KEEP GOD OUT OF WHITHOUSE (College rag says Christians in WH more dangerous than terrorists)

The Orion (California State Univ) ^ | 10/22/03 | Ryan Sabadow

[Mark Felton]

The most dangerous force our country faces right now doesn't come from the threat of international terrorism. It comes from evangelical Christian fanatics connected to the White House, like Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin.

Last week, NBC ran a story showing Boykin in front of audiences at several evangelical churches across the country. Projected behind him was President George W. Bush. "Why is this man in the White House?" Boykin asked his audiences. "I tell you this morning, he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

This was after the recently appointed deputy undersecretary for intelligence also told the audiences the United States has been battling Satan during our war with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He also said the reason terrorists have been attacking us is "because we're a Christian nation."

The three-star general in full dress uniform told the cheering crowds that when he was fighting against a Muslim militia leader in Somalia in 1993, he knew the Christian god was on his side. He had nothing to fear from Muslims because their god was an idol.

If images of radical hell-fire-and-brimstone religious fanatics who scream at us in the Free-Speech Area come to mind, you're not far off. The worst part is that this man isn't a sandwich-board-toting crazy. He has actual power, and he is a leading military figure in our ongoing wars against Muslim countries. He's not alone. Bush and his staff of evangelical Christians are slowly forcing their views on the rest of America and the world. America is shifting from democracy to theocracy.

Almost immediately after Sept. 11, President Bush said we were now in a "crusade." Even though he later retracted this remark and has waged a public relations campaign saying he respects Islam, you can't help but feel that Bush thinks he's on a mission from God.

According to Newsweek, prior to deploying troops to Iraq, Bush, the self-proclaimed "Born Again" evangelical Christian, told religious broadcasters "terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit," and that the United States needs to bring God's gift of liberty to "every human being in the world." Sounds like he forgot to say "whether they want it or not."

Bush's use of religion as a justification of policy isn't limited to war. Last week he declared Marriage Protection Week. This anti-homosexual statement coincides with the anniversary of the death of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard's death. You may remember him. He was the student from Laramie, Wyo. who was beaten to death for being gay (See Hallie Gorman's column "Protection hurts gays" in last week's Orion for more information).

This tasteless statement is just one more way Bush places his religious views on others, and it comes only months after a summer of Bush using biblical references to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexuals. Bush isn't just making statements - he also plans on using our tax dollars to fund his religious views.

According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Bush administration plans on creating a "faith based" initiative that could funnel large sums of public funds to religious social services. Under the initiative, $30.5 million will go to grants given to social and religious groups. And it will give close to $20 billion to religious groups that claim to operate substance and mental health service programs. Religious groups could also compete for $8 billion in housing grants. If this initiative makes it through the legislature, it will be a direct slap in the face of the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Since Sept. 11, Bush has been sounding more like a preacher giving a sermon than a president. The reverend C. Welton Gaddy, a Louisiana pastor and executive director of the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, told CNN that "This president is using general references ... and vocabulary that come straight out of a very particular religious tradition, which is evangelical Christianity." He went on to say that this doesn't reflect the broad range of religious views this country has.

Gaddy's right. When one religion is forced above others, it turns us away from being a free country. When guys like Bush, Boykin and Attorney General John Ashcroft use religion to determine policy decisions, the constitutional-based wall that has separated church and state since this country's inception starts to crumble. When the dust from that wall clears, we'll no longer be free.

Ryan Sabalow can be reached at opinioneditor@orion-online.net

[Abynormal]

You should go back and study the basis of these faith-based initiatives. If you take your bias off before you study it, you will realize that these initiatives have zero to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with promoting human rights. You are the one who is wrong.

[First_Salute]

Ryan,

Other than your having mispelled your own last name ---

Keep God out of White House Ryan Sabadow Opinion Editor October 22, 2003

--- you might spend some time fretting over what is terror, and see the article posted to FreeRepublic, "An abrupt end to a North Korean's life of privilege" on the same day as your attempt to mislead the student body to "the left."

[helen crump]

As Christians we cannot separate who we are from what we do. For those of us who are Christians our beliefs define us. It is who we are. I would expect no less from George Bush. Christianity guides us as parents, as employees, as employers, and in every aspect of our life. So, it makes total sense that President Bush is guided by his beiefs. The office should not change the person. We knew he was a Christian when we elected him and for many of us that was a determining factor. President Bush's actions define him for what he is. Just as Bill Clinton's actions defined him for what he is.

[Mark Felton]

"I'm sure it was the college newspaper rather than the poster who misspelled the title. "

nope. It was me. I re-typed the title in a pre-caffeinated fog. I was "WHITless" you might say.

[ought-six]

There is absolutely no doubt that there is a well-orchestrated, well-organized, and ubiquitous movement to destroy religion in this country, especially Christianity. It has never been so overt and "in-your-face" as it is today.

