Main content | Sidebar | Links
Advertising

Monday, October 4, 2004

Christians for Kerry.

Why, you'd almost think I hadn't been paying attention: It's less than a month to Election Day, and I'm just now discovering the Christians for Kerry/Edwards Web site! It includes a brief set of talking points for people looking to help their friends and relatives see that President Bush isn't the de facto choice for committed Christians.

Update: Anna at Call and Response has been hosting a truly fascinating conversation for the past six months on being a Christian Democrat.

Update: Below are links to articles making Christian arguments for electing John Kerry, looking critically at the way George W. Bush has presented himself as the Christian candidate, or offering reasons for Christians not to vote for Bush. (Here are Sen. Kerry's extended remarks about how his Christian faith has inspired his public service, given in Fort Lauderdale on October 2; excerpts here.)

If you're a Christian who intends to vote for John Kerry, I welcome your comments about your reasoning and links to any articles that helped you make up your mind.

Update: Here are some quotes from an October 27 Los Angeles Times article, "Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes" by Peter Wallsten:

Tim Moore, an evangelical who teaches civics at a traditional Christian school near Milwaukee[, . . .] shares Bush's religious convictions, but says the president has lost his vote because of tax cuts for the wealthy and the administration's shifting rationales for invading Iraq.

"There's no way I'm going for Bush. That much I know," said Moore, 46. He remains undecided between Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and a third-party candidate. . . .

Some [conflicted Evangelical voters], such as Wendy Skroch, a 51-year-old mother of three who prays regularly at the evangelical Elmbrook Church in this heavily Republican Milwaukee suburb, blame Bush for failing to fix a "broken" healthcare system and for "selling off the environment to the highest bidder."

Others are like Joe Urcavich, pastor of the nondenominational evangelical Green Bay Community Church, where more than 2,000 people worship each Sunday. He is undecided, troubled by the bloodshed in the Middle East.

"It's hard for me to say that Christians should be marching against abortion and carrying signs, and then turn around and giving a pep rally for the war in Iraq without even contemplating that hundreds and hundreds of people are being killed on a regular basis over there," Urcavich said.

"I'm very antiabortion, but the reality is the right to life encompasses a much broader field than just abortion," he added. "If I'm a proponent of life, I have to think about the consequences of not providing prescription drugs to seniors or sending young men off to war."

(A shorter version of the article is also available from the Miami Herald, or see the full text archived at truthout.org.)

See also Jesus Politics for all sorts of resources on Christian responses to this year's election.

Copyright © 2004 by Philocrites | Posted 4 October 2004 at 10:31 PM

Previous: Amusing...
Next: Hallelujah! Holy Weblog! is back.

Advertising

Advertising

22 comments:

Anna:

October 12, 2004 05:49 PM | Permalink for this comment

Thanks for the link! Can you tell I'm behind on reading blogs? Only a week late to this post. That Christian Democrats post is amazing with its ability to sustain conversation over this long. And remain civilized as well. I had no idea that would happen. Just shows that googling Christian Democrat doesn't lead people to much in the way of conversational opportunities!

Anna

Marilyn:

October 26, 2004 03:16 PM | Permalink for this comment

I have a good laugh at the term "Christians for Kerry". I don't think Christ would support abortion taking the life of the innocent, or gay marriage. When I happened on a picture of Kerry with Anton La Vey from 1983 together at a fundraiser, I found it more fitting that he was with him a satanist. Satanist are famous for no right and no wrong, if it feels good do it. Also the picture of Kerry being honored by the Communist a striking idea being communist are antiGod anyway. Christians for Kerry? Sorry folks, you can walk a donkey in a garage but it will never be a car.

Philocrites:

October 26, 2004 04:00 PM | Permalink for this comment

Ooh, a metaphysical puzzle! Marilyn suggests that you can walk an elephant into a garage and it will turn into a car, but somehow it won't work with a donkey. Thanks for elevating the debate, Marilyn!

