“Bush Playing American Christians For Suckers”

Posted by 2 on October 13, 2006
Culture, Current Flux

This quote is from Keith Olbermann on the October 12 broadcast of MSNBC’s Countdown. In a report that featured excerpts from the soon to be released book, Tempting Faith, by the former number-two man in Bush’s office of “faith-based initiatives,” David Kuo, Olbermann reveals what should have been obvious all along: Bush pays lip service to Christian leaders solely to get them to send their sheep off to pull the “R” lever at the polling booths. Watch the video clip here.

It is going to be interesting to see how our Christian leaders react to the book. I wager that they will attack the messenger as a malcontent out to make a few bucks. They won’t deal with the evidence he presents and they most certainly will not admit that they have been playing the sucker. (Or perhaps in some cases, playing their donors and supporters for the sucker.)

Apart from being the patsy of the GOP political machine, an even greater concern is that Christian leaders line up at the federal feeding trough looking for a few scraps of mammon to be thrown their way through these “faith-based initiatives”. For many leading faith-based political activists, “Jesus is King” has become just a PR gimmick. It may be that the truth of the matter is that, in some cases, “Cash is King.” And we have it on good authority that no one can serve two masters.

With the Republican pederasty and homosexual scandal becoming bigger every day and now this exposé of the Bush adminstration’s true feelings about American Christians, look for the Democrats to take both Houses of Congress in a landslide (assuming there will not be massive vote fraud). Not that it really matters which of the two statist parties are in control. It may, though, force Christians to begin to concentrate on principle over politics. But then again, it may not.

70 Comments to “Bush Playing American Christians For Suckers”

  • I understand there’s medicine available for the depression that’s going to hit you Nov. 8. Seek it now, maybe it’ll help with the delusions too.

    Bush isn’t running in the elections this year, but if it will make you happy, I promise never to vote for him again.

    Let’s clarify a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Christians are not fools nor bigots. They vote for republicans because democrats are overtly secularist. Who supports the ACLU?

    Democrats don’t get Christian votes because they have set themselves at enmity to the values/religious voter.

    Will they turn out in the elections?

    Again, they won’t vote for Foley, because like GWB he isn’t running.

    The attempt to tar the entire party with the actions of others is guilt by association. It only works on narrow-minded liberals, just ask Joe Lieberman.

    Sixty per cent approve of their own representative, according to the WaPoo’s recent and dem oversampled poll. The throw the bums out phenomenon – is really a ‘throw the other guys bums out’.

    In the last four election cycles lefties have said the same thing about trouncing republicans. Keep it up, it really helps with our GOTV!

  • It’s a fact that the ACLU represents conservative causes about half the time. That’s because the purpose, which so many conservatives readily forget, is to protect free speech, even theirs.

  • Kathy – Thank you for your comment. I think you have misunderstood my point. Like I said, whoever wins in November is of little interest to me. As for the pederasty/homosexual scandal, I think it will hurt the Reps., but I may be wrong. I most emphatically reject your charge that I am imputing guilt by association. I mention the Foley issue because it appears that it will hurt the Republican cause. Whether this is fair or not is another matter.

    My main point was to highlight Kuo’s contention, as interpreted by Olbermann, that Christian leaders are suckers for the GOP and the Bush administration. You may disagree with this, but let’s have an argument.

    You are basically correct in saying that the Dems. are overtly secularist. (Although I prefer the word ‘humanistic’.) But the evidence indicates that the Reps. (at least at the top levels) are covertly secularist. If you prefer the latter over the former, that’s your business. I prefer neither.

  • I prefer performance – and I let actions speak louder than words.

    Democrats are hostile to religion, they cannot be taken seriously on the subject.

    And as far as the ACLU representing conservative causes, stop drinking the water pal, and go here. Absolutely no one believes that the ACLU would ever defend Christian civil rights, not even the ACLU. It’s a propaganda arm of the DNC.

    Again – the dems will overplay this – it looks like dirty politics to trot out personal attacks in lieu of policy discussions.

    Of course it’s all they can do with an excellent economy and the unchallenged public image of looking out for terrorists’ rights.

    The economy and security will be on voters’ minds, at least those who can get their minds out of their britches, and that generally speaking is not the Christian voter.

  • The economy and security will be on voters’ minds, at least those who can get their minds out of their britches (PIMF)and that generally speaking IS the Christian voter.

