THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Scrat wrote:

There's no question in my mind that attacking Bush pleases those who wish this country harm, ...

This is exactly the way, how the rulers in the absolutism wanted their subjects to behave.

(By the 16th century, absolutism was coming to prevail in much of western Europe, and it was widespread in the 17th and 18th centuries.
But since Bush seems to have God's award of temporal power as political ruler, this will be okay even today.)

0 Replies

Walter - You don't have much respect for people of faith, do you?

0 Replies

Actually a lot.

But not at all in the "the divine right of kings" (althought some superb examples of e.g. architecture come from that period :wink: ).

0 Replies

But Bush has claimed no such right. Your criticisms of his utterances regarding his faith are criticisms of his faith, not criticisms of his positions. No man of faith would declare war on terrorism and believe that God was not "on our side", yet Bush is criticized for making this simple statement of belief. I'm sure he believes God is on the side of those who fight to prevent rape and murder as well.

Those who criticize Bush for his beliefs, are criticizing those beliefs. Period. If you wish to criticize his actions, do so, but the fact--or your surmise--that his actions are guided by his beliefs does not prove those actions are flawed or should not be taken. His beliefs should not be at issue, ever. Those who question or attack his beliefs are showing that they do not support the freedom of religion guaranteed ALL US citizens by the First Amendment.

0 Replies

Well, I'm not a US-citizen.

We have freedom of religion as well - but here, I have the freedom to say that this is "medieval obscurity".

0 Replies

Shirley, you're willfully ignoring the "render unto Caesar--render unto God" conundrum. The criticism of Bush is that he injects his personal religious beliefs into policy decisions. That's not a criticism of his faith, but of his willful disregard of the separation of church and state. I don't care, and i doubt that most people care, that he is religiously motivated. However, the thought that he would sacrifice billions of dollars urgently needed at home, hundreds of American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives because of the dictates of his faith is justifiably unpalatable to millions of decent citizens of good conscience.

Your saying that criticisms of this type are criticisms of his faith don't make it so . . .

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, I'm not a US-citizen.

We have freedom of religion as well - but here, I have the freedom to say that this is "medieval obscurity".

You have the freedom to say that here as well, and I have the freedom to recognize that your statement is baseless and meaningless. Take Bush to task for his actions all you want, but his faith should be off limits to all. If it isn't, then we inevitably find ourselves discussing whether or not practicing, observant Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, etc. should be allowed to hold office. That debate effectively disolves the freedom of religion we are all guaranteed. You can't argue that every person is free to worship, but that if they do they can't run for office, because that relegates persons of faith to a less-than-citizen status.

Bush's actions should be debated on their merits, not on whether he chooses them--in part or completely--based on his beliefs.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Shirley, you're willfully ignoring the "render unto Caesar--render unto God" conundrum. The criticism of Bush is that he injects his personal religious beliefs into policy decisions. That's not a criticism of his faith. . .

But it is. If you dislike his actions, attack those on their merits or lack thereof. Whether he takes them because his faith leads him to or not should not be part of the debate. Once it is, we begin to chip away at his right to believe. Do you not see that the standard you are setting leads to a de facto bar of persons of faith from the holding of public office? How do you square that with the right to freedom of religion?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

There's no question in my mind that attacking Bush pleases those who wish this country harm, but I'd rather suffer the consequences of well-considered dissent than suffer the consequences of a society that attempts to quell that dissent.

I agree! It is "well-considered dissent" that is one of the best ways to help Bush improve. I think "well-considered dissent" does not constitute an attack on anyone. It's aim is to improve not castigate, and not destroy. What is needed is more not less "well-considered dissent." What's needed now is less--no, zero--polemical demagoguery. What's needed are proposals and debate and analyses of proposals for making things better.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

[But it is. If you dislike his actions, attack those on their merits or lack thereof. Whether he takes them because his faith leads him to or not should not be part of the debate.

