Why Christians Should Not Vote for Bush

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
http://www.ohiocp.org/whynotbush.php

Ohio Constitution Party, website

[George Bush is not true to Christian teachings.]

Why Christians Should Not Vote for Bush
By Dr. Patrick Johnston

[start]
Not every person who professes to be a Christian is one. Faith without works, without tangible deeds of obedience, is dead faith – it is the faith of devils (James 2:10-24). Jesus asks, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win our vote. Like Clinton, George Bush’s fruit was evident to all with eyes to see during his campaign against Gore. Many Christians were undoubtedly innocently ignorant of George W. Bush’s liberal tendencies and so easily susceptible to his conservative rhetoric, but far too many were willfully blind to his bad fruit.

Pragmatism took precedence over God’s Word and the principles of conservatism when conservatives the nation over supported and voted for the most electable candidate over the only blessable, anointable candidate, and as you will see in the course of this article, the roots of tyranny have deepened in America as a result.

The guilt for the daily encroachment on God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, under President Bush’s leadership, can be laid squarely at the foot of the professing church. If there was ever any doubt about the liberal sway of George W. Bush before his Presidency, that doubt should be well cleared up by now for all but only the willfully naïve.

Do I believe that sincere, well-meaning Christians can vote for George Bush and be right with God? Sure! I believe that a sincere, well-meaning Christian can vote for Howard Dean and be right with God! Unintended ignorance can destroy a nation, however, and God’s people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge (Hosea 6:4).

It is intentional, willful, or malicious ignorance in the absence of the fear of God that brings culpability (Proverbs 9), and of this I fear many professing Christians are guilty in their endorsement of George Bush in spite of the abundance of evidence of his bad fruit.

What is this “evil fruit” to which I refer? Precisely what is it about George W. Bush that I believe should preclude sincere Christians from voting for him?

I. George W. Bush on Abortion
[GWB is too liberal on abortion; appoints pro-abortion people]

I. George W. Bush on Sodomy
[GWB is too liberal on sodomy, appoints sodomites, etc.]

III. George W. Bush on Other Issues

There are many other reasons Christians should conscientiously object to voting for George W. Bush. Certainly, many of these acts are not necessarily sinful, but together they provide convincing proof that George W. Bush is not an authentic conservative.

• He demoralized Korean and Japanese Christians by bowing down at a pagan Shinto shrine in Japan.

• His public profession that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture.

• His endorsement of Ramadan, a Muslim fast, at a White House celebration.

• His proposal to increase funding of the National Endowment for the Arts by 15 percent, the highest percentage increase in two decades. That's a total of 139 million dollars in 2005 to finance art, much of which is blasphemous. (Recall the taxpayer-financed painting of a crucifix in a jar of urine.)

• His support of increased Federal involvement in the education of children at the state and local level. Funding for government education has increased billions of dollars under President Bush.

• His support of Clinton’s 1995 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns. The gun ban was due to expire in 2005, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

• He approval of federally-financed experimentation on human embryos. [...]

• His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since the Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society." The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22 % from 1999 to 2003.
[...]

• Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Roy Moore’s actions, his chief political consultant Karl Rove spearheaded the attack against him. When Roy Moore was before Bill Pryor’s inquisition about to lose his job for his public stand for God, President Bush was in California campaigning for a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

• His expansion of government welfare programs to illegal aliens and his proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, President Bush has demonstrated dangerous negligence in restoring security to our borders.

• His proposal to increase the budget and the power of the Internal Revenue Service: “Bush would give the IRS a 5.3 percent boost to $10.4 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. That will include $133 million dollars for added audits of businesses and high-income taxpayers.”

[...]
• His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations., He has continued the Clintonian policy of sending our soldiers to serve under U.N. commanders on U.N. missions.

• He signed into law a massive expansion of Medicare that, according to Ron Paul (R-Texas), resulted in "the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s."

[...]
• With the so-called Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, his remedy for terrorism has been an ever-growing police state. These pieces of legislation read like KGB manuals of an all-powerful Leninist state – Janet Reno could only dream of serving under such a President!

