Posted on 01/27/2005 9:39:48 AM PST by quidnunc
Michael Gerson has served George W. Bush magnificently as chief speechwriter, during both the 2000 campaign and the first term in office. His departure would have prompted us to declare his enormous talents "indispensable" to this president but for the two pieces of good news that accompanied its announcement. The first is that Gerson will remain at the White House in a new senior position. The second is that he will be replaced as chief speechwriter by another superb talent: our former colleague William McGurn, who was NR's Washington editor for three years in the early 1990s. We lost McGurn to the call of the Orient: He worked in Hong Kong for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Wall Street Journal, but found time to contribute regularly to NR. He came back to the U.S. to become the chief editorial writer for the Journal. President Bush's public voice remains in the best possible hands.
The media did a good job of sensitizing the public to references to God by giving so much coverage to Newdow's lawsuit against the traditional prayer. Like I said, God was neither more or less present in Bush's second inauguaration, the listeners were just more predisposed to complain.
yaawwwwnnnn
Everyone who read the speech prior to it's being delivered by Dubya had nothing but praise for the speech.
Even after hearing it, the reading was even more profound.
To keep his faith "private" would make him a hypocrit. Genuine, life-changing faith cannot be kept "private." It goes totally against the grain of human nature. By acknowledging his faith, President Bush ackowledges that his accountability to Someone/something greater than human existence. Just IMHO.
Chesterton said the following at least 75 years ago (and I guess nothing has changed since then):
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."
I wondered why she bothered with the opinion journal piece when she just re-iterated her view without much explanation.
I saw her on Fox (I think it was Fox) right after the speech and she had only good things to say.
I think she likes her place in the sun a little too much and she couldn't get much notice with another piece praising the speech.
Yeah, I'm a huge Bush supporter and donator, but the media mussed up with my head (even though I endlessly mocked that idiot's lawsuit) and made me want to complain. Yep, thank god I have folks who can tell me it's not my fault, it's the media's fault for messin' with my head and making me want to find something to complain about. That must be it, can't be an honest opinion of mine.
I guess the Bible calls for people to be hypocritical, then... Would you feel this way if Bush were of some other denomination, and all of his talk abotu God were about Ba'al or Allah?
Boo Hoo.
No, those aren't religions.
Next.
You must not know Jesus's order to His followers not to hide their light under a bushel, but to let it shine brightly in this sin-sick world. He also said if Christians do not confess Him before men, He will not confess us before His Father in heaven...meaning an eternity in hell. No, Christians do not have the option of a secret faith because that would mean no faith at all.
We "get it" from Bush. He's a rabid evangelical fundamentalist. How about something *new* for a change, toned down just a few notches. The speech, reading over it, was filled with both direct and indirect spiritual references (God, soul, Maker of Heaven) and all those have the background of Bush's history of hair-raising "I have seen the light" wild-eyed televangelist projection of his professed faith.
That sort of public furvor and his statements historically frighten a lot of folks who fear Bush is on the edge of being a religious nutjob on par with Osama, for example.
It isn't the FAITH as much as the signs of having checked rational thought at the door much how cult leaders and members, so-called "faith healers" and so forth are seen.
I'll hazard a guess that if Bush did not share your faith, if he was Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon or Muslim and still wrapping himself in "righteous" imagery, you'd be raising holy hell. Doubly so if he were a Democrat.
The comparison you drew was false and an attempt to distract. I will say this, however: homosexuals are attempting to be no more in your face than their heterosexual counterparts. You don't want any homosexual to feel safe in public or even in private. If I asked you whether you would support a "round up" and re-education of homosexuals, with exile for those who resisted...
I guess if you consider the Bible a PC, liberal book.
I don't believe the Bible says one should keep their belief in God private - in fact, as Christians, it is our duty to try to carry His Word.
What was frowned on is when people like the Pharisees would walk around with dour looks on their faces to let everyone know how pious they were by fasting, or how people would pray aloud in public to show off that they were praying. Jesus said that God was much more appreciative of those who prayed in private, for the right reasons, than of those who prayed in public for the recognition of their "holiness".
The same "pious" Pharisees are the ones who engineered Jesus' demise. Most of the Apostles died because they would not stop talking about The Word and would not renounce Jesus as the Saviour.
In my mind, those who try to make feel-good, semi-rational reasons for shutting believers up are either a-religious or anti-religious. I prefer to let people know the Good News of God's Grace so that others may become curious enough to find Him as I did. The Prez only mentioned the word "God" three times; that's not much of a public display or an attempt to "force religion down folks throats".
It looks like you have enough folks dissing you for your views. Please take my comments as an explanation of why some folks get hot and bothered and not a criticism of your point of view.
God Bless
"catholicism is deemed by manny/most Christians as demonic in its origins & idolatorous practices"
Not to start a battle here, but this is an outrageous statement. I know very few Christians outside the fringe who believe the above statement. And by the way, I am not Catholic.
You have no evidence that Noonan desired to join the Bush White House. She's been there, done that as a speech writer. For Reagan, someone who was actually eloquent and could give life to her words. She's got her books, her commentating, her columns in the private sector and making much more money.
You've got a major crush on her, haven't you?
I am just amazed at the negative reaction to the President's references to God. Eisenhower, at his own inauguration, actually asked the audience to bow their heads and then he prayed. If a president did that today, they would have to pass out smelling salts to the wussies in the audience. People really need to get a grip.
The point isn't about prosletyzing, which is fine, the point is I was getting bored with the constant God talk/singing at the Inauguration. That's the beginning and the end of it, no matter how some of the touchy people on this thread want to whine that it's something else.
My reference to keeping one's religion to oneself is to the bible passage about going behind closed doors to pray to god, not to parading your religion on your sleeve to get people (in a political context) to come your way on policy matters because you're spouting religious rhetoric.
I'd repeat that I have no problem with religious people, with God on public buildings and currency, or people believing in god but I have to get back to all the people on this thread who are telling me what I really believe. Your intelligent response was excellent reading, though.
Relentless mention of God?
I just did a word search on this year's inaugural address, and the word God was mentioned all of 3 times, the same number of times as in the address for 2001.
Have you ever read any of the earlier inaugural addresses?
I just looked over quite a few of them, though not all, and many of them used not only the word God more than once, but also other descriptive terms for God, such as Infinite Power, or benign Parent of the Human Race, or Almighty Being.
While reading some of these earlier inaugural addresses, I couldn't help being struck with how beautifully crafted this one for 2005 actually is, in comparison with many of the previous ones.
This year's is on a par with the one for 2001, which I consider one of the best ones ever.
Here's a link to previous addresses:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/inaug.htm
I should add that in RR's first address, the word God was mentioned 5 times, and in his second one, there were 8 mentions.
It doesn't seem to my recollection that anyone complained about it back then either.
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.