WHERE DOES GEORGE "DUBYA" STAND
ON RELIGION?
Bush's Record on the Ten Commandments
|
Brooke Allen & Patrick
Doyle (excerpt from The Nation at http://www.thenation.com
) |
The Bush presidency is the most overtly religious in
living memory, probably in all of American history. The President has stated his belief
that he has been called
by God and acts as if Americans are God's new chosen people, successors to the ancient
Israelites.
Some evangelical Christians claim to base their moral
code on Mosaic law, and last year the Supreme Court even allowed a six-foot granite
monument engraved with the Ten
Commandments to be displayed on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, advancing the
historically debatable proposition that our national legal system is based on biblical
sources. But just how good has the Bush Administration's record been when it comes to
following the Ten Commandments?
Thou shalt have no other gods
before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...
These two commandments are of course in direct opposition
to our First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a national religion and
insures full religious freedom for American citizens. But even supposing that we accept
Moses's proscriptions, Bush and his colleagues have blatantly broken these laws. Under
their aegis, Yahweh's interests have consistently taken a back seat to those of Mammon.
Thou shalt not take the name
of the Lord thy God in vain.
This translates roughly into a proscription against
giving false testimony in God's name. When George W. Bush took the oath of office, he
elected to add the optional phrase "So help me God" to the formulaic oath each
President must take to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." So, too, did subsequently disgraced Congress members like Tom DeLay and
Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
In fact, all these men held the Constitution and its
principles in contempt and did everything they could to undermine it. Their success is
demonstrated by the fact that the Center for Constitutional Rights has called for Bush's impeachment
and has prepared and published a detailed list of articles supporting such an action.
Remember the Sabbath day, to
keep it holy.
There is no guaranteed Sabbath observance for on-duty
American military personnel in Iraq, where military expedience necessarily comes before
religious observance. Neither is there any Sabbath, or for that matter any rest
whatsoever, for the millions of Iraqi civilians who live in what has effectively become a
full-scale war zone. These people can no longer go to work or to school or to their houses
of worship without fearing for their lives and those of their loved ones.
Honor thy father and thy
mother.
If we consider Bush's widely unpopular senior healthcare
plan and his sustained attempt to eviscerate Medicare, need any more be said on this
subject? The president of the AFL-CIO, no less, has called the new Medicare drug plan
"costly, confusing and corrupt," "a special-interest law that puts drug
companies and HMOs first" and leaves seniors "without so much as a life
preserver." As for Bush's push to deprive Medicare of the legal right to negotiate on
prices with the drug companies, this is surely one of the more obvious cases where the
interests of Mammon have taken precedence over common decency.
Thou shalt not kill.
This is the King James version; the New International
Version of the Bible, which has replaced the King James translation almost everywhere,
reads "You shall not murder"--a difference so significant that one suspects the
Pentagon hawks of having supervised the translation. But the injunction against killing is
a time-honored one. The Administration's record in Iraq alone? More than 2,500 US
servicemen and -women, and many, many more Iraqis: The estimate of civilian deaths is now
at well over 50,000.
Thou shalt not commit
adultery.
Two military contractors, Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes, are at the center of a
scandal that involved paying out millions of dollars in bribes to a group of mainly
Republican Congressmen. Wade also alleges that Wilkes played a role procuring hookers for
these public servants' delectation at rowdy Washington parties. This is only one of the
scandalous fruits of a political culture that has allowed such contractors to gorge on our
taxpayer dollars like hogs at a trough.
Thou shalt not steal.
Biblical scholars point out that Moses would have
included kidnapping in his use of the word "steal." This leads us to one of the
Administration's most terrifying and lawless innovations: the practice they have
oh-so-euphemistically dubbed "rendition." Even though Congress approved the
President's Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 it has allowed the Administration to abduct whomsoever they
please and to "render" them out of the country to so-called "black
sites," secret detention facilities outside of the United States where they are
detained indefinitely, denied trial and tortured. This, of course, is also in flagrant
violation of the Constitution.
Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor.
It might be a stretch of the imagination to think of
Saddam Hussein as a neighbor to Bush and Cheney, but they undoubtedly bore false witness
against him. The Administration's phony claims that the Iraqi leader was allied with Al
Qaeda and that he possessed weapons of mass destruction were deliberately cooked up, via
the bogus Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, to justify an aggressive and illegal war.
Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
What about thy neighbor's oilfield? What about thy
neighbor's country?