The government can bug and search citizens and their private records without court oversight and without suspicion of a crime; they can lock you up indefinitely without a formal charge; they can deny you an attorney and a jury of your peers, etc. Our leaders have exploited a tragedy to retire as the servants of the citizens and attempt to usurp constitutional limitations to become our masters.

G.W. Bush is pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, he’s anti-gun, and he’s the biggest spender in American history. American conservatives have taken the bait at the expense of their cause and God’s glory.
----

[In the rest of the essay, Johnston deals with the argument that GWB should get Christians' vote as the 'lesser of evils.' While this is sometimes the thing to do, according the one's moral code, there are times, like now, when simply voting for the more conservative of two liberals is unsconscionable, for the reasons already given (stands against the Bible, states, and individual rights). One has to vote according to conscience for a candidate with a Christian stand.]



[end excerpt]
 
Last edited:
I wanna see more grusome and meaningless deaths and violence.

Vote Bush!

Vote Bush!

Vote Bush!
 
On the bright side, he's given such negative connotation to the word Bush that more women are going bare now than ever before.
 
Couture said:
On the bright side, he's given such negative connotation to the word Bush that more women are going bare now than ever before.
I just showed your comment to my wife and she almost killed me by saying, "I knew there was another reason why I shaved."

SeaCat
 
Just for the sake of argument...........Who should conservative Christians vote for? Kerry is much further left than Bush, so that rules him out.

Is there a Robertson/Buchannan ticket that we don't know about?;)
 
Conservative Christians can either vote for Kerry or the Antichrist. I think the choice is clear ;)
 
Couture said:
Conservative Christians can either vote for Kerry or the Antichrist. I think the choice is clear ;)

LOL!! Tell us how you really feel about the man. It seems like you're holding back. No offense Coture, but it amazes me the absolute hatred that libs have for GWB. I've never seen this level of hatred in any level of politics before.

Bush is far from perfect, but I'll take him over Kerry.
 
Seriously, I wish you wouldn't. And while Bush isn't the antichrist, he certainly hasn't done the country any good.

The economy sucks. Instead of helping the middle class, he helped the rich, in some sort of reverse Robin Hood fashion. He lied to the people in order to get us involved in an uncessary war. He appoints the most conservative zealots he can find to the courts and public offices.

And if we had a democratic majority in the house or senate, I wouldn't mind him so bad. There would be some sort of check and balance. However, George has a blank check and he's written a helluva large amount payable. More than I think we can pay in the future.

The fact is, that even if Kerry gets elected president, the republicans will control the house and senate. He will not be able to be but just so liberal. But he will be able to veto any crazy shit that comes across his desk.

Maintain the status quo. That's all I ask. Don't turn the world against us. Don't wreck the economy. Don't send us into a depression. Don't bite off more wars than you can chew. Don't take away any of our hard-earned rights. The country was in pretty good shape. I just want a president that will leave it better than he finds it.
 
What are you all gonna bet on a low turnout at the polls this year? How much of those who are gonna vote based on "the lesser of two evils." A sad day for democracy in the US (and I can't say it is much better in Canada, either.)
 
I appreciate and respect your opinion Coture, but with things as they are now, no way I vote for Kerry. A major event or development could change my mind, but as of now it's Bush. Lesser of two evils pick for me.

I agree that his spending is out of control and it pisses me off to no end. I don't agree that Iraq/Afghanistan is unnecessary. I think it came 10 years too late. Any war falls into a necessary evil category. I think this war is the product of 12 previous years of ineptness on the part of Clinton and Bush SR. Had we taken care of business in desert storm of Bush, and the terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, we wouldn't be where we are today. We are paying the price now for not dealing with desert storm, the WTC bombing in 93, Somalia, the USS Cole and a host of other attacks culminating with 9-11.
 
I thought the Al Qaeda hated the Sunni majority led by Hussein that ruled Iraq, therefore their attacks on American targets were not the direct result of the Iraqi invasion but rather the American meddlings with the rest of the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran.
 
