George Bush's Theology: Does President Believe He Has Divine Mandate?

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life ^ | February 12, 2003 | Deborah Caldwell

[rwfromkansas]

In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith -- grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."

It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush as now. Since taking office -- and especially in the last weeks -- Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.

On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

Calvin, whose ideas are critical to contemporary evangelical thought, focused on the idea of a powerful God who governs "the vast machinery of the whole world."

Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:

-- After Bush's Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the president and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought -- God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the president responded.

In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.

At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Feb. 4.

-- In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the nation puts its confidence in the loving God "behind all of life, and all of history" and that "we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now."

In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence Bush believes his election as president was a result of God's acts.

A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.

"All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation," says Robin Lovin, a United Methodist ethicist and professor of religion and political thought at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Lovin says what the president seems to be lacking is theological humility and an awareness of moral ambiguity.

Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader. He brings a moral clarity and self-confidence that inspires Americans and scares enemies. "We don't inhabit that relativist universe (of European leaders)," Land says. "We really believe some things are good and some things bad."

It's even possible that Bush's belief in America's moral rightness makes the country's military threats seem more genuine because the world thinks Bush is "on a mission."

Presidents have always used Scripture in their speeches as a source of poetry and morality, according to Michael Waldman, President Clinton's chief speechwriter, author of "POTUS Speaks" and now a visiting professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

Lincoln, he says, was the first president to use the Bible extensively in his speeches, but one of the main reasons was that his audience knew the Bible -- Lincoln was using what was then common language. Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1912 speech to the Progressive Party, closed with these words: "We stand at the edge of Armageddon." Carter, Reagan and Clinton all used Scripture, but Waldman says their use was more as a "grace note."

Bush is different, because he uses theology as the guts of his argument. "That's very unusual in the long sweep of American history," Waldman says.

Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran. Many Americans know the president had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking and joined a men's Bible study group at First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. From that point on, he has often said, his Christian faith has grown.

Less well known is that, in 1995, soon after he was elected Texas governor, Bush sent a memo to his staff, asking them to stop by his office to look at a painting entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner, lent to him by Joe O'Neill, a friend from Midland. The painting is based on the Charles Wesley hymn of the same name, and Bush told his staff he especially liked the second verse: "To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill; O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will." Bush said those words represented their mission. "What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves."

By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for president by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church.

Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership" -- leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for president, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."

Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999.

At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next president. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be president. He said he believed God wanted him to be president.

During World War II, the American Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about God's role in political decision-making. He believed every political leader and every political system falls short of absolute justice -- that the Allies didn't represent absolute right and Hitler didn't represent absolute evil because all of us, as humans, stand under the ultimate judgment of God. That doesn't mean politicians can't make judgments based on what they believe is right; it does mean they need to understand that their position isn't absolutely morally clear.

"Sometimes Bush comes close to crossing the line of trying to serve the nation as its religious leader, rather than its political leader," says C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a clergy-led liberal lobbying group.

Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush's rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic "crusade."

Radwan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, worries about it. "Muslims, all over the world, are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists, and transformed into a war, or at least a conflict, with Islam. President Bush is a man of faith, and that is a positive attribute, but he also needs to learn about and respect the other faiths, including Islam, in order to represent and serve all Americans."

In hindsight, even Bush's inaugural address presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said: "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, `our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'

"We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

"This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

[sinkspur]

Usually, in the Bible, when things get really bad sin-wise, God steps in to teach a lesson.

In hindsight, that's how the Old Testament writers explained cataclysms. That's also how they determined who was just, and who wasn't, until Job came along.

You are free to believe that God is just waiting to drop the hammer on America if you wish.

As for terrible things being predicted, yes. But in a world where terrible things happened in the past, predicting that terrible things will happen in the future is a pretty safe bet.

[Siobhan]

Those Episcopalians were no more Calvinists of your ilk than my Irish Wolfhound is a Calvinist, which is to say NOT.

[Siobhan]

In hindsight, that's how the Old Testament writers explained cataclysms.

Absolutely dead wrong.

[Gophack]

I was surprised when I came to this thread and found out it had been turned into a "everyone's mean to us Catholics" free-for-all.

