Blame, divisiveness, and deflection . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

Before the Democratic Party and/or democraticunderground'ers fight amongst ourselves, pointing fingers, blaming each other, our candidates, Christians, fundamentalists, evangelicals or others, it's good to take a very close look through our shock and anger at what really happened.

What did Karl Rove do in the name of George Walker Bush as a means to the White House?

Does George Walker Bush have any sense of honor? of character? What did he authorize Karl Rove to do?

Did Karl Rove and Company with his ruthless and notorious "plan" plant seeds of fear? hate? as they used religion to demonize others for the sake of self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, self-righteousness, and self-empowerment to the White House?

In exit polling 22% of the voters said that "moral values" was the most important issue for them as they voted for President of the United States of America -- higher than taxes, terror, jobs, healthcare, education, Iraq. 80% of "moral values" voted for Bush. "Moral values" is a scapegoat -- the distorted seeds of fear planted against gays and same sex marriage. It appeared on several linchpin states ballots as state constitutional questions.

Rove and Bush worked the churches "hard," "very hard" to bring out the corrupted religious vote of fear against gays. Yes, they delivered fear through a corrupted religious base as the means to the White House.

Fear-driven divisiveness wins if you haven't the plurality to win on relevant issues. It's simple arithmetic.

Fear-driven divisiveness wins as a deflection away from an inferior first four-years as president. Again, simple arithmetic.

Deflection via corrupted religion, what better way to cement a message? Religion is the very heart and soul of most Americans. Rove and Bush knew what they were doing in their "plan" of any means to their end-goal.

And divisiveness, now, is what both Rove and Bush hope will fill the ranks of the Democratic Party and their supporters. However, divisiveness within us as Democrats is not what the Democratic Party needs. Nor is divisiveness within DUers!

A cohesive solidarity will lead us to the road to victory in 2006 and 2008! With that in mind, a deeper understanding of America's religion -- of the religion of this president, George Walker Bush -- may be necessary in order to achieve that goal of unity. To place religion in religious context as to this election and to further understand the religious prong of this election, here's what Methodist (retired) Bishop William Boyd Grove had to say about political misuse of religion immediately prior to this election:

"RELIGION AND THE ELECTION
A Caution Against Blasphemy
by William Boyd Grove

"Webster defines blasphemy as 'profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine.' To commit blasphemy is to trivialize holy things for unholy purpose. It is, for instance, to violate the second commandment which states 'You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.' (Exodus 20: 7-NRSV). I write this column not as a political partisan, although as a citizen I have a political point of view, but as a bishop of the church who is compelled by my consecration to caution against blasphemy, in defense of the Bible and biblical faith.

"Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this election campaign proceeds, trivializing holy things as it moves on. The latest instance of it was the distribution by the Republican National Committee, in West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a picture of a Bible with the word 'banned' across it, and another with the hands of two men with a wedding ring with the word 'allowed' across it. The implication is that the election of Senator Kerry would lead to the banning of the Bible and the approval of (religious) same-sex marriage. Those who distributed the brochure know that the claim is not true and not possible. The first amendment to the United States Constitution would not allow it, and Senator Kerry's election would not lead to it. The brochure is not only insulting to the intelligence of West Virginians, targeted to the stereotype of Appalachians as "dumb hillbillies,' it is blasphemous; it is 'profane and contemptuous writing concerning God and the Bible.'

"Clergy usually do not take public, partisan positions in an election. I have never before done so in more than fifty years of ministry as a pastor and a bishop. But in this election, the use of false teaching concerning scripture and the Christian faith by a political campaign demands response from religious leaders. Bishops in our church are charged to 'guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim . . . the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition . . . .' My goal in this column is to 'guard the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture' against those who are distorting and manipulating its teachings for political gain.

"It is now widely believed that, of course, nearly all persons of religious faith will vote for President Bush. That 'conventional wisdom' has originated in the Republican party and been advanced by an uncritical media. The claim is not correct, and the statistics supporting it have been distorted and oversimplified. The 'religious right' is not the only voice of religious faith in this country!

