Teresa H. Kerry tells reporter to "shove it."

Foxfyre wrote:

I know that's the perception Blatham. I hold the solemn conviction nevertheless that if it was Bill Clinton or John Kerry speaking the same lines that Bush speaks, no one would have any objection whatsoever. I do not believe for a minute that Bush is any kind of a religious nut
Quote:
and I don't think any of you really believe he is either. But it's a way to attack him and get applause.

I know what a religious nut is. I grew up with one and I've worked with some and I see them on late night TV when surfing channels. Bush is no religious nut.

Do you just not believe the conversations between Bush and others ever took place? We are not really talking about his speeches before the nation as much as other conversations that he has had that mesquite posted. Those are just simply troubling beliefs for someone in a position as the President of the United States to have.

In any event, you are wrong; I honestly believe he is a nut.

0 Replies

Revel I can put up quotes and addresses re religion, faith based initiatives, references to the need for God's help, etc. that Bill Clinton said throughout his presidency. There is little difference in the way Clinton and Bush talked about and presented religion. The only difference is that Clinton's faith didn't bother the right. But Bush's faith is damned by the left. Do I think those conversations happened? I don't know. I do know pulling one line out of an entire conversation and holding it up as 'proof' of a person's intentions is aobut as disingenuous as it gets.

0 Replies

As just an interesting story I read on the bottom of the screen on CNN. Kerry and Teresa was campaigning and some bush hecklers interrupted them to yell at her "heinz baby" (something like that) and then "four more years." Teresa yelled back, "yea, four more years of hell." Then she got the audience to start saying, "three more months." (or tried, I am not sure which)

I can't help it, I like her.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Revel I can put up quotes and addresses re religion, faith based initiatives, references to the need for God's help, etc. that Bill Clinton said throughout his presidency. There is little difference in the way Clinton and Bush talked about and presented religion. The only difference is that Clinton's faith didn't bother the right. But Bush's faith is damned by the left. Do I think those conversations happened? I don't know. I do know pulling one line out of an entire conversation and holding it up as 'proof' of a person's intentions is aobut as disingenuous as it gets.

Well, I think you are blinded, but I know you ain't going to agree, so I am willing to leave it at that.

0 Replies

I don't dislike her and I wince when she gets excessively picked on. I saw the speech where that happened. In an interview tonight, Laura Bush defended her--said it's tough getting heckled and she thought Teresa handled it well.

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Well you just blew off the quotes I posted without adressing any of them again.

Somehow I have trouble picturing Kerry or Clinton during a debate answering the question
"Who is your favorite thinker/philosopher and why? with " Christ, because he changed my life."

I also cannot picture either of them holding out a Bible and saying that it was a good handbook for a government funded childcare center. I can think of quite a few references to child care in the Bible that would not pass the sniff test today.

I can understand a person saying that they are not concerned with the President's religious views, but to assert that he is no different in that respect to any other president is simply absurd.

The Intoduction to the Frontline special had this to say in part.

Quote:

How George W. Bush became a born-again Christian -- and the impact that decision has had on his political career -- is the focus of FRONTLINE's report, "The Jesus Factor." Through interviews with Bush family friends, advisers, political analysts, and observers -- as well as excerpts from the president's speeches, interviews, and debates -- this one-hour documentary chronicles George W. Bush's personal religious journey while also examining the growing political influence of the nation's more than 70 million evangelical Christians.

"President Bush has been called the most openly religious president in modern history," says producer Raney Aronson. "The documentary explores what that means for George Bush, both as a person and as president of the United States."

The show was well presented and balanced. If you have not seen it, you should. It can be seen online, or you can order tape or CD.

0 Replies

Foxfire
I am a liberal. I am a christian liberal. Have been for 69 years. I dont knock anyone who believes in thier religion. But I mistrust politicians who use religion to aquire votes. Especially ones who never went to church or expressed religious beliefs untill they ran for public office. They remind of the people on death row who suddenly get religion so to speak. Do they really believe in God or does it look good to the govenor.

0 Replies

George Bush was going to church before he ran for public office. The twists Mesquite uses to demonize Bush's religious beliefs are too convoluted to even respond to. I can't prove Bush isn't a religious nut and his critics aren't about to do any of their own research that would show he really isn't much or any different than most other politicians in how he uses religion. Even his fath-based social initiatives aren't original with him. Clinton came up with the concept first.

I think those of you who oppose Bush are going to think the worst of him regardless of any facts presented to the contrary. I appreciate him as one who actually holds and lives the religious convictions he professes. I trust that far more than the hypocrite who runs to the church for show but who lives his life as an antithesis of what he says he believes.

The only real criticism that can be leveled against him for his faith, other than that he has one, is in his appointment of judges. It is somehow sinister if a religious judge is appointed. I found Clinton's litmus test that a judge must be pro-abortion in order to be appointed much more objectionable. Bush has no litmus test but appoints judges who interpret the law, not who create law. I want a whole lot more of that and I don't give a flying fig what their religious convictions are.

