I do not have time to spell it out, but the following article is utterly ridiculous, the perversion of a filthy liberal. I will briefly comment on it, and then PERHAPS will provide support at a later time.
>CLINTON'S SINS: IMPIOUS, NOT POLITICAL
By Forrest Church. The Rev. Forrest Church is minister of All Souls Church in New York City. From: Newsday (New York, NY) December 3, 1998, Thursday, ALL EDITIONS<
The assertion extant in the title of the article is quite debatable-indeed I think it lunacy. According to the Federalist Papers, a crime by a high official is considered political when it assaults the nation or offends some public trust. Clinton's adultery is arguably merely impious, but his lying to the American people and to their courts is certainly a political crime. These lies assault the foundation of American society.
>IF THE Republicans in Congress are hell-bent on murder-suicide - bringing both the president and themselves down - my guess is that only their second bullet will find its mark.<
The statement is perhaps correct, but it is more a commentary upon the American people's lack of principle and decency than it is upon the stupidity of Republicans. No doubt there are partisan Republicans now in office (there are certainly partisan Democrats), but I hardly think this relevant to Clinton's legal infractions. Perhaps the Republicans now commit political suicide. According to the Federalist Papers, politicians should sometimes press in certain directions on principle when the American people are wrong, even against the wishes of the country and even at the risk of their political careers.
(snip)
>As much as they try to twist his lying about sex into a matter of state, the subtext here is religious, not political.<
There is no twisted done here at all. Clinton lied to the American courts, and this makes the matter flatly political. In the congressional debate concerning Clinton, I do not see any religious subtexts at all. Many of the Republicans in congress have openly claimed the sex irrelevant (as many of them have themselves committed sexually immoral acts). They claim Clinton's lies to the courts and obstruction of justice are the problem.
Here is both the "text" and "subtext" of the argument: Clinton is the President, the head official of the Executive branch of our government, the chief law enforcement officer. He took an oath to faithfully uphold our laws. He also swore to tell the truth before our courts. He broke his oaths flagrantly and repeatedly and continues to do so. He has engaged in a pattern of oath breaking, thereby assaulting the fabric of American society. While our courts may show him mercy for his lies forgiving him as an individual American, our nation must not hold him before our ourselves and our children as one worthy of being President of the United States.
>Ours is a profoundly religious nation. From the founding of our country until today, we have placed our leader's morals closer to the center of our national debate than in any other democracy. But until today, we had the good sense to keep the zealots on the sidelines. If we had not, articles of impeachment could have been introduced against almost every one of our presidents.<
This is silly. While religious people indeed reject the President on religious and moral grounds (and I should disrespect them were not to judge him here), even today the arguments submitted against the President's remaining in office are not religious in nature. They are political in that they deal with Clinton's assault on our law. It is not evident that any president prior to Clinton has flagrantly and repeatedly lied to our judicial system with no legal consequences. As it appears now, Clinton will not have to confront the legal system he assaulted-- the very same system he swore to uphold.
>Rep. Thomas DeLay (R-Texas) suggested recently that if we cannot impeach the president for lying..., this is a religious statement, not a political one.<
It is not a religious statement. It is a politcal one.
>The point of law they cling to is lying under oath. Until now we have had the good sense never to put one of our presidents under oath to see if he is lying.<
This was because until now, no American woman has claimed in our courts that a president sexually assaulted her by whipping out his penis and saying "kiss it".
>Apart from impeaching the entire presidency, not to mention Abraham, Jacob and King David, such an imposition of morality on politics is completely unsustainable.<
Every political decision is ultimately a moral decision. Were people of the RR to say nothing, allowing newly unfettered filthy liberals to run the country more rapidly into the moral cesspool they crave, the liberals would even by themselves do their depraved deeds on the basis of morality (in their case immorality). One cannot separate politics and morality.
>I invite the Religious Right and their Republican servants to go back to the Bible. What makes their flawed heroes any different from our flawed president?<
I invite this immoral and ignorant liberal (and all those here who gleefully slide around in his ignorance) not to go back to the Bible, but to go to it no doubt for the first time. Our flawed heroes were not publicly elected officials of a system led by mere men. They were instruments in a theocracy led by a Sovereign God. This difference nullifies virtually everything that follows in this liberal's depraved article.
