It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Jesus Factor- Bush

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Did anyone else catch the PBS show on Frontline entitled The Jesus Factor? I watched the show the night before last, and it was an eye opener. If you didn't catch it, you can view it on the net starting today at:
www.pbs.org...

Highlights:
(edit)-Every charity that has received money from the Faith Based Initiative, has been a Christian charity. (No other religions have received money.)

-How Bush jr. and Billy Graham helped to shape George Sr. message, to reach out to Evangelists durring his campaign. Beating Pat Robertson in the primary, an Evangelist.

-How George jr., after seeing his father become president by mobilizing Evangelists for the election. Thought to himself, "hey I can do that". Later became Gov. of Tx. by doing the same thing.

-How Bush is using versus in the Bible to fit his agenda, I.E. It is God's will for the US to liberate the world.

-Bush Jr. rarely goes to church.

-Billy Graham is a close personal friend of the Bush family. (Graham is widely suspected to be a Freemason.)

-When Bush needs spiritual advice he asks Rev. Graham.

-Believes he is doing God's will, and that God wanted him to be president.

Overall, the show was very informative. It really brought out in my mind, how dangerous this man really is. One person that was interviewed said something to the effect, George believes what he is saying. He believes he was chosen by God. The problem is that, George don't know when he is doing things because it is God's will, or it is just to fit his agenda.

I have heard Bush say on a few occassions that the Muslim God, and Christian God etc., are the same God. If he believes this, then why does he also say God is on OUR side. Why did he slip and call this a crusade? If he really thought he was doing Gods work, why doesn't he care about "colateral damage". If he's a "compassionate conservative", and a "uniter, not a divider", where is the compassion in his works/deeds? What has he ever united besides the religious wrong, and Christian fanatics. People who are the equivelant of the fanatics of the Muslim religion in which we are fighting?

I am very leary of Mr. Bush to say the least. Especially if he is getting all of his religious "guidance" from Rev. Graham. It was Rev. Graham that helped Oral Roberts become prominent in religious circles. Oral Roberts is no doubt a Mason. His "City of Faith" when finished was to have 777 beds. Take a look at the buildings on his campus, and former hospital, or the school logo with an upside down triangle. The address of Oral Robert University is 7777. He is also the Evangelical leader who started the idea, God wants Christians to be rich, and that there isn't anything wrong with it. He is also the leader who said God would take him away (die), if he didn't raise 8 million dollars for scholarships. Then within a couple of years of receiving 9.1 million, canceled the scholarships, and had them paid back with interest.

These guys are fanatics, and George listens to every word of mis-information that they spout from their pulpits. Why, because the fanatic/sheeple believe it, and he needs them to carry out his true agenda. It said on Frontline, that after his dads election. The belief was you don't need any other voter block then the Evangelicals to win the election. Hopefully some of the sheeple have woken up by now. This show is a definate must see before the upcoming election.

Tom Sawyer

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by TomSawyer]




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Be very, very afraid!

On the bright side, come "The Rapture" you and I won't have to worry about Evangelicals forcing their narrow exclusivist belief system down our collective throats.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   
wow: why is this thread getting slept on? maybe you should've put it in the pit, TomSawyer.

I watched the frontline special too (pbs lover).

I never heard Dubya say that the bible was above the constitution until I saw the clip at the church. I thought he believed it, but to actually hear him say it was mind blowing. Of course he was pandering, but as someone said, he doesn't know when his pandering starts and his belief begins. Things like the patroit act and his executive orders appointing people who believe that the bible is the only law proves that he believe it too. AND ASHCROFT IS A PENTECOSTAL! I grew up in that oppressive woman-hating religion. I just shook my head. That explains alot.

Be very very afraid is right.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
sorry for the typos did it in a pinch, also this is not to be taken aggresively, I just think it is a little biased to say he is using his own views to judge others, and yet a lot of judging in that story was going on.