0 Replies

The current law is that abortion is legal so if Clinton appointed judges that were pro choice he appointed judges that interpreted the law.

I don't know if it is true that Clinton did that in any event.

Lastly, you seem to continually miss the point. It is not George Bush's religion or even his utterances of religious quotes and his use of God in his speeches, but his thinking that God appointed him to be president during this time directly. You don't believe that he believes that despite quotes from him that says that so there is nothing more to be said.

(even though I am sure you will say something more, so in order to keep going back and forth, I will try to restrain myself when next you reply.)

Believe it or not I hold nothing against you and believe that you have good intentions and honestly believe what you say and honestly believe that George Bush is a good person just trying to do a good job as president. I just simply disagree, call it partisan if you like, nonetheless...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I know that's the perception Blatham. I hold the solemn conviction nevertheless that if it was Bill Clinton or John Kerry speaking the same lines that Bush speaks, no one would have any objection whatsoever. I do not believe for a minute that Bush is any kind of a religious nut and I don't think any of you really believe he is either. But it's a way to attack him and get applause.

I know what a religious nut is. I grew up with one and I've worked with some and I see them on late night TV when surfing channels. Bush is no religious nut.

fox

I admit I have no way of knowing what is in Bush's head other than through the words he speaks and the policies he advances. However, both of these modes of inferential evidence are tainted by the realities of modern republican politics where a certain species of Christian values must be voiced and implemented as policy. If not, that candidate will have little or no chance of succeeding as a modern republican representative. This is not the case within the democrat machinery. Nor was it the case within the republican party until quite recently.

To the extent that what I've said above is true, then it matters increasingly less what Bush (or any other such republican candidate or office holder) might personally believe. If his/her beliefs are trumped by the need to follow the demands of an essential voting block, then it is that voting block who is actually in control. Bush could be a radical armaggedon loon, or he could be an atheist, but to remain in power he could never voice either notion publicly nor openly advance such policies as might fall out of his beliefs. In the modern setting, he could not say what Lincoln said and remain in power in his party.

I would not...truly...use deceit in an argument against Bush. I would not claim he was a 'religious nut' simply to score some point or sway someone if I considered that I was lying or misrepresenting. Nor would I attack him for his religious beliefs other than where I concluded that some specific belief was in and of itself a social or political danger. For example, I would attack him or any other citizen were he to voice the notion that for all men there is but one way to God or one true faith alone, because of the subsequent potential for setting one faith above others within the nation.

And that is precisely the danger I perceive in modern republican party power as regards the religious issue.

0 Replies

You continue to condemn Bush for promoting a Christian-only mantra while you ignore his appreciation to and approval of Muslims, Jews, and others that you will also find in his speeches. Revel puts great store in what other people say that Bush said, but so far has come up with no direct quotes from Bush that, at least in my mind, are any different from quotes re faith/God/religion that Clinton or his predecessors have used. And again, whatever Bush's predecessors said, even if virtually identical to what he says, those statements are somehow less sinister.

I'm sorry, but I am 100% convinced that there is such unfounded prejudice and bigotry leveled at our current president re his religion that nothing anyone can say or no amount of 'proof' presented will make any difference. I've exhausted my arsenal of reasonable arguments over the last several months on this subject. I see little to be gained other than frustration to continue. There are many things I criticize George Bush for, but his religion is definitely not one of them and, other than he has been 100% honorable re his religious faith, it will not be a factor in my vote in November.

0 Replies

I like Teresa and I am voting for her for president. What, you say she is not running? Than who is, all I hear is Teresa said this or that. She seems to be better known than her husband who is running for president. What does that say about the electorate? That a little juicy controversy sells better than issues. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The twists Mesquite uses to demonize Bush's religious beliefs are too convoluted to even respond to.

One of us is getting delusional for I have no idea as to what you mean by that statement.

Foxfyre wrote:

The only real criticism that can be leveled against him for his faith, other than that he has one, is in his appointment of judges. It is somehow sinister if a religious judge is appointed.

This is what he said. It is available on video.

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.

The role of a judge is to interpret our laws in relation to the Constitution. Please explain to me how a judge can rule on rights derived from God. What are the guidelines? Should they use the Bible and try to read it through the eyes of the ones that wrote it, or should they take it literally? Do you really have such a hard time seeing the problem with mixing government and religion, or is it just because this presidents religion agrees with yours?

edit: spelling

0 Replies

Read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution and what the founders had to say re inalienable rights, Mesquite. All but the most dense has to recognize that this is what Bush was referring to. Maybe you don't think that these inalienable rights come from God. The founders did. (So do the President and I.) If you have a squawk with that, take it up with them.

