Thoughts From France

Mr George W. Bush's cruel god

by Robert Thompson

On looking at the latest OpEdNews, I note the very proper adjunction to voters to get rid of Mr George W. Bush and his cruel god.   As a Catholic Christian, I am totally in agreement, and we have traditionally known his god as Mammon, as opposed to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, revered by Jews, Christians and Muslim (the only deity for whom I can use a capital initial "G").

Our God is described variously as being the loving Lord, the Compassionate and the Merciful, who made a covenant with Abraham and Moses, whereas Mr Bush's god is indeed cruel and takes no interest in the poor or in any other excluded persons.   We can see that Mr Bush's god is also worshipped by such persons as Mr Oussama bin Laden and other cruel men totally bereft of conscience.   They deride or misuse the most wonderful texts of the Bible and/or of the Qur'an, and refuse the most elementary rights to those who try their best to live according to the teachings of our faiths based on love for one's fellow human beings.

By all means reject Mr Bush's cruel god, but please do not make the mistake of thinking that this concept has any connection with our God who remains the fount of love, compassion and mercy, caring for the weakest members of society throughout the world.

The whole world will be affected by your choice, and this makes me feel that I have the right to beg all citizens of the U.S.A. to put an end to the present hypocrisy incarnated by Mr Bush, and to vote as honest folk to end his (apparently unelected) hold on office.   I address my request particularly to those who, as spiritual descendants of Abraham, believe in our God and in his essential goodness.

None of us is going to live for ever on this earth, as my present fight with cancer has made it cristal-clear to me, but we all have a duty to our successors to leave the earth a better place for our passing.   In my view this excludes failing to vote on such a vital occasion. 

The latest issue (of OpEdNews.com email newsletter), which I received early this morning our time (i.e. CET - Central European Time), I found the articles particularly rich, especially those by Steve Consilvio, Rick Perlstein and Sandi Magathan Droubay, which are very informative for outsiders such as myself about the specifics of "religious" attitudes in your vast country.

As you know, I am myself a committed Catholic Christian, and I find it strange to read about those who claim to be Christians in the U.S.A., but who seem to have no idea of reality in the world.   For example, the idea that the Palestinians are all Muslim is far from the truth, when one thinks of the numerous leading Palestinian Christian personalities who are trying to make peace, and I have the greatest respect for the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabah, as for many others.   Such ill-informed views make me think of the motto which appears to inspire so much of the gutter press in many countries that one "must never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

This same avoidance of reality is manifest in the actions of Mr George W. Bush and his neo-conservative masters, and I find these analyses of his claims to Christian inspiration extremely useful, since all that we, on our side of the Atlantic, can discern is a deep and fundamental commitment on their part to the worship of Mammon.

It looks at first sight simplistic on the part of Steve Consilvio to give the title of "The Christian Assault on Freedom and Christianity" to his illuminating article, since we cannot see why those whom he criticises can claim any link with the essential Christian belief that God is love.   We find it close on impossible to conceive how or why they call themselves Christians.   We have the concept, expressed in our national motto of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", that every citizen should make his or her best endeavours to reach the correct balance of these three essential elements of civilised life, including the vital (but often overlooked) recognition that one's exercise of one's own individual Liberty has the limitation that one must not excessively impinge upon, and thereby restrict, that of any other fellow human being.   We find the strange sects which are described very worrying indeed, and we have great difficulty in understanding how they manage to gain so many followers anywhere (including, it has to be admitted in our own country, where they have been pursued for serious financial frauds on gullible individuals).

I may well have misunderstood some parts of his text, since I consider that it is most important that those of all religious traditions should do their best to take part in political life, but not by giving false impressions of those of other faiths and/or telling lies about them.   As a Christian, I believe in the spiritual family of Abraham, which includes all those who do their best to follow Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and I support all efforts for us all to work together for the good of the whole world.   We are accustomed in France to hearing prominent spokesmen for the Christian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant), Judaism and Islam, joining together to speak with one voice on serious questions of morality, including (and even especially) when they affect politics.   Recent examples of this have included strong united statements opposing those who make political capital out of the promotion of racism and xenophobia, and/or who advocate religious intolerance.

As a Christian, I am active within my chosen political party (the centrist UDF), where I can work happily with those of other or no faiths, but I know other Christians, Jews and Muslim who have chosen to work within other political parties.   I do not believe that our disagreements on policies mean that they are necessarily dishonest or "damned".   We can discuss such differences in a civilised manner, and agree to disagree.   We then vote in our different ways, as we shall be doing on 13th June in the elections for the European Parliament.

The most surprising thing which runs through these three articles is the curious meaning given to the battle of Armageddon, which we read as it appears in the Second Book of Kings and in the Revelations of Saint John, but I personally cannot understand why these sects give it other meanings.   It all probably arises from dubious translations from the original languages - one of the constant problems faced by those who accept the literal truth of the translations available to them.   It is extraordinary that they should refuse to accept the realities of the Bible, in particular the basic fact that the various books were written at different periods of history, and each in the language of its day.

In any case, I am very grateful to these excellent authors for dissipating some of the mist which still clouds my view of politics in your country.

With every good wish to you and to all of them, I remain

Yours sincerely,

Robert