  • I’m with Kathy on the ACLU. Where were they when Congress passed the “Patriot” Act? They quibbled about the FBI taking warrantless peeks at the books patrons were checking out at libraries, but failed to raise the alarm about the major police state provisions that were the centerpiece of the legislation. No, the ACLU is not a friend to Christianity nor the Christian principles ensconced in the Bill of Rights.

  • Kathy – I’m illiterate when it comes to blog acronymns. My guess is that “PIMF” means, “pardon my French.” Is that right?

  • BTW – it’s common knowledge on the right side of the blogosphere that there is an effort afoot to discourage conservatives.

    Two things will preclude that:

    1. Conservatives don’t get their news from lefty sources (like the alphabet news and NYT, and bottom dwellers like Olbermann) which have proven so unreliable.

    2. The assumption that the entire party will be blamed is a total misunderstanding of the Christian religion, it is judgmental bigotry that espouses that all Christians are judgmental and ignorant masses that believe anything and are easily persuaded.

    The reverse is true, I’m confident in the knowledge that God can dispense what justice is required to both Foley, and those who use the misfortune of others to political advantage.

    As for the other republicans running – republicans are staunch individualists and do not group think – and do not make GROUP JUDGMENTS.

    This dem strategy is flawed in that it fails to understand the nature of its target, and projects its own foibles.

  • Part of the problem is that everyone thinks that there are only two choices on the shelf, Democrat and Republican. I’m not going to be convinced that the Republican party doesn’t suck (PIMF?) by arguing that the Democratic party sucks more. I won’t be duped by the pragmatic “lesser of two evils” argument.

  • Thanks MRB – for being a great example of my point – you’re so worried about the Patriot Act…

    Are you able to express your thoughts freely?
    How many times have you been arrested for dissent?
    How much time have you spent in jail for speaking out against the government?

    Wow how you have suffered.

    Be serious – do you actually believe the hyperbole you promote?

    And JonathanB – it isn’t the lesser of two evils, it is good vs. evil, not perfect vs. evil.

  • Kathy, I think calling the difference between the Democratic party and Republican party good vs. evils is a perfect demonstration of Butler’s point concerning the Christian mindset towards the Republican party… and, respectfully, I think it is a shame.

  • When did I call both parties evil? I merely said, “the lesser of two-evils argument…” I was referring to a debate tactic rather than too two different parties. Most of the time when I or someone else speaks against the Republican party that is the argumentative tactic they like to pull… sort of a tu-quoque

  • I read the blurb at the link you posted JonathanB.

    I see the word fascist tossed out, but it shows a want of historical knowledge and a deficit of feeling for those suffering under true fascism.

    There’s way too much unsubstantiated hyperbole on the left.

    Woe is me – where are my rights??? kind of … well… crap.

    My answer “Well where did you leave them?”

    No demonstrable fascism exists in that sad epic you listed – and, FYI, find the problem with increased security in our schools after the shooting at the Amish schools to be ignorance at worst and bad taste at best.

  • I’m not going to be convinced that the Republican party doesn’t suck (PIMF?) by arguing that the Democratic party sucks more. I won’t be duped by the pragmatic “lesser of two evils” argument.JonathanB

    Reading for comprehension.

    But if you say you don’t mean it – what do you mean the lesser of two evils – were you referring to another choice of evils rather than political parties?

  • I’ve really imposed on your generosity far too long – thank you for allowing me to comment – far too rare among the left these days is a willingness to actually debate. Most of time bullying tactics are employed (as in the Minutemen presentation at Columbia) or at the very least the delete button.

    Thank you for an interesting discussion and have a nice weekend.

  • This site posts comments on a weird order…

    Kathy, the phrase, “lesser of two-evils” is a figure of speech used to denote two bad choices, not necessarily two “evil” choices.

    I get the impression by your comments of “left” that you mean to imply that Mr. Butler, Mr. Baldwin, or myself… or all three of us fall on the left side of the political spectrum? This couldn’t be further from the truth (though I can’t speak for Butler). I consider myself more “right” than most Republicans. In fact that is the problem, most Republicans are only conservative on moral issues–and it seems to be a pseudo conservativism at that. The catagorization of anyone who speaks against the mighty GOP as a leftist supports both the current Christian Republican mindset and my statement that people believe there are only two choices on the shelf.