I think I'll start a thread on inalienable rights in the religion and spirituality forum.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution and what the founders had to say re inalienable rights, Mesquite. All but the most dense has to recognize that this is what Bush was referring to. Maybe you don't think that these inalienable rights come from God. The founders did. (So do the President and I.) If you have a squawk with that, take it up with them.

No, only the most dense would believe such malarky as you just wrote.. The preamble and the constitution are conspicuously free of any mention of God. The mention of a deity in the Declaration was very generic ("the laws of nature and natures god") which was common terminology for Diests at the time.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

Maybe you don't think that these inalienable rights come from God. The founders did. (So do the President and I.) If you have a squawk with that, take it up with them.

Bullcrap. I do not think after that bit of nonsence you can afford to talk about dense.

Definition:
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
- in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"nAl-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"nA-lE-&-n&-/ noun

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You continue to condemn Bush for promoting a Christian-only mantra while you ignore his appreciation to and approval of Muslims, Jews, and others that you will also find in his speeches. Revel puts great store in what other people say that Bush said, but so far has come up with no direct quotes from Bush that, at least in my mind, are any different from quotes re faith/God/religion that Clinton or his predecessors have used. And again, whatever Bush's predecessors said, even if virtually identical to what he says, those statements are somehow less sinister.

I'm sorry, but I am 100% convinced that there is such unfounded prejudice and bigotry leveled at our current president re his religion that nothing anyone can say or no amount of 'proof' presented will make any difference. I've exhausted my arsenal of reasonable arguments over the last several months on this subject. I see little to be gained other than frustration to continue. There are many things I criticize George Bush for, but his religion is definitely not one of them and, other than he has been 100% honorable re his religious faith, it will not be a factor in my vote in November.

fox

Look, I didn't say I condemned Bush for forwarding a Christian-only mantra. I did say I would attack (contest, argue against) any voice which held that their particular faith or version of it was the one true faith for all.

You and I disagree on something neither of us know with clarity, the precise contours of Bush's faith, you suppose it to be one thing and I suppose it to be another.

You and I also disagree on the proper role of faith in governance. And it seems clear that Bush's position is similar to your own but dissimilar to mine.

You and I may well also disagree on whether it is faith/scripture or whether it is reason that ought to hold primacy in the policies and values of a nation. In this, my position is precisely as Cuomo describes Lincoln's own position.

All these are understandable differences, if I draw them correctly, but they are probably quite important for either of us. And that's fine, well-intentioned individuals often differ.

0 Replies

I agree they are understandable differences Blatham. It is simply the double standard I rail against. Again and again I believe I've shown that rhetoric from Bush is no more, no less sinister than that expressed by his predecessors going all the way back to George Washington. But in the anti-religious climate that seemed to develop during the Clinton years and has peaked (I hope) in during the last four years, Bush can't make ANY reference to his or anybody else's faith without getting slammed for it.

The quotes people put up to show what a religious extremist he is would have created scarcely a ripple or would even have been defended if Bill Clinton said them.

I know I'm beating my head against a brick wall on this. The polarization between left and right is so extreme it makes it difficult enough to debate anything, much less have a cordial discussion. It just offends my sense of fair play to have Bush exclusively maligned on this issue.

Oh well. Anyway thank you for a cordial response. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

But in the anti-religious climate that seemed to develop during the Clinton years and has peaked (I hope) in during the last four years, Bush can't make ANY reference to his or anybody else's faith without getting slammed for it.

Once again, you turn the argument around in an attempt to make those who desire freedom and do not wish to live as part of a religious state the problem. You really should go work for the GOP, I mean, you are damn good at this Fox...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Again and again I believe I've shown that rhetoric from Bush is no more, no less sinister than that expressed by his predecessors going all the way back to George Washington.

You say that time and again, but have yet to post an equivalent to Bush's"
"I think God wants me to be president"
or
"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."
or
"When we see social needs in America, my administration will look first to faith-based programs and community groups."
or while being handed a Bible
"The handbook of this particular child care is a universal handbook. It's been around for a long time. It doesn't need to be invented. It's a-- let me see your handbook there. This handbook is a good book. It's a good go-by."
or any of the quotes I listed in this post

Foxfyre wrote:

But in the anti-religious climate that seemed to develop during the Clinton years and has peaked (I hope) in during the last four years, Bush can't make ANY reference to his or anybody else's faith without getting slammed for it.

The anti- religious climate is in your imagination. There is a push back to the political activism of the Christian Coalition and other right wing activist groups. There is a big difference between an anti-religious climate and preservation of separation of church and state.

Foxfyre wrote:

The quotes people put up to show what a religious extremist he is would have created scarcely a ripple or would even have been defended if Bill Clinton said them.

Clinton would not have said the quotes that I put up and you know it.

0 Replies

Teresa H. Kerry tells reporter to "shove it."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know