 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2004 3:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | Without a Doubt
By RON SUSKIND
New York Times
Published: October 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login
Wait till you get to the part about "diversity" on the staff...
Post any and all thoughts after reading. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2004 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Nother good sumthin'. MAD respect for Wallis.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041103#3
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 11/5/2004 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | One should always remember the bias of the author being read. Given the NY Time's hatred of Bush, it is hard to take anything seriously that they say about him. And until Wallis learns to be more accepting of those who are Christian, yet disagree with him, he, too, is hard to stomach.
Bush having a Messiah complex!? Oh please! Anyone in politics who takes his faith seriously (and isn't an atheist) is suspect. What else is new? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
Sorry to not be here so much. Crazy busy. In response, YES, I feel that John Kerry would have been a better choice. There are reasons for this, and a great deal of them don't have to deal with John Kerry's personal idiosyncrasies. I feel that a NUMBER of people felt like Kerry was definitively the "lesser of two evils." IMHO, we had a chance to make a choice that could have began to put us on the track of putting some of the national and INTERnational mess we're in back into place. But we missed it. Re-electing Bush as a leader, whether we like it or not, sends a message to the world community. And if you think they LIKE that message, check around on places like BBCNews.com. It just ain't so.
Think about it. If Bill Clinton had done HALF of the things that Bush has been involved in (the terrible handling of Iraq and foreign policy in general, ties with interesting people, like Enron's Ken Lay and key Saudis bigwigs, placing us in the biggest deficit in US history, net loss of jobs, etc), Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the lot would have tried to have him CRUCIFIED! Heck, Clinton got some oral sex in the White House and lied about that to the American people...and the GOP were SCREAMING "Impeach him, impeach him!" But we REELECT Bush...after all that's happened. This all does NOT go unnoticed about others in the world. Oh well...
And for you "Cross and the Sword" fans...you will LOVE this...
-------------------
Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP
By Alan Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 8, 2004;
Caption: Evangelical Christians, such as these activists, were often urged by churches to vote their convictions (Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post)
As the presidential race was heating up in June and July, a pair of leaked documents showed that the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states.
Those revelations produced a flurry of accusations that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations, and even some of the White House's closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.
But the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with the movement's leaders in weekly conference calls. But in many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon.
This was particularly true of the same-sex marriage issue. One of the most successful tactics of social conservatives -- the ballot referendums against same-sex marriage in 13 states -- bubbled up from below and initially met resistance from White House aides, Christian leaders said.
In dozens of interviews since the election, grass-roots activists in Ohio, Michigan and Florida credited President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, with setting a clear goal that became a mantra among conservatives: To win, Bush had to draw 4 million more evangelicals to the polls than he did in 2000. But they also described a mobilization of evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics that took off under its own power.
In battlegrounds such as Ohio, scores of clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit. Hundreds of churches launched registration drives, thousands of churchgoers registered to vote, and millions of voter guides were distributed by Christian and antiabortion groups.
The rallying cry for many social conservatives was opposition to same-sex marriage. But concern about the Supreme Court, abortion, school prayer and pornography also motivated these "values voters." Same-sex marriage, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was "the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."
How Conservative Turnout Soared
Whether evangelical turnout rose nationally this year, and by how much, is unclear. Without question, however, Bush's conservative Christian base was essential to his victory.
According to surveys of voters leaving the polls, Bush won 79 percent of the 26.5 million evangelical votes and 52 percent of the 31 million Catholic votes. Turnout soared in conservative areas such as Ohio's Warren County, where Bush picked up 18,000 more votes than in 2000, and local activists said churches were the reason.
Over the summer, the Rev. Bruce Moore, pastor of Warren County's Clearcreek Christian Assembly, gave two sermons explaining a Christian's responsibility to vote. Then he passed out voter registration cards. His 400 congregants circulated them among like-minded friends, registering hundreds more voters.
"On this election, because of the issues before the state of Ohio and the nation, they were passionate," Moore said. "It was all hands on deck. I have never seen a rush for voter registration cards in my life as a minister."
Nationally, the backdrop for the mobilization of social conservatives fell into place when Massachusetts's highest court sanctioned same-sex marriage in November.
Some Christian leaders perceived not only a threat to biblical morality, but also a winning political issue. Same-sex marriage "is different from abortion," said the Rev. Ronnie Floyd, pastor of First Baptist Church of Springdale, Ark. "It touches every segment of society, schools, the media, television, government, churches. No one is left out."
