yitwail wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Well, I suppose because when it is Christians that are being spoken of in these threads, rarely is it that we are spoken of as anything but fanatical, zealots, crazy, idiotic, etc.
I am not saying every single thing said about Christians is labeled this way. But, in general, it sure seems to be the case.
I'm not sure which threads you're talking about, but to be sure, there are atheists who don't suffer Christians gladly. On the other hand, I think there are many who are critical mostly of fundamentalist Christians, if it's ok to use the 'f-word.' I'm one of those people: just because I have disdain for Falwell & Robertson doesn't imply that I bash all Christians. I have great admiration for Jimmy Carter, for instance, who professed his Christianity long ago & never turned apostate as far as I know.
Hi yitwail,
You bring up an interesting example.
Jimmy Carter rode to power in the Presidency as a Democrat making a very public issue of his profession of faith. He was also pumped as a great intellect, one of the smartest men to run for the presidency in a generation, a master of detail. His presidency was a huge failure, ending in economic problems of huge proportion at home and Americans held captive abroad for over a year with no measurable military response.
George Bush was elected and his faith was also discussed a lot during the campaign. Bush was also constantly derided as a dummy, a fool. The economy has been hit hard by the attacks on 9/11 and rising oil prices among other things, but is still running on the positive side of the track. American military might has freed oppressed peoples in two barbaric countries and helped them elect their own leaders for the first time in decades.
Two more dissimilar presidencies could hardly be imagined, one common denominator -- both are men who are not ashamed of professing faith. But my question is why is it that Bush is constantly criticized for his faith by Democrats, and Carter is not .
But also Carter is hailed as a model for presidents when the record doesn't support it as well as a 'man of faith;' meanwhile Bush is criticized as a 'dunce, ' and one who 'shamelessly wears his religion on his sleeve.'
(BTW -- I am an Independent.)
Carter achieves the positive, Bush only the negative. No mystery there.
edgarblythe wrote:Carter achieves the positive, Bush only the negative. No mystery there.
Is that why Carter was defeated by a landslide (losing 44 out of 50 states) and Bush was re-elected by a landslide (10 million more votes than he got the first time) ?
real life wrote:But my question is why is it that Bush is constantly criticized for his faith by Democrats, and Carter is not .
As I perceive things, the invasion of Iraq is what dems are mainly critical of, on gounds such as the apparent absence of WMD, the tenuousness of links to Al Qaeda & 9/11, the casualties suffered by combatants & civilians, the lack of any timetable for a US withdrawal, etc. Bush's faith is inconsequential, so long as it doesn't affect his policies. Why should dems object to his faith, since the American people, dems and GOP'ers alike, are predominantly Christian? It's no secret that the GOP courts the Christian right's votes, and if the administration promotes the Christian right agenda and dems oppose it, it's still his policies & not his beliefs that are in question.
I don't know about that yitwail. There have been plenty of posters on these threads angry about Bush claiming to be a Christian and then also being a warmonger so to speak. Some have even gone so far as to say they think the God he listens to is Satan. It may be for some that it is his policies, but from what I have read in these threads, the fact that he claims to be Christian seems to be a rather big bone of contention for some.
I don't doubt that, Momma. Religion & politics tend to get people emotional, so in the heat of passion some people might resort to attacking his faith. People can be plain nuts, as well, and I don't think madness spares anyone because of their politics or religious belief. But if polls showing Bush's approval rating is below 40% are reliable, you can't dismiss all the critics as religious bigots or loonies.
That's just it though, are the polls reliable? Nowadays, it's hard to tell whether it's live or Memorex, if you know what I mean.
I have to agree with Yitwail. George Bush's record speaks for itself. The fact that he professes to be a Christian does not change that. IMO, he does nothing to further the true Christian believes.
reliable? depends on your politics, i think. dems probably wonder why it took so long for his approval to go down. lacking any special knowledge, it seems reasonable to assume that they're as reliable now as they were when they showed he had higher approval.
yitwail wrote:real life wrote:But my question is why is it that Bush is constantly criticized for his faith by Democrats, and Carter is not .
As I perceive things, the invasion of Iraq is what dems are mainly critical of, on gounds such as the apparent absence of WMD, the tenuousness of links to Al Qaeda & 9/11, the casualties suffered by combatants & civilians, the lack of any timetable for a US withdrawal, etc. Bush's faith is inconsequential, so long as it doesn't affect his policies. Why should dems object to his faith, since the American people, dems and GOP'ers alike, are predominantly Christian? It's no secret that the GOP courts the Christian right's votes, and if the administration promotes the Christian right agenda and dems oppose it, it's still his policies & not his beliefs that are in question.