    Hope to hear from you more.

  • re the site posting in wierd order…

    I think the problem is that you see your own comments right away, but you only see others’ comments after they have been approved. I think it is a bug in WordPress, since I have tried to turn off moderation in every way I can think of. So, we “approve” them all, but it requires one of us getting there and doing it.

  • JonathanB – when you come up with an electable third option, let me know, until then call me pragmatic; I’m voting for the party that gives me what I want most of the time – petulance has never been an attribute of mine.

    And be careful of idiomatic phrasing – I do consider my point valid – you consider both parties to be evil – at least that’s what I get out of your verbage. I halfway agree with you.

    TJH – I also use wordpress and only moderate first time commenters or comments with more than two links.

    It makes it easier. Time stamps on our site do funky things too.

    Hope that helps. Thanks again.

  • Kathy, I suppose we would have to look into what we mean by evil… but then I would violate Tim’s exhortation to keep it pithy.

    This article seems relevant: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2004/cbarchive_20040207.html (No, I’m not someone who worships Chuck Baldwin, there are times that I seriously disagree with him. But he gets it right a lot of the time. One thing that I often disagree with is the overly polemical and pessimistic nature of his writing)

    I realize that in this article one may wish to say he is committing the misleading vividness fallacy, but I think his point still stands.

    This is one of the many areas in which I am not pragmatic.

  • Kathy–

    (Like I say, we have it checked for no-moderation-needed. I think it stopped working when I added a certain plugin; but I’m not willing to give up that plugin.)

    re the left/right thing– one of the most amusing yet bitter outcomes of the current regime along with his Limbaugh/Hannity amen-corner is the new definition of “the right” as those that favor an aggressive and belligerent foreign policy. There is hardly any other tenet Hannity wouldn’t be willing to give up; somehow, wanting to go kill Arabs is enough to vouchsafe one as a “conservative.” This is combined with continuous screaming, “the liberals/Democrats don’t want to defend America,” which is utter nonsense, and particularly outrageous when it was applied to war veteran Kerry by supporters of draft-avoider Bush.

    The central government is built up just as much under Republicans as Democrats, if not more so.

    The national slide into degeneracy proceeds apace under the Republicans just the same as under the Democrats. See my post, Shame or horror.

    Fighting over whether the top marginal rate should be 38% or 40% is not something I’m going to go to the mat over.

    I’m flashing on two armies clashing at mid-field: one with a big white flag with “38%” etched on it; the other under a big white flag with “40%” etched on it.

    Look at some of our posts under the category Culture-Politics. In time, I expect to build the case that the Republican Party must be destroyed before there will be any political hope for America.

  • Wow Tim H – you’ve got a big job ahead of you and I’m not talking the destruction of the republican party –

    Have you ever been in any other country? Studied America from any point of view than your own? Have you talked to an immigrant? Why did they come here?

    Do you read only things that you agree with – or actively seek and listen to other points of view?

    Have you tested your logic on anyone outside your social circles?

    I’ve been blogging for a few years now and I’m always fascinated by what people have to say under cover of anonymity.

    Here’s the thing – the difference between liberals and conservatives breaks down along the lines of what they will sacrifice liberty for…

    Liberals value equality (equal outcome, not equal opportunity) and will sacrifice liberties to achieve it, for example the IRS (or Institutionalized Redistribution Socialists) or affirmative action.

    Conservative value order (security) and will sacrifice liberties for the protection of society, example NSA wiretapping.

    Libertarians value liberty and will sacrifice equality and security and want no limits on liberty.

    The reason conservatives win the current debate, and to misunderstand this is to fail to recognize the political climate in which we live (the real world) is that security is more important than either equality (read civil rights for terrorists) or liberty. IOW, the right to breathe is fundamental. Dead people have no rights.

    Now you may want to live under sharia, but I do not. I recognize the threat, now that could be because I am a chemist, have worked in liason with counterterrorism, and know a little bit about what the enemy has in store for us. It’s no mystery – they are up front about their plans.

    Convert to Islam or die.

    Now if I were given that choice, I would choose death.

    But to keep from losing the ground on which we stand, I am willing to eavesdrop on terrorists phone calls. (I do business internationally, and am undisturbed by their monitoring of my phone calls, especially since I sometimes frequent tall buildings, airports, and DC.)

