1
   

Reagans vs Bush?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 09:02 am
Quote:
June 15, 2004
POLITICAL MEMO
Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, June 14 - As Republicans try to cloak President Bush in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, their biggest obstacle may be Mr. Reagan's own family.
Even before Mr. Reagan died, Nancy Reagan and her daughter, Patti Davis, made their opposition to Mr. Bush's policy on stem-cell research well known. But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy thatcastigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush . . .

(Last year Ron Jr is quoted as saying:)
"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," Mr. Reagan said then. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the 80's. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's - these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15memo.html?ei=5062&en=e72eb6da38c65642&ex=1087876800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

Consider this:

Ronald Reagan quotes on religion
http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/RWReagan.html

And these:

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:
RONALD REAGAN: Yes. The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America. We need to join forces to reclaim the great principles embodied in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in Holy Scripture. As a Christian I commit myself to do my share in this joint venture. Our Country is in need of and ready for spiritual renewal that is based on spiritual reconciliation-first man with God, then man with man.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa5/swordours/DUDs3.html


Quote:
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-without diminishing the value of all human life...There is no cause more important." Ronald Reagan from The Encyclopedia of Quotations
I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."
From Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 584 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:01 am
Quote:


It would seem that some disagree with you.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=stam

Quote:
Politically, Bush's discourse has been very effective, but theologically the results have been more problematic, as evident in particular in three areas.

Manicheism This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. The Christian church rejected Manicheism as heretical many centuries ago. But on the day after 9/11, the President first stated the position he would continue to maintain: "This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail." Later Bush defined his enemies as the "axis of evil," a term that is theologically and morally loaded.

Given that state of sublime innocence in his own country, like Adam and Eve in paradise, Bush can muster only one explanation for the terrorists' hatred of his nation: "There are people who hate freedom." In other words, they are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good. (But if the terrorists hate freedom, why have they not attacked Canada, which in some respects is more democratic than the United States? Why is there not the same hatred for Switzerland, Holland or Costa Rica?)

Messianism When Bush, then Governor of Texas, decided to seek the presidency, he described his decision in terms evangelicals would understand as a divine mandate: He had been "called," a phrase that evoked the prophetic commissions of the Hebrew scriptures. He summoned to the governor's mansion all the leading pastors of the region to carry out a ritual of "laying on of hands," a practice that corresponds above all to ministerial ordination. He told the pastors that he had been called (obviously, by God) to be the presidential candidate. This language of divine calling has been frequent in his declarations and at a much accelerated rhythm since September 11, 2001.

In his State of the Union address the following year, Bush reaffirmed that "history has called America and our allies to action." Soon after the 9/11 attacks, speaking to a joint session of Congress, he proudly declared that "the advance of human freedom--the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time--now depends on us." As he declared in his 2003 State of the Union address, the nation must go forth to "confound the designs of evil men," because "our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better." "Once again," Bush announced as war preparation was building up, "this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility...and we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."

Bush does not seem to have much hesitation in identifying God with his own project. In a speech in September 2002, Bush cited a Christological text in reference to his war project: "And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [America shall conquer its enemies]." When he appeared in a flight suit aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, he said to the troops: "And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope--a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, come out! to those who are in darkness, be free!'"

Manipulation of Prayer True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do. We do not pray in order to enlist God in our ranks but to examine ourselves, to change and to do God's will. Therefore, the confession of sin and repentance are crucial moments in prayer and worship. Prayer has played a role without precedent in the Bush presidency and in the propaganda of the evangelicals who support him. Photos of Bush at prayer are common. Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai.

It is remarkable how closely Bush's discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, who could be manipulated by the powerful. Karl Marx concluded that religion is "the opium of the people." But Marx never knew committed Christians like Camilo Torres of Colombia, Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Frank Pais of Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua, Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany or Martin Luther King Jr. of the United States. How paradoxical, and how sad, that the President of the United States, with his heretical manipulation of religious language, insists on proving Karl Marx right.


Here's one from the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html

Too long to put here, but the headline:

Quote:
New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush's policies

The president's rhetoric worries even some evangelicals


He uses terms of moral absolution constantly - those of us who don't happen to be rabidly christian find that a little troubling, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:13 am
Acknowledged Crypto. I just think those who don't like GWB read way more into it than what is actually there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:39 am
Again with the Crypto, lol.

CYCLOptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:41 am
Sheesh sorry. I've been writing back and forth to Crypto all morning. He's a super cool guy, so it really is a compliment Cyclop Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 11:52 am
I was hoping so, lol. You're super cool too <3

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 04:22 pm
Aw thanks Cyclop. (((hugs)))) Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:51 pm
Reagan rarely stepped foot in a church, for one thing. There's certainly a difference in religious fervor.

To compare the two is actually insulting to Reagan, whom I was never a fan of.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 09:06 pm
Cyclop wrote:
Quote:
He uses terms of moral absolution constantly - those of us who don't happen to be rabidly christian find that a little troubling, yaknow?


Well I just went through several speeches and didn't find the phrase so 'constantly' may be a bit of an exaggeration. But I have no reason to believe he hasn't used the phrase. What do you think he means by it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reagans vs Bush?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:13:51