I am a Christian and I have read the New Testament. The policies we are following turn our backs on the very types of people Jesus taught we should help. For many years the church was the only source of help for the poor and the sick. Today that responsibility is shared between charities including churches and governments. Bush hides behind the argument that faith based organizations need to help those in need. It is fine to encourage more help from churches and charitable groups but the reality is the need far exceeds anything these groups will collectively provide. When you look at the policies supported by Bush and the conservatives they do not follow the spirit of Christianity. They selectively picked things like abortion and gay marriage and then turn their back on helping the poor , the young and the old. Conservative philosophy is they had an opportunity to make their way and if you didn't - too bad.

The point of this blog is how different the philosophy of the Pope is from the actions of George W. Bush. Anyone who has looked at the reality understands, with the exception of life issues such as birth control, dying, contraception and prohibitions against gay marriage, the teachings of the pope as he understood Christianity and the actions followed by our president and the conservative Republicans are totally disparate.

I don't believe you can effectively argue they have "turn[ed] their back[s] on helping the poor." Forcing tax-paying citizens to cover for those unable to help themselves, regardless of their circumstances, has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible does not dictate how a state should care for its own, or how a Christian leading a state should do so. Obviously, he should act in a manner befitting his beliefs. Cutting social programs doesn't disregard or break those beliefs. If he believes faith-based programs should cover the needy, and states so and encourages it with his own charitable gifts, how is that acting against his Christianity? Just because he diverts government money from doing so says nothing about his love or lack thereof for the poor. There comes a point when you can only throw so much money at people before it becomes a sink. Rather than increasing spending, perhaps time should be taken to clean up the bureaucracy, or some other solution that would make the programs more effective.

If it is so important that Bush delegate government mone for the care of our poor, wouldn't it also follow that he should do so for all underprivileged everywhere. The Bible cares not for nationality or race - take for example the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. He asked her for water, and then proceeded to help her with her tasks, which was unheard for a Jew at the time. Doesn't it follow that if Bushes Christianity dictates he must use government money to care for our poor, he should do so for all poor everywhere? Of course this is ridiculous, but that is because it is not Bush's job to do so, according to our way of governing. You can argue he has a moral, or Christian obligation to make sure it is so, but that should be from his own pocket, not yours and mine. This is not to say that the government should shut off all aid to our own underprivileged, but I don't think that you can effectively argue that by making cuts he is turning his back on his religion. In all reality, if that was really the issue, all the aid given to our poor should instead be diverted the actual food and shelterless in other parts of the world. Our "suffering" have it quite easy compared to the poorest of the poor in Haiti, Cuba, and even Mexico, not to mention vast numbers in Africa.

I did not mean to come across rude or harsh in my previous post, but I still feel this is being used more as another issue to bash Bush on than something you really care that much about, for the reasons I stated above, i.e. why the US and why not the world, etc.

Also, I must ask, are you Catholic? The teachings, thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, and declarations of the Pope have little bearing outside of Catholicism. The Pope is surely learned and knowledgeable in his beliefs, but a non-Catholic really has no reason to respect his teachings any more than any other learned Evangelical pastor or Episcopalian priest. Bush, as I understand it, is a Methodist...what does it matter if "the teachings of the Pope as he understood Christianity and the actions followed by our president and the conservative Republicans are totally disparate?" My parents are strong evangelical Christians, and the pope has no bearing on them or their beliefs whatsoever, nor does he on Bush, or any conservative Republican or liberal Democrat who doesn't follow Catholic teachings.

Many of the Bishops in the United States did not agree the Pope on a number of issues, even though they were part of his clergy and indirectly under his command, so to speak. That doesn't mean they were unable to maintain different beliefs and interpretations of various issues. The Pope is not the end-all be-all of Christian correctness.

