Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

I'll try to reply to the needlessly derisive pokes at what a person believes. It would be easy to argue heatedly about this subject without ever resorting to calling someone's God a "cartoon", or a "barbarian", wouldn't it? In my estimation, such rhetoric is more indicative of the personal issues of those hurling it, than those they hurl it at.
For the last time, please try to respect others' feelings about their chosen faith. I think it's no less insulting than if I were to try to tear down all your beliefs about your mother. You might think she's a virtuous, rock of courage. What would you think if I carried on conversation as if she were a worthless whore? To me, it's the same thing. Out of respect for you, regardless of the true nature of your mom, I wouldn't call her a whore. Can't you all extend the same courtesy for whom we call God?

0 Replies

I understand where you're coming from, Snood -- really I do. But for many god is not real, no more real than, say, Cinderella. So once people grow up and get into discussions like this (and granted these debates can get mean!), those for whom god does not exist generally accord the other side the same courtesy that the other side exhibits. At the moment, the ruling faction is riddled with god-believers and, most terrifyingly, a government which promulgates these beliefs. Understand, if you will, that you might have the same reaction we are having if we demanded that you not laugh at us for having a president who believes in Cinderella, talks about praying to her, and insists that it's important to do so. What needs to happen here, for the sanity of both sides of this issue, is for both sides to get together and pledge never to elect a government which insists on one side or the other. No one jumped all over Clinton for his beliefs (though they had at him continually about other stuff) even though he is a committed Christian. Why? Because he didn't shove it down our throats. Ah yes, perhaps a bad metaphor in this case, but you get what I mean!

0 Replies

[quote="snood
I'll try to reply to the needlessly derisive pokes at what a person believes. It would be easy to argue heatedly about this subject without ever resorting to calling someone's God a "cartoon", or a "barbarian", wouldn't it?[/quote]

It might be, Snood, but it would not be especially honest if what the person actually thinks about the god is that it is a "cartoon" and is "barbaric."

I consider the god of the bible to be a murderous, vindictive, vengeful, comically tyrannical, mean-spirited, quick-to-anger, petty little cartoon god -- and one of the most barbaric gods ever dreamed up by humans.

Why do you suggest that because I tell people what I think -- I am doing something wrong?

Why are you folks always so anxious to tell us that we have to accept "In god we trust" on our money -- and "...under god..." in the pledge we make to our nation -- yet the moment we say something you folks don't like, it becomes a question of poor etiquette and a boorish personality?

I have a right to give my opinions -- and I do not have to temper them because you people are terrified of this idiotic concept of reality.

Quote:

In my estimation, such rhetoric is more indicative of the personal issues of those hurling it, than those they hurl it at.

Thank you for sharing that.

Quote:

For the last time, please try to respect others' feelings about their chosen faith.

How about you respecting my right to have my say!

Quote:

I think it's no less insulting than if I were to try to tear down all your beliefs about your mother. You might think she's a virtuous, rock of courage. What would you think if I carried on conversation as if she were a worthless whore? To me, it's the same thing. Out of respect for you, regardless of the true nature of your mom, I wouldn't call her a whore. Can't you all extend the same courtesy for whom we call God?

Really stupid comment, Snood. But you are entitled to be stupid once in a while -- especially since you are very intelligent most of the time.

I know some things about this god of yours. There are all sorts of books written about it -- including one that claims to tell all about the god. And each one -- but especially the Bible -- describes a god that is murderous, vindictive, vengeful, comically tyrannical, mean-spirited, quick-to-anger, petty and barbaric.

In the meantime, you do not know one thing about my mother -- who is dead, by the way. So for you to call her a whore -- based on absolutely nothing is bizarre. I am not calling your god murderous, vindictive, vengeful, comically tyrannical, mean-spirited, quick-to-anger, petty, or barbaric based on nothing. I am basing that opinion of lots of descriptions.

And except for the fact that you folks are terrified of this cartoon god -- you would see it the same way I do.

0 Replies

BTW that post is NOT off topic. These indeed are some of the reasons why I am concerned that Bush's faith inappropiately dictates policy.

0 Replies

Snood, Peace!