[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Regardless of whatever "Good" christians churches have done/are doing, it is at least as easy to list the "Evil" deeds that they are directly responsable for. If I have to start a list, you really haven't been paying attention for the past millinia or so. It is the nature of organized religion to suplant all other religious/spiritual thought that does not adhere exactly to it's own tenents. It is exactly this exclusivity that in of itself is alienating and even destructive to those with alternate belief systems. Islam is equally as guilty as Christianity in their goal of religious world domination, but then they have been programed for centuries by the very attacks of Christanity against them. Judeism on the other hand has remained insular, shunning missionaryism and even dissuading conversion. Budhists similarly rely on education and individual enlightenment rather than on conversion and conquest.

Bloody Christians tend to pick arguments that show how enlightened and accepting they are while ignoring or denying anything that rebuts these arguments. Rallying around your soup kitchen doesn't make up for bombing Planned Parenthood.

Best of all would be for all peoples to actually live the teachings of the universal golden rule while keeping personal views out of the public forum. FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMBED FAMILY!!!



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Interesting the bias and hate I read here, yet we Christians are the evil of the world, huh? You do nothing but fulfill Christ's words.

Yes, Saph, the Bible (That is to say, God) is above the constitution. Your rights are God-given, constitutionally protected. To make it a bit clearer, if I may. If God gave you the rights and not the government, the government cannot take them away.

The constitution does not contradict the Bible. There is a reason why. Most of those involved with the Constitution were very strong in their Christian walk. This nation was to be a Christian nation (notice, I said Christian, not pentacostal, Baptist....) and even Ben Franklin said that the only way the "experiment in society" would succeed is with Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and principles.

Scotts, we do not force our relationship down your throat. If your silly little assertion were true, the TV would be a wholly different device. Also, if it were true, we'd do things like decapitate your family in front of you were you not to accept Christ, much like the Islamic world does. They, in fact, force their religion down others' throats, or separate the throat from the rest of the body! As far as the "evil deeds" for which we are responsible, please list them.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear to you, Scott, we give you the Good News, it is up to you to accept or deny. Ours is the Great Commision, to spread the Gospel. That threatens you? That is us suplanting other religions? It starts with you, accept or deny. After that, what is your problem? It isn't the one walking with Christ that is likely to steal your car or rob your wife or abduct, rape and torture your children. By the way, tell me what denomination or church orchestrates the bombing of instututions that murder the most innocent and helpless?

As far as Oral Roberts, isn't he the one that claimed God was going to kill him if he didn't raise a couple million dollars?

I have issues with Billy Graham as well, but the millions that were led to Christ because of his work cannot be denied, so I don't feel I have much room to throw a rock at him.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Just because YOUR particular White steapled haven somewhere in analintercourse Texas hasn't burnt anyone at the stake lately doesn't let you off of the deaths of thousands killed in the name of christ.

"Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one."
Sting

Where do you get off claiming that you don't force your trogladite religion down our collective throats? "This nation was to be a Christian nation" "One nation, under God" "In god we trust" Just a few examples.

I knew in advance what your self-serving words would be, after all your namesake was just such a supplanter as yourself, Stealing a work of art sureptitiously and replacing it with another piece over the original and donating it back to the gallery from which it was stolen. Do you even know the story behind your avatar or were you just infatuated in a homoerotic way twords Pierce Brosnan's character in the movie?

Your puritanical elitist view is exclusionary in the extreme. By saying that I have a choise to accept or deny the "Good news", you overtly imply that denial is dooming me to satanic hell,(a wholely christian concept). It is EXACTLY this black and white view that is alienating and elitist. You align yourself with elitist scum like Li'l Shrub who says things like; "You are either with us, or with the terrorists." There can NEVER be such a clear-cut choice in geopolitics or in matters of spirituality.

See you in hell Tommy Boy!


[Edited on 2-5-2004 by scottsquared]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
infovacume,
There are all kinds of religious organizations in the US, that cater to all of the different cultures/religions we have in this country. They are charities, and they are called churches. They are even tax exempt, because they are considered charities. I wouldn't be surprised if we had every religious sect that exists in the entire world, here in the US.