1) Yes, there are a bunch of anti-Catholics who take pleasure in baiting us; that's why I try not to rise to the bait and refuse to debate with those who are not at the minimum Christian in attitude.

2) Sometimes my fellow Catholics resort to name-calling, which makes us no better than the Catholic bigots.

3) We all voluntarily contribute (financially and opinions) on FR in a forum conceived and maintained by a private individual. We don't have to be here, we want to be.

4) I have received numerous private and public posts from lurkers and others interested in honest dialogue about Catholicism and Christianity in general, without the baiting and the name-calling.

5) I have been offended and saddened by some who claim to be Christians when they gleefully attack my faith with cruelty and ignorance; I offer my pain up to the Lord that He may turn it into something position. He has. I am better versed in my faith today than I was two years ago when I started posting to FR. I am a better Christian because of my friends, as well as the enemies of Catholicism.

6) The only thing I would ask of Jim Robinson and the moderators is that they be as fair as they can, but I understand everyone comes to this forum with their own biases.

7) To my fellow Catholics, I love you all. I have learned so much from you, particularly Polycarp, NYer, Aquinasfan and Salvation. I'm sure there are others I am neglecting. But sometimes we become one of them when we attack. I've deleted many typed words before posting when I've been responding in anger. Maybe we should all look at our attitudes. We don't have to put up with the bashing; I say, we ignore the bashers and simply post the Truth, or engage in dialogue. We all love the Lord, we all love our faith, and we want to defend it. And we should. With love.

8) I'm not lecturing, or at least I hope no one sees this as a lecture. I hope my comments are taken as intended, which is with love.

9) God bless.

[Matchett-PI]

"Those Episcopalians were no more Calvinists of your ilk than my Irish Wolfhound is a Calvinist, which is to say NOT."

When people insist on making a fools out of themselves, I usually just stand back and watch them hang themselves with their own rope. Hahahaha

[Gophack]

It's my understanding that Episcopalians are basically American Anglicans, particularly during the colonization of America because we didn't want "the Church of England", or a government church of any kind, in our country. Some Episcopalian denominations are quite close to Catholicism, which is why many Episcopalian ministers can become Catholic priests when they convert.

But, like many of the Protestant denominations, the Episcopalians have split in their theology, some retaining the early beliefs, and others becoming more "liberal" for lack of a better word.

[yendu bwam]

In hindsight, that's how the Old Testament writers explained cataclysms.

I believe that a good many of those were brought about by God, and that He, the Creator of this universe and of us, is able to step into this world in a forceful way when He sees fit. He did so in the great flood, when He took Moses to the top of the mountain and gave him the 10 Commandments and when He sent His son to this earth in human form - and directly intervened in many other cases in the Bible. Our nation and world, in terms of Christian morality, are in a hell-hole of sin (like other certain historical periods), and it wouldn't suprise me in the least if God brought about cataclysmic events to shake us up. But there is no point arguing about it, since what will happen, will. The difference is, you'll be surprised; I won't.

[Desdemona]

In an amazing turn of events, thank you. You are absolutely correct.

I've done the same, not responding in anger. At least I've tried.

And, IMO, the virtual version of taking toys and going home, gives the "other side" a victory of sorts, if you're inclined to keep score.

[drstevej]

***How 'bout beer?***

Works for Diet Coke too.

[RnMomof7]

Moderator and Jim Robinson - please delete my account.

You can just turn off your computer if you are unhappy at FR...they are not ringing your door bell.

[yendu bwam]

Catholics (including our bishops and priests) should have the courage to stand up for our beliefs, regardless of what vitriol we might be subjected to. If Christ could take torture and death, we can certainly take a little argument, or even vituperative remarks, on this forum! We should stop whining and get on with the witness of our faith.

[Siobhan]

You need to do your homework on colonial Episcopalians. Some may be described as Zwinglian, but you will not be able to describe them as Calvinist no matter how much you laugh.

[Siobhan]

In the colonial period, none of them could be described as Calvinist in the sense used by Matchett-PI.