Wildcard Ky said:
No offense Coture, but it amazes me the absolute hatred that libs have for GWB. I've never seen this level of hatred in any level of politics before.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it's just that it was only a couple of months ago that I was STILL uttering that same lament, but about the conservatives' hatred towards Clinton. :D
 
As noted in other articles, Roy Moore has been considering a Constitution party run at the presidency. You will recall he's the judge who wanted the granite rendition of the Ten Commandments placed and kept in the state courthouse building. He lost that battle to the godless feds.

I hope other literoticians are going to support him, if he goes. I'd like to hear from them. Americans deserve a better choice, Jonston argues the rest of the essay, than two liberals, and picking the 'lesser of evils', the more conservative liberal.

See,
Will Roy Moore crack the Bush base? by Clarkson,

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/roy_moore/index.html
------

George Bush, the greater of evils
http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david17.htm
------

What's wrong with George Bush
http://formoore.com/wrongbush.html

[excerpt]


George W. Bush seems to have a problem being honest. Bush has been caught in many lies. He's lied about September 11. He's lied about Iraq. He's lied about his budget. The sad fact is that George W. Bush has lost all the moral authority that a President of the United States must have. Bush is a poor example for our children, who we try to teach to be honest.


America is supposed to be the land of freedom, not the land of spies. Yet, George W. Bush has created new programs for the government to spy on ordinary, law-abiding Americans. Through the Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness, Bush has made America the land of Big Brother.


We criticized Bill Clinton for having his donors sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House. Now George W. Bush is doing the same, arranging for his big fundraisers to sleep overnight in the White House. That's a shame. [end excerpt]

---
Moore for pres website
http://formoore.com/
----

Here's an important location to make Christian views felt:
Ohio, Constitution Party website;

http://www.ohiocp.org/

----

The Florida site is still under construction, I gather. That state is absolutely crucial.
 
Last edited:
His support of Clinton’s 1995 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns. The gun ban was due to expire in 2005, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."


Explain this to me again, will you? I mean, how exactly is anti-weapon a non-Christian thing? Have I completely misunderstood the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"..?
 
It says, "Thou shalt not murder." Killing's been long approved, e.g., read about Moses' (Num 21:34) and Joshua's (Josh 11:6)righteous campaigns for the Lord.

:p
 
Why Christians Should Not Vote for Bush:

Because he is a fucktard.


I'm not American, not christian and not Dem or Rep biased. And I don't really like John Kerry either. But he IS the lesser fucktard of the two.

End of discussion? Oh, probably not. :)
 
Bush is like a Disney cartoon bad guy. It's easy to hate him, because everyone knows he's a bad guy.

With people like Clinton, who did a lot of bad things too, but who will for ever be remembered as the one with the sax and the sex, it's much harder to see that they were really as bad as Bush, because he appears to be so much more charming.

My vote would be for that Kitchenichuschich, what's-his-name, the one that's unmarried and looks 10 years older than he really is. Either that or a small, hairy onion.

I don't know the politics of either of the latter, but they seem like a much better choice than what you've got now.
 
Svenskaflicka said:
My vote would be for that Kitchenichuschich, what's-his-name, the one that's unmarried and looks 10 years older than he really is. Either that or a small, hairy onion.
Is Ficus running this year?
 
Wildcard Ky said:
I don't agree that Iraq/Afghanistan is unnecessary. I think it came 10 years too late. Any war falls into a necessary evil category. I think this war is the product of 12 previous years of ineptness on the part of Clinton and Bush SR. Had we taken care of business in desert storm of Bush, and the terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, we wouldn't be where we are today. We are paying the price now for not dealing with desert storm, the WTC bombing in 93, Somalia, the USS Cole and a host of other attacks culminating with 9-11.

I'm not saying I'm smarter, but I'm older and that gives me a different perspective. I agree with you that Iraq and Afghanistan are a product of our previous actions. However, they started longer ago that you think. During the Carter administration, the CIA went into Afghanistan and trained people to fight a new style of war. The war would be a jihad. A guerilla war. Terrorism. Bin Laden was one of those that were recruited and trained. The target was the soviets, but now it has been transfered to us. And don't discount Pakistan. We sowed some bitter seeds there as well.

