Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Foxfyre wrote:

Blatham writes:

Quote:
Even if all the quotations noted by Fox are valid, they must be understood along with the quotations which I've offered up (and there are many more of both sorts) and much in the way of historical information which shows the variances of religious thought (or absence of it) in early American history. There is no singularity of view. There is no adequate justification, logical or legal, to insist that America ought to provide a special dispensation to the Christian faith - or any specific version of it.

I agree. Nor should there be any prejudice/bigotry/bias/discrimination/unreasonable accusations against those who profess the Christian faith or any other faith.

But Foxfyre, George Bush is the one that said he would apply a religious test to judge appointments. Is that not prejudice, bias, discrimination regarding religion?

0 Replies

The attack of the clones.

0 Replies

Here's a NY Times review of Susan Jacoby's book "Freethinkers, a History of American Secularism

Quote:

One doesn't have to do more than scratch the surface of very many American christian or other faith-based sites to find critical discussion of 'secularism'. Ought such critical discussion to be allowed? Secularism is held, by such sites or groups represented in them, to be a world-view with core elements of faith, and therefore no different than the world-view of any faith group...it's just one more philosophical system.

Of course, the constitution of the US (and many other countries) protects the right of anyone to advance such critical discussion as we see on the various faith-based sites, or in their other publications, or in whatever media they choose to communicate. And, for anyone who holds JS Mill's notion of the importance and value of a 'marketplace of ideas', we are agreed that such speech acts ought never to be repressed. Anyone might counter-argue, of course, but 'secularism' ought not ever to be considered somehow exempt from critical analysis or critical comment.

So, why should faith-based groups or ideas gain special exemption from the same sort of analysis and comment? Simply, they shouldn't.

If the Jewish or the Scientological communities become active in forwarding state policies and political parties, they become valid subjects of criticism, just as would a secularist organization.

Is it bigoted or biased to critically analyse and conclude negatively about the influence of secularism on American society? The content might contain those things, but it certainly doesn't have to. Secularism is a proper target for such debate.

So is any faith group. Those of us who seek to analyse the ideas and actions of certain faith groups in the polity, if we conclude that such might be or become a negative influence on society, then we have every right to argue that case.

0 Replies

Jenna Bush doesn't seem to follow the footmarks of her father .. at least, re fundamentalism:

Jenna Bush hits the pilgrimage trail in Spain

It's in manyl (continental) European papers this weekend, btw - especially with the question, if she did such for religious, campaign or just touristic reasons ("It's beautiful", she answered")

http://images.derstandard.at/20040604/JennaBush.jpg

[Photo from the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard", when she got her pilgrimage certificate "La Compostelana"]

0 Replies

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

But Foxfyre, George Bush is the one that said he would apply a religious test to judge appointments. Is that not prejudice, bias, discrimination regarding religion?

I go back to a recent previous quote. George Bush believes, as did our founding fathers, that the Creator has endowed us with inalienable rights. If you put his remarks re this issue into context, you will see that they all address that principle. To assume that he will even ask the religion of a judge, much less apply a religious litmus test, is just plain paranoid and has no basis whatsoever as to the history, the present, or the facts.

0 Replies

The forefathers believe that they had the free will to outline just what those rights are and did so with the Bill of Rights. "The Creator" is more of a generic term for God that is tantamount to "Higher Power." I'm wondering if they had somehow could see in the future and since their were almost all theists if they would have left the word God out of the documents. One cannot rely only on the Constitution alone to understand and comprehend. They must read the Federalist Paper and other writings to really comprehend. I have read some unique and often strange interpretation of the Federalist Papers which leads me to believe that some can read but have a problem with comprehension.

We're all coming up with hints of what drives GWB but it can only result in suspicions. The Senate and Congress may have the same suspicions and act accordingly based on their own principals. Isn't that, after all, what each of us do?

0 Replies

The problem LW, is that too often 'suspicions' are driven by our chosen prejudices and personal biases and we therefore do a great injustice to one wrongly accused.

0 Replies

That is how I posed the question. I am not personally biased against anyone of religion if they are in truth practicting the best principals of their religion. However, politicians are especially adept at sinning.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Mesquite writes:

Quote:
But Foxfyre, George Bush is the one that said he would apply a religious test to judge appointments. Is that not prejudice, bias, discrimination regarding religion?

I go back to a recent previous quote. George Bush believes, as did our founding fathers, that the Creator has endowed us with inalienable rights. If you put his remarks re this issue into context, you will see that they all address that principle. To assume that he will even ask the religion of a judge, much less apply a religious litmus test, is just plain paranoid and has no basis whatsoever as to the history, the present, or the facts.

fox

You remake a false claim again here regarding what the founding fathers actually believed. As their own words quoted above by you and by me, including the following demonstrate, they had rather a wide range of ideas.
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson.
So you really ought to drop that false simplicity, if you have any interest in truth.

As regards this 'principle' you speak of, clearly Jefferson didn't believe that such inalienable rights might arise only as a consequence of the wishes of a Supreme Being. Nor do many other people over two and a half thousand years of moral and political philosophy.

Further, though most of the rest of us here acknowledge that it is very difficult to know just what Bush's personal religious ideas are, you continue to insist that you somehow have managed to achieve certainty on this. How did you manage that, fox?