[RnMomof7]

"...A glance at English history readily shows us that it was Calvinism which made Protestantism triumphant in that land. Many of the leading Protestants who fled to Geneva during the reign of Queen Mary afterward obtained high positions in the Church under Queen Elizabeth. Among them were the translators of the Geneva version of the Bible, which owes much to Calvin and Beza, and which continued to be the most popular English version till the middle of the seventeenth century when it was superseded by the King James version. The influence of Calvin is shown in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, especially in Article XVII which states the doctrine of Predestination. Cunningham has shown that all of the great theologians of the Established Church during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth were thorough-going predestinarians and that the Arminianism of Laud and his successors was a deviation from that original position."


".. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system." 18 John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period."


History lesson http://www.bloomingtonrpchurch.org/refdocpre/28.htm

[Domestic Church]

Roger Cardinal Etchegarry was a very poor excuse for a cardinal before going to schmooze with Saddam.

Thank you for noting this...and the timing too...given the kurds were gassed a decade ago.

[Polycarp]

Hoping for some kind of cataclysm to teach your fellow citizens a lesson is, frankly, sick. Some of that hellfire could splash over in your back yard, too.

You would rather this culture of death continue to consume souls and consign them to eternal perdition. That is, frankly, sick.

OUR LADY OF AKITA is a Church appoved apparition.

The First Message on July 6, 1973

• "My daughter, my novice, you have obeyed Me well in abandoning all to follow Me. Is the infirmity of your ears painful? Your deafness will be healed, be sure. Be patient. It is the last trial. Does the wound of your hand cause you to suffer? Pray in reparation for the sins of men. Each person in this community is my irreplaceable daughter. Do you say well the prayer of the Handmaids of the Eucharist? Then, let us pray it together:"
• "Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist, I consecrate my body and soul to be entirely one with Your Heart being sacrificed at every instant on all the altars of the world and giving praise to the Father, pleading for the coming of His Kingdom."
• "Please receive this humble offering of myself. Use me as You will for the glory of the Father and the salvation of souls."
• "Most Holy Mother of God. Never let me be separated from your Divine Son. Please defend and protect me as Your special child. Amen."
• " Pray very much for the Pope, the bishops and the priests."

The Second Message on August 3, 1973

• "My daughter, my novice, do you love the Lord? If you love the Lord listen to what I have to say to you."
• "It is very important. You will convey it to your superior."
• "Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates."
• "In order that the world might know His anger, the Heavenly Father is preparing to inflict a great chastisement on all mankind. With my Son, I have intervened so many times to appease the wrath of the Father. I have prevented the coming of calamities by offering Him the sufferings of the Son on the Cross, His Precious Blood, and beloved souls who console Him and form a cohort of victim souls. Prayer, penance and courageous sacrifices can soften the Father's anger. I desire this also from your community, that it love poverty, that it sanctify itself and pray in reparation for the ingratitude and outrages of so many men. Recite the prayer of the Handmaids of the Eucharist with awareness of its meaning: put it into practice: offer (whatever God may send) in reparation for sins. Let each one endeavor, according to capacity and position, to offer herself entirely to the Lord."
• "Even in a secular institute prayer is necessary. Already souls who wish to pray are on the way to being gathered. Without attaching too much attention to the form, be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master."

The Third and the Last message on October 13, 1973:

• ". . . if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests."
• "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."
• "The demon will be especially implacable against the souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."
• ". . . Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved."

So is Fatima:

"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."

You are a fool if you so blithely ignore these warnings.

[Matchett-PI]

"You need to do your homework on colonial Episcopalians. Some may be described as Zwinglian, but you will not be able to describe them as Calvinist no matter how much you laugh."

Try telling that to one of the foremost experts on the subject and make even more of a fool of yourself:

Dr. George Bancroft, arguably the most prominent American historian of the 19th century — and not a Calvinist — stated:

"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty"

[rwfromkansas]

He could have simply stated he believed Bush was wrong.

No, he decided to basically call Bush the spawn of Satan.

I am glad he is banned.

[rwfromkansas]

Oh give me a break. The only unprotected religious group is the Calvinists.

I have got in trouble for some posts before on the news/activism area about Catholicism. I try to keep my debate over here, where it rightly should be. It should not be filling up the other forum.

[rwfromkansas]

Of course the Pope is against the war; he is against anything America does; he is a poster child for the Democrats (excepting abortion).

