TheAgitator.com
Scary
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004Bush is no longer merely doing Jesus’ work, he now is Jesus.
15 Responses to “Scary”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
-
Site Features
-
Contribute
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
-
-
Site Credits
As the American Conservative magazine puts it:
“The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.”
’nuff said…
Phuleeze
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on October 27, 2004 01:47 PM
Sorry Rich - as usual you fail to argue the point brought up and instead go on to something else.
I read you rant - the American Conservative endorsement of John Kerry has nothing to do with Ron Susskind’s article.
That is, of course, unless you are equating the American Conservative with “the abject cluelessness of America’s political Left when it comes to the faith of the evangelical Christian.” If that it the case, you have lost all semblence rationality.
You’re just one more “Bush can do no wrong” voice in the wilderness…perhaps you can take the next four years of the upcomming Kerry Administration to re-evaluate what it means to accept valid criticism from people that share a majority of your politcal beliefs without calling them “leftists”.
As I said in another post here on this blog, when the people who drank the kool aid start changing their minds, it’s time to give up.
Again, if the American Conservative magazine is not a member of “American’s Political Left” where does that fact leave your argument?
In tatters, disgarded on the trash-heap of history - where it belongs.
No, Richard — actually, in my view it’s NOT that Bush can’t do no wrong … it’s that Kerry shows himself capable of doing MUCH WORSE.
And, the reason I linked to my own post is that, regardless of the source, the kind of misunderstanding illustrated by the quote (a sentiment you appear to agree with) indicates the same kind of cluelesness exhibited by the Left when it comes to evangelical Christianity.
A similar, though less virulent, misunderstanding is evident in Radley’s post, as well.
I wasn’t calling any of the above Leftists … just pointing out the cluelessness they are, on this topic, sharing with the Left.
Once again, you misunderestimate me.
“regardless of the source”
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on October 27, 2004 02:50 PM
That single snipet of a sentence pretty much encapsulates each and every post you’ve ever provided us here.
Everything to you is “regardless” of the source. You go far off into looney-land to state that it’s the “cluelessness of the Left” that misrepresents Bush Evangelical Christianity - however when confronted with the same argument from a conservative publication, you simply use the weak “uh, them too” argument.
Sorry Rich, I’m calling you on that intellectual dishonesty.
You can’t say in one breath that it’s the Left’s own yearning for a “secular theocracy” that causes them to misunderstand Evangelical Christians and then use your next breath to say “them too” to conservatives that have built a movement AGAINST such a leftist secular theocracy.
From the American Conservative Editor’s Mission Statement: “We believe conservatism to be the most natural political tendency, rooted in manâs taste for the familiar, for family, for faith in God.”
Why would a conservative, God-fearing publication like “American Conservative” use a phrase like “Christian Armageddon set” when speaking of the Bush Administration?
Please answer the question without using the words “left, secular, atheist or anti-Christian” - if you can.
Finally, you’ve boiled down your argument for another four years of Bush - “Kerry would be worse.”
Why, because he’s a liberal? What does this country have to fear from a liberal president? That he would run big deficits? That he would increase federal spending? That he would expand the power of the federal government over individuals’ lives? Nothing Kerry could do could top what President Bush has already done in those realms.*
Come on Rich. The “I’m bad but he’s worse” argument is not a ringing endorsement of George W. Bush.
*http://tinyurl.com/3qvsq
To Rich S:
One cannot argue with evangelicals. They take the bible literally, as the word of god. They are no different than fundamentalists of other religions.
It would kill them to know that Constantine, who never converted to Christianity, when he convened his conference in the 4th century AD, around 320 or so, there was no bible but a series of different tales. They tried to put something together, they threw some out and wrote whole new gospels. The kicker is that they VOTED on whether or not Jesus was resurrected. It is all documented, the vote by the way was NARROWLY a victor for the resurrectionists. Just as people make fun of other religions for their “crazy” ideas, they forget how crazy their’s actually sound.
Rich C’s world is black and white, there is a heaven and there is a hell. He is always right his opponents are always wrong.
BTW, did anyone else see the poll that found out 75% of Bush supporters believe Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11. If Bush is reelected, it is because we have become a country dominated by idiots.
On the left being clueless about evangelical Christianity — I believe that the president has said he’s a Methodist. Not exactly a denomination known by the title, “Evangelical.” In fact, the Methodists are way over on the left side of Christianity. Hardly a conservative bunch.
Perhaps we all misunderstand him and his voter base?
In any case, Bush is not Jesus, never has been Jesus, and never will be Jesus. More likely that he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us, and certainly just like John Kerry.
Can we at least debate what the candidates likely will do when in office? The probability that Kerry will do worse than Bush has been persuasive to me all along.
What do the rest of you have to say about your reason for your choice for president?
how can you do worse than bush has done so far - in terms of foreign policy and increases in domestic spending?
Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 05:07 PM
Yeah, I know all about the Council at Nicea. I wonder what would happen if it was explained to them that taking the Bible as the “literal” Word of God is actually worshipping a false idol - since it was created by a committee headed by a non-Christian.
“Yeah, I know all about the Council at Nicea. I wonder what would happen if it was explained to them that taking the Bible as the “literal” Word of God is actually worshipping a false idol - since it was created by a committee headed by a non-Christian.”
Speaking of false idols, people are still going around prostrating themselves and weeping before blocks of stone with the 10 commandments carved in them.
Someone needs to sneak up to one of those 10 commandments dealies, and put a little golden calf on top. Then snap a picture quick, to get the people praying before it before they catch on.
Ray: Bush may say he’s a Methodist, but he also talks about being “born again”. I was raised Methodist, and we weren’t into the whole “born again” shtick.
Maybe Methodism is different in Texas, but Bush’s version, based on the way he talks about it, isn’t the one I was raised with.
constantine’s role at the council at nicea is debateable.
he was more interested in unifying the christian factions in order to stabilize the empire under one religion.
it is not even certain whether he had any voting power at the council.
his commitment to the christian religion is also debateable. he was, however, baptized shortly before his death.
im not trying to agrue that the bible should be taken literally.
Cyclopatra,
I was “raised” a Methodist also. And yes, I never heard the term, “born-again,” either. But times change, do they not?
Methodist theology still remains on the far left side of Christianity, however.
By the way, I’m Roy, not Ray.
Bothered and Bewildered
The Agitator points to this new little slideshow of pictures. I’m not quite sure if it’s serious. I mean, JibJab isn’t - it’s hilarious. But I actually think this guy is trying to convince me that Bush is the Man Who Comes Around. Maybe I’m not the i…
Jesus
(Link thanks to Radley Balko 2004/10/27 and LRC Blog 2004/10/26.) If you thought that comparing George Bush to Aragorn and his assault on Iraq…