[OldFriend]

No doubt there are many who consider any form of conscience as a threat to their lifestyle. They tolerate only the most degrading and decadent behaviours and don't want any reminder that there is a better way or a higher standard.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I don't believe this is quite accurate. Didn't Shepard try to hit on a couple of yahoos, who took offense?

The media has portrayed it has an attack just because MS was gay, but the killers had tried to rob/assault other non-gay people earlier in the evening. They failed because their first victim was able to get help (from friends if I remember correctly.) When they got a victim alone, they took it out on him.

[ought-six]

"Instead, write him a letter and let him know you are praying for him."

LOL! He'll turn suicidal!

[Mark Felton]

It has been coming. The reason it has been allowed to build is because of the pro-socialist mindset that has beset so many mainstream religions. They have allowed a disconnect to grow between faith and political action.

They have allowed the people to be almost completely pacified and demand that they tolerate the perversion of the government.

Tolerance of idiocy = public education

Tolerance of corruption = public office

Tolerance of perversion = entertainment industry

Tolerance of tyranny = mainstream media

It's time to end the "tolerance" and demand adherence to Judeo-Christian values. If Jews and Christians don't demand such values, who will?

[corlorde]

General Boykin is a warrior. He's exactly the kind of guy who does things others refuse to do and will go places others are afraid to go.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Sorry, his opinion on "faith based initiatives" is right on target.

Funding religious institutions with government money is the first step to putting them under government control. Look what's happened to our charities ! Many are simply extensions of fedgov policy. Our taxes fund many NGOs that act directly against our interests.

How can he be "right on target" when he is saying the exact opposite of what you just wrote? You are saying that this is the first step in the Gov't taking control over religious groups. He is saying the opposite, that it's the Religious Groups that are taking over the Gov't.

"Faith based initiatives" is lunacy - and unconstitutional. Bush needs to be stripping money away from NGOs and defunding federal giveaways, not adding more.

No it's not lunacy, it's just a bad idea. And no it's not unconstitutional. It does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion, nor does it establish any one religion as the official Church of the US.

[maeng]

Because Christians have morals and these "christianphobia" fanatics do not.

[azhenfud]

"Tolerance is a good virtue, but virtue should never be sacrificed for the sake of tolerance."

[Old Sarge]

Another example of The Worst Generation, and their irredeemable hate of their own country and themselves.

[Sam Cree]

Jimmy Carter is a "born again" Christian, FWIW, and made it clear even while president. I guess being a socialist gets him a pass from guys like this.

Mainstream religion these days is mostly leftist, as far as I can see, anyway. That doesn't stop them doing precisely what the author is complaining about, quoting scripture when making political points.

I suppose the thinking is that religion is fine only when used in support of the party line.

[Sam Cree]

Additionally, this idiot seems to think the Iraqis wished Saddam to remain in power, or wish for a religious dictatorship.

It's a little hard to believe he's really so shallow, but I guess it's true.

[BamaDave]

I don't pray, I don't go to church, I don't know if God exists or not. Why do obsessed atheists like this article's author scare me a great deal more than "fanatic" Christians?

I am not religious either, and I certainly don't feel that our country is under the control of Christian fundamentalists. Atheists should appreciate the threat to our freedom posed by these fundie Muslim whacks in the Middle East. I don't view this as a Christian vs. Muslim thing, but rather a battle between liberty and irrational oppressors. We should be doing everything possible to eliminate these fundie Muslim regimes in the Middle East and to provide freedom to these people. I don't believe in Armageddon, but we may be facing an Armageddon if we don't take care of this problem now rather than later.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I have sent an e-mail to the Orion and asked why no one gets upset when the Democrats go to black churches and say terrible things about Republicans . . . "

Your comment is very much "on point" here in Seattle. There are a couple of prominent Black churches that have long been hotbeds of Democratic political activism, and the local media treat this as proper and normal, even praiseworthy. Indeed, the Rev. Sam "The Sham" McKinney is a local sacred cow. (My nickname for him suggests I think otherwise; I think he is a blustery, bigoted, pompous windbag who's sold-out Christian values for political expediency; he's a big promoter of legal abortion and the gay agenda.)

But, as you say, if right-wing Christians become politically active, it is viewed with horror, described as un-American, unconstitutional, etc. Pure weapons-grade hypocrisy.

[hollywood]

If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you don't have a brain.

[L.N. Smithee]

According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Bush administration plans on creating a "faith based" initiative that could funnel large sums of public funds to religious social services. Under the initiative, $30.5 million will go to grants given to social and religious groups. And it will give close to $20 billion to religious groups that claim to operate substance and mental health service programs. Religious groups could also compete for $8 billion in housing grants. If this initiative makes it through the legislature, it will be a direct slap in the face of the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Holy crap! This guy's in COLLEGE?

Oh, wait -- I forgot. This is California.