Majority of Baptists Support Bush

By ROSE FRENCH
Associated Press Writer

09/28/06 "AP" -- -- The head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention says an overwhelming majority of Baptists still support President Bush and his handling of the Iraq war.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Richard Land said that exit polls showed about 84 percent of Southern Baptists voted for Bush in 2004. The Iraq war hasn't significantly eroded that support, he said, despite recent polls that show Republicans losing ground with moderate evangelicals.

"I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Iraq yet," said Land, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm.

"It would be foolish to say anybody's pleased," Land said. "I don't think the president's pleased with the progress of the war. Clearly, he would have wished things would have gone better. So do I."

But, Land added: "I still think Iraq is one of the more noble things we've done. We went there to try to restore freedom and to bring freedom to the Middle East."

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted earlier this month indicated that 42 percent of white evangelicals disapprove of the job Bush has done as president.

But Land contends Bush has lost less support from Southern Baptists than "virtually any other constituency." The Nashville-based SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. with over 16 million members.

"I don't think there's any question that the vast majority of Southern Baptists still strongly support this president and his policies," Land said.

Southern Baptists have been among the most vocal of conservative Christian groups in support of the Bush administration.

The president has spoken by video link to the Southern Baptist national convention three times in recent years and outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called the president "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America."

Land, who also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent and bipartisan federal agency, said the United States needs to worry less about trying to improve its image in the Middle East.

Instead, Land says, "we ought to go negative."

"We ought to be spending our money explaining what the Middle East would look like if the jihadists win, what Afghanistan looked like when the Taliban was in control and what the role of women was.

"We need to focus more on the fact that most people being killed in Iraq are not Americans but Muslims being killed by other Muslims," he said. "If democracy loses in the Middle East, it's Muslims who will be the primary losers."

Southern Baptist Convention: - www.sbc.net/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15155.htm

That's interesting....I wonder how many of the Democrats who have supported Bush a majority of their time in Congress are Southern Baptists...excluding Lieberman, of course.

Are the reps now representing their religion instead of representing the people?

Catherine

i have a notion for a long time now. the iraq war, from the start, we knew LOTS of things in feb 2003 that were lies, yet he got overwhelming support. my theory is simply that even though supporters know of the lies, that politicla expedience and pressure prevents them from acting on it. for the rst, it's just the stupid and blind allegiance factor.

now please don't misunderstand me here....i am NOT anti-jew at all....however, there are some elected and non-elected people whom i believe have agendas that care more about israel then they do for the country and people they supposedly represent.

joe lieberman seems to support the war because it's protecting israel and we're doing the dirty work for them, and likewise with henry kissinger. i'm sure there are a couple more, but these two guys are the most vocal pro-war that i know of.

Makes you wonder doesn't it. We are all watching a movie that started in the year 2000 when George Bush got " elected " Some applauded and some cried.

The movie continued with the attack on the twin towers in September, 2001. Most people cried, but some did not.

The President and his advisors decided it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq in 2003. Iraq had WMD, a bad dictator, and the country supported terrorists and hence posed a threat to the United States. Many people applauded this act, but many did not.

George Bush got " re-elected " again in 2004. Amazing isn't it? The War in Iraq was already seen by many to be unnecessary and the reasons for invading it were most likely fallacious. But, the terrorist threat continued and America needed protection, and of course the Christians believed all of this stuff.

George Bush and Company want us to believe that right now, as we speak, it might be a good idea to invade Iran and to possibly use nuclear weapons against this country because they pose a threat to America. This, in spite of already losing wars in Afghanistand and also Iraq. Many Evangelical Christians believe everyting their president says and would support him unconditionally.

The Christians are watching the same show as you and I, but they are seeing different things. They see everything as generally postive since George Bush got elected. He is a good man and a Christian they think. So, they basically support his actions with regard to foreign policy.

I think this blind support is instructive. Where would George Bush be without the obedient Christians behind him?

No wonder they say to not mix politics and religion. Because it can indeed produce deadly results. It just seems almost cult like in its intensity, the Christian religion I mean. These poor souls have been brainwashed. I don't think anything else can describe it really. Remember the stories and the movies about some poor runaway girl that had joined up with some violent cult and had to be kidnapped and " re programmed ". She had to be disconnected from the environment that was hurting her mind. Patti Hurst also comes to mind here as someone inluenced by a cult. The SLA brainswashed and used her didn't they?

Well, I say the Christians, as a group need to be reprogrammed en masse. I think the salvation of America might lie in the alteration of these peoples' brains. They have been deluded, by their leadership, by their President, and by the media in my opinion.

This Christian group is seemingly the most vulnerable and hence they are dangerous. I do not mean dangerous in the physical sense, but in the political sense. They are able to cast votes, but it is the same kind of vote as one who resides in a mental institution. Do we trust these people to vote reasonably and to make an honest assessment of things? Of course not. And, so it is with the Christian Evangelical. I say they are simply not confident to vote and that there voting rights should be taken away from them.

Too harsh you say? Not possible to do in a democracy? Well, if you gave everyone of them a psychiatric evaluation I think you would find many failures in reason and judgement and in the business of right and wrong. They are simply not living in the same world as those who are able to see the difference in right and wrong. It is a question of morality and the Christian religion seems to be selling a different version of what a reasonable person would assume morality to look like.

If you are not satisfied with my harsh methods perhaps you would agree that it is their leadership that should be taken to task. Everyone one of them rounded up and questioned and given that same psychiatric evaluation to determine their fitness to disseminate morality to others in their care and based on their ideas about rightness and wrongness and killing and death.

And, if you still are not satisfied with my methods then how about considering taking in the man himself and questioning him and his motives. Perhaps all of this could be accomplished in a simple impeachment process where all of our concerns could be aired, and most likely resolved. I have no other answers for you at this time.

Since most religious believers aren't instructed on how to think, only to be told what is right and wrong, and don't want to see the bigger picture(The kiss- Keep it simple stupid- principle), you pretty much summed up the principles of religious belief and the dangers of following the leader. Seems they are more infantile than adults and have found thenselves devolved into game playing children. With proof supplied by antiquity and sage writings, they stand, a bastion of power ready to assault the walls of culture and progressive thought, in an attempt to throw back reality to the days of the inquisition and tyranny. Sounds like our government too.

Religion and politics have the same goals- the implementation of the Culture of control through the implementation of social and spiritual order in society.

Nothing harsh here- just a statement that says "Mr. and Mrs. Believer- Grow Up and see the world through the eyes of an adult and not a child."

well said. it is the difference between being inner directed or outer directed. this ia a dichotomy in all the intro to psych books in terms of personality development, author is possibly david riesman, and also with respect to moral development, that author is kohlberg.

needless to say there are tempting value judgements to be made as which one is "better".