Elizzabeth:

October 27, 2004 12:37 AM | Permalink for this comment

I do not believe it is possible for one to support Bush when he has lied to us and done it it GOD's NAME. I am not saying that Kerry has all of his morals in line, but we do not need a leader who gives JESUS CHRIST a bad name. JEsus was the most loving man to ever live...He ate with the poor and frowned upon people in society...i do not see Bush doing that. We cannot sit here and say Kerry is evil bc he supports abortions and gay civil unions. Yes God believes that is a sin...but God also believes deciet is a sin...and using God's name to go to War or say our country is better than theirs is not something Jesus even thinks THis world is full of his beloved not just America. We must keep church and state seperate...and within our consitution we cannot discriminate against anyone...INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS...that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SOmething morlas cannot become involved in because they are not HURTING other people...as in murder or crimes. YEs, abortion is up for debate. But we cannot continue to discriminate gays in our country...that is not what this country is. ALso if we let the church influence the state...the state will then filter into the CHURCH...the very thing we cannot have. Give to Caesar what is Caesars...and give to the LORD what is the LORDS. Why must we continue to all Bush to misrepresent Christ...if he is a CHristian that is AWESOME...but he cannot do things in God's name...that is what hte crusades where...JESUS is more than that...God is bigger than all of this. We live in a broken world. ONly by acting as a BODY OF CHRIST can we change this world. But that is just it...the CHURCH...not the State. Please do not let four more years of misrepresentation occur. JESUS loves all...read the bible...he served all people.

Brian:

October 27, 2004 10:52 PM | Permalink for this comment

I doubt that God is endorsing either candidate. Rather, he is more likely to endorse faith, hope and charity; characteristics sorely lacking in today's world (and in politics in general).

Indeed, I am not sure present-day politics is the appropriate venue to introduce God or religion. Much of the rhetoric from both sides has been extremely un-Christian.

Philocrites:

October 27, 2004 11:15 PM | Permalink for this comment

Brian, none of the people I've linked to have said that God endorses Kerry, and I wouldn't suggest something so crude. What I'm pointing to are Christians who show how the ethical commitments that rise out of their Christian faith lead them to see Kerry as a better leader and his policies as more consistent with their Christian ethical vision.

It would be interesting to hear, however, how a faithful Mormon like yourself chooses between two men whom you regard as extremely un-Christian. What ethical and political values would you draw on in making your choice?

Brian:

October 27, 2004 11:54 PM | Permalink for this comment

Sadly, "none of the above" is not a valid choice.

While both men may be Christian, the world of politics is far from Christian in its execution.

How do I chose which candidate I will vote for? Well, I flip a coin. :-) No, actually, my political ideology is conservative, so I chose to support Bush. I do not endorse everything he does, though I find comfort in his socially conservative ideals. Also, I believe that abortion is morally wrong and that marrriage should not be extended to homosexuals. Bush therefore is the candidate who most closely represents my views.

I know you have not claimed God's endorsement for Kerry, though the body politic on each side is apt to claim that God is on their side. Indeed, some of the meetings I have attended at church, when politics is discussed, Bush is always the favorite candidate. Additionally, many Mormons cannot understand how any Mormon could be anything but a good Republican. Conversely, I have encountered Christians from various faiths who wonder how anyone calling themselves a good Christian could be Republican. Perplexing indeed!

I find good values and ideas from each of the candidates. I am not sure that either one will represent all of the ideals that I believe comprise a good goverment. In my view, the government that governs least...governs best.

Oh, and CONGRATULATIONS BOSTON RED SOX!!!!

Will Shetterly:

October 28, 2004 12:38 AM | Permalink for this comment

I would like to remind folks that Kerry is anti-abortion, but pro-legalization and regulation of abortion. To think that the best way to deal with everything you oppose is to make it illegal is insane; some things are better handled by law than others. The US experiment with Prohibition should have convinced everyone of that, but fans of big government like the neoconservatives tend to ignore the lessons of history, and of God. Note that Jesus never called for Romans or Jews to make human laws about religious matters.

Dan:

October 29, 2004 05:52 PM | Permalink for this comment

Trick or Treat!

