09.30.04
the case for bush
Yet another charming example of selective morality by the religious right.
Democrats sermonizing on how various Scriptures illustrate the evils of President Bush (or whatever Republican they’re running against) is hilarious and so transparent that I wonder why their handlers let them do it. Liberal politicians’ interpretations of Bible passages can get very interesting (such as “moral values” equalling health care, medicare, and every government program under the sun).
So, just so we’re all clear. So far, here’s the list.
1. Health care - not a moral value
2. Medicare - not moral value
3. Affirmative Action - not moral value
4. Welfare - not a moral value
5. Abortion - moral value
6. Gay rights - moral value
7. Gun control - not a moral value
8. Balancing the budget - not a moral value
So, why is it that God doesn’t care about health care? Because, if he does…it’s a moral value, right? God couldn’t care less about welfare, screw the poor after all. But when it comes down to making gays feel like they are less than human, hells yah, God’s all about that.
Sounds to me like one’s standard of morality has shifted from the Bible to the RNC’s party platform. And if that’s the case, no wonder the religious right sees that Democrats are the scourge of morality. If morality = republican, then I’ll take immoral any day of the week.
–not necessarily on the welfare thing although…i feel like liberals at least offer a solution to the problem of poverty in America.) 
Janet said,
September 30, 2004 at 6:58 pm
Great new look and byline…or did you have that before? I’m a liberal Catholic in the South….probably a demographic of, what, 0.1%? Love your stuff. Will drop by often.
Janet
Streak said,
September 30, 2004 at 10:12 pm
don’t forget the environment.
Brandon said,
September 30, 2004 at 10:40 pm
Thanks Janet! I look forward to your presence.
You’re right, Streak…how could I have forgotten that the environment is also not a moral issue.
Now, let’s all sing:
This is my Father’s world…
Benjamin said,
September 30, 2004 at 11:16 pm
Well, if you’ve already decided that the Father’s going to reposess the world within this generation (please refer to the handy rapture index should you have any doubts on this) it becomes an issue of “smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em”. Or, for the more theoretically inclined, a social implementation of Prim’s Algorithm
greg said,
October 1, 2004 at 12:15 am
he shines in all that’s fair…
Kerry kicked W’s ass tonight! I might actually vote for the blue-blood bastard. Too bad I’m in OK where it doesn’t make two shits whom I vote for. It’s a red state, you understand.
Brandon said,
October 1, 2004 at 8:10 am
the rocks and trees and skies and seas…
(but it’s still okay to promote strip mining, deforestation, and give kickbacks to non-environmentally complient oil shipping vessels…)
Greg, I don’t know if I’ve ever told you…but you crack me up.
James said,
October 1, 2004 at 12:01 pm
:Immorality for Christ” sounds good to me
Headless-in-GR said,
October 1, 2004 at 12:04 pm
Dear BC,
Even though the World View Weekend folks call me a pinko-commie, I have worked for a long, long time in social work type stuff and would definately say that a huge, HUGE majority of money spent on “welfare” is completely wasted. Seriously - I know you may not want to hear that, but it’s true. I think welfare needs to be trimmed way back and I think the churches need to get off their butts and begin doing what we’re called to do, which is the only (or one of the only) ways to really help people.
All that to say that I care a lot about the poor and the left-out - enough to have spent years working with them - but I don’t support government run welfare… So now you think that I am a bad christian?
Not to be mean, of course, but I consider myself kinda smart, at least, and kinda compassionate -I try - and I still disagree with you, sooooo…it’s not just stupid, mean people who disagree with you. There are reasons to be “conservative” on this issue - and maybe others as well.
Brandon said,
October 1, 2004 at 12:32 pm
The thing is, Headless, that welfare wasn’t what this post was about. Well, it was only a tiny bit. I don’t fault you at all for disagreeing…(even though, I think you’re dead wrong
–not necessarily on the welfare thing although…i feel like liberals at least offer a solution to the problem of poverty in America.)
There may well be reasons–good ones, too–to be conservative. Most liberals that I surround myself with affirm that, they just disagree with the standpoints is all. The problem is…many religious conservatives have been claiming a corner on moral issues (reaches out dings the bell ala’ “PIT” the stockmarket game.)
The problem being that religious is being replaced by conservative. THAT’S what sucks. Not that religious people are conservative. It’s that christianity and morality are being replaced with conservatism–I find that to be foul.
Brandon said,
October 1, 2004 at 12:55 pm
And, James, I love “Immorality for Jesus” I’m on my way out to print up bumper stickers and t-shirts…any takers.
Visiting Atheist said,
October 1, 2004 at 5:52 pm
Just by way of clarification (not disagreement), I would say that liberals aren’t remotely close to offering a solution to American poverty, but they at least recognize that it is a serious problem that ought to be a higher priority in our political discourse than it currently is.
Cheers,
VA
Headless-in-GR said,
October 2, 2004 at 12:15 pm
VA - good point that liberals and conservatives are not offering solutions. Forgive my cynicism, but mostly the poor are just being exploited for the vote. Now I lay my hand - Governor Bush, as I knew him, really did geniunely concern himself with the poor (either that or he’s a really good faker - which if he is, he should have used it during the debate the other night). He believes that “faith-based initiatives” is the answer because he wants to use the force of the money of the government coupled with the strength of faith. It is a conviction he has - maybe it won’t work, but it does come out of a desire to “do the right thing” - from what I could tell. (and yes, it could be abused too…)
Visiting Atheist said,
October 2, 2004 at 2:39 pm
I’m not familiar with Bush’s record as governor, but to be honest, sincerity doesn’t count for much with me.
In fact, one of my pet peeves about the current presidential campaign is that sincerity seems to be worth more than wisdom–at least political wisdom in the form of discretion and planning. For example, I have no doubt that Bush honestly believes that waging a preemptive war without a viable exit strategy was the right thing to do. But even granting for the sake of argument that ousting Hussein was the correct course of action (as Kerry seems to), the invasion and subsequent withdrawal needed to be planned better. It’s the obligation of leaders to be well-meaning and shrewd. Good intentions aren’t enough.
I haven’t spent more than a few hours looking over his faith-based initiative, so I’ll take your word for what his motivations are. One thing that does irk me, though (because my hot-button issues are science and education): his administration wants more evidence than the strong consensus of working scientists in relevant fields for matters like global warming and atmospheric pollution, yet he’s content to believe that faith-based aid works based solely on spotty anecdotal evidence. That’s not to say I doubt it works; in most cases I don’t doubt it at all. But it’s a double standard with really no support beyond partisan aims.
Anyway, I don’t want to get too off-topic talking about politics in general. I agree that even much of the “liberal” talk about the poor is just a way to curry votes. And heck, ask me what I do for the poor. Not much. I talk about it and that’s pretty much it.
Given my inaction it doesn’t seem like I have the standing to say anything, but my personal lack of motivation doesn’t really make the issue less relevant, so I keep it up in hopes that someday I’ll figure out some way to make a difference.
Cheers,
VA
Brandon said,
October 2, 2004 at 3:21 pm
VA, This may be the first time you’ve linked to your blog! I’m thrilled to read it. One question, though, did you mean to list it…I was under the impression you wanted to maintain a sense of anonymity (which is certainly fine!) If you accidentally posted your blog, I can remove your comment if you wish.
Either way, I’m looking forward to making you a “read”.
Visiting Atheist said,
October 2, 2004 at 3:33 pm
Nah, it was intentional. I figured I’ve harassed you for long enough.
Thanks for checking.
Cheers,
VA
Headless-in-GR said,
October 2, 2004 at 4:40 pm
VA-
My sister and brother-in-law are in the Army and at least one of them is usually in the field. My dad also is Iraq. They all seem to understand the exit strategy…so I guess I’m not sure how you know there isn’t one. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but did you think our government would send make a public announcement concerning the details of our exit? Does not seem like a bad intelligence move?