[Tax-chick]

Personally, I agree with CatholicGuy's general premise that a proposed attack on Iraq does not rise to the qualifications of a just war. But that does not give me the right to cross over the line into personal assaults on the characters of everyone who disagrees with me.

Thank you for stating the obvious, sir! The sign says "NO personal attacks." If a person is in love with his or her own invective and decides not to follow the rules, well, there you go.

CatholicGuy could have expressed his opinion perfectly clearly in a civilized way. He chose not to. There's nothing Catholic or even Christian about nasty name-calling; there's nothing anti-Catholic about enforcing rules so that everyone can have a tolerable discussion.

For the record, I agree with the war, reluctantly, not that my opinion matters to anyone but me!

[al_c]

Do you need another tour in purgatory? ;o)

[RnMomof7]

Oh give me a break. The only unprotected religious group is the Calvinists. I have got in trouble for some posts before on the news/activism area about Catholicism. I try to keep my debate over here, where it rightly should be. It should not be filling up the other forum.

Correct..I have been warned also..but let the whinning continue..

Good thing that the founders were Calvinists..or we would still be whinning to the king to be nice to us..or the constitution would have had a PC clause

[sinkspur]

You are a fool if you so blithely ignore these warnings.

I don't put much stock in apparitions. Church approbation means the Church acknowledges that an apparition took place; it does not mean the Church consigns the remembrances of children and Catherine of Akita to required belief.

You should feel free to adopt whatever devotionals you judge to be positive for your spiritual life. If smugly wagging your finger at your countrymen while you preach armageddon draws you closer to God, then by all means continue.

My reading of Scripture and the New Testament takes me in the direction of the publican, whose only prayer was "Lord,have mercy on me, a sinful man."

[Jael]

That was a good post. Expect for the sheeple to bask you for it.

[RnMomof7]

Yep and he got banned

[sinkspur]

If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."

If Our Lady of Akita really said this, she is contradicting Church doctrine and the mercy of God.

[sinkspur]

Absolutely dead wrong.

Actually, it's not wrong, Siobhan. You ought to study a little Old Testament exegesis. Most of the Old Testament was viewed in the context of "what had happened," not in terms of "what is happening."

[conservonator]

Works for Diet Coke too.

Cool, what is it? I have a seriously messed up mac keyboard that has effectively rendered the computer useless, not the it was particularly useful before…

[al_c]

But many of the posts there over the last week are just plain nasty.

Hee hee! You should've been over there about a month ago ... it got really ugly and one non-Catholic (I won't mention names) was asked to stay out of the thread. That particular FReeper's posts were hardly the ugliest of the lot though.

It amazes me what some people will post and then call it "debate."

[sinkspur]

The difference is, you'll be surprised; I won't.

Nope. Terrible things have happened in the past, terrible things will happen in the future.

I just don't see things like attacks from al-Qaeda as anything but evil men taking out their hatred, a hatred that must be crammed back down their throats as soon and as often as possible.

[Polycarp]

The only unprotected religious group is the Calvinists.

Utter BS. You guys do the majority of the Catholic bashing.

You Calvinists are only happy when you're persecuting others or when (you perceive) you're being persecuted.

[yendu bwam]

I just don't see things like attacks from al-Qaeda as anything but evil men taking out their hatred, a hatred that must be crammed back down their throats as soon and as often as possible.

I don't either, sinkspur. But I can imagine far, far, far, worse - things bad enough to make even you wonder... God both loves and angers...

[c0rbin]

"He understands that God appoints all leaders..."

How does he know this?

[G Larry]

You wouldn't have ANY Bible if it were not for Catholics!

That Luther removed the books he didn't like, doesn't make it an inspired event.

How do you declare it "one authority", when a thousand Protestant denominations disagree on the meaning of various aspects of the Bible.
The only thing they agree on is "Whatever, as long as it's not Catholic"!

[G Larry]

Try this on for "Just".
'Saddam's bombmaker' makes it quite clear that after Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor in '78, that Saddam initiated a $10B underground nuclear program, staffed by over 7000 people.
There is no indication that this facility was damaged or destroyed in the 1st gulf war.
Most likely it sits under the imense courtyard of one of Saddam's major Palaces.
There is no merit in announcing to Saddam that we're aware of this facility. The only way that knowledge should demonstrated is with the destruction of the facility.
Including any of it's nuclear products.

