The eagerness some liberals display to denigrate people for their religious beliefs just blows me away sometimes. I'm floored by the open, unrepentant bigotry. I'm sure that to you it's somehow different than denigrating someone based on his or her ethnicity or sexual preference, but I don't see the distinction.
Of course, I'm sure the problem here is mine.
trespassers will wrote:The eagerness some liberals display to denigrate people for their religious beliefs just blows me away... I'm sure that to you it's somehow different than denigrating someone based on his or her ethnicity or sexual preference, but I don't see the distinction.
Here is the distinction:
Of "religious beliefs", "ethnicity", and "sexual preference", ONLY ONE OF THESE CAN BE CHOSEN by an individual. And of course, people are held responsible for their choices. And should be capable of intellectually defending them.
Of course, I expect you to disagree with this.
Only you're not here asking anyone to defend his or her beliefs, you're just suggesting that they are not qualified to hold political office because of those beliefs. (Nor as I recall are we supposed to ask people to defend their religious beliefs in this country. We're supposed to respect their right to believe as they do.) Ever heard of something we call the 1st Amendment?
You call it what you want. I call it bigotry.
tres, We only question when anybody profess to be a christian, but fails to reflect the christian teachings of "love thy neighbor." When our president professes to be a christian, but he has no qualms about killing innocent Iraqis with a preemptive attack, there seems to be a great divide between the supposed teachings and the actions. Has he no conscience? Is "collateral damage" acceptable to him and his coherts? Does this reflect in any way a religious person? Is this defense or offense? c.i.
Trespasser:
Please don't tell me what I think. I'll make another attempt to explain it to you, in the context of this topic.
Now then,
let's talk about replacing GW Bush in 2004:
As you have already surmised, I patently object to this President's near-constant infusion of his political positions as ordained.
Of all of the offensive rhetoric employed by the Republican Party, this one--this assumption of being blessed--is THE most highly offensive. Considering how they came into power, the means by which they have consolidated power, and the methods by which they have exercised that power, IMO this is the most powerful example of their hypocrisy.
And men of the cloth ain't buyin' it either:
But some ministers and theologians object to the president's references to God, and to good and evil, in speeches justifying war with Iraq.
"He has brought God in in handcuffs," said the Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., the liberal senior pastor of Riverside Church in New York. "This war is not coming from the council of heaven, it is coming from a council on earth that has not checked with God about their deeper motivations."
A President Puts His Faith in Providence
I don't believe anyone this hypocritical about his faith (or so intellectually dishonest about it) deserves to continue to be President.
I'm a Buddhist, but don't feel any great concern about an impending takeover of the U.S. Government by the Radical Christian Right. Those folks are not too different from the radical Islamic bunch. Actually, it seems to me that the power of fundamentalist Christianity in this country is on the wane. Perhaps that's just my hope. A pox upon all Abrahamic religions.
Asherman, I'm sure that doesn't come from the buddhist religion either; "A pox upon all Abrahamic religions." Shame on you! c.i.
I've never claimed to be free of biases, this is mine. The problems engendered by those three weird sisters are at the heart of conflict in Southwest Asia today. They have a history of chauvinism, and intolerance for all other religions. Conquest, colonization and domination of people all around the globe was done in the name of God and Allah.
They have killed more than smallpox and the Plague. They have killed more than all the casualties of war, and Abrahamic religion has provided the motives of war over and over and over again.
Cicero,
You say "again". That's right, again. The conflict between Arabs and Israel is founded on the chauvinism of Islam and Judaism. Of course, there are other issues, but religious conflict is a major element. Islamic fundamentalism has been at the root of Pakistani-Indian conflict since the British left the subcontinent. Abrahamic monotheism makes the most oppressive Theocracies.
Oh, stop the presses!! Someone is blown away and floored by all the awful bigotry!!!!
Whew! Drama!
Okay, I don't happen to think it's GWB's religion that people are against. In fact, to say that those who cast doubt on his ability to serve well in his appointed office do so because he is a Christian, is to miss the point. They aren't at all being critical of his chosen profession of religion. They take exception at his wrapping his presidency in it, shamelessly exploiting it for gain at every turn, wearing it like a mask. He and Ashcrofts' version of Christianity would not be recognized by Christ - he laughs at the possibility of the state wrongfully putting people to death. He prays shamelessly in public, while Christ admonished to do so in private. He attempts to cloak war and ambition in a holy robe. I believe in the teachings of Christ. But I cringe when I see Bush or Ashcroft trying to publicly manifest their Christianity.
That's right snood, he wraps himself in the christian robe, but his actions are wrapped in blood. None of the teachings he was supposed to have learned in all his attendance to Sunday sermons have failed. He is the true anti-christ, but also the most dangerous one in this world. He is master of the most powerful military in this world, and he is about to initiate havoc to our human brothers and sisters in another land. c.i.
ci - Sorry, that's not at all what is being done. I see Bush, Rumsfeld and others being ridiculed for their beliefs. (No one would do this to Lieberman, but apparently some people think it is okay to target Christians.
PD - I made no effort to "tell you what you think", I commented on what YOU WROTE. If you aren't happy with what you wrote, don't blame me.
I think this notion you put forward that Bush has claimed to be blessed or to be acting based on hearing the voice of God, is baseless. Please offer for us one single citation that claims Bush has said anything remotely resembling your phrase "this President's near-constant infusion of his political positions as ordained".
There is also a strong component of religious fanaticism to Bush's makeup. According to religious scholars, Bush hews to a particularly rigid variant of Christianity and has known connections to strict fundamentalist circles who subscribe to arcane beliefs. Bush once reportedly argued with his mother that all non-Christians are destined for hell. God's blessings are invoked every time he engages in evil doing--so that every bomb dropped, gun fired and weapon used is, according to Bush, doing "god's" work.
dys, That has a familiar ring to it.
c.i.
Maybe religion intruded upon this thread because religion gets brought up so regularly by a president and cabinet in a land which is supposed to be open to all? For instance, the issue of a womans' right to choose gets all tangled up in the doctrine of the rights of the unborn. Yet, the very AG who is a proponent of those unborn rights himself intrudes upon the legal structure of New York, where he has ordered the death penalty be imposed in cases where the prosecution has specifically requested that it not be. And yes, it is connected, as a lot of people know. (And don't forget spending $8000 to blue drape the bosom of a statue - which apparently offendeed no one but him.) And, if the president enrobes himself in a public display of religion, doesn't he then endorse one over all the rest, thus giving the lie to freedom to worship as one pleases? But, by using religion as a cloak, he places any critic in a difficult situation, just like calling people who are truly against war "unpatriotic."
Maybe, for the democrats, we need a person who is far more tolerant and understanding of the nature of man, and, at the same time, capable of multi-tasking while he helps run the government.
I think "multi-tasking" is too complicated a concept for this president. His has a myopic vision, and he has all his soldiers folliwng him in lock step. c.i.
Gee, CI - is that why his eyes are so close together?
Bush, The AntiChrist? Now if that's not over the top, what is? Of course, that would explain the hysterical fear that The End is near. But wait, if Bush is the stalking dog for Christianity, how could he also be satan? Oh. Oh, I get it. Saddam represents the forces of God, and America is the Evil Empire bent on seducing souls into a nuclear hell. Saddam and Bin Laden and the Mulhas were right all along, America IS the Great Satan. No, wait that can't be right can it? Say it isn't so.
