Does the Left Hate Bush because he believes in God?
Youngstown's Democratic mayor thinks so.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Democratic mayor of Youngstown told Republican convention delegates today that he supports George Bush and that some of his fellow Democrats don't like the president because he believes in God.

From WTOL-TV, "Democratic Ohio Mayor Addresses GOP Convention"

Wow. I think it takes a lot of guts to say something like that. However, he is not alone. Consider the following from political commentator Cal Thomas in an article entitled "Black eye for the Bush guy" where he details the reasons that he believes liberals hate George Bush:

The third and perhaps most important reason Bush is hated is his faith, which is genuine. Bush believes God exists objectively and that He has spoken unambiguously to those who would pay attention. Unlike Clinton, who puts on religion when it helps him politically but takes it off when it interferes with his appetites, Bush wears his faith in his heart.

He is humble about it, always noting how far he falls short of the ideal to which he subscribes. I remember a lunch we had in the governor's mansion in Austin the year before he announced for president. I had heard he read through the Bible once a year, and I asked him to quote from memory some of his favorite verses. He quoted three, and not the most familiar ones. That is the mark of a person who takes faith seriously.

The mostly secular or theologically squishy left doesn't mind one being "religious" so long as that religion underscores a secular agenda. A religion that constantly "baptizes" the liberal catechism of bigger government, higher taxes, more abortions, same-sex marriage and anything else the secular left wishes to promote is the kind of "faith" it will tolerate.

But someone who believes God is not an idea of Man, but rather Man is God's idea and He gets to make the rules, is viewed as harmful to those who wish to create their own version of heaven on earth through the secular god of big government and the capitulation to our lower nature.

Cal Thomas and Mayor McGreavy of Youngstown are not alone in believing that the left does not like people who take the Bible and God seriously. Consider the following from "Why Liberals Hate God" by Doug Hagin:

Yet Liberals continue in their fervent desire to erase any mention of God, the Bible, or Christianity in our nation. Why do they campaign so eagerly for God to be escorted out of our schools, government, courtrooms, and public places? Simply put God is not only our Creator but also the source of all liberty, and the source of our nation’s founding. The Founders made all this very, very clear. And this scenario my friends just does not match the Liberal utopian fantasy the Left wants America to be.

In Liberal think government, run by Liberals of course, is the sole source of liberty and the judge of how much liberty the people can be trusted with. God gets in the way of this since He is the true source of our freedoms. So Liberals must first push God out of the way before they can establish their god, government, as the Supreme Being. Hence the steady campaign by the Left to remove God as far as possible from as many places as possible.

Or, consider the following from "Liberals Hate Christians" by Mark K. Lewis:

Liberals' obvious hatred of (their understanding of) Christianity in our country today proceeds from their belief that Christianity has been a hindrance to progress and has resulted in much evil. Rather than liberals reading the New Testaments and trying to comprehend what the religion of Jesus Christ really is, they prefer to look back in history and recall cruelties, immoralities, and butcheries done by those who really have no close connection to the truth and label that Christianity.

This idea has had a tremendous effect in our country, indeed, it underlies the entire educational system. Dr. John Dewey, who is known as the father of modern American education, was no friend of Christianity. Indeed, he was a very good liberal:

The objection to supernaturalism is that it stands in the way of an effective realization of the sweep and depth of the implications of natural human relations. It stands in the way of using the means that are in our power to make radical changes in these relations.

In other words, Christianity is a hindrance to liberal ideas of progressive social relations. It must be removed. This is a cardinal tenet of liberalism today, and it is clear why there is no desire among the left to promote the Christian faith, why they defend abortion, homosexuality, pre­ and extramarital sex, and almost every other vile crudity that pervades our country: men must be "free," and Christianity is the greatest obstacle to that freedom and does all sorts of evil to prevent people from being "free" In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a non­influential role in society's affairs.

Now I want to clarify something here: I believe that these writers all cast too big of a net. I know many a Christian who are certainly liberal, who are not for George W. Bush as president, and yet they are people who I would consider to be every bit as trusting in God as I am. I think that the writers quoted above are referencing the people on the far left--people (some atheists or agnostics, and some who are nominally Christian) who really do hate the God represented by the Bible since it infringes on their rather, shall we say politely, warped world view. Unfortunately, as I just noted, some of these people go under the name of Christian.

For example, in an article entitled "Two political preachers stake out foreign policy extremes for the 2004 campaign" by Richard N. Ostling, AP Religion Writer, he describes an Episcopal preachers' outspoken opposition to the U.S. President.

‘‘Why Bush Must Go: A Bishop's Faith-Based Challenge'' is by radical liberal Bennett J. Sims, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church's Atlanta Diocese and a clergy counterpart to Michael Moore. His work is recommended by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Bishop John Spong and the Rev. William Sloane Coffin.

* * *

Sims turns paranoid regarding Sept. 11, seeing a "rising tide of suspicion" that the Bush administration was guilty of "calculated neglect of danger" and purposely disregarded intelligence warnings about what was coming. "There may be no way short of revolution to dislodge the fierce force of apocalyptic right-wing ideology" that controls America, writes apocalyptic left-wing ideologist Sims.

Sims' main theme is that Bush endangers the environment and human survival by resorting to "unilateral war-making" and "imperialist violence," as in Iraq, rather than the feminist-inspired "international peace-seeking collaboration" the bishop favors. Ronald Reagan also takes some lumps but Bill Clinton is exempt from criticism.

Sims was an officer on a U.S. Navy destroyer during World War II but turned pacifist regarding America's use of military power. It's unclear whether he thinks violence by enemies of America and Israel is ever justifiable.

He sees moral equivalence between radical Muslims and "Christian-Zionist" America, depicted as "two snarling and self-righteous religious fundamentalisms" that both promote holy war. As he retells ancient history, peaceful paganism was supplanted by the Old Testament Israelites with their "violence-prone male dominance." The result is "a presumed 'divinely biblical' blueprint for a predatory modern Israeli takeover of Palestinian lands," he charges.

Here is a preacher, identified as a "left wing ideologist" whose work is recommended by the "Christian" Bishop John Shelby Spong (whose writings I consider to be a blight on Christian thought, but I will save that for later.) Rev. Sims' "interpretation" of the state of the world is, in my view, extreme and out of touch with reality. His "interpretation" of the Bible is the same. Thus, while he is nominally a Christian, I really wonder whether we are talking about the same religion or the same God.

In summary, I guess I would reword what the Youngstown mayor said. I think I would have said it more like this: "On both sides of this race there are good and faithful men and women of faith. They can legitimately take up different sides in this election and should not be labelled as being 'against God' as the result. If I may paraphrase the statement of John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention where he took a line from an earlier speech by George W. Bush, God is not on the side of one party or the other, but we should be concerned that we are on God's side.

"Having said that, it is my belief that there is a significant number of people out there on the left--some even claiming to be Christian--who are not truly interested in what God wants. They abuse or misuse His Word to further their own radical aims. They are working hard to make sure that our nation is a truly secular nation where God is emasculated as any type of intellectual force in the policy of our nation unless it fits their otherwise secular viewpoint. It is these people that hate George W. Bush because he is a man of faith who takes that faith seriously and is not afraid to voice his belief in the traditional tenets of the Bible. It is these people we need to watch out for. They want a purely secular state devoid of God in any meaningful way. George W. Bush is a threat to their views, while John Kerry is not. I leave it to you to ponder why that is."

I certainly acknowledge that I may be wrong, but given the polarization of our society, it certainly explains a lot.


Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch