Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

God kicked MY puppy, but I forgave. He'd just got word that Satan had bailed. Within hours, angels were on TV premptively describing Mr. Beelzebub as a "disgruntled former employee"

0 Replies

I'd wager some of the folks here are convinced that Bush is a more righteous or more religious man than Clinton.

That is, they would affirm that they see clear differences between Bush and Clinton on personal faith or personal understanding of the proper role of faith in the presidency.

My second wager whatever differences are perceived, are only positive, as regards Bush.

0 Replies

Double post.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Eh, you give agnostics and atheists a bad name.

That would require a deft co-ordination of purpose that I have not yet attained.

Especially considering that athiesm and agnosticism are very different beliefs.

Quote:

What happened? Did God kick your puppy when you were a kid?

He just, you know, kinda killed a few million people, subjucated and extrerminated other races, oppressed women for centuries (and still does in some areas), and stfiled scientific and intellectual progress thoughout the ages. Do I need to draw you a flow chart?

Quote:

Read your last post and ask yourself why you have so much hate in your life.

Lies, deceit, and wonton murder enrage me, I suppose.

Go figure.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Eh, you give agnostics and atheists a bad name.

That would require a deft co-ordination of purpose that I have not yet attained.

Especially considering that athiesm and agnosticism are very different beliefs.

Quote:
What happened? Did God kick your puppy when you were a kid?

He just, you know, kinda killed a few million people, subjucated and extrerminated other races, oppressed women for centuries (and still does in some areas), and stfiled scientific and intellectual progress thoughout the ages. Do I need to draw you a flow chart?

Quote:
Read your last post and ask yourself why you have so much hate in your life.

Lies, deceit, and wonton murder enrage me, I suppose.

Go figure.

So you do believe in God then, but just blame him for everything wrong?

0 Replies

I'm not entirely certain what you meant Blatham. I do think Bush seems to apply his faith to his personal life more than Clinton appeared to have applied his faith to his personal life. As a Christian, I'm not allowed to judge that. Smile

Clinton made a show of being a Christian much more than Bush so far has. Didn't bother me.

Clinton was a 'liberal' Southern Baptist as he supported several issues that his denomination did not. Bush is a pretty standard United Methodist though he went against his national church that had a national proclamation against war.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Just for clarification, Bush did not make comments to Ha-artz. The quoted passage was given to Ha-artz by the top guy in the Palestine Authority who said Bush told him this. Now if you believe that is a credible source, then all power to you.

It was not "given to them by the top guy in the Palestinain authority."

That is false.

The Washington Post's translation:

Quote:

Two calls to the White House for clarification went unreturned, but colleague Glenn Kessler did some digging. The Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to Kessler and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker.

The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So you do believe in God then, but just blame him for everything wrong?

Nope. Nice try, though.

0 Replies

We ought to understand what is going on here. This is an absolutely typical modern right wing trick being played, and it is apparent pretty much across the boards. And it's high time we pointed at it whenever we see them use it (or other sympathetic, but unthinking, folks repeat it).

Anyone who dares to suggest that Bush (or any other Republican or Republican friend) is INAPPROPRIATELY squeezing his faith into that area which is the subject of the second ammendment, will be attacked as anti-Christian, or anti-god, or anti-faith...in short, of being a godless liberal.

We can see the same sort of strategy as regards the 'war on terrorism' or the war in Iraq (conveniently, though illogically, held to be a subset of the first). Anyone who dares to suggest Bush has it wrong, is attacked as treasonous, as in support of the enemy.

The examples of both these (and others) fill these threads and fill the sources these posters often read from (sadly, also, much of the mainstream press).

In all cases, a false dilemma is pushed...there are but two choices. And the two choices are distinctly drawn such that one is the epitome of good and necessary, and the other evil and soooo dangerous to think otherwise.

This isn't by chance this occurs. Here's a quote from a fundraising letter sent out by Brent Bozell of the "Media Research Center" describing it's mission, "...training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine President Bush."*

Another from Grover Norquist...
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals--and turn them towards bitterness and nastiness and partisanship. Bipartisanship is another name for date rape" as told to Denver Post.

*Barbie Zelizer and Stuart Allen, editors, Journalism After Sept 11 (New York Routledge, 2002) p. 11

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Media Research Center"

I like how they chose a name that has nothing to do with what they do.

0 Replies

foxfyre

I mean...you are being insufficiently discriminating in suggesting that there is no important difference in the religiosity of this President, and those who have preceded him.

Theoretically, there will be some point where you would say a president had gone too far as regards the second ammendment. I assume that to be so, anyway. Many of us think Bush has.

Theoretically, there will be some statement a president might make which would provoke in you some thought such as "This fellow/fellowess has conflated God and his own narcissim, and that is dangerous for everyone." Many of us think Bush has.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

blatham wrote:
"Media Research Center"

I like how they chose a name that has nothing to do with what they do.

Yes, that's a typical Orwellian trick of language misuse. There are some Scientology front groups which are paradigm examples. Of course, this trick isn't limited to faith or politics...advertising is full of it.

0 Replies

The strategy that I describe above has another purpose and consequence which I really wish you folks down there would wise up to.

It is meant to be divisive. It is meant to polarize, and it does that job very well.

Some of you remark now and again (McGentrix did here or on another thread) that this is a particularly polarized time. He's right. But not enough of you are trying to understand why that has happened. Glibbly, one could say it is merely cyclical, but that is shallow and disregards that so much of what is going on is not inevitable, but rather, has proved advantageous in gaining power and so is promoted.

0 Replies

blatham said

Quote:

disregards that so much of what is going on is not inevitable, but rather, has proved advantageous in gaining power and so is promoted.

And that is why it is so infuriating. We expect it in advertising and it happens above board. But in national and international politics, it smacks of Machiavellianism, and is sub rosa.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
blatham wrote:
"Media Research Center"

I like how they chose a name that has nothing to do with what they do.

Yes, that's a typical Orwellian trick of language misuse. There are some Scientology front groups which are paradigm examples. Of course, this trick isn't limited to faith or politics...advertising is full of it.

What you call "a typical Orwellian trick of language misuse" I call "retarded." I like my description better. Go figure.

0 Replies

And I like Machiavellian better, as it is obviously intended to manipulate. Not retarded at all.

0 Replies

blatham writes:

Quote:

I mean...you are being insufficiently discriminating in suggesting that there is no important difference in the religiosity of this President, and those who have preceded him.

I disagree. I have not suggested there is no difference in the religiosity of this President and (some of those) who have preceded him. I happen to believe GWB's faith is genuine and that he does not demonstrate it in phony ways. That is also irrelevant to this discussion.

What I have suggested, and what I believe I have adequately demonstrated in the posted examples on this thread, is that this president does not inappropriately invoke the name of God, Bible, Christianity, etc. unless all U.S. presidents over at least the last 100+ years have inappropriately invoked the name of God, Bible, Christianity, etc. There is no empirical or verifiable documented evidence that Bush's religion is somehow more dangerous or sinister.

And returning to the thesis in the thread, I think those who attack the president on the basis of his professed religious beliefs not only do him a disservice, but do a disservice to their own cause as well. I believe most Americans see the attacks as coming from prejudice and bigotry rather than coming from any rational or legitimate criteria.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree. I have not suggested there is no difference in the religiosity of this President and (some of those) who have preceded him. I happen to believe GWB's faith is genuine and that he does not demonstrate it in phony ways. That is also irrelevant to this discussion.

But it's not irrelevant to this discussion.

If you see a difference in Bush's faith based on what he has said, then this may well be the basis upon which others object to his invocation of diety.

If you see a difference what brings about this difference? And do you not cede that those who don't subscribe to the religion might interpret said difference differently?

0 Replies

Craven writes:

Quote:

If you see a difference in Bush's faith based on what he has said, then this may well be the basis upon which others object to his invocation of diety.

If you see a difference what brings about this difference? And do you not cede that those who don't subscribe to the religion might interpret said difference differently?

I don't see a difference in Bush's faith based on what he has said. I see a difference in Bush's faith in that he seems to live it instead of just profess it. He includes religious references in his speeches but so did every other president. Bush's are no more sinister or ominous than anybody else's have been.

But my goodness. More than three years in office and no allegations yet of kick backs, insider trading or other shady deals for personal gain, sexual harrassment, infidelity? And he seems to no longer have any problem with booze and/or drugs associated with his youth. Could it possibly be that this man actually is a Christian and conducts his life accordingly?

0 Replies

The "allegations" of insider trading came before he was governor of Tejas . . .

0 Replies

Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know