Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush A Christian? I Don't Think So

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 12:06 PM
Original message
Bush A Christian? I Don't Think So
I'll be the first to admit that the electorate baffles me a great deal of the time. Take for example the widely held belief that George W. Bush is a Christian and John Kerry isn't. I am thoroughly flummoxed as to how anyone, having seen G.W. up close and personal for over four years now, could even suggest such a proposition.

Not only do millions of voters and potential voters suggest Bush is a Christian, and infinitely moreso than John Kerry, but it is an unshakable bedrock belief. Having closely watched Bush's method of operation, I have to say that he talks a good game to the Christian right, and more importantly to a sizable and mostly silent group of moderates, to whom a constant theme of "moral certitude" seems quite appealing.

Yes, Dubya talks a good game. He talks about "faith based initiatives" on one hand, while he quietly throws the poor out into the streets, slashing section eight housing funds. In the Bush presidency, "faithed based initiatives is just code for, "What we really want to do is gut every social program." And for the most part that is what he has managed to do in over three and a half years.

Now I ask you, is that Christ-like? If I'm not mistaken, didn't Jesus focus on helping the poor, the disposessed, the sick and the malnourished? Would Jesus have turned his back on the middle-class and the poor in this country, in favor of lining rich people's pockets? Somehow I don't think so.

The president has also told Americans that this needless war we are in is a "righteous" cause, and that "God is on our side," thus turning one of the biggest mistakes ever in foreign policy into a modern day Crusades. His skilled propaganda machine has made the shedding of young soldiers blood palatable to millions of Americans, who proudly say that they trust his steady leadership, in times of such uncertainty. He is a man of unshakable conviction, they say. A man of vision.

But would Christ wilfully mislead his people into war, (assuming of course that he would ever have led anyone to war, which I doubt...) in order to serve his own needs? Would he have rushed into war, knowing the sacrifices so many would have to make, before exhausting every possible effort to avoid it, and yet seek justice?

If Jesus were running for president, could you imagine him running one of the dirtiest campaigns in memory? And if his surrogates did something he did not approve of, such as personally trashing his opponent, don't you think Jesus would reprimand that surrogate and publicly denounce his actions? If Dubya is such a Christian, then why won't he come out publicly and condemn ads that personally smear John Kerry?

Would Christ allow corporations to wantonly pollute the earth, causing us to become sick from the air we breathe and the water we drink? Would he roll back hundreds of environmental laws and standards, which only benefit corporations, at the great expense to the rest of the country?

So tell me, please tell me just WHAT is so Christ-like about George Bush? What is it about him, in the face of all he has done, (let's not forget the record number of Texas inmates who were put to death while he was governor) that would allow you to feel comfortable in saying that he is such a man of faith?

Looking back for a moment, we are reminded that it was George Bush who was a hell raiser. Not John Kerry. George Bush partied and chased women till he was forty years old, and supposedly became a Christian when the family intervened and Billy Graham "saved" him. Anyone can say they are "born again." Anyone can say that they've had an epiphany. Most people say if you are going to talk the talk, then you must walk the walk. That is a saying that does not apply to George W. Bush.

John Kerry doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve for all to see, but it's there. He has been labeled one of the most liberal politicians in Washington, which is true. It is interesting the the very people who label him a liberal, try to cast it in a bad light, as if it is something to be ashamed of. Now why, if they are people of faith, would they be against a man who has spent his life championing the causes of the poor and the voiceless? Why would they spend such vast amounts of resources trying to denigrate a man who served his country honorably, and with valor - a man who has worked tirelessly to protect our environment for the good of all people? If "liberal" means working to insure better lives for ALL Americans, then John Kerry fits the bill. At least he walks the walk.

Joe Fields

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. If Jesus were president in 1863
...there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwentyFive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What do you base this on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Base what on, exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwentyFive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Joe...I agree with your post. I was asking cprise...
what he based his claim about "If Jesus were president...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The New Testament
Edited on Wed Sep-01-04 02:43 PM by cprise
What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while (v10) praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here he not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him.

Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Another good example is the parable of the ten pound (Luke 19:11-27). Here we read how while visiting at the house of Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector, Jesus ceases upon the opportunity to lecture us on the proper technique of profitable money investment. In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery.


http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html


The Old Testament perpetuated slavery, and the New Testament didn't help. Jesus didn't help.

Liberal Christians must be willing to improve upon Jesus' morality if they want to be considered liberals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pontificator Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Not quite right...
for you to poach a viewpoint that reaches a preconceived conclusion that is more or less "eisegetic" in it's method. Additionally, you have missed what I see as being the real "moral of the story" in the selected pericopes.

For example, not only was the institution of slavery during Jesus' time wholly different than the institution as we once knew it in America (slavery in N.T. times was most often the result of someone owing someone else an economic debt...this is how they are "paying off the loan" so to speak), such a wholesale condemnation also misses a very well-known relationship between slave and master, that being the slave/master relationship in New Testament times was, more than anything else, a homosexual relationship that was entered into when one person borrowed money as a pretext to starting the affair. In other words, it gave them an excuse to get together...which means that it was oftentimes they voluntarily entered into the slave/master relationship.

