A few (LONG!) thoughts on Bush & God
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 08-10-2004 - 5:38am |
I'm an American, (34) living in France with my magnificent French husband. I'm also a christian.
However- I will NOT vote for Bush.
It really confuses me how one can actually BE "Republican" or "Democrat". Why should we settle for only two options? I like rock music, but I won't listen to everyone who plays rock music... I don't like much of it, In the same manner, I can't make a blind, blanket vote either.
It seems no one notices that our presidents have been "born again" for the last 40 years. Perhaps this is a political tactic??? I heard that 40,000,000 Christians came out of the woodwork to vote the first time a president claimed to be "born-again"- why would following candidates NOT do the same?
From what I've read (not on iVillage) I see most christians are voting for Bush because he claims to pray & be a christian. Did God send people to war in the Bible? Yes, he sent the country of Israel to war, BUT not the people of the church. God told the people of the church to stay OUT of war. Plain & simple. That's one of a hundred reasons I do not believe Bush is a christian, in any way I find valid. (This is a problem I have with many "christians" too- they don't act like Godly people. They don't speak with patience & wisdom & peace. Many times they're the FIRST to declare war on "evildoers"... which just doesn't fit with my image of Christ. (Just MY OPINION. I'm not attacking any of YOU personally- so if you're getting all defensive, please relax.)
Do I like Kerry? No, not especially. I am going to vote this year, mostly for John Edwards. His anti-slander campaign had me impressed when he ran against Kerry, and I noticed Kerry stopped slandering Bush when Edwards joined on. I think that is admirable. (And Kerry claims he'll get rid of the Patriot Act- bravo. But- I'm also anti-abortion. Look- I wish we had more choices. Kerry is for abortion, but Bush sends people out to die without good reason? HOW is that different? Those servicemen/women were fetuses once too!) Am I glad Saddam is out now? Sure, but who's to say that couldn't have been accomplished with everyone working together, instead of the cowboy running the show?
Being in Europe, I get more news from around the world- in ways you really have to search for in the US. Just yesterday morning I heard that the Bush Admin is aiming it's guns (literally) now at Iran? Is he kidding? Look- I support the troops- I do believe they were sent out INTO harms way for NO valid reason that I can see- but- I am not God.
Here's a thought presented to me recently too, from a Pastor;
***
"What if:
There was a child born in Iraq in 1990 who will grow up to be an important figure for peace in world politics, but who would have fallen into Sadam's brutal machine and been either killed, or ruined by torture.Ê God wants him for a peace maker, and Sadam had to be removed.Ê So, in the Providence of God, GW Bush HAD to be elected - Gore would never have invaded Iraq.Ê No American failed at anything in the election; Florida is off the hook; the stolen/rigged votes were all accomplished as they had to be because the election was so close.
Therefore, the Christians who suspected Bush of being a warmonger and all wrapped up in the world-wide oil cartel, and who voted instead for Gore, were in effect, voting against the Divine Purposes of God, who sets up nations and brings them down according to principles we could never fathom.
ÊHow can you know whether you're voting with or against God?Ê That isn't even a question for the unbeliever, of course.Ê But shouldn't it matter to those seeking to know and obey their heavenly Father?
I would never have voted Sadam into power in Iraq, but somehow in the overall Providence of God, he was in power (God sets up nations), and then later he was deposed (God brings down nations).Ê Sadam got as far along as he did because of military (and other) aid from the US.Ê God used the US to set him up AND bring him down.Ê How ya gunna psych THAT kind of thing out in advance??
On the other hand, voting for Bush simply because he claims "Christianity"? If you truly seek the loving heart of the Father, it rightly gets harder & harder to be fooled by those who are far from servants of God.
~~There's a real willingness to believe the stuff that comes from the Christian Right without question.Ê Churchites don't like doubt and ambivalence; they're uneasy with unanswered (or unanswerable) questions, so if somebody says "This is lthe truth, believe me, I'm a Christian," and it sounds like the familiar party line, they'll swallow it all gladly; then they don't have to think."
**********
Over the last few months, my husband and I have paid an overwhelming amount of attention to all information we can find about the candidates. I do not believe Bush is working with God at all, and while Kerry isn't "born-again"....at least he's not pretending to be something he isn't. I go by actions, not words.
I believe power corrupts. I believe we're going to have problems no matter what. I'll vote for Edw.... uh... Kerry because I DO believe Bush's Admin. is corrupt, but I believe God's in charge & will make ALL things right in the end, no matter who is elected, no matter what the outcome. (And I don't mind if the "christian right" votes for Bush, but I wish they could do it because Bush WERE being Godly. I loved the bumper sticker I saw that read, "What would Jesus bomb?" Very well put.)
Thanks for letting me vent- for the last time on line. My goal is to try to bring an alternative view to the table... no more. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "right", just share my opinion.
