Bush's faith-filled speech stirs both friend and foe (Peggy Noonan: it was "God-drenched")

Houston Chron ^ | Jan 22 05 | Houston Chron

[churchillbuff]

Presidents as far back as Washington frequently invoked faith and religion in their public statements. Some scholars have said President Clinton made more frequent mention of Jesus Christ than has Bush, who is more closely associated with devout Christianity than his predecessor.

Even so, Bush's lyrical and at times defiant knitting together of religion and American democratic principles was widely noted, to mixed reviews.

Peggy Noonan, a conservative author and former speechwriter to former Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan, on Friday in the Wall Street Journal criticized the president's speech as "God-drenched."

[churchillbuff]

Here's the link to the FR discussion of Krauthammer's smear against Mel Gibson and Christianity. Krauthammer's article, in the Washington Post, was titled, "Gibson's Blood Libel"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091133/posts

[Peach]

Here is Krauthammer's article that supposedly bashed Christians. I've just read it and will have to disagree that it bashes Christians. It bashes the movie in some aspects, and perhaps appropriately so. It is so violent I couldn't go see it and I'd have liked to see it.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2431

[churchillbuff]

. It bashes the movie """in some aspects,"""

In some aspects!!!?!! Give me a break. It calls it a "blood libel"!! Since all the movie did was portray the passion narrative on film, that's calling the passion story a "blood libel."

[hinckley buzzard]

Read your link. I never got that inside stuff on Noonan before. But now I see why she continues to be invited to liberal talkshows, even though none of her erstwhile "colleagues" are even known to the public.

[Peach]

Pretty much anything you say, I know it's the exact opposite.

And the movie was so incredibly violent and many good people, women especially that I know, were unable to go see it. It's unnecessary to expose people to that level of violence in order to make a Christian movie.

But go ahead and bash Krauthammer unnecessarily. Most freepers have long figured out your agenda.

[churchillbuff]

Noonan is obviously very bright, but her writing lacks discipline - - - so does her behaviour, because she's unable to stop herself from using her writing for petty score-settling (even a column about Reagan's funeral she debased by spending paragraph after paragraph on digs at former colleagues.)

[rcocean]

I love you peggy, I think you're the best, but you're wrong about the speech.

[Old anti feminist]

What is her e-mail address? I agree she loves the sound of her own voice. She treats herself as some kind of an icon. She loves the camera. I'm sure she doesn't like her negative press. Hey, Peggy, we can't have too much God!

[churchillbuff]

First, you implied there was no such column. (Wrong as usual). Then, when I linked to the column, you go into a defensive mode, trying to excuse Krauthammer for calling the Christian Passion story a "blood libel". Glad I found the link, so anyone who wants to, can read the column for themselves.

[FeeinTennessee]

All I have to say is..some people act as if the mention of God in an Inaugural speech has never been done before Pres. Bush. GET OVER IT! I LOVED his speech! It made me proud to be an American and helps us to remember our deep roots as a country in Christianity. Not saying anyone else is excluded, it's just that people need to respect that many of our traditions come from Christianity.

[churchillbuff]

Pretty much anything you say, I know it's the exact opposite."""

Well, the point of this thread - - my post - is that Noonan's all wet in saying Bush used "God" too much. Apparently, since you alway disagree with me, you believe the opposite on this, too -- you agree with Noonan.

[churchillbuff]

as if the mention of God in an Inaugural speech has never been done before """

It's standard to invoke God. "God-drenched" is a really smarmy way to put down the speech.

Come to think of it, most of Peggy's articles are "Peggy-drenched" -- cluttered with references to Peggy!

[Peach]

Reading comprehension is really a problem for you, isn't it?

I didn't imply there wasn't a column. I said the freeper should ask for the link to the article. This was so they could decide for themselves if Krauthammer was in fact "bigoted toward Christianity" as you stated in your previous post.

I've read the article and certainly don't feel Krauthammer was displaying a bigotry to Christians. And anyone who saw him on Fox during the Christmas season saw that he was one of the most STAUNCH defenders of Christians I've ever seen from a nationally syndicated columnist.

As a Jew, it was quite astounding. And it's not just this Christmas that he has staunchy defended Christianity, although you say you think he only did that as "cover" for his "bigoted" article.

Anyone who has followed Krauthammer knows that what you are saying is untrue.

And anyone who has followed your "career" on Free Republic knows your true intent. Krauthammer is a neocon, after all.

[CasearianDaoist]

I really enjoyed the speech...I cannot understand all the carpping about it, excluding. of course, than the usual suspects.

It is my hope that the domestic side of it can garner braod national support.

[GVnana]

Noonan made a fool of herself.

[Peach]

If your point is that Noonan is wrong, for one time, and one time only, we agree.

But your point that Krauthammer is a bigot toward Christianity is incorrect and worse, a lie.

[thoughtomator]

Yeah Peggy's last article was clearly written in a fit of savage jealousy... something way out of character for her. Sometimes, Peggy, the best speech of a generation will be written by someone not named Peggy Noonan. Sorry.

[highflight]

Thank you.

I have not seen the movie. I am not a Christian. I am not a Jew.

Obviously Dr. Krauthammer studied the Passion of The Christ and was disturbed by the portrayal/perception of bloodthirsty Jews and other subliminals that he witnessed.

As a Jew, his discomfort is understandable and a reminder to himself and others that Jews and Christians have shared pain and contradictions in our history.

He has every right to his interpretation and assessment...and yes........his anger.

[churchillbuff]

He has every right to his interpretation and assessment...and yes........his anger."""

His "interpretation" and "anger" are directed toward the story that Gibson put on film. That's the Gospel story. If you're ok with somebody slamming the Gospels as a "blood libel," that's your right. Me, i'll stick up for the Gospels as an inspired message of hope - - and as a literal depiction of an historical event.

[ckilmer]

I read the piece Krautheimer is bashing Gibson for making the Jews look bad in the movie. A couple details of his particulars, however, didn't ring quite true. During the scourging scene, while the Jewish high priests were looking on--it was the Romans who were doing the scourging. And Gibson clearly shows that it was the Roman scouragers who went overboard with their tourture--by exceeding their commands. The point here is that guilt for the scouraging was shared between the romans and the jews. In a similiar vein the figure of the devil walks among the Jews from time to time. Krautheimer takes this to mean that the devil is associated with the Jews. Trouble is the devil figure doesn't look jewish. Rather the pasty white oval faced straight nosed devil figure looks nordic. In fact, that version of the devil is quite familiar to European cinema fans. That devil shows up in Ingmar Bergmann movies like The Seventh Seal (1957). This devil looks like Gibson's devil, and dresses exactly the same way.

The Seventh Seal

The Seventh Seal

The Seventh Seal

Passion of Christ

Passion of Christ

Passion of Christ
The devil walked among the jewish crowds but he does not look jewish. The point here is that once again like the scourging the guilt is shared by both the romans and the jews. And by extension--the whole human race.