BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View

Subject: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM

I hesitate to start this thread because it has proven to be a divisive subject. In fact, it is an amalgam of divisive subjects: religion, politics, and George W. Bush. But be of good cheer. Had I wanted to start a real potboiler here on Mudcat, I would have somehow managed to work "define folk music" into the whole thing. But anyway. . . .

I often hear in the media, and right here on Mudcat, people saying that "Christians believe" this or believe that, as if Christianity were some kind of monolithic structure with everyone believing exactly the same thing and marching in lockstep. This, despite that fact that, here in the U. S., there are several major Christian denominations and a couple of hundred minor ones, some of which disagree strongly on major theological matters. Even in nominally single denominations, there are often strong divisions, e.g., the two major groups within the Lutheran Church: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (tends to be theologically and politically liberal) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (tends to be theologically and politically conservative).

Should one seriously ask, "Should the United States have a state religion?" there would be a substantial number of people who would respond with a loud and resounding "Yes!" I think you can guess who they're liable to be. That immediately raises a couple more questions: Which religion? The same people would respond, "Christian, of course!" ignoring the millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Druids, Wiccans, worshippers of Kahless, and people who just want to be left the hell alone. If we could get over that hurdle, that leaves the really BIG question: Whose particular brand of Christianity? And that's when the fun would really begin. This was the basic question that led to the Thirty-Years-War in Europe, a war, or series of wars, that managed to kill off a third of Europe's population, all in an attempt to establish "whose brand of Christianity."

Thank God for the First Amendment! It guarantees us freedom of religion—and freedom from religion. But it, too, is under attack. I don't intend to go into such small matters as putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance or the constant squabble about prayers in public schools. What I wish to draw your attention to is the temper of our present government and what it is endeavoring to do in ways much more far-reaching than this.

The idea that all Christians think alike often manifests itself in political discussions these days, aided and abetted when George W. Bush and other members of his administration rarely fail to pepper their speeches and press conferences with religious allusions. There are some religious leaders who maintain that George W. Bush was "ordained by God" to be president. In fact, Bush himself has said, "I believe God wants me to be president."

Well . . . not all Christians think so. I became acquainted with Sojourners magazine while my wife Barbara was the Pacific Northwest director of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship a number of years back. I hadn't seen a copy for awhile, but yesterday (Sunday, Sept. 21st), while moseying through Seattle's Broadway Market, I stopped at the Bulldog newsstand to paw through the magazines, as is my wont. I spotted a copy of Sojourners. It had an interesting cover. George W. Bush depicted as Caesar. I picked it up and thumbed through it, discovering a couple of interesting articles. A few hours later, googling my way through cyberspace, I learned that Sojourners magazine has a web site, and the articles are available there.

If you are under the impression that all Christians think alike and they all support the Bush administration, I suggest you read the following articles: Dangerous Religion, The Project for the New American Empire, and a commentary, Weapons of Mass Deception. The first article is quite lengthy, but if you have the stamina to stick with it to the end, I think you will find it quite illuminating. The second discusses something that I have brought up several times on Mudcat threads, complete with links, often to the irritation of some who would rather I didn't. The third is an editorial comment.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:46 PM

"I hesitate to start this thread because it has proven to be a divisive subject."

No, you start this thread precisely because it IS divisive.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:07 PM

GUEST,pdq, you haven't had time to even look at the articles. This could be a reasonable discussion if you'd let it be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:23 PM

Don, the first article is absolutely excellent, detailed, analytical, and it even provides answers based on human decency.

I thought the best two paragraphs were these:

"The much-touted Religious Right is now a declining political factor in American life. The New York Times' Bill Keller recently observed, "Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils." The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire.

America's foreign policy is more than pre-emptive, it is theologically presumptuous; not only unilateral, but dangerously messianic; not just arrogant, but bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous. George Bush's personal faith has prompted a profound self-confidence in his "mission" to fight the "axis of evil," his "call" to be commander-in-chief in the war against terrorism, and his definition of America's "responsibility" to "defend the…hopes of all mankind." This is a dangerous mix of bad foreign policy and bad theology."