Yet Bush was slow to endorse a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In a January conference call, Rove promised impatient Christian leaders that an endorsement would be forthcoming, and it finally came Feb. 24, nearly two weeks after same-sex couples began lining up for nuptials in San Francisco.
"A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
For several months after the Massachusetts court decision, evangelical leaders lamented the lack of a popular outcry. That changed July 14, when the Senate rejected the federal marriage amendment. Media reports described the vote as "a big election-year defeat" for the White House. It was, in fact, an election-year bonanza.
Backers of the amendment clogged the Senate switchboard with calls. Perhaps most important, social conservatives shifted their focus to amending state constitutions. They launched petition drives to put amendments banning same-sex marriage to a popular vote, and those drives resulted in grass-roots organizations and voter lists that later fed the Bush campaign.
Ultimately, 13 states approved marriage amendments this year, including 11 on Nov. 2.
Some Democrats suspected that the ballot initiatives were engineered by Rove and the GOP, but religious activists say otherwise. In Michigan, state Sen. Alan Cropsey (R) introduced a bill to ban same-sex marriage in October 2003 and assumed it would have the support of his party. Instead, the Roman Catholic Church in Michigan became the amendment's main booster, spending nearly $1 million to secure its passage.
"I couldn't say anything publicly, because I would have been blasted for it, but the Republican Party was not helpful at all," Cropsey said. "It's not like they were the instigators. They were the Johnny-come-latelies, if anything."
Michael Howden, executive director of Stronger Families for Oregon, said it was a similar situation in his state. "There's been no contact whatsoever, no coordinating, no pushing" by anyone at the White House or in the Bush campaign, he said.
Charles W. Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, recalled a meeting early this year when Christian leaders warned White House aides that the marriage issue was likely to appear on state ballots and be a factor in the presidential election. "The White House guys were kind of resisting it on the grounds that 'We haven't decided what position we want to take on that,' " he said.
The Enlistment of Religious Leaders
According to religious leaders, the conference calls with White House officials started early in the Bush administration and became a weekly ritual as the campaign heated up. Usually, the participants were Rove or Tim Goeglein, head of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Later, Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman and Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and the campaign's southeast regional coordinator, were often on the line.
The religious leaders varied, but frequent participants included the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, psychologist James C. Dobson or others from the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, and Colson.
"They did an extremely discreet job," Colson said. "It wasn't like: 'Do this. Contact these voters.' It was: 'Here's what's going on in the campaign.' It was just keeping people informed, and that's all they had to do. It was respectful of the fact that you're talking to religious leaders who are individuals, who should not be in the hip pocket of any political party."
The Bush campaign enlisted thousands of religious "team leaders" in its canvassing efforts. According to activists in battleground states, however, Christian groups were often out ahead of the campaign.
Gary Cass was in charge of registration and get-out-the-vote efforts in three Florida counties for Coral Ridge Ministries, the Fort Lauderdale-based broadcasting empire of the Rev. D. James Kennedy. On nights and weekends, he also volunteered for the Bush-Cheney campaign -- and found it far less organized than Coral Ridge's effort.
"I couldn't get answers. I had trouble getting a sign for my yard," he said. "It was a good thing we weren't coordinating with the Republican Party, because there wasn't anybody to cooperate with."
In Ohio, Lori Viars held a party for Moms and Kids for Bush at a local McDonald's. As co-chair of her county's GOP committee, she also spearheaded a registration drive at churches that began July 4. "By the time the Bush campaign said, 'You should do voter registration through churches,' we were already doing that," Viars said.
National religious leaders, and their lawyers, also made a concerted effort to persuade pastors to disregard the warnings of secular groups about what churches can and cannot legally do in the political arena.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, advised in mailings to 45,000 churches that their clergy should avoid endorsing a candidate by name from the pulpit. Other than that, "we told them they were absolutely free and should encourage their people to vote their convictions," he said.
Such entreaties appear to have worked. Sekulow said he believes that thousands of clergy members gave sermons about the election, and that many went further than they ever had before. The Rev. Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life" and one of the most influential ministers in the country, sent a letter to 136,000 fellow pastors urging them to compare the candidates' positions on five "non-negotiable" issues: abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, human cloning and euthanasia.
