Mawen's Journal: More on Bush, and whether Division is always bad

From a comment in the last journal entry:

"Another person who thinks George W. Bush is the second coming of Jesus. Just what the hell is wrong with you people?"

You either read way too much into what I said or are choosing to stereotype me without basis. I never said he is the second coming of Jesus or even that I think he is a good President.

What I am saying: I am confronting the idea that a "Great Divider" is necessarily a bad thing, as seemed to be the point of someone else's sig.

  One way to ensure that you get along with everyone and don't divide anyone is to have no morals and stand for nothing. If you criticize Bush solely for being a divider, then you must criticize Jesus Christ as well, because he divides as well and even said he came to bring division to this world, not peace.

I hope that people who criticize Bush or anyone else solely for being a divider realize how weak a criticism that is.

(This part may or may not be relevant. While I have seen this before, I am not judging any particular person now:) If people are accustomed to antagonizing anyone who is a divider, anyone who stands for something and has moral convictions, it may be an indication that they have none themselves, in which case a holier-than-thou attitude (that puts down other people, like Bush, down for having a holier-than-thou attitude) comes from a shallow, amoral foundation and a motive to protect a lifestyle of self-indulgent comfort.

Example: Maybe I am opinionated to think the Iraq War was necessary for geopolitical stability and the well-being of everyone (including Iraqis), and maybe I am naive to think Bush and Blair went to war for the right reasons, and maybe I am misguided in thinking that Germany and France and China knew the war should be fought but didn't because of self-interest (oil, trade, and even arms exports), but if I am not wrong, then the stand Bush and Blair took was courageous, what France and Germany and China et al did was cowardly and selfish, and the courageous should not be blamed for being distinct from the cowardly.

You may not agree with the premise, but I posit the syllogism holds as an argument against the idea that being a divider is necessarily bad, which is the point I am trying to make.

Maybe my sig is a bit too subtle as a rebuttal to the other person's sig, (the double-quotes are about the only indication), but there is only so much one can do in a sig. C'est la vie and if they want to get the whole point, there's this journal to look at.