But the most obviously false claim you make is that Bush has no interest in the 'litmus' questions for the judiciary. Mesquite's Bush quote above is not so benign as you claim, and we all know it. For re-election, Bush depends utterly upon the support of the religious right. One need only go to the Christian Coalition site, or the Assemblies of God site (Ashcroft's church), or to any number of other religious conservative sites, or to read Olasky to understand why there is absolutely zero chance that Bush would nominate a pro-choice candidate for any senior judical position, particularly the Supreme Court.

Are you saying, Fox, that Bush might appoint a pro-choice figure to the Supreme Court? I'd really like to see you put that in writing.

0 Replies

Blatham I think you will choose to believe what you choose to believe. I have neither the time nor the energy to do an in depth discussion on what the founding fathers believed about religion and this is probably not the forum anyway; however, I will say that I have studied it sufficiently to believe that I have it right.

In my opinion, most with strong prejudices against anything faith based, especially those prejudiced against Christianity in particular, have formed their opinions based on what they want the founding fathers to have believed and/or said rather than what are the facts. That the founding fathers did not all agree on every tenet of whatever faith is quite beside the point. Fifty two of the fifty five founders of the U.S. Constitution were members of an organized religious group on U.S. soil. Moses is included among the lawgivers on the east pediment of the Supreme Court building and, if I remember right, the Ten Commandments are engraved on the doors into the court itself.

If those who planned so carefully to ensure that religion would not become a coercive force in our republic form of government were not afraid of it, why should anybody else be afraid of it? That they also planned so carefully to ensure that religion would be protected and defended against coercion should also be respected.

I will continue to defend the president when he is accused of evil intentions that are assumed because of prejudice and when he is quoted out of context to achieve meanings he did not intend or say.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Mesquite writes:

Quote:
But Foxfyre, George Bush is the one that said he would apply a religious test to judge appointments. Is that not prejudice, bias, discrimination regarding religion?

I go back to a recent previous quote. George Bush believes, as did our founding fathers, that the Creator has endowed us with inalienable rights. If you put his remarks re this issue into context, you will see that they all address that principle. To assume that he will even ask the religion of a judge, much less apply a religious litmus test, is just plain paranoid and has no basis whatsoever as to the history, the present, or the facts.

Once again I will show the quote so that in does not get morphed into something less innocuous by mis-characterizing the actual words.

Quote:

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

Keeping in mind that he was addressing the appointment of judges whose job will be interpreting man made laws and the Constitution, he says"We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

It is not paranoid to bring attention to this president's clearly spoken words which are backed up by the record of his nominations, or did I miss a token non conservative Christian nomination somewhere?

0 Replies

Sigh. I'll just refer you to my previous posts Mesquite. You're dead wrong on this one no matter how badly you wish to be right.

0 Replies

Well, it's a plus that you didn't have the disingenuousness to state that Bush would ever nominate a pro-choice advocate to the Supreme Court (though you'll probably still say he has no litmus tests).

You said...

Quote:

Blatham I think you will choose to believe what you choose to believe.

And to Mesquite...

Quote:

Sigh. I'll just refer you to my previous posts Mesquite. You're dead wrong on this one no matter how badly you wish to be right.

I trust you are getting the idea that your personal certainties do not constitute a rational epistemological founding for the rest of us.

Sentences you write here such as the following, will continue to gain commentary...

Quote:

I will continue to defend the president when he is accused of evil intentions that are assumed because of prejudice and when he is quoted out of context to achieve meanings he did not intend or say.

And that's because no one said his intentions were evil. That's a mis-statement, and you make too many of them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, most with strong prejudices against anything faith based, especially those prejudiced against Christianity in particular, have formed their opinions based on what they want the founding fathers to have believed and/or said rather than what are the facts. That the founding fathers did not all agree on every tenet of whatever faith is quite beside the point. Fifty two of the fifty five founders of the U.S. Constitution were members of an organized religious group on U.S. soil. Moses is included among the lawgivers on the east pediment of the Supreme Court building and, if I remember right, the Ten Commandments are engraved on the doors into the court itself.

Go here for the rest of the story.

You really should not put so much faith into internet emails or David Barton's books.

Quote:

I will continue to defend the president when he is accused of evil intentions that are assumed because of prejudice and when he is quoted out of context to achieve meanings he did not intend or say.

The only time I have seen the terms "evil and sinister" used in this thread in reference to Bush, it has come from you. Rolling Eyes

I just think he is a bit dim, wrongheaded and his policies have been terribly wrong for this country.

0 Replies

In the first place, I don't recall ever reading a David Barton book. My impressions of the Supreme Court bulding were from remarks by the tour guide when I was last there.

And the only time I have seen such paranoia and hand wringing over any profession of faith by a president has been here on A2K Smile

0 Replies

your quote

Quote:

Fifty two of the fifty five founders of the U.S. Constitution were members of an organized religious group on U.S. soil.

Is from David Barton's America's Godly Heritige. You must have gotten it via an urban legend email. Did you check the links I provided?

0 Replies

I don't get my history from either David Barton and checked your link enough to see that it was Snopes from whom I don't get my history either.

0 Replies

Snopes is rather good at sorting fact from fiction. Not biased right or left, even though it may appear so since so much nonsense is flowing from the right. Laughing

Seriously, the article had some good info re the court building and Ten Commandments display.

0 Replies

And the material in no disputed anything I said about those either.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And the material in no disputed anything I said about those either.

Nope, just added context and additional info such as only portions of the six non religious commandments are shown. Very Happy

0 Replies

Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know