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, "If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments." Bush's "Christian" values, like
his "compassionate" conservatism, have proved to be nothing but a rhetorical
smokescreen for grotesquely un-Christian and uncompassionate policies.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE DESCRIBES A BOOK WHICH REVEALS
THE TRUTH ABOUT GOVERNOR BUSH, MARVIN OLASKY, AND “COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM”
by David A. Harris, National Jewish Democratic Council
WASHINGTON, DC: A new book by Marvin Olasky, a longtime advisor to Texas Governor and GOP
presidential candidate George W. Bush, clearly articulates the way Governor Bush and his
advisor intend to tear down the wall separating church and state.
Governor Bush, in a glowing foreword to Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It
Does, and How It Can Transform America, says Olasky’s thesis is “an approach I
share.” Mr. Olasky, called the “godfather of compassionate conservatism” by
The New York Times (September 12, 1999), has advised Governor Bush since 1993 and chairs
Bush’s policy subcommittee on religion.
Taken together, the book and Governor Bush’s warm endorsement lay to rest any doubt
about the true relationship between the Republican presidential candidate and the
extremist views of Mr. Olasky, as well as any lingering questions about the true aims of
so-called “compassionate conservatism.”
“I wish we could send copies of this book to all Americans who still believe –
all evidence to the contrary – that their religious freedom will be protected under a
Bush administration,” Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish
Democratic Council, noted today. “The book outlines, in no uncertain terms, that the
goal of the ‘faith-based’ domestic agenda espoused by Governor Bush is indeed
taxpayer-funded proselytization of the poor. When Governor Bush – in his forward
– calls this book ‘a blueprint for government’ and ‘an approach I
share,’ he does a better job than we could ever hope to do to of showing just how out
of touch he is with the Jewish community and all Americans who treasure their religious
liberty and the First Amendment of the Constitution.”
Compassionate Conservatism asserts in part that:
* The Constitution does not mandate a wall separating church
and state;
* Government should fund religious social service
programs that include proselytizing and worship as key components;
* We should reexamine a policy of “multiple
establishment” of religion, in which different religions and denominations are
directly funded by the federal government; and
* It is an “error” to judge federally-funded
social service programs by the effectiveness of the services they provide, instead of
judging them by religious “long-term ends.”
FROM THE BOOK GOVERNOR BUSH CALLS A “BLUEPRINT
FOR GOVERNMENT” AND “AN APPROACH I SHARE”
(Excerpts from Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can
Transform America, by Marvin Olasky)
- Olasky admits that “the wall of separation of church and state…would stop
compassionate conservatism in its tracks if it were part of the Constitution. But
it’s not. …There was nothing about stopping students from public prayer at
football games or gagging counselors in antipoverty agencies” (Compassionate
Conservatism, pp.106-7).
- Olasky writes that “for compassionate conservatism to take hold…Patrick
Henry’s arguments will need to be reexamined” (p. 106). Olasky here refers to
the 18th century patriot’s support of the “multiple establishment” of
religion. He illustrates this concept by citing the “Bill Establishing a Provision
for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” which Henry offered in 1784. “The bill
declared Christianity to be ‘the established Religion of this Commonwealth’ and
proposed a property tax for support of Christian ministers, teachers, and alms
distributors,” explains Olasky (p. 95).
- Olasky appears to suggest that government funding for Islam – as a non-Christian
faith – may be tantamount to an unavoidable “corruption” of his plans to
assist faith-based programs: “Christians may not be amused when tax credits or
government grants go to an Islamic organization that convinced alcoholics and addicts to
straighten up and fly right in order to please Allah. Liberals will not be pleased if a
fundamentalist group similarly benefits. Just as there is corruption in some governmental
departments, some corruption will emerge in some compassionate conservative programs. But
our society will have to live with that and work to contain it, because without freedom
for religion, our inner cities have no hope” (p. 193).
- Olasky approvingly cites the post-revolutionary constitution of New Hampshire to
illustrate how the founding fathers approved of state support for religion (pp. 94-95).
Yet he conveniently ignores the fact that as a result of such state support, New Hampshire
did not allow non-Christians to hold public office for nearly 100 years.