Philocrites:

October 29, 2004 06:11 PM | Permalink for this comment

As my friend Dan helpfully points out above, the photo Marilyn mentioned that shows LaVey with Kerry is a forgery. Whoever would have guessed?

Andrea:

October 31, 2004 12:47 PM | Permalink for this comment

I am a Christian and I am supporting Kerry.
I am thrilled to see others, until I seached for Christian for Kerry I wouldn't have found this site. I was a church this mornign and they had Christian Colalition materials in the foyer and I was appaulled at the bias slant they projected and I am so happy to find you all. God bless you

Brian M:

October 31, 2004 09:09 PM | Permalink for this comment

How can someone say they are christian vote for John Kerry? John Kerry may say he is anti abortion but his actions do not save one childs life. Until we vote in a politician that is for saving a childs life by banning abortion no unborn child is safe. John Kerry can say he is anti abortion all he wants if it makes people feel good but allowing it to continue is just wrong. I am sure people who are determined to get an abortion will do so but it will cut down on how many abortions are done daily in America. Everyone on here who says they are christians should take a good look at themselves if they vote for Kerry. Do you think Jesus thinks your a christian when you vote for someone who does not stand up and fight to make abortion illegal?

Philocrites:

October 31, 2004 10:00 PM | Permalink for this comment

I'd urge Christians who feel that their opposition to abortion obligates them to vote for President Bush to consider what some other pro-life Christians have to say like Sidney Callahan's "Prolife Case Against Bush."

Philocrites:

October 31, 2004 11:37 PM | Permalink for this comment

New material on my Christians for Kerry post: quotes from the Los Angeles Times article about thoughtful Evangelicals who may choose not to vote for President Bush.

Philocrites:

November 1, 2004 03:33 PM | Permalink for this comment

More on why anti-abortion voters ought to consider voting for Kerry:

Because the fact is that regardless of what's said in stump speeches, abortions in this country have skyrocketed under the Bush administration after a steep and steady decline during the Clinton years.

That insight comes from Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian ethicist and statistician at the Fuller Theological Seminary who calls himself "consistently pro-life." He studied data from the 1990s and from the first three years of the Bush administration. During the 1990s, abortions in the United States under a pro-choice president who said abortion should be safe, legal and rare decreased by 17.4 percent. At the end of Clinton's second term, abortions stood at a 24-year low.

("Pro-Life...Pro-Kerry?," Joshua Holland, Gadflyer 10.29.04)

Steve Baker:

November 1, 2004 07:07 PM | Permalink for this comment

Hi!

As we approach America's election day, I am vexed by one question - a question, which if I dare go on record with an answer risks alienating both friends and business associates. But, politics and religion inspire powerful emotions, and as there has been significant spiritual and religious rhetoric in this election, my emotions are very much on edge this election eve.

The question? "Should Christians vote for John Kerry?" Please consider the following:

The modern Democratic Party has become the de facto home of those who support abortion, gay marriage, homosexuals as a protected class, no prayer in schools, the end of the Ten Commandments and other Christian symbols in the public square, pornography as "free speech," and the plight of Palestinians over the sovereignty of democratic Israel.

In other words, the modern Democratic Party is the irrefutable home of the "godless political left." Are there those in the GOP who either support or participate in these unrighteous activities? Certainly. No political party is perfect, and no person is without sin . . . And for the record, God is neither Republican or Democrat. But, as whole, the Democratic Party is the political party that has embraced the non-Christian agendas discussed below.

Are there exceptions? There are always exceptions . . . But John Kerry is not one of them:

1) Kerry has long been a friend of America's abortionists. He has opposed every pro-life measure offered while a member of the U.S. Senate, while avidly advocating abortion rights at each legislative opportunity - at least three times, even voting to protect the practice of the most heinous legal medical procedure in America today - partial birth abortion. NARAL Pro-Choice America rates Kerry's record as "100% pro-choice."

Ironically, Democrats have longed referred to abortion rights as "choice," yet no pro-life Democrat has been given the opportunity to speak at a Democratic National Convention in recent history. So, where's the choice? For Christians, the choice should not be Kerry and his abortionist comrades in the Democratic Party. Kerry has made a specific campaign promise to nominate pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court - one of the few policy issues on which he has been absolutely clear.