Dobson, a powerful figure among evangelicals, endorsed Bush -- though he said he was doing so as an individual, not as chairman of Focus on the Family, whose programs are heard on 7,000 radio stations worldwide. "This year the issues were so profound that I felt I simply could not sit it out," Dobson said last week.
Far from sitting it out, Dobson created a separate nonprofit, Focus on the Family Action, which organized six stadium-size rallies to urge Christians in battleground states to "vote their values."
A values voter, Dobson said, is someone with "a Christian worldview who begins with the assumption that God is -- that he not only exists, but he is the definer of right and wrong, and there are some things that are moral and some things that are immoral, some things that are evil and some things that are good."
Although liberals may mock Bush for his good-vs.-evil approach to the world, it "is seen by many of us not as a negative but as a positive," Dobson said. "Here is a man who is simply committed to a system of beliefs."
Staff writer James V. Grimaldi in Ohio, polling assistant Christopher Muste and researchers Carmen E. Chapin, Madonna A. Lebling and Meg Smith contributed to this report.
----------------------------
Thoughts
If some of you are wondering what's the beef, here is definitely a significant part. This is COMPLETELY the kind of stuff that Doc had been talking about in the "Cross and the Sword" series! The term "evangelical" is now pretty much polluted to the point of being useless! Unfortunately, in the blurring of terms, THIS crud is what many people will begin to think about when we say the word "Christian" Don't believe it? A tongue-in-cheek picture originated from a friendly Canadian that Michael Moore (aka the DEVIL to many) posted on his site.
I saw this and was like "Damn. I bet people DO associate Jesus with right-wing, fundamentalism, ultraconservative, corporate, Christian belief"
...and YES...they do.
Do we REALLY think the things that Colson, Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell are doing are ultimately HELPING spread the Kingdom of God???
PS: Been looking at the news lately. How many people think that it's MERELY a coincidence that we've waited LESS THAN A WEEK after the election before storming into Falluja? Especially when people ON BOTH SIDES said that it should happen if necessary...WAY before election time. (John McCain talked about it in MAY) Yeah, just coincidence.
Let's pray for all of the parties fighting in that fracas. And all of the families that will be left without fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers because of this foolishness! God help them and be with them...ALL!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, one more comment.
James C. Dobson, the main man of "Focus On the Family" said this in the article...
Although liberals may mock Bush for his good-vs.-evil approach to the world, it "is seen by many of us not as a negative but as a positive," Dobson said. "Here is a man who is simply committed to a system of beliefs."
Ok. So it's BAD for terrorists to take a totalitarian "us/good vs. them/evil" approach to the world that leads to destruction, lying, and such...
but it's OK for good ol' Bush...because he's a man who is "simply committed to a system of beliefs."
Christian beliefs.
Right-wing Christian beliefs.
God friggin bless America.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted Today 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | ANYONE who declares his nation is "the light of the world" and that "darkness" will "not overcome it" is SCARY... I always thought Jesus -- not America, or political freedom, or anything or anyone else -- was "the light." Yet, I heard no Christian except Wallis cry out "Blasphemy" when this was spoken by Bush. And THEN we hear that the only sure way to peace is for OTHER nations to accept demoncracy -- the light of the world. So, we'ze going to get evangelistic bout this! Shoudl be interesting. Say hello again to the crusades (he used THAT word too).
I honestly don't care much for Bush or Kerry or Nader or Ronald McDonald (my favorite). But the relationship between Bush and the Evangelical Right is, in my opinion, very very scary. Its not TOO FAR from the relationship of conservative Christians to another notorious quasi religious politician in Germany not too long ago.
When religious faith and nationalistic pride get fused, nothing but demonic stuff is going to result. In all history, this has never resulted in anything but massive massive bloodshed and the further desecrationn of the reputation of Christ. No exceptions. NONE.
Hang on. This isn't going to be pretty.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | I know I'm posting a lot of articles, but...
Oooh, I LOVE IT. Yeaah, baby!
Date: November 4, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell
THE LEFT THREW ITS BEST PUNCH... AND FAILED
Tuesday’s re-election of President George W. Bush and the election of a number of new conservative lawmakers across the nation astonished liberal newsmen, pundits and handlers who, hours earlier, had believed allegedly rigged exit polls and were confidently whispering that a new mandate was going to sweep the nation.