For Jesus to have condemned the institution of slavery it would have meant not that he condemned the concept of one human "owning" another human. Rather, he would have made a moral condemnation of homosexuality; essentially, he would have said "homosexual relationships are not worthy of the Kingdom." Bear in mind, of course, that the word "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in the Bible; the Greek word used in the N.T. most often is "pornoi", which meant something along the lines of "same sex prostitution coupled w/ orgyistic behavior."

Thus, when Jesus heals the slave of the centurian and praises the centurian, he is basically saying that those who practice homosexual behaviors are worthy of God's grace, and that is especially true for those who are in a higher caste (better off economically) not taking advantage of those who are of a lower caste (relying on those who are better off economically).

The text of that story means to point out, once again, that it is a right relationship w/ one another economically that does as much as anything else to show one worthy of the Kingdom, and not any 20th century views of sexuality. And, this is a consistent Biblical theme: for example, 1 in every 16 passages in the Bible has to do w/ the use economic inequality and/or power exerted by those w/ more money being the essence of sin in the eyes of God. In the N.T., it goes from 1 out of every 10 passages, and in Luke, the ratio is 1 to 7.

Contrast that w/ the number of verses that even mention homosexuality...a grand total of 7.

Given that, which issue do you think it is that the Biblical writers are more concerned with: sex or economics?

I'll let you decide on your own, but I would caution against any further reading of the text through 20th century eyes, especially readings that have a pretextual agenda behind their conclusions.

But, please do not misunderstand me: I am in no way acting as an apologist for the institution of slavery...whatever society it may have been in. Further, you will find many, many different interpretations than the one I just gave, and many of those are from people much more learned than I am. I therefore encourage you to look further into this issue.

Finally, I'd like to compliment the writer of the initial thread, but would add that he didn't go far enough in his condemnation of Bush's wholesale bastardization of the Gospel.

The man is, quite simply, a pagan.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DemOperative Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Interesting...
the only huge objection Jesus ever raises in the biblical accounts of his life is his confrontation with the moneychangers.

Where this take of homosexuality as a pretext for slavery comes from, wow , I haven't a clue. First I've ever heard of it and I thought I had a pretty well rounded education.

Like that guy Mr. Slave in South Park, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. WHAT? Um, "well known"?
Edited on Thu Sep-02-04 10:20 PM by lojasmo
where does this come from? Please cite a credible biblical scholar who says that slavery was a "HOMOSEXUAL relationship."

Alternately, admit that you made that up.

One or the other, please.

Edited to say: Though I'm not a christian: it upsets me when people try to put words in the mouth of Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhuLoi Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. As a pagan I am deeply offended by your penultimate sentence
The very last thing W is, is a pagan. I would introduce you to the fact that nearly all the best philosophers were pagans and that christianity is arguably a plagarization of the Dionesian form of Paganism. I would recommend "The Jesus Mysteries" as a starting point for those who care to get the whole story.

Dionesian philosophy required its followers to become educated in order to proceed within the mysteries. Socrates and Pythagoras were both pagans. W is a fatuous moron who proudly declares that he does not read, save the obligatory 'Pet Goat.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. that is total crap
You can't take a little portion of text from the bible and use it to make a point.
You've just played the favorite game of conservative christians, only in reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. lets carp about crap..
The way many liberal Christians use the sermon on the mount is just what you describe.

And how many times have we heard "Jesus was a liberal" lately? Well maybe...sorta, depending on what text you take to heart.

But you're not saying that the New Testament doesn't contradict itself, are you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwentyFive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. If Bush is a Christian, then....
reporters should ask him which bible scriptures he relied on when going to war, disparaging gays, cutting social spending, hiring Karl Rove, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Welcome, TwentyFive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pikku Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Also, why he surrounds himself with SS agents....
...and "true believers" at all his public events. For a man who claims that God wants him to be president, he sure is afraid that God won't protect him against harm.

Honestly. If the beatitudes are "tests" of Christianity, Bush fails most of them. He doesn't trust God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-04 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. I honestly don't get the "not a Christian/is a Christian" thing
who decides what "real" Christians are anyway? the bible is so full of contradictions there is no way one person could follow it to the letter so who decides which bits to follow and which bits to relegate to "allegorical" If you beleive that "Christ" actually existed then how do you decide whether to actually follow him and be a socially radical Jew or to follow people who wrote about him (with their own political spin on it) decades after his death.

What is a "true" Christian anyway - for all we know BUsh is as close to it as anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sparrowhawk Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. The problem is that Bush ...
and other right-wing Christians think that they are the only "true" Christians.

(And I doubt very much that Bush is as close to it as anyone else).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhuLoi Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. Google Landover Baptist Church for a clear definition of
a 'True Christian.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnfantTerrible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Take a gander at the Chalcedon Foundation website...
many people close to the shrub are connected with this reconstructionist org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. Letter to the editor...."He's a Bible believing man"
My newspaper has frequent letters praising this con artist for being a "good" Christian, and that's enough for them (they may have lost a job, but Bush has values and that is more important than putting food on their table). It's just amazing (and frightening) how many people he has fooled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yaoi_Huntress_Earth Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. It's all about the image
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Bush looks the part. He's clean-cut, asexual, and makes a huge show of his faith. It's a lot like the man who hits his breast, claiming he's holy; just like Jesus warned us.
Saddly, the current image (at least in the states) of a "good christian" is a humorless, asexual, white bread WASP who follows the most humanity-restricting rules of their faith, condems/discredits anyone who is different, yet ignore the stuff that makes their faith redemable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC