Tuesday, February 28, 2006

President Bush: Not So Pro-Life After All?

President Bush:  Not So Pro-Life After All?

Well, I read somewhere that President Bush is a United Methodist.  Nobody much disagrees with the proposition that the United Methodist Church is a “liberal denomination.”

So, we should not be surprised that President Bush’s theology in general – along with his Biblical anthropology in particular – is skewed in a leftward, or soft-headed, direction.

Take his general theology, for instance:  During his one-and-a-half terms in office, President Bush has hosted the first-ever White House Ramadan services – replete with real imams praying real Muslim prayers.  By accounts that I read, the President took part in these goings-on.

Sorry, but a Scripturally-grounded Christian – President or no – is hardly going to INVITE mullahs to the White House or INITIATE an OMINOUS NEW precedent of Muslim services INSIDE the White House – LET ALONE participate in them.

Moreover, no self-respecting, theologically- and scripturally-based evangelical Christian who has even a minimal grasp of either Church History or World History would be caught dead saying that “Islam” means “Religion of Peace,” as this President has done on more than one occasion.  

Religion of Peace!  My eye!

Additionally, each year, the President makes an official Presidential “Kwanzaa Greeting.”  No matter that Kwanzaa – despite its pseudo-African appearances – is a home-grown American observance.  No matter that Kwanzaa is an egregiously pagan observance.  No mater that Kwanzaa was manufactured whole cloth in the 1960s by someone who might well be categorized as a leftist radical.  No matter that the number of people who oberve the recently-invented holiday in this country is infinitesimal in comparison to those who observe Christmas – or, probably even Hanukka, for that matter.  

No matter: President Bush, the alleged devout evangelical Christian insists on issuing “Kwanzaa Greetings” annually.  This is not merely a non-Christian observance, it is a contrived, and – frankly – silly observance.

Happy Kwanzaa!  My eye!

Now, to move on to the President’s (biblical) anthropology (i.e., as a subset of general theology):  It is also United-Methodist screwy.

The President has sold himself as being pro-life all these years.  Now he clarifies for us that he is pro-life as long as the baby does not have the misfortune to have been conceived during an act of rape or of incest (even though pregnancies resulting from these two varieties or sexual abuse are relatively rare).

Doesn’t matter:  Those babies – or so says our President – don’t have a right to life!

Talk about blaming the victim!

For our theologically retarded “evangelical” President, let us review:  The Bible says (although, granted, a discussion of the morality of abortion is not the context in which this verse appears) “Choose life” – not “choose life for the nonviolently conceived.”  It says, “Thou shalt not kill” – not Thou shalt not kill those who were conceived in non-incestuous relationships.

In short, Mr. President, you do not have a theological leg to stand on by saying that you – AS A CHRISTIAN – do not think that children conceived of rape or incest have a right to life.

Any thinking person must see that the President’s position is ethically, logically, and morally untenable:  Either no babies enjoy a right to life – or they all do.  (The “life of the mother” exception is more of a red herring, than a real issue – so rarely must doctors choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child, and when they do, the choice of one above the other is usually forced upon them.)

The only good I can see coming out of this announcement, is that – perhaps – some of the mind-numbed Bushbots will see our “evangelical” President for what he is:  A theologically larboard-listing United Methodist at best – or a cold-blooded Machiavellian at worst.

Evangelical, my eye!

___________________
Update: Upon re-reading this post (after having posted it), it occurs to me that it is (while logically on target) rather  harsh – and, in a sense – unfair to the Presdent for the following reason.  NONE of us is completely CONSISTENT, whether ethically, morally, or theologically.  In short, we are all a bit eccentric – which can be both good or bad.

In President Bush’s case, his eccentricities are VERY serendipitous for both Pro-Lifers, as well – and especially for – the unborn.

Why do I say that?  Because, despite the sad statement by President Bush that triggered the post above, all three (and this would include Harriet Miers) of his Supreme Court nominees thus far are LIKELY MORE PRO-LIFE than even the President.  

And for that (the quality of his SCOTUS nominees), my hat is truly (and humbly) OFF to President Bush!

So, in a sense, I should say: I don’t CARE what the President says (although I do), I really care about what he does (i.e., nominating truly Pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court).

5 Comments:

Blogger TexasFred said...

I have tried to send you 2 emails, are you over the storage limit or something??

Thu Mar 02, 04:25:00 PM PST  
Blogger GunJam said...

TexasFred -- uhoh. let me check. Gunjam

Thu Mar 02, 05:49:00 PM PST  
Blogger GunJam said...

texasfred: Whoops! You are right! A problem: I have had to switch my email address to gunjam@hush.com.
Sincere apologies. -- gunjam

Fri Mar 03, 12:40:00 AM PST  
Blogger Hip-Hope Sparrow said...

What's up with those Methodists? First, we've got Bush Jr., now there's a female Methodist at the helm in Liberia: a first for the African continent. I grew up Methodist, so form and calculation isn't so easy as you think,.

If Joseph Lieberman were to run for President again, I'd consider Sukot in the White House, as long as they clean that house first of any residue of Ramadan and Kwanzaa. Remember Amalek (Exodus 17:14).

How bout another fiery Baptist like John leading the country into repentance... then into WWIII. I wonder if Hillary (if you think about it, she's all ready been President) or Israel remembers the Judas kiss from Mrs. Arafat?

If Pat Robertson can run for President, why can't Bishop T.D. Jakes?

Fri Mar 03, 06:23:00 AM PST  
Blogger GunJam said...

hi, hip hope, raven! How are you? I don't seek a fiery preacher to be President, just one that is clearly anchored in the Scriptures (rightly divided). However, the media would wage all-out war on such a man, if he came on the scene. The closest to it in public life in recent years would be Pat Robertson, whom I have met. He is TRULY a lovely and godly man -- something you would NEVER know from the way the media treat him. Thank you for your comment! I am up for Sukot in the White House! -- gunjam

Fri Mar 03, 07:44:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

|
# # # # #