I am not a Catholic and understand that some of the practices of the Catholic Church do not conform to what American Catholics would like to see nor are they in agreement with my personal philosophy. The issues however such as helping those in need are the ones that I believe Bush ignores. Each country needs to provide help for their citizens. We do help other countries but I believe our first responsibility is to help the millions in this country would not have health care, enough to eat, resources to enjoy even the basic necessities of life such as being able to heat their homes.

The current philosophy takes the money that could be used to help some of these people and hand it to those who are ready have more than they can possibly need does not conform to what Jesus Christ taught. A philosophy that ignores the growing deficit which will burden future generations both rich and poor alike is not a policy but I believe exemplifies the Christian ethic. Although I certainly do not want to see a specific religion in America, this country was founded by Christian men and our laws and morality is grounded in the Christian ethic. The attitude of the conservative Republican which to me is" they had their shot if he didn't succeed or didn't take their shot --To bad! please don't tell me that tax cuts for wealthy are their own money. The fact is we are running a deficit and we have no money to return to the wealthy and until we balance the budget. We really don't have any additional money to help the poor.

How ironic that our president should choose to honor Pope John Paul II since the pope so fundamentally disagreed with the Bush policies. I don't find it ironic. You don't have to 100% agree with somebody to have great respect for them.

I agree, Karma. I don't understand how this became an issue of any note, let alone a divisive one.

I am not a Catholic and understand that some of the practices of the Catholic Church do not conform to what American Catholics would like to see nor are they in agreement with my personal philosophy. The issues however such as helping those in need are the ones that I believe Bush ignores. Each country needs to provide help for their citizens. We do help other countries but I believe our first responsibility is to help the millions in this country would not have health care, enough to eat, resources to enjoy even the basic necessities of life such as being able to heat their homes. The current philosophy takes the money that could be used to help some of these people and hand it to those who are ready have more than they can possibly need does not conform to what Jesus Christ taught. A philosophy that ignores the growing deficit which will burden future generations both rich and poor alike is not a policy but I believe exemplifies the Christian ethic. Although I certainly do not want to see a specific religion in America, this country was founded by Christian men and our laws and morality is grounded in the Christian ethic. The attitude of the conservative Republican which to me is" they had their shot if he didn't succeed or didn't take their shot --To bad! please don't tell me that tax cuts for wealthy are their own money. The fact is we are running a deficit and we have no money to return to the wealthy and until we balance the budget. We really don't have any additional money to help the poor.

Once again you danced around the point. Get it right.... It's NOT up to the state to take care of the poor!

That is not what most Americans want and it is not what CHRIST taught. Your viewes are what is wrong with Republican conservatives in America. The hell with those poor bastards and the average workers. Just as long as I can have what I want, that is all that counts.

BUSH IS A GREAT MAN, KIND forgiving, all knowing

All knowing? Aren't we going a wee bit far here?

That is not what most Americans want

The Hell it isn't. MOST Americans voted for Bush you loser. Most Americans (excuse me, most U.S.A. voting citizens) sent your losing candidate packing, knowing full well what crap he was peddling, and knowing full well what to expect of George W. Bush.

Most U.S.A. citizens do not support higher taxes.

Most U.S.A. citizens do not support more welfare and government give-aways, most especially not if you include information indicating that the respondent would be required to fork over more of their own money.

Even you COL Gene, as you have done time and again, run away from any possibility of paying more taxes for yourself, and instead you point at others and demand that they pay more and more.

You do not speak for MOST Americans (U.S. citizens) and you know that, yet you continue to behave as if you think you do. Get it through your cranium, you voted for losers, supported losers, and continue to this day to attack those above you because you are filled with jealousy and hatred. You don't want to admit it, but you are greener than an Irish Leprechaun running through a meadow full of shamrocks. Thou shall not covet apparently escapes you.

Given the fundamental differences between the philosophy of the Pope and Bush it's a bit hypocritical to be the first president to attend the popes funeral. If this was such a necessary action, why is has no other president done something like this in the past? This is politics nothing more nothing less by a man who has one skill, that of being a politician.