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:36 PM

Bravo Don! Great thread and about time too. It's the VISIBLE LEADERS who give many Christians a bad name. It'll continue as long as they get the ink, the TV time, the radio bandwidth, and the disgraceful fundraising reputations. Benny Hin, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Van Impe (not to leave out the late Garner Ted Armstrong) are very much responsible for the controversy. Bush is no more religious than a turnip. Remember when he couldn't think of ONE BOOK when asked, so dropped Jesus' name as a major influence? I could have thrown up. Yeah, the Biblical Jesus REALLY approves of Dubya's policies.......surrrrrre!

Good for you.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Deckman
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:38 PM

Hi Don ... Talk about waving a red flag in front of a raging bull! I find your analysis thought providing and accurate.

As you know, I was raised in a very fundamentalist environment, Pentacostal.

As you implied, there are christians and there are christians and then there are christians.

One does not need to study much history to learn that every warring culture has always declared that "GOD" is on their side, be they christian or non-christian. On it's face, it's obvious to me that no one faith, country, faction, or President has the corner on the market so they can declare that "GOD" is on their side.

So, who's rules are you 'gonna follow? Which "GOD" are you going to follow? Is my "GOD" better than yours? Are you "right" and am I "wrong?" Will the fish bite at seven in the morning?

Obviously neither you, 'nor I, 'nor "guest pdq" know those answers.

But what I find IS important, interesting, educational, exciting, illuminating, is the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, absence the rancor.

Adding rancor to this thread only reminds me of my two GrandMothers and two GrandFathers, that were ALL convinced that they were the single voice of god and could speak it all!

CHEERS and thanks for the postings. Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:53 PM

Good work.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:17 PM

The civility is appreciated, 'yall, but I just wish as much time were devoted to unifying topics as divisive ones. IMHO. Said my piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:23 PM

Like Bush's handlers (Daddy and friends...) look around ask them selves (collectively, of course)... ahhhh. like how are we gonna get Junior elected/selected? I mean, he;s a womanizer, a drunk, a coke head and he's never run a sucessful busines? Hmmmmm? Tall order!!!...

Nope, not so tall at all....

The big confression!....

Yeah, I've done some bad things.... but now I have "Salvation" and I've gone on from those days...

(Ahhhh, Bobert, rememeber the "Pretzel Incident" of '01?)

So, like Bush comes out as the hero of the Christain Right? Go figgure....

The man never made it to the New Testament.... Hmmmmmm?

"Yeah, says right here 'Eye for an eye', don't it?"

Next question....


Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: mack/misophist
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:51 PM

Somewhere in a essay, the name of which I have forgotten, Daniel Defoe proposed a couple of terms that would be useful to us today.

    A zealous Christian is likely to be a quiet person. They seldom discuss religion and don't always make it to church although they tend to donate heavily. They never condemn another's morals. They're too busy dealing with their own sins to condemn those of others. They're usually nice people.

    A vehement Christian, on the other hand, prays often and loudly but only where others can hear. They never miss church and often tell the minister how to run it. They're always vividly aware of the sins of others, having none of their own, you see. They're not nice people.

Forgive me if I got the author wrong. High school was a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:04 AM

An old friend, an Episcopal Deacon, sent me the following prayer 3 years ago. I reccomend updating it, and repeating it often.

From not so compassionate conservatives
Who don't like PBS or Harry Potter
Who will vote for George Bush Junior, on the third of November in the year 2000
May the Good Lord deliver us.
Pray God deliver us.

AMEN!

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:08 AM

Oh Yes!
Hollowfox thinks the perfect Bush bumper sticker would be:
George W. Bush Isn't the anti Christ.
I wasn't sure, so I emailed another friend who has a phd in Catholic theology, figuring she would know, or she would know someone who did.
She says Bush isn't charismatic enough to be the anti Christ, but the anti Christ is probably working on Bush's campaign.
I'm working on Dean's.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: mack/misophist
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:27 AM

That must mean that Reagan's the anti-christ!

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:30 AM

I think you should be glad you have a choice and quit trying to put Christianity under a glass. Try that in the Middle East and see how far you get.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:37 AM

I'd have thought that this thread is more unifying than divisive actually, reminding people that the kind of "Christian Right" that increasingly seems like a seperated-at-birth twin of the Taliban should no more be taken as defining what Christians are about than the Taliban should be used to define what Islam is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: The O'Meara
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:46 AM

Amen, McGrath. It's not the religion at fault, it's how people use it. I suspect that if Christianity didn't exist those power junkies would just as soon use Islam or Buddhism or whatever else was handy.

Mr. Firth, it's always good to find that some reigious folks still manage somehow to think for themselves and don't fall into the stereotypical quagmire.

When Gulf War I was getting started, I got a call from a local TV reporter asking what "You Vietnam veterans thought about it." I told him what I thought (don't ask) and then told him that since there were at least 2.5 million Vietnam vets he was going to have to make at least 2,499,999 more phone calls to find out what we thought about it. But it was easier to just quote me than to make all those phone calls, so guess what was on the news. (Not all the other 2,499,999 vets called me to say they disagreed with me, just most of them, it seemed.)

The "Religious Right" certainly doesen't speak for me, especially on political matters, and neither does the "Liberal Left." But if I agree on any issue with either side I'm presumed to be a hard-core member by the other side.

We Catholutherans are all Bush bashing Clinton haters.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:03 PM

It's almost twenty years now since Charles Colson wrote in his book "Kingdoms In Conflict" that one of his roles in the Nixon Whitehouse was to schmooze religious leaders -- not to GIVE them a say in the administration's doings and undoings -- rather, to give them the ILLUSION that they had a say in them.

Things haven't changed all that much. I can't speak for Bush's soul any more than I could have spoken for Clinton's soul when he "got religion in the name(s) of Tony Campolo and Bill Hybels in order to get his tarnished rep a good public polishing, but I (as an old-fashioned fundamentalist Christian whose name has been stolen by a charismatic fringe)do think Bush's brand of Christianity is sorta foreign to me.

On the other hand, I don't think it is illegitimate for a Christian to be in public office -- and even to publically state that his religion is what informs his point of view. If we think that (for instance) murder is wrong, it makes no difference to me if a fella claims to have come to that conclusion by virtue of his religious teachings, or through the avenue of common sense. If a preponderance of a fella's religious views are likely to make him respond politically in ways I wouldn't agree with, I'd work to vote him out -- not illegitimize his religion.

But I DO agree with the notion of the public illegitimizing a religion(s). I don't think all religions and/or cultures are equal, and I don't think they are of equal value. When a religion or philosophy stands for principles that are not in the public's best interest, I expect the public to act in a way that marginalizes that religion or philosophy. Illegitimize not illegalize.

Interesting though, I know lots of Christians on the right (not the "Christian Right"). Most of us...

1. Have never been that fond of Bush
2. really resented the PR invention of "Compassionate Conservative". Most of the Christian conservatives I know are conservative at least in part because it already represents the best hope for social compassion.

I'm pretty sure we won't have Bush to worry about (if, indeed, "worry" is an accurate word) after the next election. The interesting ommission in the public discussion surrounding Bush's precipitous drop in approval rating is that he is losing the support of the true conservative.

It's hardly scientific.....but among the conservatives I know (and I know GOBS!), Bush is not a hero -- and he is growing more villainous with each huge spending spree aimed at winning the unwinnable (the "vast middle"). He talks "Republican" but in reality he has been one of the biggest spending presidents in recent history.....

.....and he folds easily at every principle (can't get a single judge appointed, loses every legisative battle, etc). Plus, the Republican party itself is dissolving rapidly into meaninglessness.

Then, ironically, Bush holds more tenaciously to his "tough" foreign policy in hopes of keeping the right in his corner.....

.....but the right has historically been pretty darn isolationist. Sure, the right is for a strong military -- and it's easily spooked into believing that action is in our defensive best interest. But relative to Bush keeping his base -- the right is less monolithic than you on the left seem to think.

If he had been able to keep on the single issue of the war on terrorism he might have secured more of the right -- but in order to make his (rather silly) rhetorical points, he drags issue after issue into the mix, clouds the whole, and loses the only reason the right might actually be for his policy.

The right believes in principles. Bush speaks in cliches that continually illustrate that he doesn't understand the principles in which the right believes.

And it matters more when a Republican loses his idealogical base than it does for a Democrat. This is in part because a Republican's base is more "ideological". A Democrat's base is more "pragmatic". The conservative side of the Republican party cannot be as easily rallied to come and vote -- for one thing, if you'll remember the red/blue Bush/Gore map from 2000, you'll remember that the "right" is more geographically disbursed. Simple logistics make it hard to step up voting. The left, on the other hand, is geographically centralized and pragmatically motivated. Therefore, all it takes is a good "...taking away your medicare-foodstamps-socialsecurity-nameit" and a good bunch of buses and you can give the left's popular vote a HUGE shot in the arm that the right cannot answer.