- Decrying the absence of religion in public schools, Olasky asks, “In 1999, was
there no connection between the Bible on the back burner and the fires in our
schools?” (p. 178)
- Olasky outlines Governor Bush’s support for public funding of social service
programs that include worship and proselytizing, overlooking the fact that due to the
fungibility of funds, government assistance would free up other funds to pay for
proselytizing efforts: “…Governor Bush took a position very different than that
of Al Gore. He said that if an organization had a successful enough track record to
receive taxpayers’ funds for some of its activities, he would want to provide those
without demanding a ban on worship services and other direct proselytizing functions;
those could be paid for by private funds” (p. 181).
- Olasky takes an expansive view of Senator John Ashcroft’s (R-MO) 1996 charitable
choice provision of the welfare bill, again ignoring the fact that government funding of
programs that include worship and proselytization will free-up other monies to fund such
religious efforts, even if the government funds are not directly used towards those
sectarian ends: “As originally reported in the press…the law meant that
organizations engaged in ‘sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization’
cannot be funded. In practice, this would mean that only those who say worship and
evangelism are not central to their task could receive funding. If that’s all
charitable choice is, very little will change…. [Senator Ashcroft and the other
authors of the measure understand] that their measure allows worship, instruction, and
proselytization to go on and even be intermingled with provision of government-funded
social services, as long as those specific activities are privately funded…. [an
organization] may receive funding to help with rent, utilities, meals, and such costs.
Private funds can pay for counselors, Bible study materials, and so on” (p183-4).
- Olasky argues that it is an “error” to judge federally-funded social service
programs by the effectiveness of the services they provide, instead of judging them by
religious “long-term ends:” “Reporters who did spend time at faith-based
organizations often made a different error: they tended to see churches and similar
institutions as institutions or instruments to be measured by their effectiveness in
delivering social services. And yet the primary concern of most churches, synagogues, and
mosques is eternal destiny. In the course of helping to change deeper understandings, they
also change lives here and now, but journalists (and government officials as well) need to
remember first things. Reporters need to display sensitivity to long-term ends even as
they examine effectiveness in changing the here and now. Covering compassionate
conservatism in practice will be one of the hardest jobs reporters ever have, and one of
the most important” (p.
197).
OTHER STATEMENTS BY THE MAN GOVERNOR BUSH CALLS
“COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM’S LEADING THINKER:”
* Olasky has said that “feminism has led to great
sexual irresponsibility” and “increased poverty among women.”
* Olasky said that three Jewish pro-McCain journalists
have “holes in their souls,” and they “have no understanding of G-d’s
grace.”
* Olasky has written, “The Easter/Passover season is
a particularly good time of year for Christians to talk with Jewish neighbors about the
Jewishness of Jesus and the need for all of us to gain an exodus from sin through
Christ.”
* “[Betty Friedan’s] answer was for women to join the work force. This they have
done, with dire consequences for society as a whole. …Certainly, feminism has led to
great sexual irresponsibility.
* We have aborted 38 million unborn children since Roe v.
Wade. Those are victims of feminism.
* Of course, feminism has lead to increased poverty among
women. …G-d does not forbid
women to be leaders in society, generally speaking, but when that occurs it’s usually
because of the abdication of men …there is a certain shame attached to it. I would
vote for a woman for the presidency, in some situations, but again, there is a certain
shame attached. Why don’t you have a man who’s able to stop forward? G-d’s
word says very plainly that an elder is to be a man; he is to be the husband of one
wife” (“The Impact of Feminism: An Interview with World Magazine Editor Marvin
Olasky,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Winter 1998).
* In February, Olasky singled out three prominent pro-McCain journalists by name, each of
them Jewish, as having “holes in their souls” for not backing Bush’s
candidacy. Olasky described one as having “faith only in Zeus-like strength” and
another as “also a case study in running away from the Bible.” He said they
“have no understanding of G-d’s grace” (The Austin American-Statesman,
February 16, 2000).
* Demonstrating his commitment towards converting Jews to Christianity, Olasky wrote in
1998, “The Easter/Passover season is a particularly good time of year for Christians
to talk with Jewish neighbors about the Jewishness of Jesus and the need for all of us to
gain an exodus from sin through Christ.” The same column goes on to recommend a book
entitled “Christianity is Jewish” (April 11, 1998). Around the same time in
1999, Olasky used his column in World magazine – an evangelical Christian publication
for which Olasky is the editor – to declare that “Christianity is Jewish”
and to quote Benjamin Disraeli as saying in 1863, “The Jews owe everything to the
church” (March 27, 1999).