    I suspect that many people do not recognize the threat – think 9/11 was staged, etc. That is not illustrative of a powerful mind, however, so I’m not sure that type of individual can be coaxed from his self-loathing and into light of day.

    Now you can call it belligerent all day. No problem. It’s personal to me since I knew someone on Flt 93, and had a cousin in the Pentagon, and I suspect that nothing will change your mind.

    Taxes Schmaxes.

    I like to breathe. I want to keep on doing it in a safe secure and free America.

    For all the silly hyperbole about America losing freedoms under the current administration – I want to see the prisons filled with dissenters, and some actual, rather than imaginary damage. You know why it won’t happen? Because of belligerent people like me.

    I would fight to defend our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    You have to decide which side you are on. Nobody is ever sorta dead. They either are or are not. Ask Danny Pearl.

    But you can’t, can you. He confronted actual belligerence, yours is imaginary.

    And it will be a big job to eliminate that.

  • FYI – Recent News on Emperor George II: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp

    Last election I voted Republican in my US Congressional election. He promised to champion Conservatism in DC, so I made the mistake of holding my noise and voting for the lesser of evils. Well he won and voted in favor of CAFTA, for all the budget increases, for the PATRIOT Act, for continuing the Iraq War; while never touching Abortion, Sodomite unions, Illegal Immigration, Gun Rights, or restoring Liberty. In other words he went to DC and was your standard Republican representative.

    I now look forward to the upcoming elections so that I can partially clean my conscience by voting against him. I promise he will be the first and LAST Republican I vote for on a National level (unless Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo wins the R primary).

    To quote LG.com, “Dear Lord, deliver us from the Pagan, the Jew, the Turk, and the Republican.”

    Until the Republican Party and the facade of (Neo)Conservatism is destroy we will continue to lose our Nation.

  • I’m going to have to agree with Kathy in that Mr. Butler’s hyperboles are a little over the top. Nevertheless, I agree with his analysis of the heart of these matters.

  • MRB writes:

    “And we have it on good authority that no one cannot serve two masters.”

    What? So everyone CAN serve two masters?

    I think you must have meant, “…no one can serve two masters.”

  • You guys will believe anything that agrees with you, have you looked into that ‘study’? Suggest you look into it further – there’s a reason even the MSM disregard any in depth reporting lest the undermine it’s intended damage. It was an incomplete university of wisconsin – madison study hurried for publication as an October surprise hitpiece. It cannot substantiate its numbers and is an order of magnitude off.

    The actual death count is around 50,000.

    How many American children must die in our own schools before you are willing to allow security measures without dubbing them fascist?

    If you think you’ll have a better chance on abortion and sodomy with democrats then I have some beachfront property in Nevada you might be interested in, although Harry Reid must get his cut on those type scams, it’s usually $1-2Mil, and don’t worry he won’t report it.

    Keith – hyperbole is over the top – and yet you agree?

    OK that’s a willingness to be deluded – I can’t help you there.

    If you want to address conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage you have to elect more conservatives, not less. Voting democrat or not voting is a vote for gay marriage and abortion and puts in power the party that appoints judges who degree things like gay marriage in MA.

  • It’s more than passing strange to me that, despite her verbosity, Kathy never deals with the glaringly obvious fact that the Republican Party leadership views evangelical Christians as nothing more than mere sheep to be exploited for votes and then summarily ignored. Does she doubt Mr. Kuo’s very believable assertion that White House officials refer to evangelicals in contemptuous and disparaging ways?

    Kathy’s argument seems to come down to this: the Democrats will take our country over the cliff at 120 miles per hour, but the Republicans will “only” take it over the cliff at 80 miles per hour. So vote GOP as the lesser of two evils!

    Kathy and the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more professing Christians like her are abundant evidence that many “Bible-thumping” evangelicals (she uses this term to describe herself on her website) need to spend less time thumping their Bibles and more time reading them.

    Where is loyalty to our Prophet, Priest, and King, Jesus, over loyalty to political party? When are these Republican sycophants like Kathy going to stand up and prophetically speak truth to power, as Holy Scripture demands, instead of bowing down at the unholy altar of party politics? Has it ever occured to her and others that God is Sovereign, and that He is in control, and that He will dispose events as He pleases — and that He can use a Democratic victory to bring much-needed awakening and judgment to this nation?