Tartarin, like your post.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, Snood -- really I do. But for many god is not real, no more real than, say, Cinderella. So once people grow up and get into discussions like this (and granted these debates can get mean!), those for whom god does not exist generally accord the other side the same courtesy that the other side exhibits. At the moment, the ruling faction is riddled with god-believers and, most terrifyingly, a government which promulgates these beliefs. Understand, if you will, that you might have the same reaction we are having if we demanded that you not laugh at us for having a president who believes in Cinderella, talks about praying to her, and insists that it's important to do so. What needs to happen here, for the sanity of both sides of this issue, is for both sides to get together and pledge never to elect a government which insists on one side or the other. No one jumped all over Clinton for his beliefs (though they had at him continually about other stuff) even though he is a committed Christian. Why? Because he didn't shove it down our throats. Ah yes, perhaps a bad metaphor in this case, but you get what I mean!

I fail to understand why one's feelings about this present administration (and anyone who has paid attention knows I'm no fan) have anything to do with the courtesy or lack of courtesy we accord each other here in this forum. And that's all I meant - just because you (probably rightfully) have ill feelings toward Bush and his mixing of Conservative politics with his Christianity, that doesn't mean it's okay to crap on everyone you come accross that's Christian.

And after all, when someone is offended by something I say, I will at least pause to consider their complaint. The attitude with some here is "tough **** - get over it!" What has any Christian on this forum done to deserve that?

0 Replies

Do you mean me, Snood?

0 Replies

this topic, this forum, is vasty divergent from mainstream america in that it is not, by overwhelming majority, christian. I think it is nigh impossible for the ordinary christian to recognize the constant barrage received by the non-christian living in this society. The overwhelming assumption that being american means being christian is both degrading and demeaning and, once again is CONSTANT in everyday life. If the christians of america, of the world, ask for respect they are unlikely to get it from the very persons that they deny respect to. The example that comes to my mind is Jimmy Carter, a man that i respect greatly and showed tremendous respect for ALL citizens yet he was a devout Baptist. Mr George W Bush has repeatedly thrust his religious agenda upon this nation resulting in a fevered angst amongst those of us that value freedom of thought and belief.

0 Replies

Thanks, Dys. Very well expressed. Carter's my main man, too. I have, also, great respect for his proven adherence to the teachings of Christ. Neither Carter nor Christ get a whole lot of respect from the most vocal "Christians."

0 Replies

On a more personal note fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward, the John Ashcroft.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

this topic, this forum, is vasty divergent from mainstream america in that it is not, by overwhelming majority, christian. I think it is nigh impossible for the ordinary christian to recognize the constant barrage received by the non-christian living in this society. The overwhelming assumption that being american means being christian is both degrading and demeaning and, once again is CONSTANT in everyday life. If the christians of america, of the world, ask for respect they are unlikely to get it from the very persons that they deny respect to. The example that comes to my mind is Jimmy Carter, a man that i respect greatly and showed tremendous respect for ALL citizens yet he was a devout Baptist. Mr George W Bush has repeatedly thrust his religious agenda upon this nation resulting in a fevered angst amongst those of us that value freedom of thought and belief.

All of which still does not address my assertion that your abuse at the hands of America's Christians at large does not give you license to abuse Christians here. By that logic I could endlessly heap invective on all the whites here for the frustration I have living here as a black.

0 Replies

Maxsdadeo- Egads, a lot has gone on since I posted last. Thank you for the compliment.

Although I do not believe in God, I do believe that each person has the right to believe in what he pleases- as long as he does not attempt to foist it on me. Someone gave the example of Jimmy Carter- He was a devout gentleman who never let his personal beliefs interfere with his public office.

President Bush and his appointees wear their religion on their sleeves, and shout it from the rooftops. I believe that Bush is attempting to insinuate his particular beliefs on all Americans, and I consider that evil!

0 Replies

Reply to Dys
Dys, you are absolutely right about what it feels like to be non-christian in this country now that Bush is president. The awful thing is that I've never felt this before. I've never considered the government to be hostile to me, but I feel that way now.

The country is going deeper into debt every day, and Bush is handing out money to people who think Jesus cures drug addiction.

Tartarn, I can't figure out what Snood was all about in that last post. I thought you were presenting some ideas in your Cinderella post that might lead to understanding, but he seems to have somehow taken it as a vicious attack. Go figure?

0 Replies

Hazlitt- I get it. I understand where both Snood and Tartarin were coming from. Actually, the Cinderella example is a sound one, coming from a perspective of non-belief. To Tartarin, the rationale for a God is no more believable than a rationale for Cinderalla.

