George Bush and Christianity

Despite the fact that George Bush never misses an opportunity to invoke religious references in his speeches and other public appearances, I am beginning to have some very serious doubts about the strength and depth of his faith, and I have some differences of opinion with the way in which he applies his faith to public policy.

For example, could a man who believes in the private property rights of American citizens continue to sign budgets loaded with pork? I would think it incumbent upon President Bush to demand accountability from the Congress and strong arm the legislators into fiscal responsibility. I could have sworn that one of the Commandments written by Moses a few years back said something about not stealing. President Bush probably was involved with some back room deals in which he was promised various return favors down the road for going along with the egregious spending bills. Politics over principle.

Why is it that Americans are constantly told how generous our people are, but when it came time to answer the call for international aid to the tsunami victims, the government couldn't trust us to pony up the private charity money, and instead had to spend the People's tax money on our behalf? Then, as if that weren't enough, why have former Presidents Clinton and Bush begun asking us for MORE cash as if nobody could manage to choose for ourselves whether or not to reach out to the Asians afflicted by the recent disaster?

Bill Clinton has been given a stage from which to speak, and a sense of implied credibility that comes from appearing on camera with the current President. At the unveiling of former President Clinton's portrait in the White House, as well as at the dedication of former President Clinton's Presidential library, George Bush showed tremendous compassion by speaking highly of Bill Clinton. Yet to hold an unrepentent liar, adulterer, rapist, thief and a corrupt America hater up for the world to see is downright insulting. Politics over principle.

When Judge Roy Moore came under fire in late 2002 for his open and deliberate inclusion of Christian Biblical symbolism inside the Supreme Courthouse of the State of Alabama, what did George Bush do? Did the President stand up for the powers of the State of Alabama, or sit idly by while the federal judge's order to centralize power and erase Christianity from the public square went unchallenged? As far as I'm concerned, this was the biggest failure of the "Christian" President, willfully allowing the clear abuse of power being hoisted upon the People of Alabama and the good Christians of America. I suppose that Mr. Bush figured he'd win Alabama's electoral votes in 2004 so there was no need to ruffle any feathers in other "swing" States. Politics over principle.

Recently, President Bush has nominated Alberto Gonzales for the Attorney General post to replace John Ashcroft, who had been the most openly practicing and committed Christian member of Bush's first cabinet by many accounts. Alberto Gonzales seems to be a man who doesn't not have a tremendous respect for individual civil rights, and it is very troubling to me that he has had such close ties to 'La Raza' in his past, having served on the Board of Directors of a major affiliate organization. I'm not sure why Mr. Gonzales is the favorite, other than perhaps to further perpetuate the racially diverse Bush cabinet regardless of qualification. Politics over principle?

I happen to believe that abortion = murder, and that permitting murder to against innocent victims should be prevented to the best of our ability. President Bush was unwilling to come out during the debates before the 2004 Presidential election and state this position clearly. He went so far as to indicate that his judicial appointments wouldn't even necessarily hold the same view, saying his nominees would not be subject to the Roe "litmus test". They won't? Does he mean to suggest that he might nominate more federal judges who do NOT believe in protecting the right to life of unborn children? Clearly the President was afraid to say what he really believed fearing that John Kerry might steal some moderate votes. Winning was more important than substance and truth. Politics over principle.

Or President Bush doesn't really believe in the pro-life position, because he went out of his way to campaign for Arlen Specter in his campaign for reelection to the United States Senate representing Pennsylvania. Specter's opponent in the primary was Pat Toomey, a much stronger conservative and an outspoken Christian, just the sort of Senator that President Bush should have been looking for. Sadly, President Bush chose to campaign for the incumbent despite the fact that the very moderate and pro-choice voting Sen. Specter seems to contradict Christian doctrine and certainly some major planks of the Republican platform. Politics over principle.

The Homeland Security Department, specifically the TSA, as well as the PATRIOT Act seem to hold the individual freedoms from intrusive search and seizure that Americans had previously enjoyed for more than 200 years in extremely low regard. I understand that Mr. Bush's motivation is supposedly to keep the American people safe, but why then did he say he would sign a renewal of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban"? Does he not trust us to protect ourselves, or has he been lying for 10 years about his "pro-gun" stance?

Through all the rhetoric, I think President Bush holds many views consistent with basic Christian principles, but if he were half the man I'd like to see in the White House, he would not be so hesitant to be up front and honest about the application of his faith to the responsibilities which have been entrusted to him. He'd come out and say in no uncertain terms what he really felt, instead of worrying about the reaction of the voters.

In my limited understanding and brief studies of the Bible, I've concluded that the truth shall be spoken and the results theretofore shall be left up to God the Father. It seems that Bush was more inclined to lie to the American people about the conviction of his faith than to stand up for it and to be judged.

Time will tell if I am wrong, as the second term is about to begin. George Bush will never again face an electorate, so he has the absolute freeom to conduct himself and execute the Presidency as he sees fit without fear of personal electoral failure. I bet there's at least one Democrat named Clinton who is hoping (praying?) that President Bush continues to alienate Christians from the Republican party.