Just my observations.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 01:04 PM

Thanks, John H. I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into that post.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 01:26 PM

So do I, JohnH. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 01:34 PM

Nice Thread Don,
Interesting Post John

Thanks to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 01:40 PM

I'm pretty pleased with the way this is going. Lots of good, thoughtful comments, which is what I wanted to see. As I said in the beginning, GUEST,pdq, I was a bit apprehensive that it might be divisive, and it certainly has the potential to be, but I wasn't trolling as your posts seem to imply. I think this is an issue (actually a combination of issues) that people should be aware of and should think about seriously. And it looks like they are. Excellent!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Mark Clark
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 02:01 PM

Don, Thanks for the articles and for this thread.

In my opinion George W. Bush is not a Christian in any sense save that he calls himself one. In fact, as Don pointed out in the “BS: More Bushisms” thread, Dubya is the antichrist. <g> The “proof” is there for anyone to see. <vbg>

The first ruler to wage war in the name of Christ was probably Constantine the Great. I've read that until Constantine adopted Christianity as his new state religion (c.324 AD), Christians refused to serve in armies and did not kill. Of course the claim that one's personal power grab is divinely inspired and endorsed is as old as mankind. Even when some Christian clergy began to accept that killing on the battfield might be in some way beneficial, killing by soldiers was still regarded as a sin and penance was needed before the faithful soldier could again receive Communion.

The term “Christian” was originally a term of derision originating, we are told, in the ancient city of Antioch. Although I am a Christian—Eastern Orthodox—I confess that, when I refer to people in our society as “Christians,” I too mean it as a term of derision. Most Orthodox Christians are like the zealous Christians misophist mentioned above. Nice people concerned with prayerful worship and introspection.

One of the biggest problems we face is fundamentalism. My thoughts on fundamentalism were expressed in another thread but suffice it to say that fundamentalism always represents a corruption of the ideas the fundamentalists claim to espouse. I find nothing Christ-like in Christian fundamentalism nor do I see any divine inspiration in the regime currently dominating the U.S. and much of the world. To put it in traditional religious terms, no one belives in God more than Satan himself. If belief were all that is required, Satan would be enthroned in heaven.

The Resident's claim of Christianity is just another of his regime’s black-is-white, war-is-peace lies.

• He calls himself Christian but he is not.
• He calls himself compassionate but he is not.
• He calls himself conservative but he is not.
• And he calls himself President but he is not. Not in the sense of providing any real leadership. He is merely the willing and visible mouthpiece of the egomaniacal and dangerous cabal that has siezed control of the Republican Party, the U.S. Government and seems rapidly to be going after the rest of the planet.

But enough of these vague references. PM me and I'll tell you how I really feel. <g>

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 02:25 PM

perhaps this morning's Non-Sequitur cartoon is not too inappropriate, given some of the discussion

God on the talk show circuit

from this page... http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: jimmyt
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 02:43 PM

I am a Conservative, but I have many times said I would prefer anyone being elected rather than allow the "Moral Majority" any more voice than they have. I personally fear this group getting power much more than any other ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 03:12 PM

The thing about "the Moral Majority" is that the term is used to describe a set of attitudes that are neither moral nor held by a majority. Just as "Christian Right" seesm to be used to refer to people with attitudes that are neither Christian nor right.

And the same goes for using the term "fundamentalist" for people who seem hellbent on ignoring the fundamental tenets of the religion which they seem to use as if it was a weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 03:22 PM

Goyisha kup

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,Big Nurse
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 04:12 PM

Oyishagay upkay ?

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Mark Clark
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:05 PM

True enough, Martin, but there are Christians who come very close to the Yiddishe kup.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:26 PM

Maybe a little late, but nice post John Hardy. Yeah, we may be on different ends of the spectrum, but we connect on here.... Boy, never thought I'd say that.

But you're correct (not right...) in labeling Bush a big spender. He is and he isn't paying his bills. This is cause for some concern. No, make that lots of concern from both of our sides. Liberals don't like not paying their bills. It's bad business and bad for our kids and their kids...

We just don't want a federal government that is a puppet of the military industrial complex and we'd like more of our country's vast wealth returned to those, who thru their labor, created it.

But nice post, my friend...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:39 PM

I haven't read another conservative's post that expressed matters as eloquently as John Hardy's did, but I've read dozens of posts from other conservatives that have basically said the same thing -- Bush is losing his electoral base. Some have even called him a Liberal, partly because of his spending spree.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: mack/misophist
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:20 AM

Speaking of the military-industrial complex, it was the conservative Eisenhower who first warned us against them. There. I finally said something good about conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 03:17 AM

If ye ha'e time---get a haud o' Rabbie Burns' works and find "Holy Willie's Prayer". Says it all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity & Bush - An Alternate View
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 06:58 AM

Holy Willie's Prayer

O Thou, who in the heavens does dwell,
Who, as it pleases best Thysel',
Sends ane to heaven an' ten to hell,
A' for Thy glory,
And no for ony gude or ill
They've done afore Thee!

I bless and praise Thy matchless might,
When thousands Thou hast left in night,
That I am here afore Thy sight,
For gifts an' grace
A burning and a shining light
To a' this place.

What was I, or my generation,
That I should get sic exaltation,
I wha deserve most just damnation
For broken laws,
Five thousand years ere my creation,
Thro' Adam's cause?

When frae my mither's womb I fell,
Thou might hae plunged me in hell,
To gnash my gums, to weep and wail,
In burnin lakes,
Where damned devils roar and yell,
Chain'd to their stakes.

Yet I am here a chosen sample,
To show thy grace is great and ample;
I'm here a pillar o' Thy temple,
Strong as a rock,
A guide, a buckler, and example,
To a' Thy flock.

O Lord, Thou kens what zeal I bear,
When drinkers drink, an' swearers swear,
An' singin there, an' dancin here,
Wi' great and sma';
For I am keepit by Thy fear
Free frae them a'.

But yet, O Lord! confess I must,
At times I'm fash'd wi' fleshly lust:
An' sometimes, too, in wardly trust,
Vile self gets in:
But Thou remembers we are dust,
Defil'd wi' sin.

O Lord! yestreen, Thou kens, wi' Meg —
Thy pardon I sincerely beg,
O! may't ne'er be a livin plague
To my dishonour,
An' I'll ne'er lift a lawless leg
Again upon her.

Besides, I farther maun allow,
Wi' Leezie's lass, three times I trow —
But Lord, that Friday I was fou,
When I cam near her;
Or else, Thou kens, Thy servant true
Wad never steer her.

Maybe Thou lets this fleshly thorn
Buffet Thy servant e'en and morn,
Lest he owre proud and high shou'd turn,
That he's sae gifted:
If sae, Thy han' maun e'en be borne,
Until Thou lift it.

Lord, bless Thy chosen in this place,
For here Thou hast a chosen race:
But God confound their stubborn face,
An' blast their name,
Wha bring Thy elders to disgrace
An' public shame.

Lord, mind Gaw'n Hamilton's deserts;
He drinks, an' swears, an' plays at cartes,
Yet has sae mony takin arts,
Wi' great and sma',
Frae God's ain priest the people's hearts
He steals awa.

An' when we chasten'd him therefor,
Thou kens how he bred sic a splore,
An' set the warld in a roar
O' laughing at us; —
Curse Thou his basket and his store,
Kail an' potatoes.

Lord, hear my earnest cry and pray'r,
Against that Presbyt'ry o' Ayr;
Thy strong right hand, Lord, make it bare
Upo' their heads;
Lord visit them, an' dinna spare,
For their misdeeds.

O Lord, my God! that glib-tongu'd Aiken,
My vera heart and flesh are quakin,
To think how we stood sweatin', shakin,
An' piss'd wi' dread,
While he, wi' hingin lip an' snakin,
Held up his head.

Lord, in Thy day o' vengeance try him,
Lord, visit them wha did employ him,
And pass not in Thy mercy by 'em,
Nor hear their pray'r,
But for Thy people's sake, destroy 'em,
An' dinna spare.

But, Lord, remember me an' mine
Wi' mercies temp'ral an' divine,
That I for grace an' gear may shine,
Excell'd by nane,
And a' the glory shall be thine,
Amen, Amen!