Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Not all Christians agree with Bush's religious views. Jesus taught peace and non violence, love thine enemies He said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Bush has it the other way around. Jesus also taught about humility, not arrogance.Bush's view sounds like a do it your self type of Christianity.

Welcome aboard marvan, there was an session on NPR recently regarding this - as a matter of fact most Christian churches are 4 square against Bushes actions.

Tres
The big difference between Bush and Kennedy regarding religion is that Kennedy was not a religious zealot. I don't care if Bush kneels and prays 10 times a day. I do care that the decisions he makes are based on his religious beliefs.
As for Lieberman I was also less than impressed and more than annoyed with his bringing religion into the realm of politics.

au, That makes the two of us. c.i.

Well, at least you are consistent, though I think the term "zealot" doesn't add much to your argument. It's a loaded term, and means nothing or everything depending on the user's/reader's biases.

Come on! The religious are American citizens with the right to vote and even to be President. They have the right to believe that faith works, and the God is working. They have the right to hold views based on their world view, and they enen have the right to share these views in a public forum.

Nothing has been said in this discussion shows that Bush has done anything wrong. You think you can takes quotes that Bush has given to religious groups to say that he can not run the country?

The issues that have been mentioned including abortion, stem cell research and even faith based initiatives are political issues that we must decide as a society. This is how democracy works.

If you want my support, present your case logically and without predujice. If you say that I shouldn't support a point of view because it is the *fundamentalist Christian view" I will ignore you. I do not support arguments that are based on prejudice and bigotry.

These anti-religious statements are preposterous...

Pheonix, I looked at the links and I found nothing to support the brash assertion that Bush is "attempting" to bring us toward Armageddon. Unless you (or Beedle) can document this you should retract it.

Frank, using someone elses Scripture for the sole purpose of slandering their religion is tasteless. In spite of *your* brand of Christianity the anti-slavery movement was prominantly a religious movement mostly inspired by Christianity. The adherents of a religion are the only ones with the right to define it.

Was Martin Luther King in favor of slavery?

I am just asking for tolerance. We live in a pluralistic society. You can criticize the policies of Bush if you want to. Attacking him on the basis of his religion goes against who we are as a Nation.

"............and the God is working." ebrown, Can you show us proof of this amazing statement? c.i.

ebrown_p- You wrote:



I am simply stating MY view. Would you say that I DON'T have the right to share these views in a public forum, because I don't show proof. Where is YOUR proof? Let's just say that "I believe", and that my view is based on "faith"! :wink:

"faith is beliving what you know ain't so" mark twain

ebrown



COMMENT:

I imagine it would be. But just why are you saying that I am using someone else's Scripture for the sole purpose of slandering their religion.

Making unsupported -- and illogical -- statements like that is tasteless.

You brought up the question of the abolition of slavery.

I made a comment on it -- and you, foolishly, challenged me to back up what I said.

I backed it up.

And now you accuse me of tastelessness for meeting your challenge!

Think that one over. I'd love to hear a more considered opinion from you -- and I suspect you are capable of it.

One other thing to think over. You are correct that many religious people worked toward the abolition of slavery -- but any decent history book will inform you that religion -- specifically the words of the Bible -- both Old Testament and New Testament -- were used by slavery advocates every bit as assiduously as by the abolition people. And the pro-slavery people properly and logically pointed out that the abolition people were hypocrites in trying to apply the Bible to the issue the way they were.

I'm not slandering your religion. I am merely pointing out things about it that you apparently are not aware of.

I love this guy!

Pheonix,

Of course you have the right to believe what you will and to share them in a public forum.

It is a pretty extreme accusation to say someone is "attempting" to bring about the end of the world. You should expect to be challenged if you make this charge in a public forum.

Ci,

I don't need to prove this, nor as an agnostic could I. This reasoning is accepted by many Americans and this is *their* right. Whether you are religious or non, if you want to convince me of something you will need to speak to me using terms that make sense to my world view.

My point is this. Pheonix made a statement that I find extreme and indefensible by any standard of logic or decorum. Does this mean I should brand her as an "extremist" and discount all of her views?

Of course not. I can safely say that pheonix holds a point of view that runs against fundamentalist Christianity. But that is all.

I could brand her as "liberal" a "secular humanist" an "extremist" a "heathen" or any other of these labels that may apply. I could then use this label to discount her views on political issues. But why should I?

There are probably a fair number of things that Pheonix and I agree on. There may be times that she, with a rational argument, can give me a new perspective on something. If I label her, I exclude the chance for any productive discourse.

To those of us who think independently these labels just get in the way. The fact that you pray or don't pray, believe in God or don't believe, read the Bible or not is irrelevant to most these issues.

I will listen to each person without prejudice to evaluate the value of each of their views. I have at times agreed with both "flaming knee-jerk tree-hugging socialist liberals" and "fundamentalist extremist radical right Christian fanatics". If you can look past these labels you may find that you have too.

It just bugs me when people argue public issues in public fora with broad steorotypes.

ebrown_p- I will not become involved with this issue any more. I do not accept your challenge, and I don't desire to hear any more about it. I stated a concern of mine. Period. Whether or not you agree with me is of no consequence to me.

ebrown, Just because a majority of people believe in something doesn't make it true. People used to think the world was flat. c.i.

e-brown wrote:

"I am just asking for tolerance. We live in a pluralistic society. You can criticize the policies of Bush if you want to. Attacking him on the basis of his religion goes against who we are as a Nation."

This discussion of disagreement about the president's religion is very much about who we are as a nation: It's called Freedom of Speech. In other words, none of us are going to get thrown in jail for expressing dissenting viewpoint from the government leaders. Jingoism, on the other hand, is an ugly by-product of this nation. I am not held in this president's thrall because we are at war with other nations. It is my right to criticize as I see fit.

Ebrown, I haven't kept up with this thread, but from scanning the posts, I think you misunderstand some of our concerns.
As I said early on, fundamentalist religions have as a high priority, the mission to convert people of other religions to Christianity. That is what I find objectionable in this administration--the blatant fundamentalism.
I don't find fundamentalists to be bad people. As I said, many of my relatives are fundamentalists, and they are truly good people; but their lives are lived in accordance with the mission of spreading the word. They feel obligated to do this. They are moral, decent people, but I would hate to see any of them in public office.
I may be wrong, but didn't Kennedy say that his religion wouldn't affect his decision making while president? I tried to find a link, but couldn't and it is too close to my bed time to keep at it.
Jimmy Carter was one of our most religious presidents. Did he proselytize or try to spread the Babtist religion? Not to my knowledge.
I think it is very reasonable to be concerned when a president is as religious as bush seems to be. Separation of church and state is one of the most important features of this government and one of the reasons it has been so successful.
As far as I'm concerned, fundamentalist Christians are from the same mold as radical Islamists.

"As far as I'm concerned, fundamentalist Christians are from the same mold as radical Islamists."
a slight disagreement, radical islamists admit readily their intent, fundamental christians deny it.

How do you think our forefathers defined separation of church and state? I'm a little fuzzy but I think the definition of past separation is different that current. If anyone has any facts, links, or discussion on that, I would appreciate it.

Do you think the same contitutional issues that define separation of church and state also help define religious liberty?

Your damned tax-dollars though.



That's an "independent federal government agency" (their own description) that now has a lobby group ("Why should the money go to the godless?") mandated into their structure. And $700K for the 'International Justice Mission' to further their mission to counter abuse and oppression with 'biblical justice' (hey, I don't make this stuff up). Their site, although loaded with plenty of biblical, christian rhetoric, seems to be a little light on actual instances of their successful prosecution of abuse and oppression.