Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

ebrown, The president of the US sits in the White House, not in a church in front of pulpit. Many citizens in the US are not christians, and even those who are do not want our president to "preach" his religion as part of his responsibilities. c.i.

Ebrown, the reason most people on this thread object to Bush's religious beliefs is that he bases his decisions on what he feels his religion wants or teaches. As president, he doesn't have this luxury, it is necessary for him to remain as objective as possible.

Many of my Colorado relatives are fundamentalist Christians. Their faith dictates their lives in almost every way. As evangelicals, they are obligated to 'spread' the word. This is what Bush believes in, that he is obligated to spread Christianity as far as possible. He is one of the most dangerous presidents we've ever had because of his religion.

I think he has a romantic view of leading his country on a new Crusade to spread Christianity to the infidels of the middle east.

Diane-



I don't think that his view is only geared towards the middle east. I think that he wants to spread HIS brand of Christianity to the "infidels" in the US!

when bush places his religion above his duties as president, he should be removed from office.

the president has no higher duty on this earth than the protection of the United States. his religion and thoughts about an after-life predicated upon his earthly actions can be diametric opposites to the safety of this country.

any president who thinks about his/her soul first instead of america is not doing his/her duty as president.

the film "Deterrence" discusses this, and is a fairly good film.

bush is a flaming meglomanic who considers what happens to him as"God's will" and works under the premise of the divine right of kings and divinely ordained governments.

he is a lunatic.

kuvasz, Not only is he a lunatic, but he suffers from illusions of grandeur. c.i.

I don't buy it!

Some of the statements in this thread are extremist and wrong. For example

"Religion has never done anything for mankind but create divisiveness, war, killing, ethnic cleansing, massacres and etc"

This awfully one-sided list that leaves out many other things that came from religion. For example the abolition of slavery, general literacy, the civil rights movement and public hospitals.

Bush has also shown that he can act in the interest of other religions. One week after 9/11 he gave a "Islam is Peace" speech that was pleasantly surprising. I disagree with most of Bush's policies wrong, but he has shown that he can act in the interest of people who don't share his views.

I don't see Bush using the White House as a religious pulpit. The fact that he supports causes generally associated with the religious right is not a violation of his position. The fact that he uses religious "terms" is not either.

I am not at all supporting Bush's presidency. Personally I feel it is disasterous. I only object to people who blame his decisions based on his religion. You are just using the word "religeous" the way Rush Limbaugh uses the word "liberal". This type of sloganism just leads to more stereotypes and doesn't add to public discourse.

If you still see Bush's religion as a problem, there are three possible solutions.

1) We can forbid any Christians from being president. Of course this will cause Constitutional problems.

2) We can fobid a sitting president from using his religion to shape his opinions. But, this is impractical and darn near impossible. Whose opinions are not shaped by their world view? Whether you are Chrisyian, Muslim or Atheist your views are shaped by your "religion".

How would you enforce this? Would you say that any "fundamentalist Christian" leader can not oppose abortion? This is of course ridiculous.

Besides I happen to support many "religious" opinions. For example "blessed are the peacemakers", "heal the sick" and "give to the needy", etc. make pretty good public policy.

I don't want to argue which of these Bush is following. My point is that any president presides using his morals and values. Whether these are "religious" or not is irrelevant.

3) We can whine about the presidents religion and blame any policy that we don't like on it. Of course this is completely legal. But it doesn't seem very effective doesn it.

Come on now! I will be the first to say that the policies of this administration are disasterous. We should oppose his policies.

Attacking his religion does not add to the debate. It only contributes to the stereotypes and bigotry that are all too common in our public discourse.

brown, i disagree, but i am not telling you you are wrong as you have told those of us who don't agree with your viewpoint.

what you have outlined as Bush's pleasantly surprising speech after september 11 is a point well taken, however, it would have been political suicide for him to say anything derisive about Islam. regarding this speech, no doubt, he was well-advised.

and, i don't agree with your point about using the word religion as rush limbaugh uses the word liberal. if it were up to mr. bush he would erase women's right to choose to have an abortion, he would have every nude statue in this country expensively draped (in this case he just put his sidekick, ashcroft, on nudity detail). the list goes on.

bush is merely a figurehead. he says what will be political expedient for his career but he is pushing a religious-conservative agenda.

COMMENT:

I agree there has been some hyperbole expressed in this thread -- but to suppose that the abolition of slavery was something that happened because of religion, is absurd.

