“We've unleashed the armies of compassion.”
Bush said quite clearly, “To help heal people
who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be
free. That's what I believe. And that's been part
of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that
the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty.”
That quote is neither abridged nor out of context.
It’s just insane.
“Unleashed the Armies of compassion?”
Delivered to you, from the Almighty by the United
States Armed Forces — the gift of invasion!
Still, it felt more like an ominous warning than an
explanation of foreign policy. Use of the word “unleashed”
makes it feel derived from Julius Caesar (“Cry
‘havoc!’ and let loose the dogs of war!”)
which is, itself, rather disturbing. And, with hurricanes
brewing, the Earth quaking, and America’s most
noteworthy volcano blowing off some threatening steam
things are beginning to feel a bit ominous. It’s
as if someone is already calling up their Masonic
powers to bring forth some untold evil come Election
Day. If a Lioness gives birth in the streets of Washington,
D.C., everybody run for the hills.
For a long while, I was expecting Bush to correct
himself. Certainly, his thoughts were delivered out
of context. He didn’t. Next, my hopes fell to
John Kerry to, well… point out that God shouldn’t
be directing the U.S. military. He didn’t. Finally,
I prayed that the pundits might at least call it “The
big misstep of the evening.” My prayers, like
so many before, went unanswered.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are living in any
other country in the world. You are watching the U.S.
Presidential debate, knowing that the outcome will
likely impact your life, as well. And you hear that
come out of the mouth that is attached to the hunched
shoulder directing the finger that has always seemed
a little too eager to hit that button. Bush is always
quick to point out when Kerry has, in some puerile
way, hurt an ally’s feelings or sent the wrong
message to the enemy — imagine how they’re
reacting to the news that God is telling Dubya who
to invade. If that won’t make Kim Jong Il sleep
with a shotgun under your pillow, I don’t know
what will.
Yet this actually played well to the astonishingly
ethnocentric American voter. Jesus, even if he’s
packin’ an Uzi, is just alright by them. Now,
if he had said that the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt,
a talking tree, little green men or any other creature
just as plausible had told him to invade Afghanistan,
this might have freaked voters out a little. Or at
least that 30 percent of sane Americans I keep insisting
is out there. But only a handful of secular Republicans
have even bothered take notice, prompting some to
go so far as speculate that a Bush re-election might
spell the end of the Republican Party. Now, that,
truly, might be a Godsend.
Alas, we have solved the mystery of that “bump
on Bush’s back.” I was sharing my thoughts
with Xanadu Xero today. I agreed that there was very
clearly something there, but felt that it was most
likely the box for a lapel mic. I did have some doubt,
though, as there was that one moment when Bush looked
rather confused and said, “Let me finish,”
out of nowhere and to no one in particular. Or did
he? Now we know who he was really hearing: It wasn’t
Karl Rove. “It was the Lord!” She chirped.
Frankly, I never bought that Mister Bush could be
the Jesus Supafreak he claims to be. His prayer photo-ops,
non-Kosher diet and utter lack of compassion for those
earning less than $200,000 a year seem to be in direct
conflict with Biblical teaching. Although many, many
churches worldwide opposed the war in Iraq, Bush didn’t
seem to mind. The National Council of Churches (Bush’s
own Methodist Church is involved) leaves abortion
and gay marriage out of their election guides, as
“churches aren’t united” on Bush’s
top “religious” issues. Their number one
thought for congregation voters? “War is contrary
to the will of God.” Sounds like Jesus and Bush
aren’t as close as the President would have
you believe.
It has recently occurred to me, however, that there
is one thing Bush and the Almighty do (if you believe
the Bible to be the literal truth,) have in common:
They’re both giant flip-floppers who vehemently
deny being any such thing.
"God is not a man...neither the son of man,
that he should repent," says Numbers 23:19. But,
in Samuel 15:35, “the Lord repented that he
made Saul king over Israel." And in Exodus 32:14,
more repenting from the big guy in the sky (which
according to the book of Genesis is solid,) “And
the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to
do unto his people."
“"I don't want to sound like I have made
no mistakes,” Bush said when a town hall attendee
trumped him by asking him to admit to three. “I'm
confident I have. I just haven't." I didn’t
remove any of that second sentence. Bush simply changed
topics to explain that he wasn’t prepared for
the question.
Apparently, however, both have made plenty. God is
for, against, and just okay with Polygamy. Bush was
against McCain-Feingold, then he was for it, then
he was against it again. God said that Adam and Eve
would die “in the day” they ate the apple
(Genesis 2:17), but allowed Adam to live 930 years
after doing just that (Genesis 5:5). Bush said he
was going to double job training funds, then actually
cut into them. God said boys must be circumcised (Genesis
17:10), and then that that wasn’t going to get
them anywhere in His eyes (Galatians 5:2). Bush pushed
“leave no child behind” and then decided
that maybe some should, under-funding the national
program shortly after the graduation statistics out
of Texas were re-adjusted to show a 40 percent dropout
rate. Jesus performed the sermon on the mount (Matthew
5:1-2) or on the plain (Luke 6:17-20), depending on
which Gospel you choose to believe. Bush somehow served
in Vietnam without ever leaving the continental United
States.
