Posted on 01/23/2005 8:04:22 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
Intermediate Draft, seeking FReeper input.
South Boston Phoenix Special Report
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
GW Bush dared to invoke the 'G' word, 'God', three times in his 2005 Inaugural Speech.
The most talked-about reaction came from Peggy Noonan. The irony is how low the Bush Administration has sunk in order to not look 'overly'-Christian:
1. In his speech, the President, OUR President, spoke well of the Koran, the religion with scriptures that demand the killing of any infidels too weak to retaliate and too 'proud' to submit to the mullahs of Islam. President Bush previously referred to the Muslims as a 'religion of peace'.
2. In an effort to not offend anti-christians, references to God were frequently in coded terms in his speech. Not that I mind, but he wasn't exactly trying to 'cast out any she-demons wearing pants'.
3. Our First Lady, Laura Bush, wanted to see Judge Roy Moore and hear one of his legendary speeches. But someone calculated that, considering the Alabama controversy of whether those 'nasty 10 Commandments' should be placed in government property for all to see, it might offend anti-christians if she brought attention to the judge who refused to elevate our baby killing law above the very foundation of our formerly civilized law. So, she was denied that treat, the chance to see and hear someone talk about God and Country. If only she had gone to a Whoopi Goldberg speech, to hear vulgarities about our President, her husband, perhaps the anti-christians would have praised our First Lady for such a choice.
4. President Bush even tried to make nice with the National Endowment of the 'Arts', a foundation that uses tax payer money to fund such abominations as 'Piss Christ'. [Explained later.] Last year, he allowed passage of a bill that INCREASES the tax payer funding of this [choking] 'art' endowment. How low does he have to go to get anti-christians off his back?
5. President Bush supported Senator Specter's reelection campaign during a tough primary fight, even though he knew full well that would make his judicial appointments more difficult. I would only guess this is to make the GOP tent 'wider', more 'inclusive', etc. In short, it was appeasement to anti-christians. Did that make any difference? Not a bit.
I do not attempt here to be critical of our president's efforts to appease the anti-christians. This is not the time or place. In fact, in my private life, I'm nowhere close to GW Bush when it comes to having a model, traditional Christian image. But clearly, GW Bush is not the 'Jesus Freak' that anti-christians are trying to make him out to be. That takes us back to Peggy Noonan and her controversial op-ed.
I first read it in the Free Republic Forum, the page linked here if you would like to read it for yourself , along with hundreds of comments by those who read it [almost 800 posts there at this point].
PEGGY NOONAN wrote an op-ed , "Way Too Much God" [Wall Street Journal], slamming Bush's inaugural speech.
Reading this, my first reaction was, "Maybe Satan should run for president."
I heard the Speech. Did he sound like a Baptist Preacher? No. I'm sick of Christian bashing. I listen to AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and worse things than that. I haven't set foot inside a church for over five years, other than the temple of my own soul. I'm a Rock-and-Roll Christian, not exactly some Bible thumping 'fanatic' [although I can't think of anything better to be fanatical about]. Bush even spoke well of the Koran. Too close to God? In the words of James Traficant, BEAM ME UP!
Here's the 'nut' of her op-ed:
...The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul." ....
Noonan also complained that the music sounded like it belonged in a church. "...But whoever picked the music for the inaugural ceremony itself--modern megachurch hymns..."
Is she possessed or something? A little church music is bad? Wrong? Does it make her head spin around 360 degrees? Maybe she would have preferred ZZ Top's "She's Got Legs", or AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds". Those two tunes might be Hillary Clinton's choice, if she has an inaugural. I personally would choose Iron Man [a heavy metal tune about the Battle of Armageddon, sung by Ozzy.] But that's just me. That would offend almost everyone.
She also wrote:
"But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance."
Nuance is a code word for deception, trickery. My first impression was correct. She would be happier if this were Satan's inaugural. No one is more nuanced than the Devil, himself. And a Clinton or Rodham could be his running mate, if nuance is so important.
She advised the Bush Team to take a deep breath. I advise her to fire whatever therapist she's seeing [if any] and visit the nearest church. With God there's always hope-- even for her.
You can see the transcript of his speech here, to judge for yourself:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html
This Peggy Noonan op-ed is only one of many attacks by the anti-christians. Homosexuals have been particularly busy, crashing Christmas parades, Saint Patrick's Day parades, and any other Christian event they think they can help 'celebrate' in [more like essentially urinate on with men French kissing men]. Homosexuals sued to become school teachers, scout masters, and adopting 'parents', bringing their boyfriends for show-and-tell, camping out with vulnerable young boys, and there have been sodomous rapes and debaucheries reported already as a result.
