Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Snood and Max's dad,

That's the way it seems to me. Jesus and all he represents sucks. I've never understood why a man who willingly chose to martyr himself in order to rescue others (when they didn't need rescuing or they could have taken care of themselves) is any example for us or our children to follow. Guilt over another man's decisions is not productive in my book. I prefer to think for myself. And let others answer for their own decisions. GW and others, may not agree that I (or the Iraqi people) can, or should be allowed to.

It's not true, btw, that I don't have a belief system. I do. It's a belief in man's ability to work things out for himself. You don't like my belief and I don't like yours. But I hope we won't need to convince the other of the truth of our beliefs in order to be good friends. I fear this is not the case with Bush, Ashcroft and the like. Oh well, I don't want to be friends with them anyway.

:-)

0 Replies

hazlitt: I suppose that you could read it in that context.

I agree that there has been the greatest outcry amongst the Islam clerics in this country, but I believe that Franklin was merely voicing his frustration at the virtual dearth of an outcry amongst the clerics of the Middle Eastern countries and those around the world.

I believe that it is an accurate statement in this context, by an act of commission we have been attacked by a group of people adhering to a faith, and by an act of omission a greater number of that group of people adhering to that same faith have failed to renounce it.

If he is correct, we should be aware of how we are perceived by others and if "The peace of Islam" extends to those who do not adhere to the faith.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why do I feel so sad every time I think of Washington?

Because you are paying attention, that's why Hazlitt.

Because of the presence of GWB's faith, his policies will allow people of all faiths to practice their particular flavor of religion without fear of governmental reprisals.

Even the most jaded amongst you have to see the utility of that.

0 Replies

Assertions of Belief

Maxsdadeo wrote:

Lola, it isn't their perspective at all, it is God's perspective. The old saw about them being 10 commandments, not 10 suggestions is certainly applicable here.

One may choose to say that they are not subject to God's law just as they may choose to say that they are not subject to the laws of gravity, both put you in the same result, however.

Max, The problem with statements like this is that there is no evidence to back them up. You have every right to believe these things if you please and to assert that others must also believe them, but such statements are nothing more than assertions. This is true no matter how many times you make them or how many novel ways you find to express them.

Also, comparing belief in divine laws and the laws of gravity is like compairing apples and oranges. The two are not comparable.

If obedience to the ten commandments could be shown to be incumbent upon humanity in the same way that the law of gravity can be demonstrated, then there would be general agreement that the commandments ought to be obeyed (which is not the same as saying that they would indeed be obeyed).

0 Replies

Quote:

The problem with statements like this is that there is no evidence to back them up.

Is not the assertion, "I am not subject to God's laws" equally fallacious?

One can assert that they are not subject to Gravity, and it is easily observable that they are wrong.

One can assert that they are not subject to God's law, but can they prove it?

One can assert that they are subject to God's law, but can they prove it?

Neither can prove it but one thing is certain,
one is right, and one is wrong.

0 Replies

Max on GWB's faith

Max wrote:

Because of the presence of GWB's faith, his policies will allow people of all faiths to practice their particular flavor of religion without fear of governmental reprisals.

Max, you are certainly an optimistic fellow.

I think the problem here is that in the recent past, as the society has become more pluralistic, the fundamentalist christians, who have become the right wing political christians, felt put upon as the secular government felt it necessary, in light of the constitution, to limit the freedoms of some christians in order that the rights of some non-christians might not be infringed. The fundamentalists, have insinuated themselves into being a big part of a political majority, and have elected a fundamentalist president and control important posts in the congress. They are trying to take back lost ground, regardless of the rights of others, and also to dip into the national treasury for their benefit.

On questions of rights: school prayer, abortion, and similar issues, it is obvious that no solution will please everyone. I have no idea where the balance will finally be struck. It will probably always be a moving balance.

I personally think that fundamentalism, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, are all exactly the same, and their rise does not bode well for the world.

0 Replies

And I agree Hazlett. I am frightened by fundamentalists of any type. Literal thinking is limited and can be very destructive when carried to it's literal conclusion.

0 Replies

God's Laws

Max wrote:

Is not the assertion, "I am not subject to God's laws" equally fallacious?

Max, The assertion that we are subject of God's Laws assumes several things: that there is a God; that God is interested in humankind; that God is the source of moral law; and that God expects humankind to obey those laws. Not one of these propositions is demonstrable. So, to question the validity of the original assertion, is certainly not a position to be disrespected. From the standpoint of the logic and the evidence involved, I think it is the more respectable of the two positions.