Being forthright, honest and up front with people are Christian qualities. So my question would be. Is it up front, honest etc. to say you are going to have a faith based initiative. Giving money to religious charities to help people. Leaving the impression it is going to be un-biased, and even handed towards all religions?

Why would anyone have the impression it would be even handed?
-It would be un-constitutional to do otherwise, due to seperation of church and state.
-Because Bush is a very vocal "christian"
-Beacuse Bush has stated several times the Muslim God, and the Christian God, etc, are the same God. (To which I happen to agree.)
-He has said he is a uniter, not a divider.
-He has said this isn't a crusade.
-It is promoting one religion over another.
-This is suppossed to be the country where there is freedom of religion. So there would be no need to promote one religion over another.
-ETC........

So being that George Bush is a very vocal "christian", it leads people to assume he would follow Christian principles. This is the impression he leaves, by the words that he says. The truth is he is doing exactly the opposite. He is promoting one religion over another, and it's "christian". Being a Christian, you would think I would be elated. I am ashamed, that I am being represented like this. This is not a Christian character. To mis-lead people into thinking/believing he is un-biased towards any other religion.

So of course the religious right, probably is elated. They have suceeded in a re-distribution of wealth from every different religion in the US to one religion, Christianity. But this isn't a crusade? What people need to understand, is that the Christian religion has it's form of extreemists, just as the Muslim world has theirs. These are the two factions that are fighting eachother right now. The "christian" Evangelicals, and the Islamic radicals.
These few extreemists, represent probably around 15% of the US population. Yet they are representing 100% of the US with their actions. So yes I have a problem with this.

Peace,
Tom



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Bush is the guy who said, "The jury is still out on evolution" and believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If he let's his religious beliefs get in the way of basic critical thinking, how many other decisions are being clouded?



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
There's another side to his Christian policies -- he's trying to get a science review board (not made up of scientists, by the way) to review all applications for funding and to make sure that they are "rightful and moral."

In other words, no funding of any science they think is "godless."

And the panel would have their own definition of what is right and moral.

So... for example... AIDS research might be stopped completely. Research on ADHD drugs might be stopped completely. Research on animals would not be an ethical issue.

With his stacked "review board," issues on environmentalism wouldn't get funded.

That's not science. That's intellectual and social suicide by Alzheimers.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
TC: The government you support intends to take my rights away by using their jaded interuptation of the bible and end times. But, above that, this is not a question of who gives us rights and what protects them. Its the doctrine that I'm afraid of. The oppressive nature of those religions directly contradict freedom. For years the bible was used against the freedom of women and the freedom of black men and women. The freedom of homosexuals is now being infringed upon by the book you claim gives us freedom. Dubya woships that twisted tyrannical Jesus, the same Jesus that was used by evil men to commit these oppressive crimes.

Jesus is lovely. I believe that by choice, and if other's choose not to believe it that's their right. The bible claims there is only one way and on Frontline Dubya said that there is only one way. This is why we need a constitution so that his observance of faith doesn't impede my right to choose what I believe. That is why his powers were limited by the founders, but he doesn't care about the constitution. He only cares about what he believes when he should worry about protecting the rights of all americans. That makes me so angry. This country has evolved far past the limits that were put on our lives by oppressive religion. He wants to undo all of that. You cannot force people to worship how you worship and believe how you believe and do what you want them to do with their lives and their bodies. Tis tyranny.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Saphronia]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The constraining factor of organized religion is that it is defined by a BELIEF system or dogma. BELIEFS as opposed to IDEAS are rigid and by definition, opposed to alternate beliefs.


This tyranny, as the lovely
Saphronia calls it, is absolutely in opposition to the design of our constitution. It is most certainly this arrogant approach that both TC and Shrubya share that will doom us to an extended and unwinable "crusade" in the Mid East. Forcing democracy down the throats of the Arab peoples in the name of freedom is just an extention of American Hegemony.

Back to Gunboat Diplomacy.