* Olasky’s World magazine has repeatedly published other articles calling for the
proselytization of Jews. A September 1999 article by R. Albert Mohler criticizes the
hoopla over the recent Southern Baptist campaign described by The Washington Post as
“a new aggressive campaign aimed at converting Jews to Christianity.” Mohler
criticizes Abraham Joshua Heschel, Abraham Foxman, Rabbi James Rudin and
“secularized” and atheist Jews for opposing Christian attempts to convert Jews.
He argues for the “necessity of Jewish evangelism,” decries
“pluralism,” and says of Jews, “we owe them the gospel.” Another
article by Gene Edward Veith from March 2000 complains that reporters who are “all
over Southern Baptists for their evangelism programs towards Jews” sadly “still
don’t get it” (World, March 18, 2000).
* “Public schools have gotten worse; that’s exactly what we would expect when
G-d is ignored, discipline erodes, and a lack of competition protects old-line
monopolies….” (Olasky column, “Being All You Can Be,” World, February
22, 1997).
* Olasky praises Curt and Shelley Williams – the founders of a
“Christ-based” program (Youth-Reach Houston) that Olasky himself describes as
“intolerant” – and argues that Governor Bush sees them as part of the
“solution:” “The Williamses understand that compassion means intensifying
the full biblical message, not toning it down. Tolerance? [Their] newsletter shows that,
to be kind to kids, it is vital to ‘speak out against the growing sinful plague of
homosexuality…abortion, adultery, premarital sex, militant environmentalism, or any
of the litany of liberal social issues.’ …[Bush] does seem to understand that
intolerant poverty-fighting folks like Curt Williams…are the solution, not a problem
as the PC police of the left contend” (World, February 20, 1999).
* “I mean, the real problem today is kids born to single moms and the single moms
want to try to raise the kids and that’s – I mean, their intentions are very
good, but it is such a hard task in that situation, it overwhelms a lot of them and they
find out that when the child is two or three that they really can't handle it”
(C-Span’s “Booknotes,” January 22, 1995).
* “If a nation accepts adultery as standard and embraces no-fault homosexuality, then
Christians can predict family disintegration and the eventual onslaught of disease”
(Turning Point: A Christian Worldview Declaration, Crossway, 1987, p. 147).
WITH A FRIEND LIKE THIS....
Revisiting Bush, Olasky, and "Compassionate Conservatism."
Marvin "Olasky believes that government anti-poverty programs are doomed to failure
because many of the poor need spiritual nurturing to motivate them to change their
situations. Bush apparently believes this too, which is why reporters have been
scrutinizing Olasky's musings of late—to glean insight into Bush's intellectual
makeup. (see below) The resulting furor over Olasky's more controversial positions
culminated this spring in charges of unethical journalism by the esteemed New York Times
columnist William Safire as well as accusations of anti-Semitism by other members of the
national media. So what if someone writes "pig" on his [University of Texas]
office door? Olasky has heard much worse....
"[Olasky hurls] harsh diatribes at anyone he feels
is disobeying the inerrant Word of God. In the 1996 journalism textbook Telling the
Truth, for instance, he makes the case that secular journalism has evicted religion from
the premises. Christian journalists, he argues, need to invite God back into public debate
by filtering all issues through the Bible's lens.
"Now, as in the past, Christians under attack
desperately need good magazines and newspapers, just as colonists under attack before the
American Revolution needed Committees of Correspondence," he says.
"Such a siege mentality, however, leads Olasky to espouse views that come back to
haunt him. Take this passage from Telling the Truth: "Biblical objectivity means
supporting the establishment and improvement of Bible-based education and criticizing
government schools, in the understanding that turning education over to 'professionals'
who have no regard for God is an abdication of biblical parental responsibility."
When I read Olasky this quote and suggest that it sounds like he's against public
education—which would certainly come as a surprise to Bush, whose twin daughters
graduated in May from a public high school in Austin—he frowns and asks to see my
notes. Looking perplexed, he consults his own copy of the book to check my accuracy and
then frowns again. "Every teacher has a worldview," he explains. "It's not
accurate to say [that public schools are neutral]. For Christians, every subject should be
viewed through Scripture. If you don't, you're promoting a worldview that is not
biblical."...
