Posted on 12/29/2004 4:39:43 PM PST by PrinceMarko
Anyone who asks the question, "Is Bush too religious?" is a bigot.
I hear you, but I think your stretching a bit. If one means "too religious" as in "too pious", then it is a fair question.
But in this case I think the author is addressing those who think that actually believing in Jesus (rather then paying empty lip service in Church) disqualifies one to be President, which I would have to agree is a rather disturbing premise.
Exactly. The accusation that President Bush is "too religious" is a common one. This Economist article reads like it is answering the question, not asking it.
The real issue, which energizes liberals, lies in their belief that a God-fearing man does not respond to his constituents, but rather to an internal message. One which is beyond the reach of others. It's a pretty good argument.
That's rich. It was God-fearing men who wrote the Bill of Rights.
By contrast the modern day Liberals (or Leftists) are far more pious about overriding the will of the people then any Evangelical. The left just loves judicial activism based on a "Living" Constitution overriding the simple will of the people or the plain words a constructionist sees in the Constitution. Consider the abortion and gay marriage controversies.
Its God-fearing men who don't try to cheat on their constituents because it is God-fearing men who don't think of themselves as god-like!
Excellent!
Hold that thought.
Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian, but he didn't provoke such anger about mixing religion and politics and governing as Bush. Reason -- Carter is Democrat, and it's ok to be a Christian Democrat, but it's not ok to be a Christian Republican. That's why Bush gets so much flack on this issue.
President Bush is president of all the people.
By being "religious" he is being divisive
So he should not be "too religious"...
And for those of us who are "religious"
If he is not "religious" then is he our president too?
Since Carter, the religious conservatives have been more activist, more aware, more willing to vote their convictions, and their votes have been going overwhelmingly to Republican candidates. Also, since Carter, the so-called "culture war" has heated up so that today it's something of a white-hot battle. This wasn't so much the case during Carter's term. As you suggest, if the vast majority of evangelical Christian votes were going to the Democrats, they wouldn't complain.
This is kind of a twist on the old discussion of whether an elected official should represent the views of his or her constituents, or should represent his or her own convictions. In Bush's case, his convictions are "informed" by his Christian faith. Reagan is deemed a great leader because he was guided by a set of internal convictions -- agree or disagree with him, at least you always knew where Reagan stood on an issue. History will (and to a large extent already has) judged Clinton as a poor president because he wasn't guided by an internal moral compass, but by his own appetites.
I think the left's animosity toward Bush is sharper than it was against Reagan because Bush is more vocal about his faith than Reagan was, and the left has become increasingly more hateful of people with religious convictions, and of God in general. And, of course, Bush's religious convictions are more of a political plus than a minus, which really infuriates the left.
"Congress shall fund establishments of lawyers with the sacred mandate to judicially regulate establishments of religion and any public practice thereof."
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.