Dems are not just critical of the Iraq policy, it's nearly everything Bush ---from Social Security reform , to not supporting Kyoto, to tort reform, to placing interpreters rather than legislators on the bench.
However on Iraq, the stockpiling of 500 tons of uranium and the presence of enriched uranium as well as the terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak should give Dems pause. But they don't. The core of the Dems see American military operations as illegitimate no matter what as long as it's a Republican in charge. (They gave Clinton a pass since they are in the same party.)
I think the Dems politicizing of EVERYTHING including GWB's faith is what has turned off many Independents like myself.
Just my opinion of course. But it's right! :wink:
Isn't yours?
real life wrote:Dems are not just critical of the Iraq policy, it's nearly everything Bush ---from Social Security reform , to not supporting Kyoto, to tort reform, to placing interpreters rather than legislators on the bench.
However on Iraq, the stockpiling of 500 tons of uranium and the presence of enriched uranium as well as the terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak should give Dems pause. But they don't. The core of the Dems see American military operations as illegitimate no matter what as long as it's a Republican in charge. (They gave Clinton a pass since they are in the same party.)
I think the Dems politicizing of EVERYTHING including GWB's faith is what has turned off many Independents like myself.
Just my opinion of course. But it's right! :wink:
Isn't yours?
your opinion's as good as mine; they're opinions, not facts. but you've still bolstered my claim that it's GWB policies dems oppose, if they oppose
everything, unless you're claiming that all his policies have a religious dimension to them.
incidentally, a dem would react to your point by saying so what? the GOP politicized everything to do with Clinton.
finally, if i can just comment on something i've observed at able2know, there are certain conservatives who defend EVERYTHING the administration does or fails to do, and these folks make it hard to take their brand of conservatism seriously.
yitwail wrote:real life wrote:Dems are not just critical of the Iraq policy, it's nearly everything Bush ---from Social Security reform , to not supporting Kyoto, to tort reform, to placing interpreters rather than legislators on the bench.
However on Iraq, the stockpiling of 500 tons of uranium and the presence of enriched uranium as well as the terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak should give Dems pause. But they don't. The core of the Dems see American military operations as illegitimate no matter what as long as it's a Republican in charge. (They gave Clinton a pass since they are in the same party.)
I think the Dems politicizing of EVERYTHING including GWB's faith is what has turned off many Independents like myself.
Just my opinion of course. But it's right! :wink:
Isn't yours?
your opinion's as good as mine; they're opinions, not facts. but you've still bolstered my claim that it's GWB policies dems oppose, if they oppose
everything, unless you're claiming that all his policies have a religious dimension to them.
incidentally, a dem would react to your point by saying so what? the GOP politicized everything to do with Clinton.
finally, if i can just comment on something i've observed at able2know, there are certain conservatives who defend EVERYTHING the administration does or fails to do, and these folks make it hard to take their brand of conservatism seriously.
Hi yitwail,
There's plenty I disagree with Bush on, but Iraq is not one of them. He had a clear responsibility under the UN resolutions and the Security Council recognized that, but they later got cold feet and backed away.
Dems have made political issues not just of Bush's policies which is expected, but also of his faith.
It's interesting how many liberals in this forum have tried to argue that Jesus would be pro-liberal policies and that any Christian should be politically liberal on that basis. It usually upsets them when I point out that they are advocating a breach of the separation of church and state by urging implementation of policies based on this supposed correlation.
real life wrote:
It's interesting how many liberals in this forum have tried to argue that Jesus would be pro-liberal policies and that any Christian should be politically liberal on that basis. It usually upsets them when I point out that they are advocating a breach of the separation of church and state by urging implementation of policies based on this supposed correlation.
i bet it does upset them. that's rather clever of you.
but liberals do have an equal right to cite religious rationale for policy as conservatives, if they're willing to compromise church-state separation.
Something I picked up on the 'net,
Pat Robertson, host of "The 700 Club," is not a Christian. No man who publicly advocates cold-blooded murder for political reasons can claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Robertson did that on his television show, saying it would be cheaper to murder the president of Venezuela than to overthrow him with a war.