2) Kerry is inseparately 'joined at the hip' with radical homosexual activists. While all Americans should be protected against unfair discrimination, no group has fought more aggressively for a "special, protected" status than America's homosexuals. While numbering only 1%-2% of our total population, homosexuals have managed to hold state legislatures hostage to their gay marriage initiatives. How is this possible? Because, in spite of their small numbers, homosexuals completely control the voting block of the Democratic Party. It makes no sense, through natural reasoning, that such a small special-interest group can control 50% or more of the support of America's legislators and judiciary.

It can only understood in spiritual terms: As the Democratic Party has continued to reject the God of our Founders, they have also embraced as normal, (even SPECIAL!), immorality and that which is contrary to God's Word. Already, in Canada, Sweden, and other "free" countries, the rights of pastors and Christian leaders to speak against homosexuality have been banned by so-called "hate-crime" laws. To date, two Swedish pastors have been imprisoned for quoting the Bible's description of homosexuality as "abomination." Could that happen here?

Nothing in John Kerry's voting record that would lead us to believe he'd suddenly reverse his long-standing support of the radical homosexual agenda, protect the rights of Christian leaders to "call sin a sin," or protect our children from government-enforced assimilation of the homosexual agenda into our schools and churches.

3) No honest-thinking American will deny that America was founded on the morality and legal precedents of the Judeo-Christian influence of the Founding Fathers. As such, those symbols of our establishment, such as the Ten Commandments and other Christian imagery were immediately part of the architecture of our Federal and State buildings and monuments. Prayer was promoted in government-funded schools, and the Bible was used as a textbook for almost 200 years. Now, SUDDENLY, the godless left within the Democratic Party would have us believe that it was the "original intent" of the Founders to have these symbols excluded from the public square, and any mention of God banned from our schools. You must be spiritually blind or deceived to believe this historical revisionism.

The First Amendment, which intended to protect us from the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, (such as the Church of England), has been perverted to mean, "The state must protect us from exposure to Christianity." If the Founders had intended the exclusion of Christian symbolism from our public square and schools, why then did they participate in the INCLUSION of those symbols in the architecture of government buildings and universities in the first place, and permit school prayer and religious curriculum for the first 200 years of our existence?

Again, the natural mind cannot rationalize this violent, 180-degree turnabout of the Democratic Party. It is only through the understanding of spiritual laws, and the realization that the modern Democratic Party has rejected the God of our Fathers that their hostile-to-Christianity reinterpretation of the Constitution makes any sense at all.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." - Ephesians 6:12

4) Pornography. It is indisputable that the rise of pornography and pervading influence of sexual imagery in all aspects of modern life are the direct results of the political left's embrace of godless immorality as a protected form of communication. Somehow, someway, the activist judges from the political left, most, appointed by Democrats, have reasoned that pornography is "speech," and therefore protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

No matter the overwhelming statistical evidence of pornography's negative impact on society, not only is its existence protected in forms and places only accessible by adults, but its existence is GUARANTEED to be available to our children at the touch of a computer keyboard or the pressing of a TV remote control's buttons. The purveyors of this limitless immoral imagery are not exclusively from the liberal left, but they are OVERWHELMINGLY so. Immoral Hollywood, as demonstrated in this election cycle, overwhelmingly supports candidates of the Democratic Party. MTV, the number-one promoter of immoral behavior to an entire generation of America's youth, unabashedly supports Democratic candidates. The multi-billion dollar pornography industry exclusively backs the Democratic Party.

When will Christians who vote "Democratic" wake up to this reality?!

5) God promises to bless all who bless Israel - (Gen 12:3). John Kerry has been consistent for 30 years of public life in his predilection towards subordinating America's sovereignty to international bodies such as the United Nations, The World Court, and the European Union - all of which are virulently anti-Semitic. Israel, as a nation, is not perfect, but it is the only constitutional democracy in that region of the world. They are surrounded by millions of square miles of Arab-controlled territory. And, most importantly, they are God's chosen people.