So what happened? After more than 25 years since I formed the Moral Majority and began mobilizing evangelicals to participate in the political process, I actually realized the fruit of my labors nationwide as Macel and I watched the election returns into the early hours of Wednesday. I could not hold back the tears of joy. Hour by hour, we observed a "slam dunk" as the Church of Jesus Christ made the difference in initiating the return of this nation to moral sanity and the Judeo-Christian ethic.
The so-called political experts had forgotten to count a significant voting bloc, namely the millions of evangelical voters who went to the polls in droves to “vote Christian.” Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews started Tuesday night with the firm belief they were presiding over the demise of social conservatism in America.
I’m not suggesting that we elected a bunch of fire-and-brimstone evangelists to office this week, but Christians collectively determined which candidates most closely held ideals that parallel our own biblically-based moral values and we went to the polls to support those candidates.
I believe evangelical Christians are about 33 percent of the electorate today and are as powerful a voting bloc as there is in this nation. The so-called mainstream media will never give the proper credit for what we accomplished this week, but the fact is that evangelical Christians joined together in spirit at polls across this nation and are the reason a record 115 million persons actually voted. This was the most exciting day politically since the same day in 1980 when we first arose to sweepingly elect President Reagan to the Oval Office.
I saw this coming weeks before the election and tried to hearten believers through my columns by recounting the incredible energy I witnessed among Christians in my many trips across the country. There was a palpable vigor among believers who could hardly wait to charge to the polls on Tuesday. Thousands of pastors were stirring their congregations to distinguish the issues, know the combatants and be geared up to vote.
And boy, were they!
This mass evangelical turnout was also largely responsible for the passage of all 11 marriage initiatives that passed by vast margins on Tuesday. It is more apparent now than ever that the nation wants its leaders to define marriage as a unique bond between one man and one woman. This is not discrimination; it is simply mandating what civilization has held true for many centuries. We must prevent activist judges in our federal courts from redefining marriage so that it corresponds with ever-changing social sentiment.
My good friend, Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, responded to Tuesday’s election: “Despite the conventional political wisdom that moral concerns are a drag on a political ticket, it was values that energized voters, lifted turnout among evangelicals and Catholics, and led to substantial GOP pickups in the House and Senate. The voters have delivered a moral mandate.”
We should all feel a sense of accomplishment and thankfulness to God for blessing our efforts. We must never forget that people of faith in this country, joined by political and fiscal conservatives, successfully withstood Hollywood, Springsteen, Affleck, Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks (now called the French Hens by some), billionaire George Soros and his ilk, all the 527s, most of the national print and broadcast media, the gays and lesbians, the abortionists, the entire liberal establishment... and about $2 billion of hate-inspired media and campaign expenditures.
The left threw its best punch and George Bush and social conservatism are alive and well. To God be all the glory!
“If my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (II Chronicles 7:14).
That verse is more powerful than any exit poll. And it will sustain us against any rising political tide that seeks to counter biblical morality, if we remain true to that verse’s unique guidelines.
Now that we have acted, we cannot rest for long.
The left is already disparaging this obvious voter mandate.
Abortion-rights proponents are in hysterical overdrive mode to decry President Bush’s re-election. NARAL; Pro-Choice America and other militant abortion-rights groups are telling the president that they will not tolerate a U.S. Supreme Court nominee who is not one of their abortion-on-demand puppets. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, hoping to be the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has today warned President Bush not to nominate any pro-life Supreme Court justices who might possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. No sooner is obstructionist Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) defeated than Sen. Specter announces he will replace him in blocking the confirmation of good justices.
Our work never ends.
The bottom line is that we must continue to diligently pray for President Bush, his cabinet and all elected leaders in America, as the Bible compels us in I Timothy 2:1-3. To elect these men and women to office without supporting them in daily prayer would be an act of abject abandonment. Let us commit to continuing Tuesday’s mandate by keeping our nation, our leaders and the peace of Jerusalem at the forefront of our prayers and efforts.
www.falwell.com
---------------
ONWARD, Christian soldiers! Let's get this "Mission Accomplished!"
Oh, and blessings on our favorite eschatological timepiece...er...um...I mean, Jerusalem and the people of Israel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted Today 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your post Meph/Doc/Others. I'm completely convinced Bush is off his rocker. And, I might add, I'm glad I didn't vote! Radical right thinking (and the absolutely unbelievable picture of the guys with their balloon crosses) - completely nuts! I want no part of that. Bush can crusade all he wants, but I won't support it AND I will pray against it.
