posted September 04, 2004 02:41 PM            

Time for a little truth, so buckle up and enjoy the ride.

It seems there is outrage in certain circles when Bush mentions God or even Godly principles for that matter.

Some who are at the point of expiring from rage at the President when he mentions God never seem to have or had the same reaction when Commander Corruption, Clinton, mentioned or mentions God in speeches.

Now, if you are in your mid to late 20's or beyond, there is no excuse to be made that you were too young when Clinton was President to have formed any political opinions about what constitutes proper conduct by politicians visa vie God and statements about God.

So, let me just say that I see the hypocrisy and as Clinton was fond of saying, "I feel your pain".

The only excuse I can see for you is that when Clinton and other Democrats used God in speeches or when he/they went directly into churches to preach his gospel that God is a Democrat and that Democrats needed to get to the polls and support Godly Democrats, you knew already that Clinton was a liar who didn't believe a word he was saying....about God or much of anything else.

So, what is your excuse for applying a double standard to Bush vs Clinton?

Talking About God: Clinton vs. Bush
Paul Kengor
Saturday, Sept. 4, 2004

It was quite telling that the strongest religious statement made at the Republican convention came not from a Republican but from a Democrat, Georgia Senator Zell Miller, who claimed, among other things, that the current president is the same person on Saturday that he is on Sunday morning.

Convention speeches are carefully managed. And I suspect that a shrewd Republican handler ensured that the convention’s most emphatic statement in support of Bush’s faith be offered by a Democrat.
Why? Because the Bush team has learned a crucial lesson: The press does not express outrage when Democratic politicians, unlike Republican politicians, talk about God. Consider the example of the two most recent presidents, Democrat Bill Clinton vs. Republican George W. Bush.

The under-reported story at the start of convention week was Bill Clinton’s Sunday talk at the radical Riverside Church in New York. Clinton addressed the congregation during the worship service. He accused Republicans of bearing “false witness” and being “the people of the Nine Commandments.”
The pastor introduced Clinton as part of an announcement of the church’s Mobilization 2004 campaign, the kind of political activity that drives liberals wild when done by Republicans or conservative churches.

Liberals in the media must ignore the Clinton-Riverside incident. Otherwise, they would not be able to portray George W. Bush as a man who, uniquely in their view, drags God into politics for his own purposes.

Here’s the reality: Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation’s presidents, including the most recent.

I researched the Presidential Documents — the official collection of every public presidential statement. An examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton during his eight years in office. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush’s 4.7.

Bush’s biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements. This was the year of September 11; he was especially introspective, and often looked upward for strength. In 2002, he cited Christ in five statements.

Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents displayed only two statements in which Bush mentioned his Savior: the Easter and Christmas messages. It may be reasonable to conclude that the hostile press reaction to Bush’s mention of Jesus has pressured him into silence.

Such pressure was never placed on Bush’s Democratic predecessor. President Bill Clinton’s top year for Christ remarks was 1996 — the year of his re-election campaign — when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.

In addition, the Presidential Documents list only three incidences of Bush speaking in a church through his first three years.

By contrast, Clinton spoke in churches 21 times, with over half in election years. And often what he said and did in these churches was blatantly partisan, from identifying New York’s Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo as a “prophet” to instructing worshippers to go vote.

No politician in modern times mixed politics and religion with complete impunity to the extent Bill Clinton did. Here is a mere sample:

“By the grace of God and your help, last year I was elected president.” – Clinton, Church of God in Christ, Memphis, Tennessee, November 1993.

“Our ministry is to do the work of God here on Earth.” Clinton to a church in Temple Hills, Maryland, August 1994.

“God’s work must be our own. And there are many questions before us now in this last presidential election of the 20th century.” – Clinton to a church in Newark, New Jersey, October 1996.

“The Scripture says, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ And a week from Tuesday, it will be time for us to vote.” – Clinton, Alfred Street Baptist Church, Alexandria, VA, October 29, 2000.

“But I am pleading with you. ... I have done everything I know to do. ... [But] you have to show. So talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to your family members, talk to your co-workers, and make sure nobody takes a pass on November 7th.” – Clinton, Shiloh Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., October 29, 2000.

Bill Clinton’s vote-pushing in churches was no anomaly: His wife, as the U.S. Senate candidate for New York, did the same in November 2000, as did Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for president. According to the New York Times, on election eve 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned in seven churches in seven hours.

And while George W. Bush was pilloried for having the audacity to cite Jesus as his favorite philosopher in Iowa in December 1999, nary a reporter raised an eyebrow when presidential candidate Dick Gephardt said the following to Democratic voters in Iowa in December 2003: “He [Jesus] was a Democrat, I think.”

Needless to say, Maureen Dowd did not accuse Gephardt, unlike she did with Bush, of playing the “Jesus card.”

posted September 04, 2004 05:53 PM            

That's the problem you see LS. Only now, when Bush is President is any reference to God or Christ frowned upon.

posted September 04, 2004 05:55 PM              

These things didn't occur to me. I wasn't able to vote until Clinton's second election.

posted September 04, 2004 06:00 PM              

That is where that kind of talk belongs... in church, not politics.

*edit*

But, yes JW, darling, I do agree that anyone else (besides Bush) is WAY out of line talking about religion in a political forum.

posted September 04, 2004 10:15 PM              

The separation of church and State is in place for a good reason.

IMO, they are violating it when the bring God into the political forum.

posted September 05, 2004 10:08 AM              

You mentioned Bush's implementation (via Clinton's lack thereof) of a conservative Christian agenda. When you get a chance to respond, I would like to know specifically which of Bush's policies you are against as they relate to this agenda.....

posted September 05, 2004 11:32 AM              

The United States Constitution reads "freedom of religion" NOT freedom from religion. If a political figure has a personal relationship with God, Christ, Allah, or the Banana God for all I care, they have the right (and personal responsibility to themselves) to express their belief and faith when and where they feel they should.

Blessings to all

posted September 06, 2004 09:03 PM              

In another thread somewhere, I wrote that if religion did not exist as we know it today, people would still have their own ideas about life and values. In the absence of religion, we would call these "opinions", perhaps. The fact is, whether we label such opinions within a religious framework or not, our opinions do not go away. They do not summarily disappear. If there were no such thing as "religion", George Bush would very likely still hold the same views that he holds today, only in this (imaginary) case, we would not be able to accuse him of subjecting us to his religious agenda. Perhaps we would be able to accuse him of subjecting his opinions on us. But then again, all political thought, in some way, shape or form, is based on peoples' opinions, correct? Opinions regarding the way laws should be enforced, regarding what in fact those laws should be in the first place, and so on and so forth. What I am saying is-- even if religion were to be "defunct" on a global scale tomorrow, we would still all have ideas and opinions regarding the values we hold for ourselves and our country. And this is where we fundamentally find ourselves divided as a nation.

posted September 07, 2004 04:32 AM              

That's not all he's doing. He's instructing the people they need to pray to the "Lord Almighty" and these types of references. All of this plus his Christian ties, his refusal to accept gay marriage, his thougts on abortion, to name a few, make me very uncomfortable. If one isn't emotionally intelligent enough to understand how important it is to keep religion out of politics, then one is not emotionally intelligent enough to run a country.

posted September 08, 2004 02:05 AM              

But it does not change my unfortunate feelings for Bush. It really doesn't matter why Bush believes what he believes; the point is, he is trying to restrict the freedom of certain people in the name of morality or whatever.
The restriction of freedom is not okay.