Of course there are those in the world who would argue that it was the fault of the U.S., even after discovering that the nuclear device just detonated in the heartland of America, originated in Iraq.

Think for a minute.
North Korea has long range missiles and Nuclear Weapons.
Iraq may very well have nuclear weapons, and if he doesn't he has the money to pay to North Korea.
Is there any reason to believe North Korea wouldn't sell this hardware to Iraq?
Once obtained is there any reason to believe Saddam wouldn't either use them directly, or enlist an outside terror group to use it against the U.S.?

That's OK, we'll just wait for a nuclear explosion on our shores, spend 2 years determining how it happened, and then have our "just war". </sarcasm>

[saradippity]

One billion.one trillion,and everything in between what difference does it really make? There's perhaps a dimes worth of difference but thats about it.The reason that there is any argument about it at all has little to do with the likes of most of us,who will be bound and used by either political party. The reason for the bitter vitriol that never leads to any basically different action or policy is that there is a different group of elites who will own us.Both Marxists and Socialists have the same unltimate objective. Control of the "one world" they are seeking to design.

Unless there is divine intervention it is only a matter of time and it utterly amazes me that either people don't know it or they are ignoring it,hoping that it will all go away and people will not have to change their way of living,morally and materially. This division crosses over and effects every religion,including secular humanism,and almost every nation. It was to prevent thid that Christ came and ommanded His Apostles to teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost.When some enlightened folks decided He meant follow your conscience and your heart,they derailed His plsn.

[G Larry]

Poly,
I'm Catholic, a Vietnam era vet, and a conservative.
Catholic Guy certainly warrented a tin foil hat alert.

See my post from 2 minutes ago.

[Matchett-PI]

"You wouldn't have ANY Bible if it were not for Catholics!" ~ G Larry

Wrong.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...". [Heb. 1:1-2]

God's speaking to us by his Son is the culmination of his speaking to mankind and is his greatest and final revelation to mankind.

The warning God gave through John in Rev.22 shows that God himself places supreme value on our having a correct collection of God-breathed writings, no more, no less. He's quite able to see to it that we have them. The closed canon we have today is God's doing. What we have didn't depend on men.

In fact, some of the earliest writers CLEARLY distinguished the difference between what they wrote and the writings of the apostles. In A.D.110, Ignatius said, "I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; THEY WERE APOSTLES, I am a convict; they were free, I am even until now, a slave".

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would see to it that the disciples would be able to remember and record without error all that he had said to them when he was with them. [John 14:26; 16:13. See also: 2 Pet.3:2; 1 Cor.2:13; 1 Thess.4:15; and Rev. 22:18-19].

So in compiling the canon of Scripture, the work of the early church was not to bestow divine authority or even ecclesiastical authority upon some merely human writings --- but to RECOGNIZE the divinely authored characteristics of writings that already had such a quality.

This is because the ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authorship --- (as Jesus promised) --- NOT human or ecclesiastical approval.

In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today.

The Apocrypha is not divinely authoritive.

If the sovereign God thought that the Apocrypha should have been included in the canon of Scripture, it would be there.

Even though Jerome included those books in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (A.D. 404) he specifically said himself that they were not "books of the canon" but merely "books of the church" that were helpful and useful to believers.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't even declare the Apocrypha to be a part of the canon until 1546. In affirming the Apocrypha as within the canon, RC's held that the RCC had the authority to constitute a literary work as "Scripture".

The Apocrypha CONTRADICTS the Scriptures, but they do serve to support Rome's teachings -- such as prayers for the dead and justification by faith _PLUS_ works, not by faith alone.

REFORMERS deny that Rome can make something to be Scripture that God hasn't already caused to be written as his own words. The Apocrypha are not "God-breathed" words, and they weren't even considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the NT authors.

Roger Beckwith writes: "On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative."

(The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism - London: SPCK, 1985, and Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1986 - esp. pp 436-437)

The preservation and correct assembling of the canon of Scripture was an integral part of the history of redemption itself. Just as God was at work in creation, calling his people Isreal, in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and in the early work and writings of the apostles, so God was at work in the preservation and assembling together of the books of Scripture for the benefit of his people for the entire church age.