I’m sure I’ve made you mad with this, and I apologize… It really isn’t my intention, I’m just suggesting that strategies of war on display are usually sabatoged by the other side…
Visiting Atheist said,
October 3, 2004 at 12:58 am
Hi Headless,
First things first: I certainly don’t expect the administration to advertise its military intentions. In fact, I would consider it a serious dereliction of duty were they to do so, which is why I was as upset as anyone last July when the administration blew Valerie Plame’s cover. (Just to be clear, this wasn’t the doing of Bush himself or [most likely] any of his cabinet members; but it was someone in the administration who should have known better.)
I don’t claim that we do not, at this present time, have an exit plan. We’re doing something, and that requires a plan. I even grant that there’s a decent chance this plan will work–years (or decades) from now. What I meant, and what I should have said more explicitly, was that by a viable plan (which was what I said we did not have), I mean one which from the very beginning would have taken into account the possibility of resistance as strong as we now currently experience; a plan which, from the beginning, would have correctly estimated the number of standing troops that would need to be stationed semipermanently in Iraq; a plan which would have provided for intelligence-gathering in such a way that the abuses at Abu Ghraib would not have happened. This “viable” plan, though I don’t know what it would have been (nor do I think we should have been told the details), would have employed much more live intelligence from on the ground and made darned sure that we would find WMDs in Iraq. I think there’s a good chance the administration acted on the best intelligence it had, but I also think they could have had better intelligence had they chosen to collect it.
Anyway, the conditions under which we invaded Iraq were an example of my point, not my main point itself; I think I picked a bad example to illustrate it. My point was that for whatever reason, I am not impressed by a leader’s sincerity. In my more cynical moments, I don’t expect sincerity of anyone; in my less cynical moments, it’s something I think leaders should have anyway, and praising them for it seems a bit like praising them for not hitting pedestrians when they drive to work.
I don’t think everyone thinks like this; in fact, I think that in this respect I’m rather unusual. So I’m sorry if I came off as abrasive, because I really don’t have a very good handle on the view of sincerity as a virtue.
For what it’s worth, I think your question is entirely appropriate, given what you heard me saying.
Cheers,
VA
NameRequired said,
August 15, 2006 at 2:29 am
1. Health care - not a moral value
2. Medicare - not moral value
3. Affirmative Action - not moral value
4. Welfare - not a moral value
5. Abortion - moral value
6. Gay rights - moral value
7. Gun control - not a moral value
8. Balancing the budget - not a moral value
Democrats don’t push these issues out of good intentions, but out of hatred towards people who earn more money then they do. (Envy). Your motive is more important then your actions, this is what the Christ was saying. Democrats are like the Pharisees, they are hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
You are no Christain.
Abyssal said,
April 5, 2007 at 9:57 pm
You realize that most of the big shot democrats are wealthy people, right? It’s not like they’re bankrupt. Poor people don’t run for office. Campaignes are expensive. And we could tag a moral flaw to Republican intentions just as easily as you did. How bout tagging “Greed” onto the Republicans’ motivations for corporate favoritism, anti-middle class and poor public policies, and environmental neglect?
Trouble is, the Republicans don’t have good motives. If you’re right, they’re screwed.
No less than the Republicans. They talk big religion in order to dupe people into following them. Just like the pharisees. They angst over public displays of religiosity like school prayers and 10 Commandment monuments. Just like the pharisees. They act as if they’re holier than others. Just like the pharisees. They have no concern for those less fortunate than themselves. Just like the pharisees. They favor the wealthy. Just like the pharisees. The list goes on and on. There’s really no use comparing Republicans and their religious-right lapdogs to the pharisees, because let’s face it, they are the new pharisees.
Who died and made you God? What did Jesus say about judging other people? Oh, yeah! He said DON’T do it. Sounds like you’re the one with the problem with their Christianity.
~Abyssal
http://abyssalleviathin.wordpress.com/