    The current evangelical political approach is utterly Pelagian and is falls far short of an explicitly Biblical understanding of civil government.

  • “Where is loyalty to our Prophet, Priest, and King, Jesus, over loyalty to political party?” That is a very good question.

    It is important to note that Jesus did not align himself either with the “political parties” of His day – not the Zealots (revolutionaries), nor the Sadducees (the status quo party), nor the Pharisees (the ‘purity and family values’ party). However, He did align himself with God the Father, who apparently was deeply concerned about the poor (i.e., widows and orphans) and those thrown out of ‘normal’ society (i.e., the lepers). He even (dare we say?) considered the needs of those who lead “secularist, party lifestyles” (i.e., prostitutes, tax collectors, ‘sinners’). He also had the gracefulness to help people who were not of His own religion or ethnic tribe, and who were aligned with a government that was oppressing His people (i.e, the Centurion). I think that we could learn something from His example, He “who knew no sin”. (Shall I also add that, when pressed to become a political Messiah and save His people from the Romans, He declined? Why??????)

    On another topic: It would be helpful to note that this country was founded on the separation of church and state — NOT because faith should not inform politics, but because the founders had had personal experience with politics distorting and misusing faith. The doctrine of the separation of church and state was targeted at correcting the abuses of religion that had been taking place in Europe for several centuries — i.e., wars fought over religious doctrines, burning people at the stake because they had a different interpretation of a verse of the Bible, using a narrow exegesis of the Bible to justify torture, maiming, etc. The founders of this country (not all of whom were evangelical Christians, by any stretch of the imagination — ex., Thomas Jefferson) did not want to see this type of misuse of religion in the name of a “National Church” aligned with a political party. I think we could also learn something from them, as well. I don’t want religion misused either — I have a deep interest in not blaspheming God’s Name and character in the name of ANY political party’s agenda.

    So, back to the original question, raised by Tom in his blog: Where is our loyalty? From both a biblical and a (merely) historical perspective, I would say that we have some critical thinking to do about how we choose to align ourselves.

    What (really) would Jesus do? And are we willing to hear His voice beyond and above the chatter of both the Religious Right and the Liberals? I believe that bringing my faith into politics involves listening to both camps, using discernment on each issue, and continuing to be aware that all men are sinners and that “by their fruits, ye shall know them”. (Note: From a biblical perspective, “fruits” are more than praying and having a quiet time every day. “Fruits” involve being concerned about the types of issues mentioned above, that were so important to the Father.)

    That’s a much more difficult path then labelling either political party as “for” or “against” God. Are we, as Christians, ready to develop wisdom rather than label and demonize people because they may disagree with us? What would Jesus do???

  • Kathy — “Voting democrat or not voting is a vote for gay marriage and abortion and puts in power the party that appoints judges who degree things like gay marriage in MA.”

    Kathy conveniently ignores the fact that 6 out of the 7 judges in MA who voted FOR sodomite unions were appointed by REPUBLICAN Governors. Vote GOP! Everyone loves the Gay Old Party.

    See second page of this Left-Wing rag, they’re quite pleased:
    http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/SenateTestimonyMarch032004.pdf

  • From Brent Bozell to you the ill-informed:

    Unwind that soundbite. Since when have the Democrats really been the party to protect children from the sexual advances of adults? Let’s get to the point: Since when have Democrats like Nancy Pelosi cared, really cared, about men seeking out boys for sex?

    There’s an organized lobby for this perversion: the National Man-Boy Love Association. In 1997, NAMBLA made national headlines when a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy named Jeffrey Curley was abducted by two men, choked on a gasoline-soaked rag when he wouldn’t consent to sex, was murdered, and then sexually assaulted.

    Curley’s parents sued NAMBLA, since one of the killers said he was discouraged from following his fiendish desires until the organization encouraged him. The Curleys’ lawyer explained how the group instructed perverts on how to lure children into sex, citing a NAMBLA publication he calls “The Rape and Escape Manual.” Its actual title is “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships.”

    What does this have to do with the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi? The ever-prescient Mark Levin connected the dots on his radio program. NAMBLA easily found lawyers to defend them against the parents of the murdered boy — the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Sing praises to the ACLU and praise God – now that’s a dicotomy.

    How on earth do you draw the conclusion about whether or not I read the Bible? Because I disagree with you politically?