Oh, but it most assuredly is to the point. Not everyone in the United States is christian. Not all Americans who profess christianity share his beliefs. In any case in which religious belief informs policy decisions, that constitutes an establishment of religion precisely because it does not represent the will of the people, who are diverse in sectarian terms, and to be protected against a government which promotes religious beliefs at odds with their own--and is prohibited by the first amendment.

Quote:

Once it is, we begin to chip away at his right to believe. Do you not see that the standard you are setting leads to a de facto bar of persons of faith from the holding of public office? How do you square that with the right to freedom of religion?

No, once again, your bald statement to that effect does not make it so. This type of criticism does not call for Bush to believe or not to believe anything. It calls for Bush to remove all taint of religious dogma from policy decisions, because to do otherwise to is to create a de facto establishment of religion. That in no way bars people of religious faith from holding public office, nor from expressing their religious beliefs. It simply prohibits them from imposing such belief on others by means of policy decisions. There's nothing to be "squared" here--simply vigilance to assure that Bush's beliefs are not made by default the established beliefs of the nation throught the implimentation of policy.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Scrat wrote:
There's no question in my mind that attacking Bush pleases those who wish this country harm, but I'd rather suffer the consequences of well-considered dissent than suffer the consequences of a society that attempts to quell that dissent.

I agree! It is "well-considered dissent" that is one of the best ways to help Bush improve. I think "well-considered dissent" does not constitute an attack on anyone. It's aim is to improve not castigate, and not destroy. What is needed is more not less "well-considered dissent." What's needed now is less--no, zero--polemical demagoguery. What's needed are proposals and debate and analyses of proposals for making things better.

Even if those proposals are for replacing Bush with someone you think will do a better job.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Scrat wrote:
[But it is. If you dislike his actions, attack those on their merits or lack thereof. Whether he takes them because his faith leads him to or not should not be part of the debate.

Oh, but it most assuredly is to the point. Not everyone in the United States is christian. Not all Americans who profess christianity share his beliefs.

Bush is not requiring anyone to share his beliefs or religious practices. You want to sit there and dictate what motives a President should be allowed to have for his actions, absent any critique of the actions themselves. That's absurd. Clinton cited God in every one of his State of the Union addresses, and nobody questioned it, because they knew deep down that it meant nothing to him. Bush cites God and means it, and that scares people. If the actions Bush takes or advocates based on his beliefs are flawed, decry those flaws. Decry his faith as the basis for those actions, and you are attacking his faith.

Consider three hypothetical men who each support overturning Roe V. Wade:

Person 1: An atheist. Believes Roe V. Wade was bad law, a flawed decision that needs to be overturned on purely legal grounds.

Person 2: A Christian. Believes Roe V. Wade was bad law, a flawed decision that needs to be overturned on purely legal grounds.

Person 3: A Christian. Believes abortion is a sin and thinks Roe V. Wade should be overturned purely because of his religious beliefs.

Which of these should be allowed to have a voice in the debate over Roe V. Wade? I would answer "all of them". Now, suppose each one served as President for a term. Would you argue that one should be allowed to voice his opinion about Roe V. Wade but that one or both of the other two should not?

While it pains me to write it, you are simply too intelligent a person to fail to see this. You are effectively arguing that Bush should not be allowed to have any say in any issue where he feels guided by his faith. That stance logically bars any person of faith from holding office, since the question of whether his actions are based on his faith is impossible to prove or disprove. The only rational solution is to consider the actual pros and cons of his actions and policies on their merits, and take the question of whether he is motivated by faith out of the equation.

0 Replies

Shirley wrote:

You are effectively arguing that Bush should not be allowed to have any say in any issue where he feels guided by his faith.

No, i am not. Once again, your saying a thing is so does not make it so. I am saying that a separation of church and state enshrined in the no establishment clause prohibits Bush or anyone else from making policy decisions based upon the religious beliefs Bush or anyone else holds. Your specious nonsense about not criticizing his policies on their merits is hilariously absurd--i think my "credentials" as a critic of his policies and their effects is well established at this site.