"Then there is Olasky's take on the poor.... Dope dealers, alcoholics, thieves, and
illegitimate children populate the book, as well as many modern-day saints doing selfless
work in tough, urban settings. But Compassionate Conservativism seems to focus on the poor
in need of rehabilitation from destructive behavior. Although the problems of law-abiding,
working poor people are not addressed, Olasky says he did not intend to "dump
on" the poor. "There's no shame in being poor," he insists, acknowledging
that health problems, spousal abandonment, and layoffs—things outside a person's
control—often lead to poverty. Still, he continues, many people lack "a work
understanding" that religious values could fill. "Faith in Christ gets a whole
set of attitudes," he says.
"During our interview, Olasky admits that, on occasion, his words go too far....And
yet Olasky acknowledges that "bold and courageous" reporting—devoid of
shades of gray—could destroy church outreach to the poor." [Note: As an example
of this point, in his NYT column William Safire called Olasky's writing and editing
against McCain and in favor of Bush during the South Carolina Primary
"religio-political sleaze in action." --Politex] --Patricia Kilday Hart, July
2000.
BUSH PLAYS THE JESUS CARD AGAIN...AND AGAIN.
Supreme Court Rules Against Bush School Prayer Appeal, 6-3 "The Supreme Court has
ruled that public school districts cannot let students say prayers over public address
systems at high school football games. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that
student-led, student-initiated public prayer before football games violates the separation
of church and state, and is not private speech protected by the First Amendment of the
Constitution." (ABC)
"Last summer, Bush joined officials from seven other states in filing a
friend-of-the-court brief supporting the voluntary, student-led prayers. In the brief,
Bush wrote that the Constitution requires school officials, not students, to be neutral
toward religion, meaning students should be allowed to “determine what message if any
to deliver.” Today, Bush said he was disappointed by the court’s ruling. “I
thought voluntary student-led prayer in extracurricular activities was right and important
and the Supreme Court thought otherwise, and I’m disappointed in the outcome,”
Bush said." (Jackie Shaner)
The three justices who voted in Bush's favor to weaken the separation between church and
state were Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Either Gore or Bush will most likely select
three new justices during the next presidential tenure. Bush has said he will select
people like Justices Scalia and Thomas, who will remain on the bench, while Gore has said
he would use the deceased, far less conservative Marshall as his model. (Politex)
Bush Theocratic "Gurus" Arrive in London to Advise British Conservatives.
"Marvin Olasky [,the father of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" who has
been quoted as saying that women should be content with non-leadership roles,] ... flew to
London yesterday, along with Don Willet, Mr Bush's special projects director, to make a
presentation... [to]
Conservatives on involving churches, synagogues and mosques in state social programmes
.... By pledging freedom and support for Christian-based drug addiction centres and other
faith-based welfare projects, [Conservative leader] Mr Hague wants to bridge the divide he
believes exists between state and religious welfare provision. He intends to do this by
adopting ideas pioneered by Mr Bush, bringing forward to the 21st century concepts from
the 19th century Victorian era when religion and social welfare were inextricably linked
and the State's role minimal." --The Times, 6/20
Religions Broadcaster Attacks Mac Official "In a recorded message phoned to Michigan
voters, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson attacks an official in John McCain's campaign
as "a vicious bigot who wrote that conservative Christians in politics are
anti-abortion zealots, homophobes and would-be censors."...Todd Harris, a McCain
spokesman, did not allege any involvement by Bush's campaign, but said: "This is
exactly the kind of politics that we had hoped we left behind in South Carolina. "Pat
Robertson and (former Christian Coalition director) Ralph Reed hand delivered Governor
Bush's victory to him in South Carolina," Harris said. "The people of Michigan
have an opportunity to repudiate these kinds of negative smears."..."We are not
making any Pat Robertson calls," said Bush campaign spokeswoman Mindy Tucker.
"Our campaign doesn't know anything about it." AP, 2/21/00
Candidate Christ and George W. Bush
Bush Plays the Jesus Card. "As H. L. Mencken pointed out, religion 'is used as a club
and a cloak by both politicians and moralists, all of them lusting for power and most of
them palpable frauds.' George W. Bush scored some debate points [in Iowa] by supporting
the holy trinity of ethanol, Jesus and soft money. (Didn't Jesus throw those soft-money
changers out of the temple?) When the Republican candidates were asked to name their
favorite political philosophers, Mr. Bush replied: 'Christ, because he changed my heart.'
Pressed to elaborate, the Texas governor again showed his inability to go deep.