See this link to get a perspective of Israel's demographic challenges:

http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

Israel has no "expansionist" history. They seek to be left alone, on their own tiny sliver of real estate. They are the most oppressed, longest-suffering people in the history of the world. They are despised by the nations around them, all of which are committed to the annihilation of the nation of Israel and the Jewish race. Yet, the modern Democratic Party continues to support the "plight of the Palestinians" over the peace and sovereignty of Israel. (Look at that link, above, and tell me why those other Muslim nations, with vast territory, will not take in the Palestinians, yet they press Israel to give up their tiny amount of land for benefit of the Palestinians?)

The modern Democratic Party continues to accede to the interests of the anti-Semitic UN, EU, and Muslim world, over the interests of our closest democratic friend and ally - Israel. Why? Again, there is no logic or common sense which would make this explainable. It is only a scriptural understanding of the "spirit of the age" which controls the agenda of the modern Democratic Party which will help you make sense of this situation.

Are there other issues to consider? Sure. Economic policy, taxation, environmental concerns, etc., are all worthy of debate, discussion, and civil disagreement - but none of these remotely compares in importance to the issues raised above.

Does God really care about the difference in how the "rich" are taxed? 37% (Bush), or 40% (Kerry)? And how much is that difference really going to affect your own life or the spiritual condition of our Nation?

Does God provide clear Biblical direction as to which type of economic model we should live under? Keynesism, Marxism, or lasseiz-faire Capitalism? No. Christian doctrine is clear we should feed the hungry, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned. HOW we do this is open for debate. Should the government be responsible for all? Should the Church do it all? What should be the balance in the effort? All debatable. The primary issues, listed above, are not.

Does God care if we drill for oil in the Alaskan tundra? I find no scriptural directive. Does God care about the nuances of the Global Warming debate? Considering Earth experienced the extremes of warming and Ice Age long before man's Industrial Revolution or our alleged ability to impact the environment so negatively, I'd say, "No." At least not to the extent we find ourselves so concerned.

Does God really care whether or not a rifle "looks like" an assault weapon, but does not fire like one, to be illegal or legal? From scripture, I do not know. I do know that, according to the Gospels Jesus instructed his disciples to sell a garment and buy a sword for their personal protection. I did not see where he instructed them to buy a sword that "looked like" a butter knife, so as not to offend the pacifists among them.

Does God care if we vote according to the directives of our labor unions, or if we vote exclusively for the interests of our paychecks? Hmmm. Now that's an interesting question.

I know of many otherwise conservative, moral, church-going, God-fearing people who will vote to put a pro-abortion, pro-pornography, anti-God, anti-Israel Democratic candidate into office, for the selfish reason that they might benefit their particular industry or labor union. My Bible says the "righteous will not be forsaken, or found begging for bread." To vote your "paycheck" over the spiritual direction of our Nation may be the single most SELFISH, godless act you'll ever perform.

According to that which is clear in Scripture, I am convinced God cares about the moral decline of the United States, much more so than the nuances of economic and redistribution policy. And that decline has been facilitated by means of the embrace of the political left and the modern Democratic Party of those things contrary to God's Word.

Am I saying the Republican Party is "God's Party?" By no means! This is not an issue of Democrat vs. Republican. This is Righteousness vs. Unrighteousness. Morality vs. Immorality. Godliness vs. Ungodliness. I am NOT endorsing the notion George W. Bush is "God's man." What I am CLEARLY saying, and what must not be misunderstood, is that a vote for Kerry is a vote for ungodly principals to become even more entrenched into the legal, judicial, legislative, and moral fabric or our society.

It is simply the result of a series of tactical decisions by the leadership of the modern Democratic leadership, for political expediency, that they have embraced a coalition of disparate minority groups in order to win elections. There was a time, not long ago, when the Democratic Party had a legitimate claim to the moral high-ground - especially with regards to fiscal and social policy. But, sadly, no more.