The ACLU has been helping the sodomites, along with other anti-christians. Very recently, the ACLU sued to have a tiny cross symbol removed from the Los Angeles city seal. The city, cowed by the lawsuit threat, removed the cross with hardly a whimper. There was also a lawsuit to block the inaugural prayer! Thank God that one failed!
To look at the even larger picture, anti-christians are hypocrites when it comes to foreign wars. In Kosovo, the anti-christians generally supported that war. Is it a coincidence that the pacifists were practically silent and unheard when US bombers deliberately blew up Christian civilians? Is it a coincidence when the 'ethnic Albanians', who happen to be Islamic, are now killing and raping Christians all over Kosovo and burning their churches, schools, and hospitals, as a result of anti-christian support for Clinton's war? Is it a mere coincidence that the 'genocide' claims of Kosovo were a false accusation against Christians, that Clinton allowed us to be duped by some slanderous scheme? Now compare Kosovo with Iraq. Need I say more on that?
There are also examples of how Christians have been slaughtered and deliberately starved in Africa by the hundreds of thousands, while anti-christians ignored horrors that edge close to the Jewish Holocaust.
Last but not least, there is a huge political fight raging between Catholic hospitals and anti-christians. When I went to the google.com search engine, I found that there are 79,600 web pages that include all of the following words: "catholic hospital abortion required". Can you figure out what the debate is about? The anti-christians want to require religiously-run hospitals to offer abortion-on-demand services. Future mothers who wish to avoid stretch marks, for example, will be able to tell a Catholic hospital that she wants them to kill her baby to keep her tummy flesh unmarked when she wears a bikini, if the anti-christians get their way.
Imagine what a pro-life, Christian hospital might end up going through when faced with a stark choice-- either kill that baby or pay severe consequences. How severe would the consequences be? It all depends on how powerful we let the anti-christians become.
Christians are just beginning to fight back, particularly at the Grinch. In case you didn't know, we've found the Grinch. It's the Left. His color is blue. He hates crosses and the name 'God', as well as Christmas. Governor 'Conan the Barbarian' gave the Grinch a bloody nose last Christmas.
"...Known for breaking the mold, the Republican governor is calling the 56-foot white fir outside the Capitol a “Christmas tree.” Former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis had renamed the display a “Holiday tree” in 1999. Schwarzenegger said the Capitol would have a “Christmas tree” as long as he’s in office..."
Free Republic Discussion thread about Arnold and "Exhibit A", the California Christmas Tree.
Perhaps you heard about the Christian boycott of Grinch-Member, Target [store chain], when Target kicked out the Christmas bell ringers of the Salvation Army. Maybe you heard about the school children who defiantly stood up to the Grinch, singing Christmas carols in the halls of a public school. Sure, we Christians have plenty of fight in us. The only problem was, many of us have been in some dream world all this time, pretending that this was the USA, and that the Grinch was just a cartoon character. But people have been waking up recently. And we want America back. We are standing up to the Grinch with mocking laughter. That is for now. We must push forward. Or we will lose momentum.
At the risk of redundancy....
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Back to the question I asked earlier: how can GW Bush get these anti-christians off his back? There's only one way:
Defeat them.
He cannot defeat them without activism from the right. I don't mean defending Bush here or defending Bush there. All we would achieve would be to slow down the anti-christian advance. While other conservatives will maneuver 'with nuance', some of us need to push back, and push back hard! It will be a thankless task. We will be criticized not only by left, but also by posturing from the same conservatives who left Judge Roy Moore to the wolves. Just as democrats distance themselves from the extreme left, republicans will distance themselves from the extreme truth. But the extreme truth must be unleashed. They have been spitting on truth for a long, long time. It's a knee-jerk reaction in politics these days.
Here's a good place to start. Ask a few people if tax money should pay for 'Piss Christ', a 'work of a..r...t...' that consists of the 'brilliant' urination in a jar and placing a crucifix upside-down in the jar of urine. Ask people, should our tax money pay for that? I'm pretty sure the answer will be NO!, with the exception of Hillary Clinton's New York and a few other leftist states. Down here in Virginia, it's an overwhelming 'NO WAY!', 99 times out of a hundred. Would that not be a good place to start? Just ask people what they think about OUR tax money paying for 'Piss Christ'.
