foxfyre- God Bless You- You have pinned it down beautifully. None of us can get into Bush's head to see what he thinks and in the absence of empirical evidence anyone who says he is a fundamentalist Christian is just expressing an unproven partisan statement. I can't tell you how many times I was chastized when I called Bill Clinton a "whoremonger" although there is more than enough real evidence to prove that statement is correct. I can't tell you how many times I was derided for calling Clinton a "perjurer" although there is more than enough empirical evidence to show that statement is correct. You are quite correct that direct quotes are indeed useful. I have found that the partisans usually don't like to be faced with dealing with direct quotes. When I have referenced Bill Clinton's speech in which he stated that Saddam had WMD's and that he would acquire them again and that he would use them and that was why he was launching missles against Baghdad in 1998, the partisans are usually tongue tied.
You are also correct when you say that there is no reason to believe that a source, any source, is more believable than a poster. However, failing the presentation of credentials, I will state unequivocally that a respected well known professor of Political Science who has researched a subject thorougly such as Dr. Greenstein of Princeton University on Presidents or a acknowledged expert on Islam such as Professor Bernard Lewis or one of the best jurists in the United States such as Judge Richard Posner decisively trumps any poster unless that poster has special expertise.
I am very sorry, I will certainly accept- "That is my opinion" but, as you mention, it is fair game to be attacked if it is judged to be mistaken. I will not accept, it is true because I say so and I don't need to give evidence.
How can we learn if we accept absurdity instead of truth.
Let's go back to the beginning.
You said it and you said it correctly.
Is George Bush a fundamentalist Christian?
Who knows?
Does anyone have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a fundamentalist Christian?
If they do not have that proof, they are just blowing hot air when they pontificate on the subject.
You may have noticed that in several of my posts, I gave facts concering George W. Bush and his education. No one was either able or willing to rebut those statements which were based on fact.
Since they could not, those statements stand until refuted.
Cheers, foxfyre
And, if he is SO WHAT?
Nobody can even agree on what that actually means.
Mesquite, you are the one who seems certain that GWB is a fundamentalist so why don't you explain what that means to you?
Mporter thank you, but to me I was only stating the obvious. Unless somebody is on the record as believing this or that, how can any of us presume to know what that somebody believes about anything?
Blatham I don't think a discussion of Elaine Pagel's religious views would be appropriate for the politics forum though it might make an interesting thread in the spirituality and religion forum. Why don't you start one when you return from your travels?
Where are you traveling anyway?
Well, a South American writer( Mr. Blatham is "not sure" who it was( ten points off for that- Mr. Blatham,) says Clinton was familiar with all of their work.
IF TRUE, impressive, but without a source, I can not put full faith in its accuracy.
Mr. Blatham evidently missed my citation of the presidential historian( much more pertinent to the facts than an "unknown South American") to the effect that Bill Clinton's organization in the White House resembled " a little boys soccer team in which no one knew what they were doing".
I submit that the organization utilized by a president is far more important to the well being of a country than a president's "alleged" and "unsourced" knowledge concerning South American poetry.
Let us go to sources.
I don't suppose that Mr. Blatham is aware of the fact that while Bill Clinton was at Oxford, he rarely attended classes.
It would be difficult for anyone to learn about Ireaneus if one missed class nearly all of the time unless one read on one's own.
On October 25, the Washington Times wrote a story in which they printed pictures of Clinton in rumpled fatigues and granny glasses. He engaged in almost continuous antiwar activity. The Times article called Clinton a liar when he claimed he had not received an induction notice and said he had received two. Clinton evidently took a 40 day train trip through Finland and Russia.
Source- George Archibald, "Clinton at Oxford" Washington Times October 25, 1992, A2.
Now, Clinton did what he thought he had to do at that time but it is clear that studies were not his forte. How could he have learned of Ireneaus?
Of the thirty two Rhodes Scholars in his class, one was one of only six who failed to complete his prescribed course-- source- Rufford and Leppard- "A Yank at Oxford" Sunday Times, October 15, 1992, features section.
How could he have learned of Ireneaus?
In law school perhaps?
Well, even then Clinton was notorious for skipping classes.
But Mr. Blatham thinks he knew about Ireneaus.
I don't think so. I think that Clinton did a great deal of study on etymology.
Who else could come up with incredible lines like:
"But I didn't inhale"
Or
"It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Or
"We( meaning Monica and himself) were never alone"
or the masterful--
"I don't think anyone can show that I changed govermental policy just because of a campaign contribution"
But Mr. Blatham appears to be convinced that Clinton was very knowledgeable.
Perhaps, but he failed utterly in putting his knowledge to work.
In eight years, he had to his credit the granting of MFN to China( the Democratic friends in the Unions loved that one) the passage of Nafta( the left didn't like that one either and the reform of Welfare( the far left labeled him a sell out for that one).
But perhaps his most important contribution( sic) was his leading the Democratic Party to losing both the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998.
Perhaps, as Mr. Blatham said, he knew Ireneaus, but he wasn't worth a damn at keeping the control of the House and Senate in Democratic hands.
Heck I don't have a clue whether Bill Clinton stumbled across Irenaeus somewhere in his studies. My thoughts that it was unlikely is because that is not a course of study you would likely find in the average Southern Baptist Church.