The Christian religion dominated our country at the time of the abolition of slavery -- and the Christian god is on record as saying that there is nothing wrong or immoral about slavery. According to the Christian god, slavery and trafficking in slaves is an allowable activity.

Slavery in America was abolished despite religion -- not because of it.

With a subject as likely to raise emotional reactions as slavery, it would probably be wise to take care to be 100% factual. When you say things like




can you be a little more specific, like showing us scripture that says there's "nothing wrong" with slavery?

I know there is reference to slavery in the bible. Arguments can be made that the prophets of the day wrote according to the mores of the day, but that is an entirely different subject. You made a specific accusation. Back it up.

Brown


Check your history books and you will see that is true. Both today and for at least 2000 years past.



How did religion aid in the abolition of slavery? The fact is that religion keeps people in slavery with it's dogma.

On balance the damage that religion does far outweighs the little good it supposedly does.

Now I am not saying people can not believe in their religion. However, I do believe that people in power have no right to impose their religious beliefs on the nation though law or dictate. That is what Bush attempts to do

Au,

Broad statements like yours show a very one-sided view. They very rarely hold up under any inspection with the true facts.

Religion has often given the inspiration and hope to fuel very important social changes.

The Quakers were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. In college I did research on the Pensylvania Quakers as they formed their doctrine against slavery in the mid 1700's. This anti-slavery doctrine was mainly based on biblical and religious arguments. They went on to play a key role in the famed "underground railroad" that brought slaves to freedom. They were joined by other religious groups including the Methodists and other.

A fiery ordained Baptist preacher led the Civil Rights movement in the 60's with words like this:

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
-Martin Luther King Junior.

There are many other examples including social welfare programs, opposition to child abuse (try reading about the fight to install child labor laws) and the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Like most social forces, religion can be used for good or evil. Religion has been a powerful part of our history on both sides.

Your broad statements against religion are false.

Religion has often served as a powerful motivating force for good. You should not let your religious (or anti-religious) views cloud your judgement.

In the light of Bush's statement before the National Association of Evangelists during the election: "All my life I have believed I will play an important role in Armageddon...", let's just say I hope his religeon doesn't dictate policy.

Beedle, WELCOME to A2K. Never heard of Bush's statement at the NAE, but don't doubt it one bit. c.i.

Beedle - PLEASE tell me you are kidding!

The constitution prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. It has not done that. So, technically, church and state are still "separated'.

Any person, including a president, will always be influenced to some degree by his/her religious/spiritual beliefs. In Bush' case, it is the DEGREE to which he allows his governing decisions to be influenced that I am uncomfortable with.

His stand on stem cell research is a dead giveaway. This, before the economy and the war, may ultimately prove to be his tragic legacy. Mankind is now on the verge of successfully dealing with diseases and infirmities through genetics. The US, as the richest nation on the planet, bears a responsibility to humankind to encourage and fund this research. Yet Bush stands in the way because of his religious beliefs, or even worse, because of political pandering to right wing extremists.

His call for government support of faith-based charities concerns me. The hungry, the homeless, the abused, all need food, shelter, and comfort unconditionally. Offering support within the framework of any religious beliefs is inappropriate. Besides, how will we determine which "religions" qualify? What about Wicken ? Satanism ? They claim to be religions.

During the election, Bush was offered the opportunity to speak before a group of very conservative, supportive Republicans. He refused. The group was The Log Cabin Republicans - its members are gay.

How much are the decisions of this president influenced by his religion ?

Perhaps too much.

Beedle, May I suggest that you post a link to support your statement? It helps to minimize skepticism and challenges, and increases credibility. c.i.

Yeah, beedle - you almost have to link that one - or lose googobs of credulity.

brown, no doubt about what you are saying about different religious groups aiding in wiping out social ills. however, angie has brought up an interesting point that it is the degree in which bush pushes his faith on the american public that is disturbing.

here is quote from bush's faith based initiative in tennessee:

"Government, of course, must be involved and will be involved. We just reformed our welfare in America and we've helped a lot of people. Yet, even as we work to improve the welfare laws, we know that welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit. "

here is the link to the speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-1.html

any president is going to push their own agenda. this is understandable, but if you read this speech it crosses a line between his bullying the skeptics into believing that the only way to resolve social ills is through religion. he laces the terrorism threat into the speech, thereby playing on the weakest aspect of those who don't want to think for themselves by using fear.

His highness doesn't live by our constitution that separates church and state - and other international organizations and world opinion. c.i.