Bush: Muslims Go to Heaven Too

Some interesting quotes from a recent interview between President Bush and Charles Gibson of Good MOrning America. This interview was held just a few days ago, on October 26.

When asked whether sodomites are born that way or whether they are made so by virtue of the environment in which they grow up, Bush replied, "I don't [know]."

Gibson followed up, "So, the possibility exists in your mind that it could be nature," to which Bush responded, "Sure."

Now, if sodomites are born that way, a couple of things must be conceded. First, it means God made them that way, just like He makes some kids fat, some skinny, some white, some black, etc. This means that Sodomy is not intrinsically wicked, does it not? God cannot make something that is intrinsically wicked, can He?

Second, Charles Gibson's follow up question is right-on - he points out the logical concession that must be made if sodomites are born as sodomites: "If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?"

Exactly, Mr. Gibson. Well, Mr. President, what do you say to that? How can we deny sodomites their legal rights to a civil union, economic rights, and health rights?

Bush agrees with Mr. Gibson. Says the president, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."

So much for the civil law mirroring the Divine Law. God says Sodomy is an abomination that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Gen. 18, "the outcry from that city is great"), but President Bush says it ought to be a civil right.

That's our president, a real "man of faith."

Gibson then pointed out the disconnect, "But the (Republican Party) platform opposes it."

To which Bush responded, "Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as ... a union between a man and a woman."

Can anyone else make sense of this? He thinks that the word "marriage" ought to retain its traditional definition: union between a man and a woman.

But he also believes that this definition of "marriage" is a separate issue from the legal right of sodomites to have a civil union.

Just so long as we don't call it "marriage," then, President Bush thinks two men ought to have the civil right - I repeat, the right - to climb into bed together and sodomize each other.

Call it a "civil union," and not a "marriage," and it's not a problem, right?

Shifting to the topic of religion, Gibson asked the president, "Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?"

Now, remember, this is the man that the major Protestant luminaries (James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.) are pushing as the right man to lead the country, precisely because he is a man of faith, a man of God, a fine Christian, etc.

So, Mr. President? Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

The answer is, plainly, "I think we do."

Say what?

Gibson followed up with, "Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?"

Again, the response came back, "Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there. But ... I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to decide who goes to heaven. The almighty God decides who goes to heaven. And I am on my personal walk."

Doesn't that just give you all sorts of confidence? Warm fuzzies?

I find it not a little coincidental that the president was given the chance to publicly speak to two issues, a matter of faith, and a matter of morals. And he failed on both questions.

Think this will change anyone's mind? Do you think the mass of Catholics and Protestants will decide that they cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who is clearly not even a Christian?

Nope. Know why? Because the majority of Catholics and Protestants out there today - thousands and thousands of them - think that faith doesn't really play a role in political choices.

In fact, probably most of the people who read this are of the opinion that Church and State don't go together. Believe what you want, they say, but you may not impose your religious beliefs on the citizens of this nations by turning your religious beliefs into law.

And, in taking this stance, these people - maybe you are one of them? - are in good company. In fact, John Kerry could not agree with you more. Oh, he believes that abortion is wrong - he's said that a thousand times. He's just not willing to tie his opinion in with the civil law, and unite this moral teaching of the Catholic Church with the strong legal arm of the State.

He's a model American. He's also a model Protestant.

Oh no he's not!!! you cry, no true Protestant believes in abortion!

Neither does John Kerry, my friend. He is personally against it, as are you.

I know, I know - a fat lot of good are his personal pronouncements on the issue, if he won't act on those beliefs. Of course, you're going to vote for Bush, regardless of the fact that he believes sodomites ought to be able to copulate under the protection of the law - again, even though he's personally in favor of defining "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman.

The similarities between these two men is really creepy.

Do I vote for the Freemason who professes to be a Catholic, yet wants to call abortion a legal right, or do I vote for the Freemason who professes to be a God-fearing Protestant (hey, he reads his bible and prays every day, so that proves he's a Christian, right?), yet wants to call sodomite unions a legal right (so long as you don't call it "marriage")?

I don't envy you in the booths tomorrow.