    I will pray for you – perhaps you’d like to know what Bible thumping means? It’s a derogatory term for preachers in the South who resort to scripture rather than debate. I use it to define myself because I do go to scripture for the answers and don’t find it a derogatory term.

    But your need to dismiss my argument based on my religion begs the question – is it me you hate – or the rationale for doing the best I can in a fallible world, rather than acting like a petulant child if I don’t get what I want and cursing the world like you fine people?

    God after all is the final Authority. It was He in Ecclesiastes that said that the world was imperfect and that I could not straignten it out.

    He warns us repeatedly to put our trust in Him, not people who will disappoint us.

    I am a pragmatist. I don’t vote for the perfect, but I vote for the good. And no I do not believe the GOP is the party of pedestery – as you apoplectically exclaim. Show me where it is in the platform. ;) I can find it in the dem platform.

    The American Spectator reported that in a 2001 “gay pride” parade in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was just three spots in the parade from radical gay advocate Harry Hay, who avidly spoke in favor of sex with teens and fiercely advocated for NAMBLA’s inclusion in gay-pride parades. Did Pelosi ever protest NAMBLA’s presence in parades?

    But go back to Pelosi’s soundbite, because there’s something there that’s even more jarring: Since when do ultraliberals like San Fran Nan believe that a 17-year-old is a “child” anyway?

    Consider the most sacred of sacred rights of liberals, abortion. When a teenage girl desires an abortion (or two, or three), do abortion-enabling liberals like Nancy Pelosi defend her as a “child”? Kansas pro-life attorney general Phill Kline fought last year to press abortion clinics to give him medical records of underage girls who sought abortions as part of an investigation into sexual abuse of minors. Liberals like Planned Parenthood fought for what they called the privacy of “women’s medical records.”

    And if liberal Democrats think sex between adults and children is gravely wrong, why are they accepting massive donations from Hollywood? One odd twist in the news networks’ shock-and-awe Mark Foley bombing is that their entertainment network cousins relish the very same activity, for fun and laughter, on their sex-drenched dramas.

    I’d rather work to the good than complain and wallow in impotence – which is what I see pathethically flourishes here.

    For you guys, the good is the enemy of perfect.

    Wow – how miserable you must be.

    I am an unapologetic Bible thumping Christian. :)

    If that offends you then rather than be a stumbling block for you – I won’t be back.

    And OSP – I can’t explain Souter (GHWB appointee) and O’Connor (Reagan appointee) but I do appreciate Alito and Roberts –

    Sometimes GOP leaders appoint liberals through political expediency or error, but Democrats ALWAYS APPOINT LIBERALS – so no the GOP is not the gay old party – as I said, you people are really confused.

    nice try, though.

    If you think loyalty to God is expressed in supporting a party that parades around San Francisco with NAMBLA while you call republicans the party of pedastery – I’m stunned.

    Please continue in your devastingly fallible echo chamber, and do not let the facts intrude. I see no one perfect here – and as you only support perfect – you must indeed hate yourselves.

    And God offers forgiveness – you should try it sometime.

  • “If that offends you then rather than be a stumbling block for you – I won’t be back.”

    Wow, it’s been over an hour and no one’s jumped on that yet?

    Fine — I’m offended. Your hijacking of what should’ve been a thoughtful discourse on a relevant, topical issue is truly offensive. In fact, I’ve never been more offended in my ENTIRE LIFE! (is she gone?). And I’m REALLY offended by the Bible-thumping reference! (now?)

    I’d only found this site today and was impressed with its intelligence, evidence and, especially — tolerance.

    You’re chemically imbalanced, Kathy. You don’t know you are because you are. More rants, diatribes and Tourette-like behaviour will merely cement the diagnosis. It’ll also expose your exit threat as an empty promise.

  • I have a hard time not taking pride in my opinion and this gets in the way of making progress in the truth since I am defensive of my views. I also have a hard time not slinging mud when someone slings mud at me. Maybe we could all have more progressive discussion with these things out of the picture.

  • Wow, Kathy, what a scintillating response! There were so many logical fallacies — not the least of which were numerous ad hominem attacks — that I lost count. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never have so many things been found so wrong with so little in so short a time.”