The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is a frequent critic of President George Bush and the United States. He is also democratically elected. It's funny how many people in the American elite who profess to advocate democracy tend to change their minds when the results of democracy don't suit them. Nowhere is it written that a free and democratic election will produce a leader whom we like. That should be obvious from the outcomes of our elections. Sometimes we like the winner, and sometimes we don't. The essence of a democratic society, however, is that when we don't like the winner, we put up with him until the next election.
For a long time, I've not believed that Robertson is a Christian. I have this old-fashioned idea that rich preachers are incompatible with Christianity. If you don't already know this, most of the televangelists spend an inordinate amount of their time and efforts fundraising and living in the lap of luxury. I assume darn few of them will squeeze through that eye of the needle that Christ spoke of in regard to a rich man getting into heaven.
Robertson is a politician who uses Christianity as a source of income and as a cover for his political goals. What business is it of Robertson who the president of Venezuela is, or what he thinks of our president? Lots of world leaders don't like George Bush. It doesn't seem to bother Bush; why should it bother Robertson?
Venezuela, despite its oil wealth, is a very poor country. The bane of most Latin American countries is that the wealth is held by a few families while the bulk of the population is poor. Chavez seems to want to do a better job of redistribution of the country's income. That's such a tough job that he doesn't need any grief from us.
I suspect the CIA was slyly involved in the move to oust Chavez a year or so ago, and if true, he has a right to be irked. One of the sins of imperial America is that we are always meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, usually with bad results. If you think the CIA has a bad record in finding weapons of mass destruction, let me tell you, it has an even worse record of picking leaders of foreign countries. Some of the murderers the CIA helped put into power are easily candidates for the Hall of Infamy.
But to get back to Mr. Robertson, his followers now have a clear choice: Are they going to follow the teachings of Christ or the teachings of Robertson? The two are incompatible. Some people are skillful at reading the Bible out of context, but you won't find one word in the New Testament, which is the Christian Bible, that advocates murder for any reason. No one can be a Christian and a booster of political assassination, too.
Unlike many people in the political wars, I don't condemn what the left calls the Christian Right. Most of these people are just plain Christians, and in these decadent times, simple Christian morality is certainly deemed to be an "extremist" position by the debauched secularists. To be honest, humble, faithful to one's spouse and respectful of human life certainly strikes the far left as being "out of the mainstream," which is exactly where decent people want to be when the mainstream connects the toilet to the cesspool.
Nevertheless, Christians should publicly disavow people like Robertson who bring the religion into disrepute. Christ lived in the Roman Empire and never advocated its reform or overthrow. His message was, "See to your own soul." The idea of involving Christianity in political wars, assassinations or as allies of Zionism or any other "ism" is heresy. Christianity is about the next world, not this one.
Very good article, pachbell. I tend to agree with most of it. I do; however, disagree with one statement:
"Christianity is about the next world, not this one."
Not true. Christianity has everything to do with this world and how we should live our lives.
I, for one, do not follow Pat Robertson. Whether he is a Christian or not, is up to God to know. No one knows the hearts of men but God. We all sin. If we do a particular thing that others feel is not Christian, does that make us not Christian? It's not Christian to lie or steal, or do a lot of things. But, we all sin, we all commit unChristianlike acts. Who is to say whether we are Christian or not because we do something unChristianlike? I say God and only God has this authority.
just curious, are mormons considered christians?
Can't help you there, dys. The only thing I know about the Mormon religion is how it was founded and that they have a book they call "Another Testament of Christ."
My oldest sister converted, is now a Mormon. She tells me she is still a Christian. I accept her word for it until she proves otherwise.
pachelbel wrote:(Christ's) message was, "See to your own soul."
You won't find these words you have quoted in the Bible.
You will find:
Quote:All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Although this has nothing to do with Pat R. in any way, I wanted to clarify this.
'Nevertheless, Christians should publicly disavow people like Robertson who bring the religion into disrepute. Christ lived in the Roman Empire and never advocated its reform or overthrow. His message was, "See to your own soul." The idea of involving Christianity in political wars, assassinations or as allies of Zionism or any other "ism" is heresy. Christianity is about the next world, not this one.'
These are not 'my' words, just to clarify. The person who wrote the article/essay was trying to convey the message that Christians should not involve themselves in wars but should look out for their own salvation, ultimately. Nowhere in the New Testament is war advocated or condoned. The author was paraphrasing/condensing Jesus' meaning, in a nutshell. Thanks for letting me clear that up!