I kind of thought that Christianity taught lessons like The Golden Rule and how to proudly Lead By Example. If Shrubya was so sure in his convictions of rightiousness then why do we need to introduce our way of life at the point of a bayonet?!?
The transparancy of this doctrine is surely visible to the People whom we are intent apon converting.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
For a real eye opener, go to CounterPunch.org and read "The Revelation of St.George. I call it the Madness of King George. My only question is: Why aren't the Dems using this in their campaign to show how Georgie is unfit to govern. It makes me believe in his reincarnations, as Caligula...Torquemada....and Hitler.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The Dems won't touch Dubya's freakish religiosity for fear of being anti-religion. In these ever more polarized Divided States of America I think you might find that at least a simple majority of the populus would call themselves Christian devoties. Any attempt to point out Dubya's religious furvor would surely backfire. Maybe the only recourse would be for Kerry to convert to Evangelical Christianity and "out-god" the Godless Bush.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
....the one's in power, that is. Given the stymied decision process ("WWJD" vs. everything else ) by the rank & file, they're feeling quite enabled.

"The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
- Supreme Court Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist, from his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).
He's one of the "Clowns in Gowns" that installed Dubya J. Christ, remember?

"We are approaching a time when Christians, especially, may have to declare the social contract between Enlightenment rationalists and Biblical believers - which formed the basis of the constitution written at our nation's founding - null and void."
- Cal Thomas, writing in the Moonie-owned Washington Times, 1996-OCT-23.
I'vve written my local paper to stop carrying his Op-Ed's.

"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."
- John Ashcroft, from the commencement address he gave on May 8, 1999, upon receiving an honorary degree at ultra-right-wing, ultra-fundamentalist and ultra-racist Bob Jones University.
Hear that Muslims, Jews, Budhist et al?

Where are they going with this?

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
- Gary North, in his book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, 1989, p.87.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

- Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993.

That they're for "equality" for all is the sheep suit they're selling the above wolf in.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared

...is most certainly this arrogant approach that both TC and Shrubya share that will doom us to an extended and unwinable "crusade" in the Mid East. Forcing democracy down the throats of the Arab peoples in the name of freedom is just an extention of American Hegemony.



Whoa, I didn't say all that. The arab world needs democracy. Every people deserves a say in their government. To support the continuation of one type of tyranny while you damn the other is hypocrisy. I support the effort to bring democracy to the middle east...I don't support the means. War is never the right choice, but the world has sat back too long and let the arab governments subjugate their people without representation. Somethings are about sercurity. I trust Bush when he says that, and his goal is too noble. You have to respect that, and any administration that follows him would be nuts not to continue our efforts to democratize the middle east.

BT: great post as usual.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I absolutely do NOT support any of the Governments in the Mid East! That said, I cannot support this government's involvement in trying to influence the future form expressed in Iraq. I repeat: We must lead by example ONLY.

It is this corrupt notion that so... many, conservatives and liberals alike, that everything is justified if we can convert the Arab peoples to democracy, that spells-out American ARROGANCE.

Boy George probably IS sincere about his motivation and his goal. This doesn't make him any less wrong. Nevermind that he believes that he is on some God-given quest, or that he selectively chooses inteligence that supports his goals, we have NO right to attempt to influence the course of events outside of our own homeland.

Are we OBLIGED to listen to the rest of the western world when they tell us that we have an insane system of paying for health care? No we are not. We are entitled to make all of our own mistakes....and so is the Arab world.

I have no issue with retaliatory strikes against Afganastan or any country that actively supports terrorists who have attacked our nation, Saudi Arabia for example. Our invasion of Iraq has NOTHING to do with terrorism, except as a smoke screen. We are in Iraq to secure transportation of oil and natural gas. Stop fooling yourselves. Installing democracy and Christianity are just beneficial byproducts(to the religious right) of a prolonged involvement(read:forever) in the Middle East. Further, this strong show of resolve is intended to teach the rest of THE WORLD to fall in line, pony-up, and shut-up.

