Posted on 03/11/2004 8:00:51 AM PST by joesnuffy
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Many Christians are rethinking their support of George Bush and, frankly, with good reason. I'm not talking about George Bush the Christian, but George Bush the politician.
There is a lot of discussion about George Bush and whether or not he is a "real" Christian, as if that in some way had a bearing on whether or not they will vote for him. If one is going to base his vote on the best Christian for the job, who then gets it? Kerry? Nader? Just not vote at all? Throw it away on a fringe candidate?
Nobody is actually running for the job of Theologian in Chief, and those who will vote for Bush on that basis make up a small portion of the general electorate. When was the last time you voted for a president based on his Christian doctrinal worldview?
Reagan didn't run as a Christian. Reagan's faith wasn't discussed until during his administration. Neither was Christianity an issue in the first Bush campaign.
Jimmy Carter did make it an issue of his campaign, however. During the 1976 presidential campaign in the United States, Jimmy Carter's evangelical faith arose as one of the major issues. The Watergate scandal had toppled the Nixon administration a short time before, and many Americans felt that morality in government was of supreme importance.
Many Republicans crossed over and voted for Carter on that basis alone. (Look how that turned out.)
Then there was the Bible-quoting Bill Clinton who did most of his campaigning in largely black churches throughout the South and made sure the cameras were rolling every Sunday to photograph him entering a church clutching his big, black Bible.
George W. Bush's faith was made a campaign issue by the opposition based on the answer to a debate question.
The question was, "Which philosopher do you admire most?" to which Bush replied, "Jesus Christ." As I recall the moment, Bush's answer seemed to startle him, as if he had spoken without first taking thought. Or so it seemed to me.
In any case, after eight years of Bill Clinton waving a big, black Bible every Sunday and then presiding over the most immoral administration in living memory for the rest of the week, Bush's reply struck a resonant chord with Christian voters. Efforts to use it against him by the Gore campaign fizzled. And "George Bush, the Christian" became part of his image Ð not in the least part because it got votes.
That is not to say he isn't a truly born-again Christian, because, as I've argued in the past, I don't know. One can't assume he isn't because he adheres to replacement theology unless one assumes Protestant Christianity doesn't contain any true Christians, since most mainstream Protestant denominations do, too. (Replacement theology says that Israel forfeited its covenants with God and they were given to the Church. Thus, they have no future as a special people and nation in God's future plan. I totally reject this. God has to keep His word which was unconditionally given to them.)
But voting for a president based on whether or not he shares the same doctrine you do is a waste of time. You are unlikely to find one and, if you do, his doctrine won't square with somebody else. It is an impossible dilemma with a built-in guarantee of disappointment for any who choose to take it on.
That being said, George Bush has been an increasing disappointment politically. His latest deal with Vicente Fox to grant what amounts to amnesty to illegal aliens in the midst of the war against terror is either stupid (and Bush is anything but stupid) or it is a calculated move to win the Spanish vote at the expense of U.S. national security.
Bush's efforts to appease the Muslim community by accepting the heresy that Allah is the same God as the God of the Bible also cause me to question his understanding of Scripture. But then, I know lots of true Christians who are equally uninformed. This is more the fault of Christian ministers who fail to systematically teach the Bible rather than the fault of their parishioners.
Even more disturbing to me is Bush's efforts to win the support of the Muslim community. He entertains Muslim clerics at the White House only to find out later that some of them have ties to terrorists. This causes me to not only question his theology, but his political judgment as well.
He has also shown a very troubling lack of understanding of the true nature of Islam. Islam is not "basically a religion of peace" as he so often proclaims. The Quran, the life of Muhammad and the history of Islam all show that it has been a religion of violence and conquest by the sword. Islam has no concept of democracy as we know it. And Muslims are hostile to the concept because it runs contrary to the Quran.
At the same time, Bush has been consistent in his opposition to abortion, to the inclusion of faith (including Christianity) into the public discourse, and to supporting both marriage and family values.
Bush's war on terrorism Ð though flawed with some intelligence failures Ð has been successful. His aggressive pursuit of terrorists and the countries which support them has prevented a wave of 9-11 type attacks that could have happened if he had been less aggressive. Whether or not there will be more of such horrible attacks, he has most certainly prevented many that could have happened already.
