Besides the unshaky ground in writing about the faith of a person you don't know, I think the article has it points and it's problems. I think Christian presidents are problematic on a couple of points: 1. Is it possible to be righteous and a good president at the same time? 2. Is it possible to be righteous and electable at the same time? 3. Given that a Christian is supposed to live his life in communion with the church and submit himself to the authority of his church leadership and also to his brothers in Christ, how can you do that and also be the chief executive of the country? There's an unavoidable aspect of it being "lonely at the top." A Christian in the Oval Office will have his religious life suffer because of the nature of his work. Bush as Christian also leaves me a couple of doubts, not because I doubt his faith, but because: 4. I wonder about the maturity of his faith. He may believe, but how much does he understand of what he believes? Which isn't to say he's a half-wit; I'm not taking that shot. But Chrisitianity isn't static; it has a trajectory, and I wonder where he's at on it. 5. There's plenty of division in the church. Christians can be happy he's a Christian, but that won't necessarily mean they're happy with his doctrine. Does he believe the Bible is inerrant? Does he believe in predestination? Does he believe in infant baptism? He can be saved -- and that'd be great for him -- but he may simultaneously be very wrong about the nature of God. However, the article is problematic for many of the same reasons. Some of the things the author seems to find theologically problematic, I find no trouble reconciling. Likewise, there are probably things others could complain about that he wouldn't get. The biggest problem in reconciling seems to be the author judging Bush's faith on the basis of his works in the first place. As Fegwu said, the Bible says you can tell by the fruit (it also says you should be able to tell a Christian by his love, that Christians love one another), but the author seems to take it to an extent of works-righteousness. That, as a Christian, we expect that Bush will not sin anymore. I know there are some Christians who feel that way. The ones I'm more familiar with feel like continued sinning is inevitable, even though you try to stop. A lack of fruit would be to me, that you can't find Bush doing anything for the sake of Christ; that he unrepentently and repeatedly ignores God in his governance. For the author, it seems like if he finds Bush doing anything at all that is theologically suspect, it invalidates his Christianity, as though now that he's born again he should never sin.
Who cares whether he is a full participant of Denominational (Religious Holy Rollers) funtions? Like attending Church or going to Sunday school. I was raised in church all my life. So this is not coming from an Atheist Big Deal. Just keep our country safe. Thats our BIG Deal. So the ? is who do you think can help in that area. I sure as h**l do not want someone who can not decide if he wants to wear shorts or pants or blue or green or french fries or potatoe chips. Oh but wait, it gets better. Lets wait for France and Germany to decide whether or not we are going to protect ourselves.
Im my book, it does not matter what a president's specific faith is, what matters is how he/she implements the concept of "faith" into decision making. If a president has strong religious convictions which fuel a sophisticated understanding of problems and solutions, fine, sign me up. But, when you have a president who opts out of grasping facts and evidence-based decision making because he/she has "faith" that things will work out okay because... well, just because he/she has that "faith," then you have a serious f****** problem. Ron Suskind wrote a terrific article about GWB and faith in this past weekend's NYT Magazine. It is precisely the "faith" issue - as in anti-reasoning type "faith," not as in 'moral convictions' type faith - that makes me so passionately displeased with this president. Assuming he loses this election and is soon cannonized as the most spectacularly awful elected official since the inception of the 24-second shot clock, it would be nice if he could actually take "faith" as he seems to use it down with him. That sort of anti-reasoning "faith" is a cancer on the human race. Evidence? Science? Expertise? Discussion? Self-criticism? Nuance? Understanding? Intelligence? Constitutionality? Ah, screw it, I gotta feeling in my gut that this will work out. It's like the old Steve Martin, "Theodoric, Barber of York" sketches. "Why, we could move to an age of reason, enlightenment, science!...Naaaaaaah."
Is Kerry really a Catholic? Kerry in conflict with his church As an extraordinarily popular mayor of Boston during the 1980s, Ray Flynn helped John Kerry get elected to the Senate. Now he finds himself in the odd position of conscience of the Democratic Party, publicly scolding Kerry in full-page newspaper advertisements regarding Kerry's anti-Catholic position on judicial appointments. What brought Flynn to a point where he feels compelled to confront an old political friend? During the Clinton administration, Flynn served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. His time as emissary to the Vatican apparently prompted him to think of things more important than politics. He now heads a nonpartisan lay Catholic organization called Liberty, Life and Family, which encourages Catholics to apply the church's social teachings to public life. Which brings us back to Kerry, who wants to have his Catholicism both ways: He wants to make sure the news media record his participation in the Catholic Mass, but at the same time he says he will only appoint judges who support abortion rights. In an open letter to Kerry, Flynn says of Kerry's judicial litmus test: "Removing political correctness from that statement, Senator Kerry, you have announced that you will only support people to the federal judiciary who support killing unborn children. "This letter is not on behalf of or in opposition to your candidacy, but I am asking you to announce today that you will not impose any abortion litmus test on candidates for the federal judiciary - especially those who are faithful Catholics." Judicial appointments are not the only area where Kerry finds himself in conflict with his public Catholicism. In his second debate with President Bush, Kerry declared, if in twisted syntax, his support for federal funding of abortion - which has been forbidden since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Such public opposition to moral teachings of the Catholic Church gives rise to the need for voices like Flynn's. We do not pretend or aspire to be theologians here. But if John Kerry insists upon thumbing his nose at the concerns of Catholic voters and indeed would impose policy litmus tests that if applied to anyone other than Catholics plainly would be seen as bigotry, then Kerry deserves to be challenged.
Just because someone is a Catholic does not mean he has to agree with every little thing that is part of the official line of the church.
So some can question Bush and his faith based on his actions, but you can't question Kerry and his? Interesting.
So that was what GWB was waiting on prior to 911. Shame on him then. Everything now makes perfect sense.
