number 600... and politics

Well, here we are, 600 blog posts. I would prefer to celebrate with something cheery and wonderful, however, the thing that is motivating me to write today is not so much... it's the Pope's visit with Bush and Bush's remarks about the occasion. I saw this New York Times article posted on a friend's blog this morning, and it made me angry enough that I felt I need to vent a little bit here.

When Bush makes statements like the following (which is in reference to the Pope's message):

"In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred."

I can't help thinking things like "How about all those civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about those military prisoners getting tortured within inches of their lives? How about those people in Guantanamo Bay and other places being held indefinitely without a sentence? How about the Iraqi soldiers who were just defending their country out of fear or a sense of duty? What about all the American soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq for some vague goal that nobody really has ever defined but that we keep being told we are moving closer to? What about all the friends and family of all those people listed above whose lives will never be the same because their friends or family were killed, tortured, broken? Where is your sense of value for their lives? Where is your respect for them as human beings, and how have you not acted like their lives are something to be debased and discarded?"

The article included this little tidbit about Bush:

Mr. Bush, who has made his own Christian faith a central tenet of his life as an American politician and who has assiduously courted religious conservatives during his tenure as president, used his speech to affirm the role that faith plays in American society.

I feel more like Mr. Bush has made a lot of noise about the fact that he is a Christian than that his Christian faith has been a central tenet of his life as a politician. His words that "God is love" and that "all human life is sacred" are indeed ideas that Christianity expounds, but while Mr. Bush is saying these words, he seems to be forgetting that for the past 5 years he's been pushing war at all costs, the capture and execution of several people, the torture of captives and prisoners being held in inhumane conditions with no sentence.

Granted, I understand that it's a complicated situation and there are probably a lot of things going on that I'm not aware of, and I also understand that we are all hypocritical about certain things, but saying all human life is sacred while you're in the middle of pushing something that is ending innocent lives just seems a bit over the top. Sorry Mr. Bush, you seem all empty on the inside to me.


  1. When David slayed 10,000 the Bible should of clarified that all life is sacred. Why did God allow such atrocity. Bad God!

    When God returns and slays His enemies we should ask "why?" cause isnt all life sacred? Bad God!

  2. Would you say that Mr. Bush is acting as an agent of God then? The Iraqis need slaying and all the people who have been wounded and broken both physically and emotionally all had it coming?

    I think that death and pain and hurt are unfortunate realities of this world, but I don't think it was ever the way things were intended to be, especially to have humans killing other humans. And if you're going to quote the Bible at me, then I think it will back me up on this one.

    Also, if you're going to leave derisive comments on my blog, at least have the decency to put your name to it. However, if you aren't going to comment constructively, I would prefer you just not bother.

  3. Dave,
    I don't know who anonymous is but I have some opinions on the article:

    The scriptures are very clear that there were times when God commanded. not allowed, but commanded that men, women AND children be put to death. If you read the old testament and get a overview of God, he is just as much a God of Justice as He is of mercy and Love. We might not be warmed by His Justice, but that is not for us to decide. He is what he is. God many times demanded death to not only the male enemies but the women and the children.

    Now with that aside, that does not give America the right to go to war with any nation. I'm not at all saying that I support the Iraqi war.

    Also, the NYTimes bleeding liberal press is point out quickly how Americans take life bit do they mention the horrible attrocities that sadam was commiting and the fact that one of the arguments for the war was to stop Sadam's atrocities. The NYT's will never mention that side of things or the fact that terrorists have absolutely zero value for human life. it all gets pointed at America. I suggest the NYT's editors move to iraq and enjoy their new found freedom of the press (with lead).

    Duet. 7: 1-2: When the Lord your God brings you into the land, ...you must devote them to compelte destruction.

    Joshua 8:25 And all who fell that day were 12,000, men and women, all the people of Ai.

    Joshua 9:24: The Lord your God had commanded to destroy all the inhabitants of the land...

    So on and on it goes, the scriptures are full of God commanding His people to take life, to destroy, to bring justice to those nations and peoples that don't believe in Him. He is just as much a God of Justice as he is a God of Love.


  4. Ok, first of all, as I said in my comment, I believe that death and pain and hurt are unfortunate realities in this world, so yes, they do exist and that is the way things are. However, I do also believe (and I believe the Bible supports me), that this is not the way God created it. Also, because God has commanded people to die, I don't believe this gives us the right or the reason to just say "well, God has commanded death in the past, so I'll just accept it wherever it happens or even take part in it because that's the way things are." It does not give us a reason for apathy with regard to the hurt and suffering in this world.

    Also, the "bleeding liberals," as you call them, don't deny that Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, they question whether what we are doing in Iraq is making things better, and to be honest, I'm not sure it is.

    The use of derogatory names in discussion is not helpful by the way. If I were to say something like "the stupid conservatives think the Iraqis should all die because they're not Christians," this would not only be a huge generalization, but it would be an unfair association for many conservatives. Do you really think everyone at the New York Times, and the liberal media in general doesn't believe or doesn't care that Saddam Hussein was a horrible person and treated his people ruthlessly? And even if they did, you believe they should die for it? Because that is what you are conveying.

    Frankly, how do you have the right to say that? The fact that you would say the editors of the New York Times should die for presenting an idea you don't agree with makes me really angry. I'm sorry if you don't like their opinion, and you're welcome to say if you don't (certainly I wouldn't agree with some of what they say either), but you have no right to make a statement like that.

    I'm closing comments on this discussion.

  5. Dave,
    If you blog, you need to be open for differences of opinion.Paj

  6. Ok, to be clear and to finish off this post with a little bit less emotion, I'm closing the comments not because I don't want a difference of opinion. I'm closing the comments because I feel the discussion is getting out of hand, it is being handled badly and I don't think it's being constructive. So, there you have it. Finito.