0
   

Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:01 pm
Good point, BBB. The problem lies with those who believe church and state should work closely together and or be the same. See many Arab countries, and the right wing in Israel. Not to mention in this country...

For what it's worth: Two objections people who voted for Bush(people I know personally or hear, as I did today, on talk shows) seem to express these days are 1) thepatriotact thepatriotact thepatriotact and 2) the slightly embarrassing constant references to god and prayer. Then another surprise: 3) Pre-emptive strike and the neo-cons.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:06 pm
Snood- Naw- I don't want to fight. I think that you just did not realize what you were implying. I used me as an example, only 'cause I was the handiest one around. I did not think that you were picking on me.

Quote:
I have simply experienced more well-grounded healthy people who have a faith in God.


Can't argue with that, if that is your personal experience. Funny thing, I have noticed the opposite!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:09 pm
The intensity of the debate answer's my original question
As the originator of this topic: "Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy?" I've observed that the posters cannot stay on topic for very long without the tone and content of responses reflecting anger and rejections of other's beliefs.

I suggest that this very example demonstrates why an emphasis of a religious faith, or any faith, tends to end up being devisive and non-productive for the overall well being of the government, the governed, and civilization.

Governmental bodies might well heed the wise advice of "do not go there."

BumbleBeeBoogie
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:21 pm
Re: The intensity of the debate answer's my original questio
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
As the originator of this topic: "Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy?" I've observed that the posters cannot stay on topic for very long without the tone and content of responses reflecting anger and rejections of other's beliefs.

I suggest that this very example demonstrates why an emphasis of a religious faith, or any faith, tends to end up being devisive and non-productive for the overall well being of the government, the governed, and civilization.

Governmental bodies might well heed the wise advice of "do not go there."

BumbleBeeBoogie


I apologize for my contributions to the straying. As to Bush, I think I could do without all his sanctimonious sounding pronouncements, I think it does warp the public perception of the roles of church and state, and I think that he and Ashcroft may very well be unduly permeating national policy with personal beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:23 pm
Whew, Snood! Glad we're not enemies!

But I'd add to BBB that the anger thing seems to have accelerated throughout the political discussions. Anger means we're operating close to the bone and perhaps should stay there for a while and figure out where the anger comes from. Then we'll have a better sense of how to respect the other.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:26 pm
Re: The intensity of the debate answer's my original questio
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I've observed that the posters cannot stay on topic for very long without the tone and content of responses reflecting anger and rejections of other's beliefs.


Yeah, one thing's for sure; considering the amount of baggage some folks bring to the issue, they intend their visit to be a long one.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:30 pm
Re: The intensity of the debate answer's my original questio
timberlandko wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I've observed that the posters cannot stay on topic for very long without the tone and content of responses reflecting anger and rejections of other's beliefs.


Yeah, one thing's for sure; considering the amount of baggage some folks bring to the issue, they intend their visit to be a long one.


Yeah, and if participants emulate moderators, we can expect the personal snippiness to continue, also.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:31 pm
Tartarin- Agree. Personally, I am much more into building bridges than erecting fences. I think that it is so important to know where the other person is coming from, so that even if we can't agree, we can empathize. And empathy is the beginning of understanding.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:48 pm
Quote:
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.



Well it cannot be me, because I have never made any derisive comments toward GOD. In this thread, all I've commented on is the cartoon god of the Bible -- but anyone who thinks that is GOD really has to explain himself.

Talk about arrogance, Snood, if that is what you are saying, that is arrogance on a galactic scale. Your "beliefs" do not constitute reality -- and I certainly am not obliged to accept them as my own.

Also, as an agnostic, I cannot be the person to whom you referred as "trusting no God but themselves."

I do not know if there is a GOD or not -- but if there is, I certainly have no quarrel with that GOD. And I respect any GOD that might exist enough so that I would not thing or "believe" the GOD is anything remotely like that creature from the Bible.

In any case, Snood, instead of beating around the bush and hinting at things-- something I've never seen you do before -- why not discuss this openly.


Quote:
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.



If that is your take on the matter -- you should be able to say it using those exact words. And if anyone is offended by it, let them deal with it.

I think the god of the Bible is a barbaric, murderous monster. I don't know how to impart that thought without using those words. If you can actually say what I have said there using other words -- and still get across what I am trying to say -- please share it. I will consider it.

I don't think it can be done.

Quote:
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.