Muslim leaders understand and respect one thing Ð power and the will to use it against enemies. Though the invasion of Iraq did not accomplish the first stated objective Ð to remove WMDs Ð it did send a message to terrorist-bent Muslim leaders in the Middle East. Don't think for a moment that Libya's Moammar Gadhafi would have given up his pursuit of WMDs if it had not been for Iraq's defeat. Nor would Syria be taking a more passive role in its support of terrorists.
When Bill Clinton attacked Serbia without U.N. authorization, Serbia represented no threat of any kind to U.S. national security. But Clinton led NATO in a war that was effectively a military coup d'etat. The war toppled Slobodon Milosevic's regime and the victors stood him before a U.N. war-crimes tribunal.
But, when compared to the global outrage at the U.S.'s removal of Saddam Hussein, Clinton's war with Serbia raised barely a diplomatic eyebrow. That's because Clinton was extremely popular internationally. His feats of "derring-do" and his scandals and his streak of larceny earned him the admiration of the predominately amoral Europeans. Clinton's socialist leanings also played well to European and Canadian audiences.
George Bush, however, is reviled internationally as a "moron" and a "warmonger" and "arrogant" and a "unilateralist." But then to the liberals and intellectual elite, anyone who believes the Bible is Ð at the least Ð a moron.
Frankly, most of the international animosity toward Bush isn't his fault. The rest of the world learned how to hate George Bush from the liberal elitist-leaning American media.
So, I am not necessarily a wholehearted Bush supporter. But I am a pragmatist. If there were another pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-Christian-ethics candidate out there, I'd certainly study him closely as a possible replacement for Bush Ð especially if he were well-liked domestically and internationally. But then if he had all of those qualities, he would also be the target of a hostile media dedicated to his political defeat.
If there were another candidate out there who I believed would do a better job of conducting the war on terror, he'd get my support.
If there was another candidate who had a chance of winning, who exhibited greater core principles of morality, one who showed a better understanding of the Bible Ð then that's the guy who should be sitting in the Oval Office on Jan. 20 of next year.
But, in American politics Ð whether one likes it or not Ð the reality is there are only two candidates who have a shot at the Brass Ring. One is George Bush. The other is John Kerry. So my choice is easy.
Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth." He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily.
Be sure to visit his website where he provides up-to-the-minute analysis of today's world events in the light of ancient prophecies.
President Bush always has alot more going behind the scenes than what we see, he has brought us through alot, and I for one am going to trust him.
In time, when my great-grandkids study history, I think he will be reguarded as one of the best, if not the best, president we have ever had.
I don't agree with President Bush on all the issues, it would be almost scarey if I did. This man believes what he is doing. And it is his relegion that tells him to help all people, even those from Mexico...I think we should put a military style patrol on the border myself, but I understand where he is coming from.
And this worker thing, if finally dawned on me what he is after...he wants them to be identified without seeming to be racial about it.
President Bush always has alot more going behind the scenes than what we see, he has brought us through alot, and I for one am going to trust him.
In time, when my great-grandkids study history, I think he will be reguarded as one of the best, if not the best, president we have ever had.
Evidently Bush isn't a "real" or "true" Christian in the eyes of some people.
And for the life of me, I cannot find the country of Conservative on my world globe. I thought he was President of the United States of America.
It seems some people are determined that this country become a godless place by handing this country over to the liberals.
Because he was a authoritarian socialist like the rest of the world's leaders, willing to steal, lie and kill to maintain power and make a dollar.
You're wasting your time on that kid.
It seems to me that the President has been more Christian than the Christians who argue against him, especially since some of it may not be politically expedient.
Nothing all that difficult about it. For all of Bush's spending (which drives me bonkers some days), John Kerry thinks government should spend still more and tax more. But the difference is absolutely crystal clear when it comes to the war on terror and foreign policy. Bush wants to treat it as a war, Kerry thinks we should try to serve legal documents on Osama. And Kerry thinks that Bush's election in Florida was illegitimate but Aristede's election in Haiti was democratic - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in both cases.
In some elections, I tend to agree that there is little difference between the Dem and the Pubbie. This is not one of those elections.
That type of devotion doesn't magically evaporate upon election to public office. He is what he is.
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.