Notes in the Dust « SixFeetOver

23Oct/064

Notes in the Dust

Today I walked by a display case in Jenks, and I looked down and noticed that written in the dust on the display case was this note: "Bush isn't Christian!" I was rather annoyed by this. First, and ironically, writing a statement like that isn't Christian. It is not our place to judge others' relationship with God. Frankly, just because Bush's politics don't line up with yours doesn't mean he isn't a Christian. Second, he may not be the brightest president America has had, but at least he is one of the few politicians who try to make decisions within a moral framework. And have some sympathy - there isn't a person on this campus (including me) who could even come close to understand the degree of difficulty he must have trying to be leader of the free world with all the pressures of that world telling him his moral framework is not legitimate and that instead he should just do what they want.

It's true that I'm not much of a political person and I don't follow the goings on of this country as much as I should. But I am of the opinion that most peoples' politics suck - so many people want to base policy off of completely arbitary values (that is, absolutely nothing), and a great many people seem to have it all figured out, which annoys me too. My hat goes off to conservatives who are trying desperately to maintain some sense of real morals in this country and who recognize that not everyone can have their own personal arbitrary "values" which reduce to "I can do whatever I want, so get over it."

I walked back past that display case and erased the n't part of isn't. He says he is a Christian - it's between him and God, not us.

Filed under: issues Leave a comment

Comments (4) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

adobe5ster
October 25th, 2006 - 08:49

Amen!
Mike
October 30th, 2006 - 13:13

My blog has a lot of political stuff on it, most of which I stay completely out of, or at least make a witty attempt to be objective and non-partisan. But this I will offer my opinion on.

I don’t think that George Bush Jr. is a bad man. And I think his religion is his own business, and not for others to judge or comment on.

But “…my hat goes off to conservatives who are trying desperately to maintain some sense of real morals in this country…” is flat out wrong. Mark Foley was a “conservative” homosexual pedophile. Many of the congressional staffers in Dennis Hastert’s office (and maybe even Hastert himself) who knew about Mark Foley did nothing, and they are all conservatives, too. Many people associate “conservative” with “moral” and “liberal” with “immoral.” This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are countless examples of immoral (downright sick) “conservatives” and decent, moral “liberals”. The construct is a false one. I feel that it comes down to this: there are moral and immoral people everywhere, and it doesn’t matter what they call themselves, where they are, or what job title they hold. Often, those who yell the loudest about morality and ethics are the biggest hypocrites of them all, Mark Foley again being a perfect example.

Then we have the popular statement “…but at least he is one of the few politicians who try to make decisions within a moral framework…” Prove that. What data did you base that conclusion off of? Forget the news, forget the pundits, forget the figureheads, and just look at what you know about the 43rd president of the US. Now, realize that you know almost nothing about the 43rd president. Have you ever met him, or interacted with him? No, you know nothing about the man. And neither do most people in this country, myself included. His policies, perhaps, show that he is moral? OK, how? He says a lot of things, but what has he done to show that? How could you even measure that? He has little power over the abortion debate, aside from being able to appoint “conservative” judges to the Supreme Court (see previous comments on “conservative”). Nothing has been done either way about the death penalty. Little domestic policy falls into the moral realm, unless it is moral to offer huge tax incentives to the wealthy (it’s not a political comment, it is a fact. See here: http://www.cbpp.org/4-23-04tax.pdf. Go to page 37 (17 by internal document pagination). Note this is not a political organization; also try: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=98137,00.html. That is the official government site).

The only thing Bush did that was “moral” was stop federally-funded stem cell research, at least that I know of. I’m sure I missed a few things, but he clearly isn’t all that different from any other politician.

My point is, it is statements like those above that lead to groupthink. Simple, blanket statements that have little or no actual thought put into them, usually based upon statements that have been fed to Americans by the media. Now, I’m not saying that the “Bush isn’t Christian” statement is any better! In fact, it is the same sort of thing. Few people know what kind of person Bush really is, both good and bad. Too many people form rock solid opinions about things they are totally ignorant about!

I’m not trying to say that I know the answers. All I’m saying is, you don’t know them either.
jeff
October 30th, 2006 - 14:34

Hehe, this is the kind of response I was predicting I’d get. Notice I didn’t specify that my comment was directed towards *all* conservatives, but only those who I think ARE trying to hang on to a sense of moral framework. I did word that unclearly though, which you have aptly pointed out. My point is more that conservatism is often accused of holding back progress and whatever else, but often those who are accused of such things are so accused due to the morals with which they make choices.

As far as Bush making decisions within a moral framework, the way I worded it probably implied that I think all his decisions are moral, which isn’t true. Again, my point is more that if he is a Christian as he claims, he at least has some moral structure within which he makes decisions (or should), and if he makes a decision outside that structure he (should) know enough to know it was the wrong choice. Of course I haven’t met him; I used that very arguement myself in the original post.

Perhaps those qualifications clear things up a bit.
Mike
October 30th, 2006 - 14:42

Fair enough I knew that was what you were going for, but clarity is important.

What about those liberals out there who “are trying to hang on to a sense of moral framework”? They aren’t common, but they are out there…

You should follow the first link (PDF) and read the section I pointed out. Its very interesting… and not too complicated (even has pretty graphs!)

Man, I need a good debate on my blog now.