Awfagetaboutit! I'm gona have a flap of skin grafted back on to my penis, have my nose bobbed, get baptized, join the evangelical right, get a labotomy, oops...I think I better switch those last two around, and start voting straight-up republican.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
TC and Infovacume, and all
You both brought up in your posts, that my post is judging Mr. Bush. I am assuming you are implying, that to bring up these facts about him is not the Christian thing to do? I beg to differ on this point of view. I am not judging Mr. Bush the person, I am however judging his actions. There is a big difference between judging the person and judging their actions. His actions are what I have a problem with. Especially when it reflects on fellow Christians/Americans, and how we are being portrayed by him to the world. Evangelicals tend to believe that judge not lest ye be judged, means to be blind to everyones actions and not say anything negative about them. Especially if it is a "fellow Christian". Unless of course they are gay/lesbian, do "drugs" etc., then it's ok. They also tend to believe that if the action serves the better good, then it's ok. It doesn't matter what havoc it causes, just as long as the ends justify the means. (This is in line with TC's comment on all of the "good" Rev. Graham has done.) It is also in line with Bush's response to not finding any WMD's in Iraq. His response to this criticism is basically so what, we got rid of Sadam didn't we? As long as the ends justify the means.

Judge not lest ye be judged, means not to be prejudiced or hold grudges, because of someones actions. When someone does something to harm another, the reaction tends to be either revenge or prejudice. Revenge is wrong, because it keeps the negative cycle alive. You can exact your revenge, but that revenge may cause another reaction. You can be prejudiced against that person, but being prejudiced against them means that you don't listen to them, or help them etc.. They are basically dead to you, or written off. This is wrong, because there is no forgiveness, compassion, or understanding. It puts the other person on a level that is less than you, and leaves no way to reconcile even if they are truely sorry for their actions. So prejudice is judgement, and also keeps the negative cycle alive. If you forgive someone, you drop the prejudice/revenge/anamosity you have toward them, that was caused by their actions. I.E. recognizing they too have free will, and may not choose the same path again in the future.

The problem is, until the person asks for forgiveness, or acknowledges his/her actions were wrong in the first place. There is no way of knowing if they would do it again or not. Evangelicals are proponents of the "forgive and forget" philosiphy. Yet there is no where in the Bible that says you are to forget anything. To forget the action, is to doom yourself to the same cycle repeating itself. Especially if the person responsible for the action doesn't see, or want to see the error in their actions. Every person has free will, to include Mr. Bush. He can change his ways today, tomorrow, or never. It is all up to him. So while I don't support the actions he has chosen to take, I do realize he too can be born again (change his ways) at any time, and hope for it. The problem with Mr. Bush currently, is when people call him on anything. He is arrogant, and doesn't see any problems that need to be discussed. He was asked three times in his news conference, if he thought he had made any mistakes as president in all of this. He couldn't think of one. I fear people who are so arrogant, as to not learn from their mistakes. Or worse yet, can't think of any.

As a Christian, I feel it is an obligation to defend exactly what a Christianity is. Being that Mr. Bush claims to be a Chrisitian. It is important to keep the facts straight. By Mr. Bush professing to be a Christian, he has set himself up to be an example of what Christians are/believe. People who are not Christians, could be lead to believe that this is how Christians think, and act. In my opinion this has been a detriment to the Christian faith, not an effective recruiting tool. Evangelicals believe that being a Christian, is to ask Jesus into your heart. Believing he is the son of God, and died for your sins. Once you have done that, you are "saved". They even believe that once you are "saved", you are saved forever. They drive this point even further, by saying man is human, to sin is human nature. Or good deeds don't get you into Heaven, etc..