Bush said that he didn’t really think about
what became of Osama bin Laden, and later denied saying
it. Some days, they’re on his trail, others
they have no idea how to find the 6’4”
man dragging along a dialysis machine and military
arsenal. He also seems unclear as to where A.Q. Khan
and the principal 9/11 military planner are.
The New Testament has a similar problem figuring out
what happened to its principal characters. Did Judas
hang himself, as in Matthew 27:5? Or was it that he
simply fell, “bust open in the middle”,
and died when his “bowels gushed out,”
as in Acts 1:16-19? What were Jesus’ last words?
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
As in Psalm 22:1? "Father, unto thy hands I commend
my spirit," as in Luke 23:46? Or “It is
finished,” as in John 19:30? It’s a little
difficult to tell — it’s tough to keep
stories straight when there are four different versions
of who the witnesses were. At least the New Testament
has nearly 2,000 years of duplication and translation
to blame; Bush can’t keep a quote from Kerry
straight ten minutes after a debate is over.
I could go on and on, but frankly it’s boring
me and anyone who hasn’t noticed these inconsistencies
has been blinded by want of devotion. My points are:
1) It sounds like both G-W-B and G-O-D have a hard
time admitting they’ve ever changed their minds;
and 2) Anyone who believes that every word of the
Bible is the literal truth is totally and completely
insane, and shouldn’t be driving a bus, let
alone running the country. You can’t be a true
Biblical fundamentalist, because the Bible itself
repeatedly refutes its own telling of events. If God
is telling the President to invade countries, he should
probably be locked up before he goes all Waco on us
and John Ashcroft is forced to choose between tear-gassing
his version of the second coming and letting a heretic
like Dick Cheney in the White House.
Now, before the hate mail floods in, I want to make
a few points clear. First of all, I support the war
in Afghanistan. Iraq is a different story, but the
President didn’t mention it by name.
I do not, however, support a President who uses religious
beliefs (especially delusional ones) to make policy
and launch wars. If you believe that the essence of
the Bible is true, and understand that it was written
by flawed human beings, passed down through generations,
and yes, assembled by committee, but still believe
in the overall message and use it to improve your
life and the lives of others, God bless you. March
on, spread compassion and joy, and fight the good
fight. But if you believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis
2 are both the literal truth, you are either incapable
of reading, or are a total and complete idiot. You
have the right to be such an idiot, but don’t
impose your insanity on others, by, say, invading
another country or sending me irrational e-mails.
George W. Bush claims to be a Christian fundamentalist.
He isn’t, but he thinks he is and that’s
almost as scary. In reality, he is what I call a faux-fundamentalist—a
person who picks the Biblical laws they want to see
enforced and the degree to which they want it enforced
(based upon their own cultural prejudices and beliefs,)
using select Biblical passages to justify amoral beliefs.
These people get to have their flip and flop it, too.
For instance, Bush signed a law in Texas making same-sex
only sodomy (there’s that picking and choosing)
punishable by a fine and possible jail time (keeping
retribution at a culturally acceptable level). If
Bush truly believed in Biblical law, he’d have
to make it punishable by death—along with disobeying
your parents, being raped in a city, or working on
the Sabbath. Hope you don’t need a Doctor, COP
or Fireman on Sunday, folks. Or your accountant on
a Friday. Bush is no fundamentalist. He’s just
a bit of a redneck. And, apparently, an especially
dangerous one since he thinks God tells him what to
do, and, well, runs this country.
What frightens me most isn’t Bush’s personal
power, however. It is that Bush is able to use religion
to look like a good person in the eyes of voters.
If he can make voters who think that they’re
fundamentalists think that he is, too, his actions
are justified. What’s wrong with Americans that
makes them this susceptible to a wildly misrepresented
version of religious doctrine? In no other country
in the Western World would this be considered acceptable
behavior from a leader.
As a number of civilizations have learned, there
is a problem with tailoring public policy to appease
a supernatural creator: Nobody knows for sure exactly
what they want. People have never interpreted God
in the same way, nor can they when the Bible is so
repeatedly contradictory. We may not be hurling human
hearts down the side of a pyramid yet, folks, but
our servicemen are dying in wars this President has
engaged us in, and mismanaged. Two flip-floppers in
denial like Dubya and the Almighty might have a great
time hangin’ out on a Sunday afternoon, but
“That’s not the kind of consistency we
look for in a leader.” I, for one, would sleep
better at night knowing we had a President who relied
on reason, evidence, and the real world to determine
policy.
|
|