I recall a time when I was attached to the idea that there must be a God as a first cause. I just couldn't get away from it. But even then I realized that even if I needed to believe in the vague concept of a God, I still had no way of knowing anything about the nature of God. This is something that most Christins, and other religionists too, do not seem to think about. Their religion is made up of hundreds, maybe thousands of propositions. Everyone of them is just as speculative at the idea that there is a God.

The most reliable method we have for attaining knowledge is the Scientific Method. Granting all the difficulties of getting verifiable knowledge, this method had still given us a fair volume of propositions upon which we have general agreement. The obvious problem with the S. Method is that it does not help us with our moral problems. For this we must invent God, or fall back on our own devices. If we opt for God, there is no general agreement on what god is like or what his laws are, so we are in effect stumbling around in the dark, thinking up laws and attributing them to God, using them when needed and ignoring them when they are inconvenient. If we opt to go with human devises, there is no general agreement on what they ought to be, so we stumble around in the dark inventing moral behaviors as needed and casting them aside when outworn. If we go with God, we allow ourselves the illusion of cetainty. It is this illusion that is so attractive. But that's all it is, and attractive allusion.

Well, Max, you are a great interlocutor, and this has been fun, but it's bed time.

0 Replies

Reply to Lola
Yes, Lola, the most dangerous person on earth is the one who believes he/she has the direct line to God, knows, therefore, what God's will is, and is willing to carry it out. Given that this person has the power to enforce his concept of God's will, human suffering will result in direct ratio to the amount of that power.

What seems to happen is that someone catches the vision of paradise on earth. This can be Hitler, Stalin, or some devout soul on his knees seeking God's will. Once they have the vision, it is obvious that the most wonderful thing they can do for humanity if to bring the vision to fruition. The problem is that it always turns out that there are several millions of people who don't like the vision. Well, it is after all a small thing that these millions must be eliminated so that the rest of humankind can enjoy paradise. Finally, as the dead pile up, someone says enough, and it's all over for a while.

0 Replies

Re: Reply to Lola

Hazlitt wrote:

Yes, Lola, the most dangerous person on earth is the one who believes he/she has the direct line to God, knows, therefore, what God's will is, and is willing to carry it out. Given that this person has the power to enforce his concept of God's will, human suffering will result in direct ratio to the amount of that power.

What seems to happen is that someone catches the vision of paradise on earth. This can be Hitler, Stalin, or some devout soul on his knees seeking God's will. Once they have the vision, it is obvious that the most wonderful thing they can do for humanity if to bring the vision to fruition. The problem is that it always turns out that there are several millions of people who don't like the vision. Well, it is after all a small thing that these millions must be eliminated so that the rest of humankind can enjoy paradise. Finally, as the dead pile up, someone says enough, and it's all over for a while.

I tend to think that a much more dangerous individual is the one who acknowledges no higher power in this universe than that of his/her own intellect.

And Max- as to Bush's faith having utility with respect to others' practice of theirs, this is definitely debatable considering the fact that many of us doubt the man himself, and therefore, the way he chooses to manifest his faith. In other words, I don't see him as humbly seeking the will of God - I see him as very arrogantly seeking to exercise his own.

0 Replies

snood- Interesting idea. Could you please elaborate!

Quote:

I tend to think that a much more dangerous individual is the one who acknowledges no higher power in this universe than that of his/her own intellect.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

snood- Interesting idea. Could you please elaborate!

Quote:
I tend to think that a much more dangerous individual is the one who acknowledges no higher power in this universe than that of his/her own intellect.

Not real complicated IMO - I just happen to be of the belief that man is not the highest power in the universe, and I am very dubious of anyone who thinks he is.

0 Replies

snood- I understand that you believe that there is a higher power then yourself in the universe. What I wanted you to explain is why you think that a person who relies on his/her own intellect rather than a higher power is more dangerous. And what do you mean by "dangerous"? Dangerous to whom or what?

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

snood- I understand that you believe that there is a higher power then yourself in the universe. What I wanted you to explain is why you think that a person who relies on his/her own intellect rather than a higher power is more dangerous. And what do you mean by "dangerous"? Dangerous to whom or what?

I was replying to a post wherein someone had expressed fear of anyone thinking they had a direct line to God. What I was and am saying is I think a man that believes he knows better than God, or believes in no God save himself, is more dangerous. It is simply a matter of opinion, at bottom line. In my opinion, people who believe in no power higher than their own mind are handicapped. I understand that everyone doesn't share this view; I'm fine with that - I don't expect anyone who doesn't already believe in such things would ascribe to practices such as seeking guidance from God. Certainly not as a result of some argument I made here or anywhere else. To me a man who believes his own mind is his ultimate authority is arrogant and blind, and to be dealt with cautiously.