Andres Serrano was the 'a...r..t...ist' who created 'Piss Christ', a photographer who put a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine. Then he took a picture of it and we, the tax payers helped pay him money for this trash.
To give you an idea of how his mind works, he took close-ups of his wife's menstrual pads, among other shock-photos. One of his pride-and-joys is “Blood and Semen II”.
Probably the best source about NEA [gag] 'art' funding is Human Events. They have written about it several times, spanning over a decade.
I hope this helps you feel well-grounded in the story behind "Piss Christ" and the NEA. People might try to tell you that the NEA doesn't fund things like that any more. Ask them about Corpus Christi, which was funded by the NEA after alleged reforms were made. Not only is vileness funded by the NEA, but also complete nonsense. [The South Boston Phoenix will bring you details about other NEA funding in the future.] Yes, libraries get some money from the NEA, but that is a cover to justify their dirty work, such as Maplethorpe being tax-funded to make homosexual pornography.
Are conservatives saying that porno and menstrual pad photos should be banned? Generally speaking, no. There are a few that want actual bans, but the vast majority of conservatives want freedom combined with free market forces. If Maplethorpe and 'Piss Christ' can't be noticed by the market, why should we, the US taxpayers, be the ones to fund the launching of their careers? Why should that garbage even be placed in government museum exhibits? Let them put up their own 'art' galleries, promote themselves with their own money, and suffer the same market pressures every other business risks facing.
As we push back, the leftists will have to defend themselves, to justify their defense of the NEA program. They will bleed all over the place defending the 'undefendable', while some of the bolder, more conservative congress members will take heart and rally with us. Attention will be drawn away from leftist agendas. We might even save a billion dollars over a span of ten years in wasted tax funding, as icing on the cake. Attention will be drawn away from petty attacks, such as this Peggy Noonan nonsense. And maybe, just maybe, as a minor example, our First Lady, Laura Bush, will feel free to enjoy hearing one of Judge Roy Moore's excellent speeches, and who knows? Maybe she [and possibly her husband as well] will understand better why conservatives were right all along about the 10 Commandments controversy in Alabama.
That one question regarding NEA 'a...r...t....' is only one of many steps. In the end, I want heads to roll. The ACLU needs to be chopped off from all US tax money. The worst-of-the-worst leftist judges need to be impeached, and in a future report, I will lay out the case for impeachment hearings of almost half a dozen US senators. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Let us make that step, and may it be steady and sure. Whatever path you choose, God bless you, especially in your efforts to serve God and Country.
In the words of Todd Beamer in Flight 93:
'Are you guys ready? Let's roll'
===============================
47 YEARS IN PRISON FOR PREACHING? IN AMERICA?
Quick Load Page for latest in the news [including latest in the Free Republic Forum]
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3003570
snip
"I think he took it to a higher level ... , without a doubt," Rozell said. "It is not the first time he has invoked religion in his speech, of course, but he did so in a much more direct way."
Bush, a Methodist who is a born-again Christian, has made ample use throughout his political career of religious rhetoric. But more often, the president has spoken of religion in terms of values and personal responsibility.
Presidents as far back as Washington frequently invoked faith and religion in their public statements. Some scholars have said President Clinton made more frequent mention of Jesus Christ than has Bush, who is more closely associated with devout Christianity than his predecessor.
Even so, Bush's lyrical and at times defiant knitting together of religion and American democratic principles was widely noted, to mixed reviews.
Peggy Noonan, a conservative author and former speechwriter to former Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan, on Friday in the Wall Street Journal criticized the president's speech as "God-drenched."
Terry Lowry, a Christian broadcaster in Houston who is also active in politics, said some might be offended by Bush's speech, but also that some might be too easily offended.
"I think he was trying to be more inclusive and tolerant and he was careful to not be offensive," Lowry said, adding, "America has been built by more than just Christians."
In truth, Bush mentioned God infrequently in the 21-minute address. Instead, the text was larded with phrases and allusions that would resonate with believers of several faiths. In speaking of "a day of fire," Bush was describing the 2001 terrorist attacks in language commonly associated in Christianity with Judgment Day, according to Deborah Caldwell, senior editor at Beliefnet, an online magazine about religion and values.
"It had so much layered meaning," Caldwell said, noting there is also a Christian rock band called Day of Fire.