We also picked another favorite despot in Iraq. His name was Saddam Hussien. We gave him weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The target was Iran. Iran, which again was the product of another CIA dirty fiasco.

I agree with you that we should have went into Afghanistan. But, trust me, we had our hands full with it alone. Just ask the Soviets, or the folks of the former Soviet Union how much it cost to bring democracy to the Afghans.

My point is that we are over there right now, resowing the seeds of hate. The wars and the poor state of living have made the grounds there fertile. And even now, look around the world, terrorism is on the rise Spain, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Pakistan, and on and on. We are seperated by an ocean, but we are not isolated or immune. We need to rejoin the world community and stop trying to stir up another world war.
 
God, these people are scary! Aside from a little theology, their agenda is exactly the same as the radical hardline Muslim clerics we're fighting in the middle east.

Ayatollah Dr. Patrick Johnston.

---dr.M.
 
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Your judgement on which of the two is the lesser is pretty much a subjective decision based on how you see their particular brand of evil effecting your life.

To be honest, I am coming more and more to believe that the Democrats aren't even really trying this year. It's almost like they have decided they can't beat GW and are setting their sights on the 2008 election.

I am not particularly anti bush, but I am very much against some of his appointtees and much of his program and I live in mortal fear of his backers on the far christian right. I am a long time republican, have voted the party line most of my life and for the first time in many years I am dissatisfied enough with the party I have so long supported I would vote for someone else and you offer me John Kerry as the alternative?

Please. I love my country, always have & always will. In the year where my vote is actually not already pledged to the party my loyalties have always been with you offer me a man who came home from war, bad mouthed his fellow soldiers and threw away his campaign ribbons? A man from the Northeast who fits the classic mold of a tax & spend democrat. A man with about as much charisma as the wooden indian outside the old general store?

In this, the year of MY discontent the option presented to me seems less appealing than that which is already there. I am a very principled person, believe my right to vote is not only a right, but a duty, and believe strongly in a value set that it seems no one in the current race represents. With the right candidate in place I could have represented the very thing the Dems so badly need to win, a crossover vote. Yet they offer someone I find to be abhorent for actions I see as anti-american.

My discontent with the republican party is very strong, but I'll be damned if I will vote for someone who I don't believe loves this country, despite it's faults. I will cast my vote on a third party candidate this year, knowing full well it will make no difference to the outcome of the election. Afterwards, I will most likely return to the GOP with my disillusionment and other bagage in tow.

Are the Dems even trying? I sure don't see it if they are. With all the mistakes made by the current administration, with all the potential to woo conservatives, moderates and independants to their side they offer us John Kerry? Someone here please tell me what this man has to offer us besides being someone other than Bush. Please.

-Colly
 
Svenskaflicka said:
IS there really a difference between democrats and republicans, once they get in power?

Yes Flicka. There is a pronounced difference, if nothing else there is an immense divide between the two parties in emphasis. The GOP emphasises Foerign affairs while the Dems place most of their energy and political clout on domestic issues.

There are many differences in both perspective, agenda and emphasis. Any voter who says they can see no diference in the candidates and uses that as an excuse not to vote, is being intellectually lazy.

At heart they are all politicians, so in that particular nuance they are all the same, but thier agenda's are so different that it ovverides the basic fact they are mostly self serving slimeballs.

-Colly
 
SF asked "Is there really a difference....?"

As a rule...

The dems pursue American foreign dominance with a bit more 'international' or 'UN' or 'NATO' wraps. See Wesley Clark's book. See JFK's speeches.

Some dems are more interventionist, abroad, than many Republicans, but adventurist and isolationist groups exist in both parties.

The dems want to pursue domestic security in an slightly more codified way; they want to *write down* more of the exceptions to due process. (Democrat Lieberman, I believe, proposed the Department of Homeland Security.)

I believe Ignatieff 's* proposals would find favor with most democrats: He proposes that, if the feds want to hold a person, on security grounds, with no charges, it be limited to one or two years.

Dems want the 'porn' and the 'obscenity' banned on the internet to be more fully defined.
------


*Last New York Times magazine. I don't know his party affiliation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top