His mouth curled down into that famous smirky look.
'Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain,' he said. 'When you turn your
heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your
heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me.' Translation: You're either
in the Christ club or out of it, on the J.C. team or off. This is the same exclusionary
attitude, so offensive to those with different beliefs, that he showed in 1993 when he
said that you must believe in Jesus Christ to enter heaven. (Mr. Bush has since conceded
that only 'God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush.')....
This is the era of niche marketing, and Jesus is a niche.
Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus'
numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue. When you take
something deeply personal and parade it for political gain, you are guilty either of
cynicism or exhibitionism." --Maureen Dowd
Candidate Christ "and a large crowd of reverent volunteers, all of them broke, were
trudging along behind the candidate on the cold highway outside Red Bud, Ill., far from
the Iowa caucuses. "If we ever get there, we could win the thing easy," the
campaign manager said. "He has very good name recognition. Way bigger than
Lincoln." He waved an arm in
exuberance. "They can't even steal an election from him by voting dead names. Our
candidate will come right in with his Lazarus move. He'll have a million at any poll by
nightfall.
They may come in shaking a lot of dust off them, but
they'll be voters. Candidate Christ, he said, merely by his presence could demolish these
temporal politicians who use his name like it was a commercial product. In particular,
candidate Bush. "How can he say he carries me, Jesus Christ, in his heart,"
candidate Christ asked, "when at the same time he stands by while people are put to
death?" He spoke in a soft voice that carried for a million miles. The candidate
continued, "How can he love Christ and take part in capital punishment? I say to you
there have been 112 people put to death so far, while he maintains that I reside in his
heart. Did not a woman beg for her life and he refused her? I say to you there will be
chastisement for using the name of Christ in vain. My position is to listen to the
groaning of the prisoners, to release those doomed to death." --Jimmy Breslin
"Does Bush think that Jesus smiled down upon him as he allowed these 112 executions
to take place? Does Bush believe in the Biblical line "Vengeance is mine, saith the
Lord" or does he not? Does Bush accept only part of the message of Jesus while in his
own wisdom feels free to ignore the rest? What does he accept and what does he reject? Is
Bush a Christian who believes that Jesus preached a philosophy of love and forgiveness? Or
does he believe that in spite of what Jesus said and did, the Christian God must be a
punishing Old Testament deity, with Bush merely serving as another exterminating angel?...
"Such questions....are not irrelevant when Bush the Candidate makes his religion a
major entry in his biography and a reason for some Americans to elect him president....
"On matters of life and death, Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago used to speak about the
"seamless web." It was an argument for moral coherence. If you opposed abortion,
he said, you must
also oppose capital punishment and most wars. Life itself was sacred, said Bernardin; only
God could bring it to an end, not someone as flawed as a man. That was a coherent and
humane philosophy, whether you were religious or not. Bush, like so many other
politicians, wants it both ways: to trumpet his Christian beliefs, while maintaining the
freedom to kill
human beings." --Pete Hamill
Bush Plays the Jesus Card. "As H. L. Mencken pointed out, religion 'is used as a club
and a cloak by both politicians and moralists, all of them lusting for power and most of
them palpable frauds.' George W. Bush finally scored some debate points on Monday night by
supporting the holy trinity of ethanol, Jesus and soft money. (Didn't Jesus throw those
soft-money changers out of the temple?)
When the Republican candidates were asked to name their
favorite political philosophers, Mr. Bush replied: 'Christ, because he changed my heart.'
Pressed to elaborate, the Texas governor again showed his inability to go deep. To borrow
a Dorothy Parker quip, he ran the gamut from A to B. Just as in the last debate, when he
was asked to expound on a biography of Dean Acheson, he gave the impression that he
thought coughing up an impressive name was quite enough.
His mouth curled down into that famous smirky look.
'Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain,' he said. 'When you turn your
heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your
heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me.' Translation: You're either
in the Christ club or out of it, on the J.C. team or off. This is the same exclusionary
attitude, so offensive to those with different beliefs, that he showed in 1993 when he
said that you must believe in Jesus Christ to enter heaven. (Mr. Bush has since conceded
that only 'God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush.')....
This is the era of niche marketing, and Jesus is a niche.
Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus'
numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue. When you take
something deeply personal and parade it for political gain, you are guilty either of
cynicism or exhibitionism." --Maureen Dowd
NEXT SEE BUSH LINKS
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
