[huntress]

Originally Posted by HelenM

For one thing, evidently he reads the Bible every day, which is a primary way Bible-believing Christians seek God's will.

As well as the primary way Bible-believing Christians seek to justify their own beliefs. I'm at a loss to tell the difference on first glance, though.

The same article mentions that he has spent a lot of time talking to particular Christian ministers, which is another way Christians seek God's will.

It's also another way--tried and true, I might add--that particular "Christian" politicians seek the "God vote." Again...I can't tell which reason motivates them by the mere fact that they have chatted up some ministers.

What I find ironic and somewhat saddening by this entire exchange, Helen, is that you are one of the precious few Christians I have "met" (virtually or otherwise) whose actions alone are enough to identify you to others as Christian. Yes Helen, I know Christians sometimes accuse you of being atheist when you contradict them and stick up for us, and yes (everyone else) I'm using the general idea of "Christianity" here that states that the person in question lives the love and kindness and forebearance that Jesus taught (when he wasn't "allegorically" talking about hating your loved ones, natch). What saddens me is that while I think you exemplify the attitude a Christian should embody, you are defending a man who professes to be a Christian because it's good PR, but whose actions suggest he is unabashedly using the trusting nature of Christians for his own betterment.

When I heard Jesus was Bush's favorite philosopher, my eyes rolled so far back into my skull they almost got stuck there. I found myself pondering just how transparent a candidate's remarks must be before his backers themselves cringe. I think we'd have learned far more about him had we asked him to name at least three philosophers, what each believed, which was his favorite, and why. (I, for one, was never even aware Jesus was a philosopher. What was his philosophy, and what were his arguments for it?)

Conservative Christians expect Christians to behave certain ways and from what I've read, on the whole they see Bush as behaving those ways.

With all due respect, Helen, I think you're confusing what his PR groupies want us to believe about him with what is readily observable--as are the conservative Christians you speak of.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I (as you know) work in government. Even as low as my level, the politics and deceipt and the outright spin (or "flavor," as a former boss put it) that is put on every little thing would boggle your mind.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but the standard way things work is that the bureaucratic machine is activated by some political expediency. That thing can be anything, good or bad. It is dictated from above and everyone, like it or not, toes the line or finds another job. The image of any chosen person, position, unit, institution or system is promoted at all costs, and it makes no difference whether what is said him/her/it is true or not.

For example, I have to write performance reports that would sicken you. (They certainly sicken me.) I take the performance of an average troop and tip the scales in my report so as to suggest the Air Force would cease to function if we lost this airman, and write it in such a way that it gets through the system. For me to give any troop less than an "Outstanding! Consistently exceeds standards!" rating in anything, I have to argue with the people the report must clear in order to support my contention that that troop is even average. For this reason, you get bullets on the report that say stuff like, "Faithfully attends worship service with a local congregation" (a statement my Capt put on my performance report many years ago when I told him I'd been once the last year and only because my parents had come to visit). "Instrumental in the development of a ground-breaking process that is revolutionizing the way the Air Force does business!" when the troop was only asked his opinion on some question of policy. The report is written as though everything the airman was supposed to do was done--and enthusiastically.

The resulting exaggeration is often, IMO, beyond lying. The rule of thumb is that there must be "at least a grain of truth." I'm not kidding. I was taught to do this in OTS (and we went rounds on how this reconciles with the "integrity first" requirement, I'll tell you that right now).

So when I read something that says politician X goes down to the soup kitchen every other weekend and feeds the homeless, I take it with a grain of salt. When I hear a politician obviously going for the Black vote and publicizing his African roots and interests, etc, I go ahead and take a pinch of salt. When I see a politician going for the conservative Christian vote who manages to mention God and faith in every speech, who doesn't care to read but whose PR folks claim reads the bible daily, I invest in the saltlick itself.

d