wow. ok then
so in the past 36 hours since the election day post i have deleted a number of comments questioning my sanity, intelligence, christianity, and integrity as a result of the "revelation" that i voted for president bush. i have been called all kind of things including "just another brainwashed braindead evangelical poser". (my personal favorite)
ok this is the fourth draft now. i have decided that i'm not going to defend or explain myself beyond what is said below. if it helps any of you to sleep better at night or not reject me as a person unworthy of the air i consume, know that at the end of the day, my vote in oklahoma mattered for exactly 0. like i said yesterday - with two bad choices in front of me, i went with the wrong i already knew. do i agree with the war? no. do i think bush favors the wealthy? probably. do i like being told based on the color of the day how afraid i should be? no. do i think bush represents a version of christianity that scares me a little? yes. do i think that john kerry represents a better option? i don't. see that's the thing, i wasn't looking for someone (anyone) different, i was looking for better and i didn't find it (or it wasn't allowed in oklahoma). feel free to disagree, but grow up enough to dialogue rather than call names.
the beauty of the Way of Jesus is that it allows for and embraces diversity. we are not jew or greek, slave or free, man or woman, emergent or evangelical, republican or democrat, brainwashed or freethinking for we are (should be) all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28 if you're keeping score at home).
do i think Jesus would have voted for bush? how could i know that? do i think Jesus would have called me a "dumbass coward"? ummm no. to scream dogmatically that any thinking christian had to vote for kerry is NO different than what pat robertson or jerry falwell said about bush. president bush isn't "my guy", he simply represented (to me) the better option of the two bad choices in front of me. (kind of like death by fire or death by death by hanging -- one's less painful, but neither are good)
anyway. enough. i said i wasn't going to defend myself, but i guess i have. please know that i'm not addressing everyone who commented or emailed me about the post and my decision, not even all of those who were anonymous in their comments, just the handful who felt the need to attack.
i'm just sad that yahoo news is already running an article about who will be president in 2008. wow.
peace (really)
j
ok this is the fourth draft now. i have decided that i'm not going to defend or explain myself beyond what is said below. if it helps any of you to sleep better at night or not reject me as a person unworthy of the air i consume, know that at the end of the day, my vote in oklahoma mattered for exactly 0. like i said yesterday - with two bad choices in front of me, i went with the wrong i already knew. do i agree with the war? no. do i think bush favors the wealthy? probably. do i like being told based on the color of the day how afraid i should be? no. do i think bush represents a version of christianity that scares me a little? yes. do i think that john kerry represents a better option? i don't. see that's the thing, i wasn't looking for someone (anyone) different, i was looking for better and i didn't find it (or it wasn't allowed in oklahoma). feel free to disagree, but grow up enough to dialogue rather than call names.
the beauty of the Way of Jesus is that it allows for and embraces diversity. we are not jew or greek, slave or free, man or woman, emergent or evangelical, republican or democrat, brainwashed or freethinking for we are (should be) all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28 if you're keeping score at home).
do i think Jesus would have voted for bush? how could i know that? do i think Jesus would have called me a "dumbass coward"? ummm no. to scream dogmatically that any thinking christian had to vote for kerry is NO different than what pat robertson or jerry falwell said about bush. president bush isn't "my guy", he simply represented (to me) the better option of the two bad choices in front of me. (kind of like death by fire or death by death by hanging -- one's less painful, but neither are good)
anyway. enough. i said i wasn't going to defend myself, but i guess i have. please know that i'm not addressing everyone who commented or emailed me about the post and my decision, not even all of those who were anonymous in their comments, just the handful who felt the need to attack.
i'm just sad that yahoo news is already running an article about who will be president in 2008. wow.
peace (really)
j
posted by J at 10:47 PM
2 Comments:
how could anybody be worse than bush?
-we've lost jobs under his administration
-he lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, had and has no plan for iraq, and let thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) die in the process
-he focused on Iraq for unclear reasons while letting afghanistan fall apart and osama bin laden get away
-he gave tax cuts overwhelmingly to the rich
my dog could run the country better.
seriously though, it's interesting to see how you red staters think. I'm from California, and it's nearly impossible for me to believe that anyone would vote for Bush who doesn't take an overly simplistic, gut-reaction analysis of things. I don't know whether the candidate or the populace is to blame.
mateo - this is what i mean. you have listed all of the things wrong with bush. i agree (more or less) with all of them. what you haven't done is offer any reason for kerry. this is what the campaign did -- no solutions, simply "vote for us b/c we aren't him". senator chuck schumer (D-NY)was on the daily show last night and he said he thought the need was for offering a plan rather than restating all of the problems. i agree and hope that's the case next time around.
i probably would have voted for your dog had he been allowed on the ballot in OK.
Post a Comment
<< Home