Democrats have embraced abortionists, pornographers, haters of God, and anti-Semitic groups, and consequently must vote those groups' agendas into the fabric of American society in order to keep that coalition together, and maintain political power. They have traded Biblical morality for political expediency, and placed the importance of their own power above that of God's power in our lives.

Christians - if you have not yet voted, please consider which issues are most important:

-Your own paycheck, . . . or the very moral under-girding of our country?

-For you children's social development . . . Pornography permeating every aspect of their lives, or a 3% difference in the tax rates of those earning more than $200,000?

-Which would you rather have taught in your children's schools? Gay sexual techniques, in health class, or the Judeo-Christian principals which influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

Ultimately, Kerry's biggest impact as would-be president will be in his judicial appointments - especially those to the Supreme Court:

-Is Kerry "for" pornography on the internet? He'll certainly say, "No." But will a pro-choice judicial appointee also vote to limit the spread of illicit porn through media? Highly doubtful. Overwhelmingly, pro-abortion judges also believe pornography to be protected speech.

-Is Kerry for gay marriage? He has said, "No." But, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and has openly supported the notion of "civil unions" for homosexuals. What is marriage, legally, if not a "civilly recognized union?" That is just a lawyerly twist of words. His judicial appointments will surely think the same way, and rule likewise.

-Is Kerry opposed to invoking God in his own political speech? Of course not. He has 'recently' taken to invoking God at every turn and speaking in church every Sunday. But will his litmus test of appointing only pro-abortion judges also accommodate judges that will help return prayer and God to our public square and schools. If you think a pro-choice judge will also protect the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, you are sadly misled.

Bottom line - Long after Kerry is gone, the leftist judges he appoints will override the democratic process of congresses, presidents and the American people, tyrannizing Christian values and refashioning a legal system devoid of the morals essential for the survival of public Christianity in America.

Christians - if you have not yet voted, you simply cannot vote for the Democratic ticket. If you vote "FOR" Kerry or any other Democrat on your ballot, you must also consider what other CAUSES you are voting "FOR":

1.5 million abortions next year . . . Overt sexual imagery on network television and unrestricted access to pornography on the internet, easily accessible by your children . . . The elimination of all references to God in the public square and at our schools . . . Homosexual marriage, and speaking against homosexuality redefined as 'felony hate-speech' . . . The destruction of Israel.

Those are the most important choices for America's Christians, as directly referenced in scripture. All else is debatable, and not essential or specific to your Christian journey, or to the rearing of your children in the admonition of God.

God bless you all,

Steve
-----

Steve Baker
Founder/President
Faith & Values Entertainment, LLC
steve@favestreet.com
http://www.FaveStreet.com


Philocrites:

November 2, 2004 02:13 PM | Permalink for this comment

Steve, the number of abortions performed in the U.S. dropped during Clinton's administration and has gone back up again during Bush's. And, contrary to what you may believe, the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not drawing on the "morality and legal precedents of the Judeo-Christian influence"; Thomas Jefferson (a Deist and self-proclaimed Unitarian) and John Adams (a Unitarian) were influenced at least as much by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu, and they modeled many aspects of our legal order on Roman law, of all things. Were they Christians? Yes. But their Christianity was broader than yours and it has made possible a nation in which Christians and people of other faiths have thrived. Your narrow sectarian vision for America is not what they had in mind.

Rather than attempt to refute Steve's other points, I'd simply urge readers to return to the top of this post and actually read the articles I've linked to.

Philocrites:

November 2, 2004 06:25 PM | Permalink for this comment

Contributing editors to the orthodox Christian, prolife magazine New Pantagruel, explain their dissatisfaction with both Bush and Kerry. Surprisingly, they all voted for Nader in 2000, but this time, some are choosing not to vote at all or even (with regret) to vote for Kerry. Only one is still thinking about voting for Bush. Prolife voters especially should read their dialogue; liberal Christians should read their magazine.

veryafraid:

November 7, 2004 08:30 AM | Permalink for this comment

The only ONE who will decide on everything is Christ when the day comes the HE only knows of.

And if frightens me of the fanatacism in the name of Christ. You cannot bang the Bible on someone's head. Nor can you act in a way that others see that you think that you are better than them. That is where they see the Hyprocrisy.