>"Abraham," the Pharaoh asked, "is Sarah your sister? May I therefore lay with her?"
"Yes," he lied.<
Putting aside the clear error in the account given here, we yet are confronted with the fact that Abraham told a lie. The record shows no approval of the lie by God, yet a lie remains. It remains and in its political context is irrelevant. God had reserved for himself the right to appoint and reject leaders, this, regardless of the thoughts of the populace. On the other hand, in America, the populace has claimed the right to appoint its own leaders, establishing principles to which they claim their leaders must hold. One of these principles is that of faithfulness to the law, a principle the populace deems so important it requires its leaders to take oaths to support it. Bill Clinton broke his oath, and he did it flagrantly and repeatedly. So while we by reason must leave Abraham to deal only with his God, we as Americans must exercise our rights to deal with Bill Clinton.
>"Are you truly Esau, my first born and heir, that I may bless you?" Isaac asked. "Yes," Jacob lied. And David sent his mistress husband to the front lines to die in battle in order to marry her.<
All these circumstances are used fallaciously, and this is typical of filthy liberal "religious" guys. The men cited above were all instruments in a theocracy, not a democracy, and in that theocracy they suffered terribly because of their lies.
>It would take far more than a column to list presidential lies far worse than those told by President Bill Clinton. Does this exonerate him? No. Not before God. But when members of Congress start playing God, judging where Jesus might suggest they should not dare to judge, this religious nation toys with inquisition.<
There is no place in the history of Jesus to which we can reasonably refer in order to support the notion that Congress (or Christians for that matter) has not the moral right to judge the flagrant and repeated lies of President Clinton.
(snipped a bunch of irrelevancies about a tithingman)
>Back then and almost until today, the president has often been above the law. Even the special prosecutor who was looking for dirt on Richard Nixon left much of it under the rug.<
I cannot find in our history a time when a president has flagrantly and repeatedly lied to our courts and where our country merely winked at it. This is the issue, not a bunch of dirt that was left under a rug.
>Yet, in Clinton's case, his crimes are close to being underneath the law - lying about a sexual indiscretion in a civil case that was subsequently thrown out of court, and then repeating that lie to a special prosecutor who received the information in a questionable way. Fortunately, most Americans get away with such low crimes and misdemeanors.<
(This liberal "religious" guy thinks it fortunate most Americans get away with breaking our law. It would be better were we as a nation to routinely avoid asking such questions than to claim it fortunate that the courts are routinely lied to without consequences.)
>But today's tithingmen are different from those in Washington's time. They are more like God's prosecuting attorney in the Book of Job. He tried first to do in Job by destroying his wealth, then his family and finally his health. A good enough prosecutor can get anyone on something. Finally, Job broke and cursed God. God's prosecuting attorney, Satan, had won his case.<
This is perversion (a thing in typical use by liberals). God did not dispatch Satan to "get something" on Job. Satan was no prosecutor for God (dear me, what utter filth). If liberals here would like to begin quoting such trash to make their cases against the RR, then they should not complain when others do the same against them.
God did not have to get anything on Job. He knew in advance that Job would not curse Him under any circumstance. This liberal "religious guy" actually claims Job cursed God, a thing that is patently false. But the claim has been made, and now I challenge the liberal "religious" guy or anyone here to show us where in Scripture the curse can be found. Liberals love to claim others misinterpret the Scriptures when it condemns their sick lives, and then they turn right around to use them to try and justify their perversions. I challenge filthy liberals across this world to support the point of Job having cursed God.
The whole point of the book of Job is Job's patience and faith. Satan actually lost "his case", and this is why today, even non-Jews and non-Christians use the phrase "the patience of Job". Job trusted God even through the worst of circumstances, never once cursing Him. Indeed it was Job who said "Though He slay me, I will yet trust Him".
This liberal "religious guy" is quite ignorant. He is but one of an increasing horde of "religious" liberals who use perversion to support liberal filth. So it is not surprising to find a liberal here transporting such garbage to attempt a slam of the so-called "RR". |