    “…to you the ill-informed.” Interesting. Simply because those of us who have the temerity to disagree with you, we are “ill-informed”? Sorry, but I consider myself pretty darn well-informed, because I don’t simply listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don’t only read “The Weekly Standard.” And, if you’re so “well-informed,” it should be very easy to refute Mr. Kuo’s claims. This you never try to do because, obviously, you can’t. Instead, you simply try to spin, spin, spin…and Biblical Christianity is the opposite of “spin.” Indeed, anything less than the absolute, complete, total and unadulterated truth is a LIE, according to the Ten Commandments. Those are found in Exodus 20, by the way…time to open up that Bible and stop thumping it.

    “Sing praises to the ACLU and praise God – now that’s a dicotomy.”

    I certainly didn’t “sing praises to the ACLU.” I find the ACLU to be as morally abhorrent as I find the so-called “Christian Coalition,” which was nothing more than a vehicle for Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed’s political aspirations. I do not lament the death of the Christian Coalition and I will be most happy when the ACLU meets a similar end.

    “How on earth do you draw the conclusion about whether or not I read the Bible? Because I disagree with you politically?”

    No, because nothing you write has any connection with Biblical truth whatsoever. You cannot cite a single inerrant, infallible, or inspired Scripture to prove your points because your mindless and slavish devotion to the Republican Party is sinful idolatry. If you want to be persuasive, drop the personal insults and start citing the Bible to back up your claims. It is the only objective standard of truth, as much regard as I have for L. Brent Bozell, who is a fine man.

    “I will pray for you – perhaps you’d like to know what Bible thumping means? It’s a derogatory term for preachers in the South who resort to scripture rather than debate. I use it to define myself because I do go to scripture for the answers and don’t find it a derogatory term.”

    You’re so blinded by all things Republican that you read into other people’s writings things that simply are not there. I am a conservative, evangelical, Reformed Christian — I, too, would be considered a “Bible thumper” by those who would use the term disparagingly. The real difference between the two of us is that I don’t think that the Republican Party is “God’s party.” Indeed, I don’t think God needs the Republican Party at all to accomplish His purposes for this nation and the world. Your heretical Pelagian notion that a Democrat victory in November will be the end of the world denies the Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. If Democrats win in November, it will be only because God has decreed it — and they may well be an instrument which God uses to discipline His church and to judge immoral, sinful America. But I’m not worried about the fate of the universe if the GOP goes down in an ignominous and much-deserved defeat. God is in charge, thank God, not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Denny Hastert, or any of the rest of that sorry lot.

    “But your need to dismiss my argument based on my religion begs the question – is it me you hate – or the rationale for doing the best I can in a fallible world, rather than acting like a petulant child if I don’t get what I want and cursing the world like you fine people?”

    I don’t hate you; I don’t know you. I’m simply an obscure person posting on an obscure website, and you are the same. The only one who is acting “like a petulant child” is the one who has no arguments from Scripture, and apparently cannot employ logic, so she must resort to name-calling.

    “God after all is the final Authority. It was He in Ecclesiastes that said that the world was imperfect and that I could not straignten it out. He warns us repeatedly to put our trust in Him, not people who will disappoint us.”

    Citations, please? Demonstrate your Scripture knowledge by actually quoting some, or at least by providing us with the references. And, you are right — God IS the FINAL Authority. Jesus Christ is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That means that He is above every pathetic and pitiful human being — Republican or Democrat — who thinks that he, or his party, is somehow “in control” of anything.

    I will be voting an almost straight Republican ticket in November, because I can do so with a clear conscience. However, I would hardly recommend that every other conservative Christian do the same, simply because “I don’t vote for the perfect, but I vote for the good.” What you seem to fail to understand is the clear truth that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    You proudly declare that “I am a pragmatist.” This is the root of the problem. Scripture does not allow us to be “pragmatic.” Speaking of Bible quotations, try this one on for size: “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23). How intolerant, how narrow-minded, how perfectionistic of Jesus! Didn’t He understand that sometimes you have to break a few eggs when you’re making an omelette? Don’t the ends justify the means? How could He dare “make the good the enemy of the perfect”?

    “I’d rather work to the good than complain and wallow in impotence – which is what I see pathethically flourishes here.” For someone whose posts are riddled with spelling errors, a little humility on your part would behoove you.