It is a fact that Clinton had virtually a photographic memory, however, and therefore if he had committed various quotations to memory, he would likely be able to recall them. He was also known to 'bone up' on various subjects before entering an environment where they were likely to come up.
I have no quarrel with the man's intellect as I believe he probably has a very high I.Q. It was his morals and ethics I couldn't stand.
Yes, foxfyre, and you are not alone in that assessment. One of the country's leading jurists, Judge Richard Posner, wrote a book called "An Affair of State" in which he stated:
P. 266
"For those who think that authority depends on mystery, the shattering of the Presidential Mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought to of rights have paid with his job"
I would also not contradict that he is pretty well-rounded intellectually. And, as foxfyre alluded, I think he is very unethical and immoral.
Foxfyre wrote:Mesquite, you are the one who seems certain that GWB is a fundamentalist so why don't you explain what that means to you?
Foxfyre wrote:Well if that's a fact Mesquite, I can say with a great deal of certainty that GWB is not a fundamentalist.
Foxfyre, it was only because you seemed sure of something that I asked you for what fundamentalist meant to you.
Some of the things that I would associate with fundamentalism are;
Belief in the inerrant infallibilityof the Bible
Binary thinking re good and evil
No such thing as a small sin.
Only one path to heaven.
Literal interpretation of scriptures.
Lots of Bible study.
Mesquite, I would agree pretty much with your definition except for the lots of Bible study part as many many Christians who are not fundamentalists do lots of Bible study, including me.
Again, based on what GWB has publically stated re his faith and knowing of his Episcopal and Methodist roots, he may be a conservative Christian (as I am) but he is in no way a fundamentalist.
As with any label, no one description fits all. That is why I just listed some associations, and many of those associations seem to fit George.
Re lots of Bible study, should we define lots?
Naturally you read the Bible and a whole lot more because of the classes you teach. George on the other says he does not read much, but does study the Bible an hour each day.
I probably spend 20 hours a week at it when writing curriculum but I think that would not be the norm. It's hard to say whether an hour a day would be a 'lot' though I imagine it is more than the average Christian spends. But then the 'average' Christian probably doesn't crack open the book unless they are asked to do the reading at the Sunday service or need to bone up for a class.
Mesquite- I am very sorry to inform you that research on the subject of Fundamentalist Christianity does not appear to bear out your claim that President George W. Bush is a fundamentalist Christian.
http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
quote
"While the common idea of a fundamentalist strongly imples political involvement the self-described Fundamentalist is rarely involved directly in Politics"
and
"It should probably be described an abuse of the term to label the religious right a fundamentalist movement in any sense"
and
"Dr. Carl F. Henry, an Evangelical scholar, in a major definitive work-"Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalists" criticized Fundamentalists for their tendency to withdraw from society"
I am sorry, mesquite, but in the light of this evidence, George W. Bush cannot be described as a Fundamentalist.
A thought- If we have the "religious right" on one side, do we have the "irreligious left" on the other?
It remains true that the worst job in Washington is that of local priest and compelled to hear a daily diet of almost soul destroying confessions of unending sins by our leading politicians.
Explaining why there is such a huge turnover, due to nervous breakdown and suicide, by those of the cloth serving the needs of politicians from the present administration.
Without wishing to appear biased, it is fair to say that sin was so much more straightforward under President Clinton.
Hey, wait a minute....you're not real Archbishop, are you?
I like anyone who can impress me in a mere 4 posts.
According to one of my more junior clergy, he walked into a barber shop in Washington, D.C. After his haircut, he asked how much it would be. The barber said, "No charge. I consider it a service to the Lord."
The next morning, the barber came to work and there were 12 prayer books and a thank you note from the priest in front of the door.
Later that day, a police officer came in for a hair cut. He then asked how much it was. The barber said, "No charge. I consider it a service to the community."
The next morning, he came to work and there were a dozen donuts and a thank you note from the police officer.
Then, the President came in and got a haircut. When it was completed, he asked how much it was. The barber said, "No charge. I consider it a service to the country."
The next morning, the barber came to work and the rest of the administration were at the front door.
Light Wizard- Today is a red letter day. I am finding that I have had to thank Dlowan(a left winger) for his insistence on definition and now, I must thank you for finding material which may make Wikipedia a poor source.
Kudos to you. I am not like some who wear red suits and are so insecure that they can't admit that someone has found something that they don't know about. A Canadian person indicated to me( who had the effrontery to tell him about something that had happened in Montreal in 1969, that the Time Magazine that I referenced did "not exist"
It did but the poor man did not have to courage to indicate to me that he was wrong.
I am greatful to you for finding the disclaimer about Wikipedia. I will therefore scratch it off of my list.
Since you appear to be a good researcher, Light Wizard, perhaps you can find some reputable research which gives evidence that George W. Bush is a true Christian Fundamentalist.
I have been unable to find such proof on google.
Therefore, I will state unequivocally, that until someone can bring reputable evidence to bear that President George W. Bush is indeed a Fundamentalist Christian and has so indicated, I must regretfully come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is NOT a fundamentalist Christian.
But, maybe you can help, Light Wizard.
Do not the frequent claims of the Lord's support in the President's speeches offer some evidence of his Christianity?