"Light of the world", eh? oh my goodness. Between that and the guy preaching to lions, I'm really wondering if I've finally heard it it all...
At this point, my question continues to be about our practical/Christ-like response. How do we deal with this? I think Doc's message (long ago) about taking care to of your family > neighbor > community > city > state > and then country is helpful, however, it doesn't address how we respond specifically to an incident such as this.
I can only imagine that many (most?) voters had good intentions. There's a possibility that they heard Bush talk about Christ and connected to that - because they know He is our hope. It's possible that many/most voters were out of their heart wanting to reject the moral decay in our nation and turn toward goodness. Can't blame them for that. How do we unite in that regard and reject crazy stuff? Obviously we can't change the vote. What can we do?
I understand it's big. I understand it's ugly. What I don't understand is what to do next. Do we have faith that Bush could change? Should we pray for that? Is our faith aligned with those types of prayers? I'm asking because I don't know. (to be honest meph's articles (long as they were!) were eye opening for me. Doc's comments have been eye opening too because I normally don't spend much time thinking about this stuff...mostly because I'm clueless what to do once I know about it.)
ok, that had to be 3 cents too. Sorry.
Blessings!
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted Today 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | P.S.Michael Moore's work always makes me want to pack up and move to Canada!
Perhaps we should all move. That would send a message, eh?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted Today 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
I don't even know what to say to everything posted here. It seems very alarmist to me. I am torn. I listened to the Cross and the Sword series, and there were many very good things said in them. One of the things said...and I'm gonna have to paraphrase here...is that as Christians, obviously our allegiance to Christ comes first and foremost, but that also, and especially as we live in a nation that gives us a say in how we are governed, we could truly follow Christ being either a Republican or a Democrat...that in fact, even someone in a communist nation, and being a communist, could still follow Christ, putting His Kingdom first, but yet remaining a communist. And as radical as that sounds, I don't have a problem with that concept at all, I agree.
But what I'm picking up from Meph and Greg's posts is that being a Republican/conservative Christian/Red state inhabitant is to ipso facto NOT be putting Christ's Kingdom first; while a liberal, Blue Stater or Communist seems to have some special inside lane to putting God's Kingdom first, while engaging in the political world.
Granted Bush has said some things that don't exactly set well with me either, but to consider him SCARY seems way off base to me.
And this, "And THEN we hear that the only sure way to peace is for OTHER nations to accept demoncracy..." was this meant for real, or was it a Freudian slip?
And this statement is so outrageous it's ridiculous, "But the relationship between Bush and the Evangelical Right is, in my opinion, very very scary. Its not TOO FAR from the relationship of conservative Christians to another notorious quasi religious politician in Germany not too long ago."
"When religious faith and nationalistic pride get fused, nothing but demonic stuff is going to result."
Is it just absolutely so, that if you voted for Bush and are a Christian that you have automatically fused your faith with nationalistic pride?
If you are a Christian and voted for Kerry, what did you fuse your faith with I wonder?
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted Today 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | |
Greg: It's already gotten very ugly, with liberals like you comparing Bush to Hitler. You guys never cease to amaze me with your yellow-bellied liberal bunk. 
It is the height of absurdity and false alarmism to state or imply that the Bush revolution is anything at all similar to Naziism. Simply amazing for someone as intelligent as Greg Boyd to say something so ridiculous. I'm almost inclined to think you are being facetious, Greg.
I'm glad to say that I voted for Bush, like most evangelical Christians I know did, for the following reasons:
1. He is for a constitutional ban on gay "marriage."
2. He is against abortion.
3. He is against the (outlaw) terrorists and the regimes that back them, and works to actually DO what Clinton only gave lip service to--fight terrorism. God is against the lawless deeds of people like bin Laden, and they simply must be brought to justice, for the good of the whole world.
4. As far as I can tell, he has a genuine faith in Jesus Christ, and a genuineness about his personality that Kerry simply lacks.
5. Bush has clear a understanding of right and wrong, something that our increasingly postmodern relativistic culture desperately needs.
6. Bush is someone whose word I feel I can trust.
John Earp (To whom all the liberals on this board can probably add the term, "lunatic" or "off his rocker, too!") 