I remember the ue of "cartoon" and "barbarian" -- but I do not recall where the "gullible" and "stupid" came in. If by any chance I use those last two, I apologize.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 06:35 pm
By Lee Mcauliffe Rambo, Atlanta Journal Constitution

From the beginning, President Bush insisted that the war on terrorism was not a war against the world's 1 billion Muslims.

But, as he consoled and rallied the nation, the president increasingly relied on a rhetoric favored by evangelical Christians, at once his biggest supporters and Islam's harshest critics. Now Saddam Hussein has been ousted, and those same evangelicals are poised to claim Iraq as their mission field. Among them: Several hundred volunteers, including Georgians, from the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination and the only major religious group to support the war in Iraq.

"Muslims all over the world are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists," said Rawdan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.
0 Replies
 
Hazlitt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 07:00 pm
Re. anger over religious comment
I'd like all to know that I feel no anger toward anyone over the issues discussed on this thread. Questions of religion and politics have been with us for a long time, and they will be forever into the future. We will not settle anything here. All we can do is try to help one another understand the issues and feeling involved.

Personally, I have always tried to stay away from inflammatory language. If anything I've said had been interpreted as angry or inflammatory, I regret that.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 07:51 pm
Listen, I agree in large part with Frank Apisa, but don't want to see Snood dissed about something he feels strongly about. This is perhaps one of the most important, difficult issues of the Bush administration. Though I'm not sure what Snood is saying or believing...

I just read that Bush-Rove have accumulated $200M for a media campaign blitz so it's important for us to work through these issues and be really clear about what we're voting for or campaigning against. Truce with respect to each other; all out war with respect to the upcoming vote and the extent to which Bush represents a violation of the separation of church and state. Could we continue this vital discussion without accusing each other of various idiocies? Let's take our gloves off and beat up on the politicians, but let's keep our hands off each other, okay?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 07:55 pm
I'm for that.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 09:42 pm
I'm with snood.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 09:51 pm
I'm in.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 10:07 pm
But only if frank stops saying I look like a girl.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 04:43 am
I'm with you all. Maxsdadeo- Is "adorable" ok? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 07:47 am
Hey! Look what I found! The topic!

Quote:
Although the president of these United States repeatedly assured the world that our wars are against terror - not Islam - the message doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Could it be that in addition to President Bush's inability to keep the idea that he may have been Chosen to his own damn self, Muslims familiar with repressive countries ruled by fundamentalism might be a tad concerned about the born-again Christian president's growing religious influence in the United States?

In an apparent effort to combat Homeland Security deficiencies, the House has authorized Bush to declare a national day of humility and submission in order to get on You Know Who's good side.

According to H. Res. 153, there is a "public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home".

We wonder, did the bill's author negotiate these terms personally; was Jesus involved or did President Bush use his personal relationship with the Lord to get this on the table?

As of this posting, President Bush hasn't made his declaration. Presumably he's awaiting Authorization.

Meanwhile, religious coercion has made its way into the battlefields of Iraq, where an Army chaplain at Camp Bushmaster was inexplicably given control of a 500 gallon pool of clean water. American soldiers living in the dust, smoke and grime for over two weeks could only gain entry to this treasure if they agreed to be baptized.

"You have to be aggressive to help people find themselves in God," explained Army chaplain, Josh Llano, a southern evangelical Baptist.

Aggressive indeed. If the Unsaved prefer filth over Christian salvation, Llano is not above holding out food to bring the heathens to Christ.

"There is no fruit out here, and I have a stash of raisins, juice boxes and fruit rolls to pull out," he said.

Those who couldn't catch the show could still catch the Spirit by reading A Christian's Duty in a Time of War. In addition to daily prayers for the president, the books contained postcards for soldiers to sign and send to the White House confirming that they'd said their prayers.

Bet that will get you on Bush's Christmas card list, though abstaining soldiers should pray he's not checking it twice.

Finally, fundamentalist Christian organizations led by decriers of Islam plan to send their sheep into Iraq armed with band aids and bibles.

Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off.


Religiosity, by Lisa Ashkenaz Croke
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 08:07 am
I find that very disturbing. How far is that from the thinking of the Taliban. The religion is irrelevant a fundamentalist of any stripe is a danger to all who love liberty.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 09:12 am
au- I think that youv'e got that one right. I take umbrage at ANY religion that attempts to proselytize, especially amongst those who have no desire to join that religion. When the converting seems to be coming from the American administration, that is a red flag for me!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 03:40:18