----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Who does GWB think he is?
> Following up on John Edwards' yucky statement that paralytics will rise > up from their wheelchairs under a Kerry administration, suggesting to > some that Edwards thinks Kerry is Jesus, here is language that our > president and his speechwriters chose. > > On the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks: > > "Our prayer tonight is that God will see us through and keep us worthy," > Bush said. "Hope still lights our way, and the light shines in the > darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it." Well, except for the fact that, according to Paul, none of us is worthy, this statement doesn't over-reach. We can still rely on the light that shines in the darkness during our toughest times; without considering ourselves the light. Worthy of grace is very problematic from a Christian perspective, > In the State of the Union speech: > > "There is power -- wonder-working power -- in the goodness and idealism > and faith of the American people." If one is very generous; one would say this is a "Body of Christ" statement, but I do have problems with it. > To me, it is a far different thing for a vice-presidential candidate to > make foolishly hyperbolic campaign remark than for the president of the > United States to give major speeches in which he all but says straight > out that his political agenda is God's mission and his chosen enemies > are demons. > Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into "good" > nations and "evil-doers." But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? One certainly has to be careful in judging the actions of others, but I don't think that means one cannot see evil in the world and state what one sees as wrong. For example, someone who rapes, tortures, and murders a 5 year old girl is an "evil-doer." Whether he is a sinner or not is between him and God (he might be sufficiently mentally ill so that he does not pass the "full will" test for sin). But, we can label his actions evil. There is no doubt that the attack on the WTC was an evil act. I see Bush's view as the vast majority of the people of the world falling into the "good people" camp, with relatively few "evil-doers" spoiling it for everyone. Let me give an example apart from Bush. There are people practicing genocide in the Sudan. That practice is evil. The people actively engaged in this are "evil-doers." We don't have to be self righteous in order to be indignant over genocide. I don't think we have to be sure we do no wrong before stopping genocide. I think it is acceptable to stop genocide even though one knows that, by doing so, one will accidentally cause the death of people who might have lived if we did nothing. AFAIK, you aren't a pacifist, so I won't ask you the list of questions I have for pacifists. But, even though I agree that self righteousness is a real risk; I don't place the almost complete emphasis on it that your posts seem to call for. I certainly think that GWB has too much of a black and white view of the world. Not everyone who opposes us is an evil doer; our actions aren't perfect. But, at the same time, refraining from pointing out the spec in one's neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in one's own is not the same as refraining from pointing out the log in one's neighbor's eye before removing every spec from one's own. IMHO, there needs to be a balance between avoiding self righteousness, and being willing to take a stand. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