P.S. to Selah: I understand that Canada has already said they will not make it any easier to emigrate to Canada from the U.S. than it already is, but you guys would probably fit in there much better. And besides, it can't be much colder than Minnesota. 
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted Today 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Rob,
I do agree with this statement: "When religious faith and nationalistic pride get fused, nothing but demonic stuff is going to result." Think about it. (Think about pride period.) Nationalistic pride does one thing, it makes us - us and them - them. That can't be good.
Additionally, I didn't see anyone make the following statement. quote:
Is it just absolutely so, that if you voted for Bush and are a Christian that you have automatically fused your faith with nationalistic pride?
Did I miss something?
Thanks,
love
selah | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted Today 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
I did not disagree with the statement, "When religious faith and nationalistic pride get fused, nothing but demonic stuff is going to result."
What I disagreed with is the feel that I pick up from Greg's post, it seems like he is saying that if you voted for Bush that you did in fact fuse faith and nationalistic pride, so I made the statement,
"Is it just absolutely so, that if you voted for Bush and are a Christian that you have automatically fused your faith with nationalistic pride? "
I voted for Bush. Did I fuse my faith with nationalistic pride?
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | ...yellow-bellied liberals...
...the Bush revolution...
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
That's neither what he said or what he meant, I'd wager. If you look at the things I've posted, they may give an indication. There is a SIGNIFICANT contingent of evangelical Christians that fused together their Americanism and their Christianity (as the article above details) It was this reality that Greg was pointing to.
No one is saying that EVERYONE who happens to be Christian and voted for Bush falls into this syncretistic category, by definition.
BUT MANY evangelical Christians Do fall into this category. And many DID for this past election.
See what I'm saying? What do YOU think about the article?
PS: I'm interested. What do you think of JEE's comments? IMHO, I feel that some of his reflections may be in the trajectory of what we are talking about.
PSS: Wait a sec. Look at this. All emphases mine.
JEE:
quote:
It is quite illuminative and instructive that on this board where "love, not judgment" is supposedly championed, [if one doesn't tow the liberal party line they are the ones most quickly called "unChristian" or "Nazi" by the majority of the so-called Christians on this board.
Ok. Can we PLEASE see how things are getting morphed here? Where in the WORLD were these things said? How about we take things as they are being said?
PSS:
Selah, good questions! I'd like to get back to them later, kay?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted Today 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Selah,
...
I voted for Bush. Did I fuse my faith with nationalistic pride?
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for clarifying. To answer your question, only you would know. I think it comes down to motive/intention. Ask yourself why you voted for Bush. If the answer is something like, "I felt despair when looking at the moral decay of the nation and thought (since Bush claims to depend on God) he might have a chance to change it - even one iota." Then I don't think you fused your faith with nationalistic pride. If, on the other hand, you voted for Bush's crusade to spread the light of the world blah blah and so on, then perhaps you were fused...
Either way, the good news is you can repent , rememeber not to worry about tomorrow (for today has enough trouble of its own), and love like crazy in the moment (even if that means using the moment to pray for Bush to shuuuuuush )
love
selah
PS Mephi, I know you're here. Answer my questions o wise one...or splat!
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted Today 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
There are some very fine distinctions being drawn here, so it's not that easy to separate them. For example, couldn't one just as easily say that some Christians fused their faith with nationalistic pride by voting for Kerry? How you ask?
Meph wrote..."we had a chance to make a choice that could have began to put us on the track of putting some of the national and INTERnational mess we're in back into place. But we missed it. Re-electing Bush as a leader, whether we like it or not, sends a message to the world community. And if you think they LIKE that message, check around on places like BBCNews.com. It just ain't so."
Meph wrote..."But we REELECT Bush...after all that's happened. This all does NOT go unnoticed about others in the world."
Why do we care what the rest of the world thinks about our elections? Perhaps, I'm not saying it's so, just that it makes as much sense as the same line of reasoning against Christian Bush voters...but, perhaps, Christian Kerry voters voted for Kerry to protect the reputation of the USA out of a sense of nationalistic pride. Is this possible? And if it is, what kind of "demonic stuff is going to result"?
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted Today 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | -- Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
-- Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040205.shtml
Would-Be War Criminal, that Clinton. Of course, no one ever says Clinton "lied" about weapons of mass destruction.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/9/2004 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|