I'd put a link to this, but I got it in an email... it's nothing more than "things that make you go hmmmmm...", and this stuff is why I'm not a big fan of Bush OR Kerry.
Bush v. Kerry
The Power Elite's Dream Ballot
By MICHAEL COLBY
If you hear gleeful giggling from behind the curtain shielding the political elites from the mere masses, you're not alone. There's a party going on and we haven't been invited. It's a presidential election party, where the puppeteers of our democracy are celebrating an upcoming election that they can't lose. It's a contest between two of their own.
George Bush versus John Kerry is a dream ballot for those whom C. Wright Mills called the "power elite," that tight little club of economic, political and military leaders who truly rule the nation. The power elite doesn't care about political party affiliations. That's child's play. In their view, fools line up to vote while the real players decide who's on the ballot. And for some reason we still refer to the whole charade as democracy. The joke's on you.
Bush v. Kerry is simply nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world: it's a win-win situation. From their perspective, whomever places his hand upon the Bible (yes, the Bible) on January 20, 2005 doesn't matter because with a Bush/Kerry contest they're already assured there will be no meaningful change in America for the next four years. None. Zero. Zippo.
Before the delusional Democrats out there start peppering me with hostile emails about the absolute necessity of getting "anybody but Bush" in the White House, just stop yourselves long enough to consider these facts: Kerry supported Bush's war on Iraq; Kerry supported Bush's tax cuts; Kerry hasn't proposed one major social or environmental initiative in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate; Kerry hasn't put forward any meaningful policy initiatives in his campaign for the presidency regarding jobs or healthcare. Kerry's campaign seems to be all about proving that he qualifies as "anybody but Bush." And all that takes is a pulse.
Bush and Kerry are also, of course, both proud military men. Bush took the easy way out of the Vietnam War by joining the National Guard - whether he showed up or not is another matter. Kerry, as he's so fond of telling us, served his country by running gunboats up and down the rivers of Vietnam. Brace yourselves, folks, because the Bush/Kerry contest will be filled with assertions and accusations about who loves the military more.
Kerry is really confusing on the issue of the military, too. Before pro-military audiences, Kerry trots out his military medals (three Purple Hearts!) and talks tough about his "duty and service" to the nation. But then he'll stand before the Dean Democrats and talk about how he led the anti-war movement when he got home. Well, John, what's it going to be: duty and service or conscientious objections?
It's this kind of double talk that has littered the political career of John Kerry. He's always hanging around talking out of both sides of his mouth until it's safe to actually pick a side - and then only if he's forced to. Kerry doesn't need Botox injections; he needs a spinal transplant.
Then consider Kerry's oft-quoted attacks on "special interests." Apparently, his special interests are holier than Bush's special interests. The truth, of course, is that they share many of the same special interests, all to the detriment of we, the non-special people.
While it pains me to invoke the words of David Brooks, a conservative columnist at The New York Times, he did sufficiently lampoon Kerry's rhetoric on special interests in a recently published column entitled "Kerry's Special Friends." After detailing many of Kerry's special favors to the high and mighty, Brooks concludes as follows:
"You just ask David Paul, one of the big figures in the savings and loan scandal, if Kerry didn't make him feel special. You just ask the high-tech executive Bob Majumder how special Kerry made him feel, at least until Majumder was charged with 40 counts of conspiracy, witness tampering, fraud, tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions. You just ask the law firms, the brokerage houses, the oil companies, the .'s and the drug companies, which have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Kerry.
"Oh, he sometimes pretends that he doesn't care about our special interests. He puts on that callous populist facade. But deep down he cares. Maybe he cares too much. When he's out on the stump saying otherwise, he's just being a big old phony."
Of the many similarities between the patricians Bush and Kerry, there's nothing more disturbing than their membership in the super-secret and super-elite Skull & Bones club at Yale University. The fact that both men are members of this club and neither is willing to spill the beans on any of its internal secrets and favors should speak volumes about the apparent "choice" this nation is being offered on the November ballot.
"America is about to choose between two presidential candidates," writes Sam Smith, editor of the indispensable Progressive Review, "who belonged to an organization whose values were infantile, elitist, misogynist, anti-democratic and secret and whose purposes include the mutual support and protection of its members as they make their into the upper ranks of American society and throughout their adult lives. Far from apologizing for this, the two candidates refuse to give open and honest answers about their participation. Further, at least one of the candidates, Kerry, has retained a close enough relationship to the organization to have sought news members from among his young acquaintances."
If Bush v. Kerry is truly the choice being offered to the nation in November, we don't even have to wait for the voting to begin in order to declare the winner. This nation's power elites are not only poised for yet another victory, but they're thrilled by the prospects of four more years of calm, non-threatening waters from which they float their political boats.