Phoenix, Your asking me to "explain" further seems just an invitation to debate. What I was saying seems to me self evident.
But this involves faith - and faith really can't be argued; one has faith in something or one doesn't. If you have found that you can only have faith in yourself and nothing else, more power to you. That just simply happens not to be the case with me.

0 Replies

EXTREMELY WELL EXPRESSED, snood.

Your assessment of Phoenix's rationale though is perhaps misplaced.

Although she professes to not believe in God, she has been far more congenial and tolerant of those who are, as well as expressing a sincere interest in what it is that makes us Christians "tick" than the great majority of others on this forum and elsewhere.

At least that has been my previous experience with the lovely lady.

0 Replies

Snood and Phoenix,

I wonder if what is most dangerous and fearful for most of us is not whether someone believes in a higher power, but rather how humbly one seeks for guidance. This would be the way I read what Hazlett said. And I read it in what Snood said too. I think we get off track when we talk about belief in God/not God rather than that indicated in the title of this thread. GW's version of God is not humble, nor is Falwell's, or the others named. John Ashcroft has the belief that God told him what to do and he therefore is correct.

I've never understood the dichotomy drawn between those who seek God's will and those who seek their own. Ultimately, it seems to me, a person must decide for himself what he thinks God is telling him/her to do, or what she thinks she is telling herself. So it's always seemed to me that we're really all depending on ourselves, our own judgement. I worry about and am very frightened by those who, without humility claim it's God who told them what to do, when really it is them telling us what they think God said.

I, like Hazlett like to turn to science in my search for what I believe I should do. And I especially like science because it is by definition about looking for a way to prove yourself wrong and thereby finding a better, more workable theory. But in a way, Snood's version of belief in God is very much the same. Or at least it's the same in the openness we both try to employ about the possibility there could be a glitch in one's own understanding.

It's the smugness GW has about his righteousness that is so inappropriate when he lets this belief guide public policy. It is dangerous and should be fought against. Or at least that's the way it seems to me.

0 Replies

Reply to Snood

Snood wrote:

I tend to think that a much more dangerous individual is the one who acknowledges no higher power in this universe than that of his/her own intellect.

Snood, It makes no difference whether the person believes in a higher power or not. The person is a human being, and, make no mistake, all human beings, ourselves included, are capable of the unimaginable and the unspeakable. Religion serves only to mask these human characteristics and sometimes to justify them: that is, "We are eliminating the enemies of the one true God;" or "We are protecting God's kingdom on earth by burning these heretics at the stake;" or "By publicly executing this unbeliever, we are saving those who might be tempted to embrace unbelief," etc., etc. Stalin is the secular version of this same thing. In western society this tendency ,within religion, pretty much ended with the inquisition and the aftermath of the reformation. The grand culmination was the 30 Years War. Following that Europe pretty much said "no" to religious leaders having secular power, and tolerance became the rule of the new liberal governments that were evolving. The big truth that was recognized was that there was no way to reach general agreement on religious questions, so tolerance was called for. In the U.S. a part of this evolution was the separation of church and state. In the current social and political milieu, we would seem to be in full retreat from the separation principle, and to be moving in the direction of the pre-Thirty Years War state of affairs.

Make no mistake, we have good people who are religious and we have bad ones. The exact same is true of secular people. The idea that a good morality can only come from religion is a delusion. Whether we are religious or not, we find ways of living together, make useful rules, and create a society because we must. There is no other way.

0 Replies

Lola, I like what you say, and think we are probably in agreement, or in near agreement, on most of these questions.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Lola, it isn't their perspective at all, it is God's perspective. The old saw about them being 10 commandments, not 10 suggestions is certainly applicable here.

One may choose to say that they are not subject to God's law just as they may choose to say that they are not subject to the laws of gravity, both put you in the same result, however.

Obviously Max thinks that because she has decided that this cartoon god exists -- we all have to think that way. And she thinks that because she cringes at the feet of this barbarian, we all have to also.

No problem.

I have absolutely no problem at all with Max feeling that way.

She is no threat to me.

But Bush feeling that way -- surrounded by a bunch of other nuts who think that way -- bothers me.

That is, after all, what this thread is all about.

0 Replies

Hazlitt-
in the interest of brevity and simplicity, I'll try to distill my main disagreement with what you posted. Basically, you say it doesn't matter whether one believes in God or not, because what it all comes down to is trying to live together and make society work. In my experience, whether or not an individual believes in a power higher than himself definitely matters in personal relationships, and in the way an individual perceives himself in relation to the rest of the world.

Whew! Beyond that, I'll have to leave the very profound debate to others.

0 Replies

Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know