All life is important whether it be inutero or a life that is lost in the so called war.
Lack of jobs and education is as important as the morals spoken of.
Again it is not for us to judge but for Christ to do so.
I have been to some churches that have no love but there only concern is to get another person in to get more money.
yes i am a believer in christ. who is saddened by the Christians that i see around in this world today.
It is not the man who was elected who represents GOD. It is Christ the one who died for us.
judge me if you want quote whatever you want but in the end it is between myself and God. Not you me and God.

no surprise:

November 9, 2004 10:49 AM | Permalink for this comment

The results of the presidential election were disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising. George Bush has so much financial and political support behind him that no one else really had a chance. His friends in 'high places', that I would actually characterize as being in a very 'low' place, have succeeded in making new voter registrations disappear and countless ballots become 'damaged' and thrown away. My town and county in Ohio elected John Kerry and I have read and heard, first hand from poll workers, that they feel that fraud took place. I feel very bad for all of the young voters who went to the polls only to find that their names were not on the rolls, even though they knew that they registered in time. In spite of those crimes, though, it has been said that John Kerry would not have won, anyway. It seems that a large number of Democrats voted for Bush, based on very non-scientific exit polls. I question the reason for this. If people really voted for Bush because they believe he is moral, I've been going to the wrong Christian churches for 46 years. My education about Christianity is that it is a religion that worships God and his son, Jesus, who demonstrated love and non-discrimination, and understanding of our fellow human beings and a religion that promotes the care of our natural world. It is not a political movement. A president who condemns terrorists, yet has as his largest financial supporters nineteen companies that support terrorism, should not have been re-elected. A man who is the worst steward of our environment in modern times, should not be president. A man who decided, without the support of our allies, to invade and occupy Iraq, should not be president. He 'takes up the sword in the name of God.' So does Osama bin Laden. A person who does not support the education, recreation, and health of our children, should never be president. I don't care how many times a week George Bush attends church, prays, or raises the name of God in his speeches, prayer breakfasts, or in his conversations with our allies, he is one of the worst examples of a Christian I have ever witnessed. Every person who says thay voted for George Bush because he does not support Gay marriage, could also have supported John Kerry for the same reason. They both said that they did not think the time was right for Gay marriage. John Kerry also does not support abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose. George and Laura Bush say they think abortion should only happen rarely, but they do not not say never. Hardly a firm stance on abortion. So, is it really true that voters 'have spoken' as columnist, Joe Watkins, and others have said concerning the morality issue? I don't think so. I think that our immoral, self-centered, greedy, president would like to create a divide in our country along that line, because he knows how deep the feelings run. It's up to all of us to fight him on this, no matter what your religious convictions. This country is not his to control.

no surprise:

November 9, 2004 02:50 PM | Permalink for this comment

I wonder what evangelical Christians think of the example George Bush set when he authorized the use of torture and sexual humiliation on prisoners at Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib. (memo signed by George Bush on February 7, 2002, hoping to exempt himself from the Geneva Conventions) Some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were people who, if in this country, would have been assigned a court date and then sentenced for a minor offense. Some of them have even died while being mistreated at those facilities. If abortion is wrong, then all killing is wrong. We can't pick and choose at our whim. Bush is guilty of crimes punishable by death throughout the free world. Would his death be wrong, too? I'm sure that much of the Muslim world feels that it would not be enough punishment for all that he has done. People like my husband, who frequently travels abroad, are in more danger today than before 9/11 because people hate Bush, but may be willing to kill any American. The beheadings in Iraq are proof of that.

not surprised but hopeful:

November 11, 2004 10:19 AM | Permalink for this comment

This is a message to all those who feel that John Kerry was the rightful winner of the November 2 election, or would have been if not for voter fraud perpetrated by the Bush supporters. There is an email contact for you if you think that your registration was discarded, your absentee ballot disappeared, or that some other type of fraud occurred that prevented you from having your vote count! It is vri@dnc.org. Good luck!!



Comments for this entry are currently closed.