God's greatest revelation to mankind was written down by the apostles. We have everything we need to know about the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time.

No more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament.[Heb 1:1-2 Rev.22:18-19]

Only those who don't believe that God is sovereign would doubt his faithfulness to his people and think that he would allow something to be missing from Scripture for almost 2,000 years that he thinks we need to know for obeying him and trusting him fully. The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns.

The apostle Paul: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man (one of "the brethren" in whom is the Holy Spirit) makes judgements about all things, but he, himself is not subject to ANY man's judgement". [1 Cor.2:14]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/842063/posts?page=132#132

[drstevej]

I've done this and it works.

1- Fill your bathtub (or sink) with enough hot water to fully submerge your keyboard.
2- Detach your keyboard and submerge it in the hot water (don't use soap because it leaves a film. Allow it to soak for 30 minutes or so.
3- Swirl the keyboard around to allow any dried coffee, etc. to dissolve and dislodge.
4- Remove keyboard and allow water to drain out.
5- Place the keyboard face down on a bath towel and place in a dry room in the house.
6- Give the keyboard several days to dry out thoroughly.
7- Use your keyboard. If problems persist, repeat the process.

For me it worked great. I was about to throw the keyboard in the trash and thought... couldn't hurt.

[RnMomof7]

You Calvinists are only happy when you're persecuting others or when (you perceive) you're being persecuted.

Whine on whine on..It is you that is whining about being persucuted..grow up!

[RnMomof7]

How does he know this?

The Bible tells him so

[RnMomof7]

You wouldn't have ANY Bible if it were not for Catholics!

The bible was written By the Holy Spirit not a Church...as for the non canonical books..they are not a part of the inspired Hebrew Cannon

Question: St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures.

Answer: True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

[Jean Chauvin]

"How do you declare it "one authority", when a thousand Protestant denominations disagree on the meaning of various aspects of the Bible.
The only thing they agree on is "Whatever, as long as it's not Catholic"! "

Likewise...

How do you declare the Roman Catholic Church "one authority", when a thousand Catholics disagree on the meaning of various aspects of the Bible.
The only thing they agree on is "Whatever, as long as it's not Protestant"!

Because individual Roman Catholics are of thousands of different opinions regarding Scripture makes your charge of a thousand different Protestant denominations completely irrelevant!

Jean

[RnMomof7]

Exactly

[Polycarp]

The pope and top Vatican aides repeatedly have denounced the risk of any war to resolve the Iraqi crisis, insisting a preventive war has no legal or moral justification and expressing fears that a conflict could spark Muslim rancor against Christians.

Christians make up about five percent of Iraq's 22 million people.

John Paul himself has said any new war with Iraq would be a "defeat for humanity."

Hmmmm...CG was in good company, at least.

There is much more to this situation than meets the eye.

I guess so.

[Jean Chauvin]

""There is much more to this situation than meets the eye""

I guess so."

Or perhaps the Pope simply doesn't have a clue!

Jean

[ThomasMore]

Of course the Pope is against the war;

Yes, for the same reason Jesus is against war.  "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust." [Mat 5:44-45] 

he is against anything America does;

calumny; real Christians don't slander.  The only thing in America he is against is SIN. Got a guilty conscience?

 

he is a poster child for the Democrats (excepting abortion).

More calumny; On the moral front JPII stands against abortion, euthanasia, adultery, homosexuality, unchastity, theft, murder, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly: shall I go on?.  All these things exist considerably in these hedonistic times in the USA (especially in the Democratic Party).  He has spoken out against them often and harshly.  On the political front, one must never forget the alliance between Ronald Reagan and John Paul II and the fall of communism.

and lets see....he wrote the following in 1997...

"The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.

The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."

Your rhetoric is full of slander. Shame.

[conservonator]

Thanks!

I'm going to give it a shot as soon as I get home.

[conservonator]

Because individual Roman Catholics are of thousands of different opinions regarding Scripture makes your charge of a thousand different Protestant denominations completely irrelevant!

Silly. Catholics, in the end, adhere to one, not multiple dogma, doctrines and creeds as Protestant and other non-Catholic Christians do. Catholics don’t make the mistake of confusing their opinion with inspired interpretation.