President Bush Is a Moral Coward

This shouldn't be news to anyone. I proudly recognized this years ago when Bush first started using the term "compassionate conservative". A liberal couldn't have done a better job at discrediting the whole conservative movement and making them look like the original Scrooge. Bush slapped all the conservatives in the face and called us all uncompassionate. Bush also showed that he was all about words and appearances and not about substance. That's why I worked on the Keyes campaign which got 20% of the vote here in Utah.

But the happening today which makes me reiterate that Bush is a moral coward is his refusal to comment on and condemn the VP's lesbian daughter having a child.

First of all, I rarely call people names. I may call their positions stupid, but most people are (I assume) as smart or stupid as me. I've certainly had my stupid positions over the years. But when Bush is too cowardly to even make an inane statement like "I believe that children are best raised by a mother and a father", he is a moral coward.

As a physician and scientist, there are plenty of studies showing that children do best (stay out of jail, stay off drugs, stay free of violence, get along with others, etc.) when they have a father and mother. Bush could easily have acknowledged this without actually attacking his VP's daughter. But he was too cowardly. His new minister of propaganda, Tony Snow, even went out of his way to say that neither Snow nor the President would comment on this. Exactly what is pro-family about not supporting families? Shades of 1984 (the book, not the year) where pro-family now means anti-family.

Bush can't be re-elected. He has nothing to lose. He doesn't have to work to get the lesbian vote. He could simply say that the kind of family that God picked for his Son - father, mother and child - is best. At Christmas time, such a message would be especially appropriate. And if anyone dared attack him, Bush could have simply labelled them anti-Christian and been done with it - plus he would have shifted the frame of conversation to something holy rather than something profane, tawdry and perverted.

This silence from the Commander-in-Chief is ominous. Even Bush and his handlers now fear the power of those who practice homosexual behavior. They think the media would label them as "evil". They think that there is not enough cultural support out there to overcome the queer lobby. They are probably right; but still a morally courageous President would defend family values.

In my opinion, resorting to sociological studies to defend the family is wrong. Why wrestle in the mud if you can bomb them from 50,000 feet - that is, it is simply immoral for a lesbian to have and raise children. God says so.

Sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Cheney is not married, so conceiving this child was immoral. Children should be born in families. God knows there are plenty of things that go wrong even in families (50% divorce etc.), but at least the child should start in an ideal situation. Even if artificially inseminated, bringing a child into a perverted home is wrong and damaging to the child. Will Cheney "love" the child? Do child molesters "love" their victims? Does Oprah "love" orphans? Does Angelina Jolie "love" her latest adopted pets, cared for by the best nanny money can buy? Can't you see that this is meaningless and irrelevant? What they will do is the important thing, not how they will feel. And this child will lack all the important things a father brings, and be forced into a perverted parody of a real family. How could such a child not be raised believing that God is evil because He forbids such relations? There is really no alternative. Either God is good, and mommy and her lesbian lover are selfish creeps, or God is evil. You can't have it any other way.

Lesbians and males who practice homosexual behavior are unfit to parent because they are immoral lesbians and males who practice homosexual behavior. And we who know this to be true should shout it from the rooftops. We don't need to find some article. Next week the pervert lobby will find an article saying perversion is actually good for children. We need to refer this debate to a Higher Source. And there is no doubt what He has to say on the matter. And I quote, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his (or her) neck, and that he (or she) were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6 KJV

Now for the reader who doesn't agree with this, I want you to stop and think. This scripture is in context. Christ is teaching that children should be valued and loved and protected and that we should be like them. Ignore whether you think this is "nice" or "judgemental" or "politically correct". I want you to simply concentrate on whether this is true.

I think you will agree with me that Christ felt that those that harmed children, especially regarding belief in God, were better off drowned. So the only question is whether raising a child in a perverted home, even if that child is "loved", is harmed or offended. The original Greek word for offend is "skandalizo" meaning offended, caused to sin, caused to fall away from the faith or go astray. (And can you see where our modern word "scandalize" comes from?) How could a child raised by lesbians not be hurt by this? How could this child not go astray from God's words and commandments if he is taught from birth that God is evil and that there are no sexual standards? Basically Cheney and her lesbian lover are telling the world that they and their filthy desires are more important than God's.

And so, President Bush's response to the news of his Vice President's daughter bringing a child into a perverted parody of a family in direct opposition to what is both best for the child and morally right is not just an innocuous statement. It is the depth of moral cowardice.

And there is another problem I see in all this. If the best the US can do is elect a moral leper who is too scared to defend even the last, best cultural institution - the family -, then why should God bless the USA? What was the end of Sodom and Gomorrah, Rome, Ancient Greece, and Israel when they worshipped the creature more than the Creator? Exactly why should God protect a country where Sodom and Gomorrah are the model of current behavior? Why should he bless a country where the elected leaders are too cowardly to support the family? Why should he uphold the government?

Is God not just? How long will he let the US (which is still more moral than the rest of this depraved world) exist if its government and institutions promote immoral behavior? I fear the answer to those question will become clear in the future. "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" may well be written in blood in our nation's great cities again.

For those of you who don't understand this Biblical allusion, I will elaborate. In Daniel 5:25-28, the prophet Daniel interprets a writing that the King sees appear on the wall of his palace while at a drunken feast using the captured vessels from the Hebrew Temple. The Aramaic (same in Hebrew) words, "Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin" appear which mean "measured, measured, weighed and divided." Daniel interprets this as "God has measured thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. Thy kingdom will be divided, or destroyed." (And yes, this is where the term "writing on the wall" comes from.)

Think about it. Pray about it. And then do all you can to cry out against this evil thing that the daughter of the Vice President of the United States is doing. And just an aside, how do you think Muslims feel about the US when they read this kind of thing? Are they right?

Vincet Veritas, MEB