Posted on 10/23/2003 2:21:49 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Is President Bush Really "One Of Us?"
By Chuck Baldwin
Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon
October 24, 2003 As Jimmy Carter had done before him, G.W. Bush won the White House, in part, due to his Christian profession. Christians nationwide regard President Bush as "one of us." They believe that he shares their Christian principles and values.
Why, then, does President Bush use the power of his office to publicly condemn those Christians who courageously champion Christian principles? Time and again, President Bush has publicly repudiated the statements or actions of principled Christians as they attempted to stand for their convictions.
Back in 2002, Bush publicly chastised a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Jerry Vines, for his truthful remarks regarding Islam. Vines said, "Islam is not just as good as Christianity." He also rightly said, "Allah is not Jehovah." These remarks brought a swift and stern rebuke from the White House.
Likewise, when Jerry Falwell suggested that the terrorist attacks in 2001 may have been God's judgment upon America (they very well could have been), the White House immediately pronounced its vehement disagreement and displeasure. Dr. Falwell quickly apologized.
However, the most egregious example of Bush's animosity toward outspoken Christians is his handling of the Judge Roy Moore case in Alabama. Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Moore, he either sent or allowed his chief political consultant Karl Rove to spearhead the attack against him.
While it was the ACLU that initially filed the legal case against Judge Moore, it was the White House that was willing to feed Judge Moore to the wolves by the surreptitious, behind-the-scenes maneuverings of Rove.
It was Karl Rove who managed the campaign of Judge Moore's principal opponent in the race for Supreme Court Chief Justice. Furthermore, it appears that Rove is privately managing Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor's prosecution of Judge Moore with the goal of putting Pryor on the federal bench. And now another outspoken Christian patriot is in the Bush crosshairs. His name is Lt. Gen. William Boykin.
In speeches before Christian gatherings, General Boykin committed a cardinal breach of political correctness by affirming that America is "a Christian nation." He also rightly observed that many Muslim terrorists hate America because we are a Christian nation. Predictably, these remarks have brought out the ire and chastisement of President Bush.
After learning of the general's remarks, Bush quickly appeared before a Muslim audience in Indonesia and soundly rebuked his statements. He said, "He (General Boykin) didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it (Boykin's remarks) just doesn't reflect what the (U.S.) government thinks."
By Bush's own words, he doesn't believe America is a Christian nation. Beyond that, he chose to stand alongside Muslims overseas when rebuking a Christian Army general who is proudly and faithfully serving his country and his Commander-in-Chief. It is painfully obvious that President Bush is willing to sacrifice any and all Christian patriots on the altar of political correctness.
It is one thing for President Bush to constantly distance himself from Christian convictions and doctrines. He wouldn't be the first President to do so. It is quite another thing, however, for Christians throughout America to continue to give him a pass for his many foibles under the charade that he is "one of us."
© Chuck Baldwin
That makes me curious. Can a law even be passed banning a procedure that doesn't exist yet because it might be developed at some later point?
Surely you know the answer to that. How about human cloning? The answer is most assuredly yes. Laws are not always just reactive, thank heavens.
Who knows but laws are there and ppl try to find ways to circumvent them.....
Interesting take at the following:
Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue says, "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is a Public Relations Goldmine, but a Political Scam"
Response: While he may have personal convictions. He is a politician. As a politician no personal conviction will ever stand in the way of seeking and obtaining votes. The Crusades were in the 12th century, while I would hope they would come back, reality dictates they are probably over. Religion will not move millions, as it would a great expansive people, to act as one against outsiders.
Terry appears to be from the all-or-nothing camp. The facts are that we cannot outlaw all abortion yet, so we've taken one step in the right direction. The attention that PBA has gotten lately has probably made some "pro-choicers" think, and some to even change their minds. Americans don't want to kill babies. They justify abortion by beleiving that a fetus is just a clump of cells. The graphic and ugly details of PBA are going to shock some people into waking up on the abortion issue. At some later time we can take another step in the right direction. I'd rather make some progress than none at all, which is what Terry seems to advocate.
Actually, rdb3 isn't formatting correctly. rdb, you can't have just one italics tag for multiple paragraphs. The italics won't carry past the 1st paragraph in some browsers (Opera for instance). This is what your reply #30 looks like to me:
I am very conservative and support any amnesty bills. America is a nation of immigrants who deserve a chance just as our forefathers did.Thus, it looks like the words in the second quoted paragraph are actually your words. You need to put an italics tag at the beginning of each paragraph and an end-italics tag at the end of each paragraph if you want to avoid confusion.If Bush passes an amnesty bill future generations will be blessed with conservative leadership. It's a smart thing to do, plain and simple.
Quick! Don your best asbestos suit!
You're gonna need it...
Oh, so the HTML is parsed differently in Opera. Didn't know that.
I see your point.
However, if you read that entire post, the first two sentences don't logically flow towards the last two. It would make it appear as if I'm talking to myself, right?
Anyway, I see your point. Thanx for the tip.
Even as critical of President Bush as I can and do get, he is still light years above anyone that is campaigning to be the next President of the United States. So what the hell is Baldwin's purpose of judging?
It won't be safe to have a Democrat in the Oval Office for the forseable future.
People like Chuck Baldwin really put a spur under my saddle.
The United States is – and I know this is not something you will disagree with – a secular nation; I think that is a good thing. I am always surprised when Christians, who claim to be conservatives, want the government to endorse (i.e. promote) a certain religion when they do not trust the same government to educate their children or collect their garbage. Allah is the God of Abraham. Moslems do not, of course, believe in the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of the Holy Spirit, but they believe in the same God (as in God the Father) that Christians do. I am not arguing that this is grounds for salvation, but it is a fact.
Likewise, when Jerry Falwell suggested that the terrorist attacks in 2001 may have been God's judgment upon America (they very well could have been), the White House immediately pronounced its vehement disagreement and displeasure. Dr. Falwell quickly apologized.
AS well he should. Because it is – at best – bad theology many of the people who died on 9/11/01 were Christians, please show me an example, this side of the cross (i.e. New Testament) where God kills innocents because of the sins of others; there may be examples but I cant think of any. In addition if God is punishing the U.S.A. for its sins – and if, as I believe, God is a just God – why are other countries not being punished?
However, the most egregious example of Bush's animosity toward outspoken Christians is his handling of the Judge Roy Moore case in Alabama. Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Moore, he either sent or allowed his chief political consultant Karl Rove to spearhead the attack against him.
While I do not see how displaying the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution a court did. The president should not openly defy, or support one who defies, a court order. If this were not the Ten Commandments, but a Buddhist prayer would you be as upset with the decision?
In speeches before Christian gatherings, General Boykin committed a cardinal breach of political correctness by affirming that America is "a Christian nation." He also rightly observed that many Muslim terrorists hate America because we are a Christian nation. Predictably, these remarks have brought out the ire and chastisement of President Bush.
Bush was responding to the original article The author, William M Arkin has promised to make the transcripts of these speeches available, so far he has failed to do so. I want to see what was really said before I make any judgments, Bush could have done the same but he has to deal with the news cycle.
We are not a Christian nation we are a secular nation. That does not mean that our president cannot proclaim the Good News that God became man and died for our sins so that we might live; but it dose mean that he has to present that as his belief and not the law of the land. You cannot legislate acceptance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.