Your attempt to equate my insistence that making policy decisions based upon religious dogma is a violation of the no establishment principle with a prohibition of the religiously devout from participation in government has failed each time you have tried to advance your essentially feeble argument. I see no reason, therefore, to respond to any further comments of yours based upon a strawman.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Shirley wrote:
You are effectively arguing that Bush should not be allowed to have any say in any issue where he feels guided by his faith.

No, i am not. ... I am saying that a separation of church and state enshrined in the no establishment clause prohibits Bush or anyone else from making policy decisions based upon the religious beliefs Bush or anyone else holds.

How are those two statements different????

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Even if those proposals are for replacing Bush with someone you think will do a better job.

Most definitely, YES! When one makes a "well-considered" proposal to replace one leader with another, it has at least two positive effects:

1. Such proposal identifies the candidate replacement and WHY one believes the candidate will improve things better/faster than the current leader;

2. It helps the current leader to better see and understand what it is about her/himself that probably needs rectification.

0 Replies

I agree with Scrat. What one's faith allegedly is should never be a qualification for a job even if that job is President of these United States of America.

What should be one's qualifications:

1. what one has done;
2. what are the consequences of what one has done;
3. what one proposes to do;
4. what are the probable consequences of what one proposes to do;
5. what one will probably do; and,
6. what are the probable consequences of what one will probably do.

Some folks think they can determine all that with high probability from what one's faith is. I do not understand why they think that. To me a persons alleged faith is little more of a valid index for judging any of the above six than is their skin complexion, gender, eye or hair color, the length of their nose, or even the length of their toes.

NOW TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER

The Bill of Rights (1791)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Thus, according to the bold print, when a president, expresses in public the faith basis of his proposals, actions, and consequences he is supported by the "Supreme Law of the Land". He has as much right and duty to say what he truthfully thinks as well as I and anyone else. Such statements by any person are helpful in that it helps the rest of us to make reasonable predictions, but does not guarantee, that person's future actions.

Suppose the President were an agnostic or atheist. He would have the same right as the rest of us to declare that in public, if he were to freely choose to do so.

Now, please let's focus. Let's focus on what really matters. Let's focus on actions and their consequences, and probable actions and their probable consequences.

0 Replies

Re: To Rebel is Easy, to Think is Divine
From the "Vision of the Annointed" by Thomas Sowell, Basic Books, 1995, pages 135 & 136:

Quote:

No one denies the existence of constraints, though the vision of the annointed does not incorporate these constraints as a central feature and ever-present ingredient in its thinking, while the tragic vision does. Moreover, the trade-offs made necessary by constraints are seen differently by the two visions. To those with vision of the annointed, it is simply a question of choosing the best solution, while to those with the tragic vision the more fundamental question is: Who is to choose? And by what process, and with what consequences for being wrong? As already noted ... , it is so easy to be wrong--and to persist in being wrong--when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.

0 Replies

Re: To Rebel is Easy, to Think is Divine

DiamondCat wrote:

Thank you for your kind words, ican711nm, they are dearly appreciated.[/b] [/color]

Those words were dearly earned. You are welcome. You earned those kind words.

DiamondCat wrote:

Most people don't realize it, but in order to be an airplane or jet pilot, one must be extraordinarily equipped mentally and physically, to understand and handle the most complicated piece of machinery ever built by man. Nothing comes close to it, other than spacecraft. I respect a person who can master that kind of challenge, because few can achieve it.

Thank you for these of your kind words. This ol' jet hound appreciates them more than I can express.

By the way, my wife read your essay and reacted even more positively than I did. "The Eyes of Texas are Upon You" too. Smile

0 Replies

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Quote:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

US Foreign Aid:

Egypt votes 79% of the time against the United States, and receives $2,000,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% of the time against the United States, and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% of the time against the United States, and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% of the time against the United States, and receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

0 Replies

This has been posted a couple of times on various threads:
a) to what year(s) are these figures related,
b) what are the US and UN sources?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know