I do not find it odd at all that Bush would go to PJ2s Funeral. He was a well respected and accomplished world leader. You can disagree with someone on points but still respect them. Many of my friends and I disagree strongly on any number of issues, but we're all still friends.

Your attempt to jump on Bush over every damn thing discredits whatever valid points you may have. It also shines poorly on those of us on the left who are able to think past the general Bush hatred and think rationally. You, Myrr and Dabe claim constantly to be representative of the nation, that your views are the views of the public. Your views, at the very best, represent less than half the voting public. That assumes that all Democrats agree with you, but a lot don't, so you're representative of an even smaller portion of the voting public.

You really represent no one aside from your self, please stop making claims for the rest of us. This non-Catholic democrat feels embarassed to share the title "liberal" with you and your kind.

That is not what most Americans want and it is not what CHRIST taught.

Actually, Christ taught of the moral obligation of the INDIVIDUAL to help the poor and needy; he did not travel to Rome and beseech the Senate to do so. There's the rub.

It IS the duty of Christians to help the poor, yes, but as for the state, they are a secular government.

You know something CG....only you and your sore loser liberal clones could turn something so nice and so innocuous as our president wanting to honor a great man like the Pope into a petty, self-serving political rant. Go crawl back in your holes, libs, and trouble us when you have something real to bitch about.

Terptan 1980

Most Americans:

Want to keep Social Sceurity the way it is and provide the needed funding
Want our borders protected
Want trade policies that do not outsource their jobs
Want to protect Medicare
Do not agree with the deficit
Would agree to help solve our fiscal problens by rescinding the tax cuts for wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes.

Why is our president on the other side of all these issues?

I am a moderate Republican- One that believes in balanced budgets, protecting base social progrems like SS and Medicare and limited nation building. Like the old GOP!

This is just ridiculous. If Bush wasn't going I'm sure you would complain about that also. Do you just look for things just to complain about them.

You really represent no one aside from your self, please stop making claims for the rest of us. This non-Catholic democrat feels embarassed to share the title "liberal" with you and your kind.

And for that, Zoomba, I give you all my insightfuls for the day.

As do I.


Slightly thread hi-jacking, and completely ignoring COL Gene's resposne to me above (which I'll get to, probably get inflamed at, and want to tear the COL a new one for in a bit, but oh well).

COL Gene - read these words carefully. I'd say I'm typing them slowly for you, but it wouldn't matter.

Read Zoomba's words. Read those of little_whip and others. Read them and pay attention to them carefully.

Your message, as important, or non-important as it may be, is lost because you can not keep yourself from tearing down Pres. Bush in the most hostile and antagonistic ways possible.

You purposefully choose the most antagonistic headlines and rants, and use them trying to gin up ever dwindling support for the ideas of those that lost in this last election and the one prior.

Even when you bring up very valid points -- such as President Bush's immigration policies -- you can't seem to keep from doing it in the most hostile away, leaving everyone to miss your message and instead see nothing but the pile of ash and manure you have made.

If you want people to really consider your points, then slow down more. You've done well in exercising the spell checkers and grammatical checkers, now do a little more checking of the facts and policies, and tone down your message a bit so that you appear to be a reasonable individual and not a loose nut job.

You can at times make very valid points on very valid issues, where -- believe it or not -- you may be correct in saying that Pres. Bush is failing to show leadership, or is going in the wrong direction. But your message is gone after the first two sentences of just about any post you type because by then everyone is groaning and realizing it's just another Bush bash, no matter the underlying subject matter.

Try less hostility in your messages. Lower the tone of your rhetoric in your subject lines, and try getting your point out there without it looking like yet another attempt to fling pooh at the President.

You might find more people agree with you, or can at least see the valid points in your arguments. You might find they are less likely to be hostile to you, and maybe even occassionally supportive. Of course that all depends on you, as what you get back will most likely (as usual) be a reflection of what you are putting forth.

I see Island Dog's response above, and would be safe (I think) in adding Island Dog to the list that I posed above suggesting all of the above. Add another Insightful rating to the give away pile.