This philosiphy is not Christian doctorine. A Christian, IS someone who asks Jesus into their heart. But it is more then just the physical act. Being a Christian requires that the person see the error in their ways, giving them the desire to be more Christ like. Why do you think it is described as being "born again", if there is no change in how you live/think etc.? Being a Christian is following Christs teachings, and adapting them into your being. It all boils down to how you interpret the teachings. Evangelicals believe that asking Jesus into your heart, is just that. Praying and asking him to come into your heart. A Christian believes that asking Jesus into your heart = adopting his teachings/mindset ect.. It is the persuit of trying to become more like Christ on a day to day basis. The only way you become more Christ like, is to analize your actions and see if they are in tune with his teachings. If you don't analize your actions, or are unwilling to. It is very difficult to see any errors, or make changes to be more Christ like. So true Christians shouldn't take offense to other Christians trying to point out their short-comings. They should view it as help, not a judgement. If they were truely being judged, the effort wouldn't be made to help them see in the first place. They would just be prejudiced against, and considered a bad seed that will always be a bad seed. So what should a Christian do? Try to help a brother see the error in his ways. Or lets his brother do whatever he desires, wheither they are Christian principles or not? To say that I am judging Bush, makes as much sense as to say that the courts are anti- Christian. What would Jesus do, not say anything?

So to set the record straight:

-It was Bush who started a pre-emptive war.
Ignoring God's power to touch mans heart, to save them, to show them the error in their ways.

-This took troops away from fighting terrorism in Afganistan and elsewhere.

-Bush said that God changed/saved him.
So why didn't he think God can change/save Sadam? Rather then letting Sadam have free will which God gave every human, we played God, and made the decision out of "fear".

-Bush said "he used chemical weapons on his own people". Never mentioning where he got the chemicals from in the first place. Or that they were Kurds that were trying to overthrow Sadams government. If we had a group of people in our country that were trying to take over, do you doubt we would use weapons against them? Or how about all of the Depleted Uranium we scattered across Iraq TWICE.

-"We liberated people that were oppressed by a brutal dictator". "He tortured his own people".
So isn't it kind of ironic we are later caught torturing Iraqi people in the same facility?

-Then after no WMD's are found, it's written off like it never mattered in the first place.

-Such and such number of people were killed by that government.
How many Iraqi's have we killed now "liberating" them? That's right, we don't keep track, because it's just colateral damage. We care enough to liberate them, but not if they get killed in the process? Or how about all of the Iraqi military we have re-hired to help us. Aren't they the ones that carried out Sadams bidding, that we were speaking out against in the first place?

-Before the invasion, France was the holder of several of the oil contracts in Iraq.
Were we liberating Iraq from France, or Saddam? I'm confused as to why France no longer has those contracts. ;-)

-It was Bush who proposed the Faith Based Initiative, that is giving money only to "christian" organizations.

-It is Bush who took the election to the Supreem Court, rather then waiting on God's will to be revealed.
If he were truely a man of faith, wouldn't he have faith that through the re-count he would have won the election? Especially if he truely believed he was destined by God to be president? Not to mention his brother being the govenor of the state, an elected Republican. Why did he have to circumvent the process, it's not like the re-count was Al Gore's fault. What also is amazing to me, is that taking it to the Supreem Court must have been quite the risk! Either way it was a 50/50 chance he would win right? ;- ) So why go the Supreem Court route? Apparently Bush thought presidents should be elected by the Supreem Court, and not by the people. How else is there to interpret it?

-Jesus said "love your enemies as yourself". Also that "a wealthy/rich man has the chances of getting into Heaven, as a camel does of getting through the eye of a needle". Do I really need to say more? Bush should just take off his sheeps clothing, and tell the world he's a Zionist. At least he would be being honest about that.



Zionists=Evangelicals
Peace,
Tom Sawyer



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I always wondered if Bush and his gang are trying to bring the 'end of days'. The 2nd coming. So they go to the middle east to kickstart the end of the world. Or maybe some cabal is directing him, just an idea.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   


- John Ashcroft, from the commencement address he gave on May 8, 1999, upon receiving an honorary degree at ultra-right-wing, ultra-fundamentalist and ultra-racist Bob Jones University.


Talking about Bob Jones University, I live in the same town (thats scary!).

Ive been really depressed by this entire religious fanatacism that has placed a stranglehold on America. Our government is run by Neo Conservative Zealots and quite frankly Im afraid that they seriously want to start the End of Days.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join