    “Wow – how miserable you must be.” I can’t speak for anyone else, but knowing that God is Sovereign, and that the destiny of the universe is in His capable, gracious, and merciful hands, gives me great joy, and a peace “that passeth understanding.” It is those who live and die by what happens in electoral politics who are truly the most miserable. I haven’t seen any evidence of any happiness in a single thing you’ve posted here or on your own website. “Physician, heal thyself!”

    “I am an unapologetic Bible thumping Christian. :) If that offends you then rather than be a stumbling block for you – I won’t be back.”

    I’m not offended by your professed Christianity, Kathy; only your utterly unbiblical and ungodly obsequiousness to all things Republican. That attribute is idolatrous and demands repentance. In Whom do you truly put your trust — Almighty God or the GOP?

    “And OSP – I can’t explain Souter (GHWB appointee) and O’Connor (Reagan appointee) but I do appreciate Alito and Roberts – Sometimes GOP leaders appoint liberals through political expediency or error, but Democrats ALWAYS APPOINT LIBERALS – so no the GOP is not the gay old party – as I said, you people are really confused. nice try, though.”

    You’ve got it backwards. From time to time, the Republican Party actually delivers on some issue that is of importance to conservative Christians, largely to keep them in line. However, most of the time their agenda and platform is driven by the pursuit of raw political power, not Christian morals or civic righteousness.

    “If you think loyalty to God is expressed in supporting a party that parades around San Francisco with NAMBLA while you call republicans the party of pedastery – I’m stunned.”

    Your ignorance is only exceeded by your willingness to demonstrate it. Both of the men for whom this website are named are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church — a congregation of which in the San Francisco area has been the target of numerous attacks, including firebombing, because its brave and courageous pastor has stood up to the homosexual lobby time and time again. The Rev. Charles McIlhenny has been on the frontlines of Christian political activism and has paid a heavy price for it, all while many Republicans warmly embrace the “Log Cabin” perverts, and covered up for a despicable pedophile like Mark Foley. Don’t deign to lecture people when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    “Please continue in your devastingly fallible echo chamber, and do not let the facts intrude. I see no one perfect here – and as you only support perfect – you must indeed hate yourselves.”

    Oh, but Kathy, your statement is self-refuting, for you have insisted throughout your posts that you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. You have never admitted even the slightest possibility that you could be wrong. So your humility, as well as much else about which you have written, is false.

    “And God offers forgiveness – you should try it sometime.”

    Here’s another Scripture for you to prayerfully contemplate: “And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). Yes, thanks be to God, God is a forgiving, gracious, and loving God. But forgiveness is not an excuse to continue on a wrong path; it is the first step in changing direction from the wrong path to one which brings glory and honor to Christ. Yours is a cheap grace indeed, Kathy. And a cheap grace is not Biblical grace at all.

    Instead of spending so much time writing on various websites, demonstrating your ignorance, why not blow the dust off the cover of your Bible and start reading it?

  • hi mike,
    The problem is not new, the Puritans had the same ideas in England and they too got left in the cold by the Kings, Queens. The “Christian Coalition” leaders must have never read the Puritans(but that’s a different problem) so they are left to repeat some of history…question is where does the problem start.. in Churches, not being faithful to the Bible and in our lot the WCF.They claim faithfulness then take exceptions with ill minds and twisted logic. This then is supported by weak Elders and we like the Israel judges, live in sin cycles until we repent and reform. I can see a church who is so all embracing that it kicks out those that just wanted to be tolerant( to a point)…what happened to strong stances unwaivering faith, Biblical detemined and taught ideas of our forefathers who would have humbly taught us, with Spirit and authority,and if we still would not listen suggest so and so down the street… at what point do the”republicans” become a non christian party…when will the leaders hold them accountable(even though they do not hold their own congegations acountable)? The Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici has been forgoten by many, and so all of society has suffered.
    steve h.

  • From time to time, the Republican Party actually delivers on some issue that is of importance to conservative Christians, largely to keep them in line. However, most of the time their agenda and platform is driven by the pursuit of raw political power, not Christian morals or civic righteousness.

  • (Please refer to quote above–and excuse my bungled post) TomInTulsa, I agree with much of your last post, but am unclear on one point: given your assertion in the quote above, and your (correct) view that the lesser of two evils is still evil, then how can you maintain that you’ll be voting a nearly straight Republican ticket in November with a clear conscience?

  • That’s the quote in Post #47, BTW. (I’ll figure out how to use this discussion board eventually…)

1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *