A Buddhist Response to Marvin Olasky...

link

My point, having lived through the 1960s-1970s confusion, is that the era was not one of uncommon resolution, at least not of the patriotic variety. I relished my high draft lottery number. George W. Bush played it smart like John Kerry and found a soft gig. He and I took different rotten paths -- he drank heavily, I became a communist -- but both of us could say the same thing: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

The other thing both of us can and do say is that we did not save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviors.

John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party. It would be great if he could say: "I was young and vainglorious and often self-absorbed. I exaggerated and lied at times, and since then have thought it necessary not to disavow the fantasies I wove. But I do deserve credit for being there and serving my country in a mixed-up era in which I at times was also mixed-up."

Kerry can't say that because he evidently does not believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. He and his handlers portray him as virtually perfect in the past and omniscient in the present

.

Aside from the obvious projection here (Bush cannot bring himself to admit he made mistakes or fire folks such as Donald Rumsfeld), this passage as well as the rest of the article merrit a response from a Buddhist perspective.


Now Kerry's not a Buddhist- I am.

But I can say, that as a Buddhist, Kerry's status as a Christian is not mine to determine, and neither should it be yours. Nor should you try to gauge his "spiritual suport" as somehow inferior to yours.

I, on the other hand, as a Buddhist, am constantly in the practice of perfecting myself. Like many Catholics, I experience the process of being "born again" as ongoing (though in my case without a shibboleth regarding enunciating a belief in a man-god, and might better be phrased as "being unborn").

I do not need to echo what someone else referred to as a sacred text to effect that change. In fact, for me, doing so would be morally repugnant, it would be too extra.

Now you might want to play "my religion's better than yours because of what I believe," but at the end of the day, what really matters is: have you made the world a better place? And George W. Bush has not.

Finally, John Kerry did not receive his nomination because of his Vietnam service, but because he ran a better campaign which showed that he could beat George W. Bush by critiquing his policies.


Finally, of course Kerry did not win the nomination because of Vietnam, but because of his overall ability to counter George W. Bush.

Mr. Olasky seems to have engaged in false witness here.