is referring to, President Bush is doing just the opposite. He is asking God to give him the strength to do God's will. Nothing could be more humble; nothing could be less egotistical. Nothing could be less "messianic."

    That's one of the ironic things about Bush's secular critics. They see him as a man literally eaten up with macho-pride and cowboy swagger, yet at his core, he is a man of extraordinary humility, a person who understands this historic moment is not about him, but about the causes, people, and most of all, God he serves.

    And while Bush quietly admits that he cherishes his personal relationship with God, he doesn't claim his relationship is exclusive or that he's receiving direct orders from God, especially as to generalship of the war.

    David Aikman, author of the new book "A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush," says that Bush is not unduly conspicuous about his faith. "He's never said God told us to go to war, never said God told me to do anything … He's been very careful," said Aikman.

    So why do liberal elitists recoil like snakes when Bush makes references to his faith? Why do they act like it's newsworthy when the highest officeholder in the land admits to being a practicing Christian in a nation where most citizens claim to be Christians?

    Well, one possible reason is that they believe in a pure separation of church and state, at least as it applies to the Christian church. Some adhere it to such an extreme degree -- as evidenced by Ralph Nader's ludicrous quote above -- that they insist it requires a Christian to separate his faith from his governance.

    As if it's possible (or desirable) to create an internal Chinese firewall in someone's brain or his personality to cordon off his worldview from his decisions in office. As if Christians should not only keep their opinions to themselves, but from themselves.

    How would Ralph like it if we told him he should not allow his moral judgments about corporate greed to affect his political advocacy or inform his candidacy?

    Isn't the double standard painfully obvious? It's not the secularists' allegiance to church-state separation that drives them, but an abiding distrust of and hostility toward Christianity, which many of them see as a dangerous superstition.

    A perfect illustration of this is an e-mail I received in response to my last column on the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist." My correspondent wrote, "when grown men and women believe Noah and his brood incestuously repopulated the whole planet, I am a bit dismayed that people can be so stupid."

    There you have it. Christians are unstable, science-averse simpletons so weak they have to rely on a fictitious savior, so unsophisticated they believe in the forces of good and evil, and so reckless that they will fight wars to protect their national security even if many of America's traditional allies don't have the courage or rectitude to join them.

    Oh, how far we've come in this nation since it was considered unquestionably noble to place our "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/23/121811.shtml
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    too many times throughout humanities history have we witnessed horrible acts committed in the name of a god, any god. It would seem only natural, using basic unfeeling logic, that to place the direction of a country on what one person perceives as divine will, to question that very position.
     
  3. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It would be worthwhile to add that if one looks across most of our founding documents, and then current press articles where the liberal side is expressed, this is the overwhelming trend and HAS been for sometime.

    DK, note I said the TREND. ;)
     
  4. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree. Does that make it right?
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    to question it or use it? :p:
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    There have also been many kind, benevolent, and generous acts performed in the name of God. Bush isn't solely driving the country towards some single, diving will. He's just taking his faith into account when making decisions, which is something everyone does. When religion comes up, we always hear about how religion is bad because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Muslim fanatacism. However, we never hear about the people who follow the command "love one another" and are somebody's friend when no one else wants to be. You never hear about the churchs who collect food and other basic commodities and selflessly give them away to people who can't afford them. You never hear about the churches that give Christmas to children whose parents can't afford it. You also never hear of the people who, in the name of God, bring nutrition, sanitation, and medicine to some disease infested craphole corner of the world. You can't simply decide that religion, by it's very nature, is a bad thing simply because a few people have invoked the name of God while performing acts directly contradictary to his teachings.
     
  7. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    :clap:

    Caught me. I didn't even know I did that until after.

    I guess my question is : Is it right to act AGAINST such a thing. Given Hobbits point and given ANYTHING can be claimed inthe name of religion or non-religion, (which IS religion), the mere fact is that the whole issue cancels its self out.

    It comes down to the fact that if your government establishes its self as a system built upon Biblical principles, is it right to oppose the nation's direction and foundation based upon the religion opposing?

    I might add that if Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP with a creator, and in comparison can stand on its own in proof of being devine, that is an entirely different issue as I am trying to look at this from the other side.
     
  8. Aquarian
    Offline

    Aquarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    440
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +1
    I let a lot of the religious references bush uses slide off, but this one shook me a bit:

    How exactly did god tell him? I'm not arguing against striking at alqaida (or whatever today's spelling is), just a bit put off by him saying god told him to...
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Let's not forget this part:

    Two calls to the White House for clarification went unreturned, but colleague Glenn Kessler did some digging. The Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to Kessler and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker.

    The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."

    Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    And here's from the Whitehouse:

    Q Ari, staying on the Middle East. Prime Minister Abbas today, according to Ha'aretz, told a meeting with Hamas -- he quoted the President and at that point, during that meeting, he suggested that the President conveyed that now is the time to move forward or else I'm going to focus on the election, or the election is coming up shortly. Can you tell me whether or not --

    MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, somebody else asked me about that quote. I never heard the President say it. He certainly didn't say it in the trilateral meeting that I attended, and I'm not aware of any other conversation in which he said it.

    Q So there is no deadline attached --

    MR. FLEISCHER: You're seen the President on this issue. He's focused on it all the time. And he will be focused on it now, he'll be focused on it a year from now, he'll be focused on it two years from now.

    Q Part of the same quote, Prime Minister Abbas suggested the President said that God spoke to him about al Qaeda and spoke to him about Saddam. Is that a stretch? Is there anything to that? How would you characterize that part of the --

    MR. FLEISCHER: It's beyond a stretch. It's an invention. It was not said.


    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030701-6.html#18
     

Share This Page