The phrase "ennobled by service and mercy and a heart for the weak" was aimed at Catholics, whose liturgy and prayers often use such language, Caldwell noted. Catholics also would recognize Bush's use of the phrase "human dignity," which is a term Pope John Paul II frequently uses in speaking against abortion and euthanasia.
A memorable line from Bush noted that "no one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave," a reference to the Apostle Paul, who said in the Bible that there is "no slave or free" and all are one under Christ.
Declaring that "evil is real," Bush gave a nod to Evangelicals and others who disdain moral relativism, Caldwell said.
When he alluded to "the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Quran, and the varied faiths of our people," Caldwell said, Bush was moving "seamlessly to liberal God-talk that will soothe modern Americans and will thrill the nation's Muslims."
"I thought the speech was more openly tolerant and pluralistic than some of his previous speeches have been," Caldwell said. "All the speeches leading up to the Iraq war and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were more overtly Christian."
But not all critics were mollified by Bush's varied invocations. The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the whole tenor of Bush's inauguration left the impression the United States has a formal tie to religion.
"Behaving as if our country is an officially Christian republic instead of the secular state it is only plays into the hands of extremists who use religion as an excuse to hate our country and its freedoms," Lynn said.
Bush starts each day with a prayer and a reading from the Bible. In his campaign, Bush frequently justified military action by saying that "freedom is almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."
He was elected to a second term in November with more votes than any other candidate in history, although his victory margin — 3 percent — was relatively slim. Even so, many political observers afterward theorized that moral values helped Bush to victory.
A Time magazine poll earlier this month found that 56 percent of Americans said they approve of Bush's emphasis on moral values and religion. The same poll found 53 percent approve of the job Bush is doing.
Tim Lambert of Lubbock, president of the Texas Home School Coalition and a prominent social conservative, said those who feel alarm over the religious elements of Bush's leadership are out of touch with mainstream America.
"I think people inside the Beltway don't understand us out here in flyover country," Lambert said. "This isn't something new or dramatically different. This is the way we live."
julie.mason@chron.com
Peggy Noonan is hardly anti-Christian. Good grief.
Good point. But she was feeding the anti-christians. Appeasing them? What exactly?
Ok so she is just a backstabber then, who can't stand church music? What is she?
"Just as democrats distance themselves from the extreme left, republicans will distance themselves from the extreme truth. But the extreme truth MUST be unleashed"
When the going gets tough (and it will even more so), the TOUGH get going, they RISE to the occasion. We will have to NOT be surprised when we find that some we thought where up for the task are not. It always is that way, when push comes to shove, you find what people are made of.
So she's maybe a so-so maybe Christian tolerant, but she doesn't want God mentioned three times, and she hates church music. ?
"...democrats distance themselves from the extreme left, republicans will distance themselves from the extreme truth..."
Urg. You got me looking closely at that. I should write, "many republicans". Didn't mean to alianate republicans in general.
I have heard a few versions of why she did not go to the luncheon but this is a new one. Where did the author get this information?
I am puzzled..Peggy just blew it and I don't have a clue why.
She is a believer and has written about her faith..All one has to do is read a few inaugural addresses to see Bush did NOT use "way too much God"...Something upset her sometime between her first reaction and her column..A puzzle.
Nobody is perfect..even Peggy.
Ping.
At the beginning of your post you indicate you are looking for input from Freepers on a draft article. but from the tone of your responses to posters what you were really looking for was affirmation.
I always desire affirmation, of course. I will debate my points vigorously, if I see a need.
How do you know it was in an attempt to not offend anti-Christians?
"...democrats distance themselves from the extreme left, republicans will distance themselves from the extreme truth..."
I hope and pray that it will not be MANY distancing themselves from the truth....
I hope it will be a few who may get cold feet as to the task ahead and that they will find courage and confidence and return to the task at hand boldly and ready for battle, stronger than before.
What I mean to say is, there is always a desire affirmation in my heart, although in my mind, I've decided to risk what other writers generally avoid. It's painful, but I'm trying it out anyway, because I know I'm far from perfect.
At this point, unless it becomes a trend, I am thinking that Noonan was just in a bad mood and this is what came out. Her track record is pretty good, albeit she does have her tendency to dreamy-eyed moonbeam prose. I'm irritated at what to me looks like a very petulant article, but overall it seems like we should cut her some slack on this one and watch that it does not represent the start of a conversion to the dark side. We all step in it once in awhile.
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.