To a believer, I could see where a person could take umbrage. Cinderella is a child's fairy tale. By connecting Cinderella with God to a believer, this shows disrespect to something that is of primary importance in a believer's life.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Hazlitt- I get it. I understand where both Snood and Tartarin were coming from. Actually, the Cinderella example is a sound one, coming from a perspective of non-belief. To Tartarin, the rationale for a God is no more believable than a rationale for Cinderalla.

To a believer, I could see where a person could take umbrage. Cinderella is a child's fairy tale. By connecting Cinderella with God to a believer, this shows disrespect to something that is of primary importance in a believer's life.

I am an agnostic. I don't have the slightest idea of whether or not there is a GOD or not.

But why is everyone so concerned with the feelings of Christians (and other "believers") when most of the "believers" have absolutely no concern for the feelings and regards of "non-believers." (AND OF "BELIVERS" WHO BELIEVE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY FROM THEM!)

Why are we even discussing this?

If a person, such as myself, has read the Bible and determined that the god described in that book is a barbaric monster -- why on Earth should I have to be silent about that opinion just because it might offend the sensibilities of some "believer?" Especially since the believer often is not interested in extending such concern to me.

0 Replies

I don't know if Snood was after me, Hazlitt but I hope not. I've been an admirer of Snood since we first met in these pages!

Phoenix -- The fact is that the belief in god is no problem whatsoever as long as it is not accepted as The Belief. The umbrage a believer takes is understandable but only engages my sympathy if he shows a willingness to keep his belief private. Indeed it would be disrespectful to challenge publicly an acquaintance's private belief. That's the core of the problem -- the problem which is the subject of this thread. Public belief. Government belief. However one expresses one's belief in the Christian god, one makes non-believers uncomfortable, feel disrespected. And the same happens, as you point out, when the non-believer looks for a comparison to illustrate the extent of that discomfort. Which is precisely why private religious beliefs should not be a part of public life, however strong they may be in one's private life. However, many American Christians are appalled at statements of that kind, feeling themselves entitled to state holidays at Christmas and Easter, public displays of religious icons. Non-believers really need to find a way to counter the assumptions that America is, in that way, a Christian country. Believers would do well to pull in their horns, commit to wholehearted but private expressions of belief, or find themselves having to put up with challenges from the secular world.

0 Replies

I do agree with you, Frank Apisa.

0 Replies

Snood- Here I go again:

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.

Let us take this statement down to a most basic concept. You don't know me, but you do know that I don't believe in a higher power. Therefore, without knowing anything else about me you consider me a "dangerous" individual.

Do you know what they call this type of thinking?

PREJUDICE!

0 Replies

New Iraq is a good example of church/state separation need
The new Iraq, with recent massive demonstrations in the streets by various religious groups, is the perfect example of why there should be a separation of church (Mosque) and state. These Shiite demonstrations were preceded by the assassinations of Mullahs by power competing Shiite groups.

These groups, I think, are competing for power and economic dominance over and beyond their religious beliefs. Preferential religion in government always provides power and economic benefits to the dominant religious group, and that is Iraq's history under Saddam's dominance. Saddam's Iraq professed to be a secular government but, in fact, it favored the Sunni moslems over the Shiite and Kurd minorities

These competing religious groups will tear Iraq apart and the achievement of a peaceful and economically healthy country. The opportunity to achieve such goals are more likely under a secular government.

-----BumbleBeeBoogie

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Snood- Here I go again:

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.

Let us take this statement down to a most basic concept. You don't know me, but you do know that I don't believe in a higher power. Therefore, without knowing anything else about me you consider me a "dangerous" individual.

Do you know what they call this type of thinking?

PREJUDICE!

Geez, Phoenix - you just wanna fight, or what? My comments about people making derisive comments toward
Christians and God in general were not directed at Tartarin or You, and I suspect the people who were being referred to know who they are.

My comments about my caution toward people who trust no other God but themselves comes from what I understand about arrogance and egocentrism, and humility. I have simply experienced more well-grounded healthy people who have a faith in God. Why you want to take this as a personal attack against you is beyond me.

Now if I had said, "People who believe only in themselves are placing their faith in a goofy blob of flesh and electrical synapses", or "atheists believe in nothing more than a lost sack of confused tissue", I could see where you might be offended. That's the kind of thing that was said about Christians - that their God was a "cartoon" and a "barbarian" - that they were "stupid" and "gullible" to believe as they do. I saw that as gratuitous and needlessly mean-spirited. I still do.

0 Replies

Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know