"The issues on which the religious right has focused in this campaign are almost solely abortion (which includes embryonic stem cell research) and same-sex marriage. While those are important issues which need and deserve discussion, they are not the only, or even the primary, issues to which the Bible is relevant. On the other issues in the campaign, the President's policies are not in accord with Biblical teaching, or with the teaching of his own church.

"The media has made much of the fact that Senator Kerry's position on abortion contradicts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and as a result, some bishops may deny him the Eucharist. Why does the media not investigate whether or not President Bush's policies are consistent with the teachings of his church, the United Methodist Church? Such an investigation would reveal that the President's policies are contrary to the Social Principles of his church (official church teaching), and to the broad consensus of ecumenical church teaching on many significant issues. I will name only three:

"1.) War and Peace. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, and the dominant position among the churches of the world is that war is always a last resort. Last resort is the first of seven criteria of Just War doctrine, which is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Preemptive war, now a part of official US government policy, can never be justified by church doctrine.

"2.) Care of the environment, or, to use biblical /theological language, 'stewardship of creation.' According to Genesis 2:15, the human was made responsible for the creation 'to till it and to keep it.' The Social Principles of the President's church declares 'All creation is the Lord's and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life are to be valued and conserved because they are God's creation, and not solely because they are useful to human beings.' In violation of this teaching, the policies of the (GWBush) administration have rolled back legislation protecting the environment that has been in force for many years under presidents of both parties, and our government has refused to sign international treaties on global warming and other threats to the environment.

"3.) Concern for the poor. According to Luke 4:16 Jesus, quoting the prophet Isaiah, said 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has sent me to bring good news to the poor.' The teaching of the President's church seeks fulfillment of that promise to 'bring good news to the poor.' However, these last years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of persons living in poverty in the United States and millions have been added to the number without health care. The gap between the wealthy on the one hand, and the middle class and the poor on the other, has increased each year, under the policies of the government which has brought good news only to the wealthy.

"Not only are the policies of this government in conflict with scripture and the teachings of the President's church, but President Bush has been unwilling to listen to the counsel of religious leaders unless he knows in advance that they agree with him. Being open to other points of view within the Christian community is one of the marks of mature Christian life.

The bishops of the President's church have repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought a meeting with the President. He is only the second President since Washington who has refused to have a discussion with Methodist bishops. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the National Council of Churches sent small delegations of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant leaders to meet with the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the Vatican and the United States of America. In nearly all of those visits the delegation met with the head of state. Of those governments, only the President of the United States and his administration refused to receive a delegation. Tony Blair, despite his support of the war, spent over an hour with the delegation, listening to its point of view.

"I do not question President Bush's personal faith. But he has not studied the scriptures in relation to issues of justice and peace, or else he has ignored those teachings. The result, in my judgment, is that he has allowed his religious beliefs, dominated by his political ideology, to make him absolutely certain that he is right, and unwilling to listen to other voices. He is slow to admit a mistake on any issue of substance, because he believes his decisions are just and righteous. The dogged determination and 'staying on message,' that some so admire, is self righteous and very dangerous. It casts the current struggle against terrorism in 'holy war' terms as a conflict between absolute good on one side and absolute evil on the other, the same perspective held by the terrorists.

The issues are between good and evil. The methods of the terrorists are evil. But it is very dangerous for us to see ourselves as totally righteous. A mature understanding of scripture could help the President to avoid the arrogance and hubris that have so offended the rest of the world. And in such a situation, to exploit, distort and manipulate religion for political advantage is blasphemous. It is to trivialize the holy for self serving purpose.

"Religious talk can be very cheap. Jesus said, 'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven.' (Matthew 7:21) What is the will of 'my father in heaven?' That is a huge question. The President and his campaign would do well to reflect on that question, and to avoid the tendency to believe that they already know the answers. They might also consult with others who have studied the question who might have a different point of view. And meanwhile, they should be careful to avoid the sin of blasphemy.

"William Boyd Grove is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church living in Charleston, West Virginia"

http://www.theocracywatch.org/rel_inst_methodist_bishop.htm

(emphasis added in Bishop Grove's article by TaleWgnDg)