Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Dubya not religous?
I find it difficult to imagine that Dubya is a very religious man. He has not shown me one iota of having the spiritual nature of most religious men. Any religion he has learned is my osmosis. He wears it on his sleeve to appease the right-wing religious zealots that he will need for his 2004 campaign. These religious fanatics are the core voters of the GOP.

williamhenry, The GOP pretty much has the south in their pockets. And it's not all religion either. There are still a bunch of bigots in this country, and many of them reside there. c.i.

Well, c.i., I live among many of those bigots who also happen to be right-wing religious fanatics.

In 2000, my state went for Dubya, but my county went for Al Gore. Gore got a huge turnout from the African-American community and from white liberals such as moi.

The story of how the once-Democrat south is now the lock-step GOP is an interesting one. I'll relate it at another time if anybody is curious. Right now, though, I wish A2k "good night."

williamhenry3
The story is very simple IMO when the democratic party started it's push for civil rights. The once solidly democratic and bigoted south went republican, to the party of exclusion.

au, you've summed it up well.

Trent Lott was'nt demoted becaue he was caught on record for longing for the days of segregation, he was demoted by his own party because he would have had to live up to the promises he made to the black community after being caught.

Imagine the horror, black people on equal footing...

Mr. Stillwater, good reference.

I see now why we (you and I) went astray in your "labels" thread. As I wrote there, I do use these labels when it seems appropriate to discuss groups of people or to label an individual in the context of the current issue, but that does not mean I can't find agreement with that person elsewhere. (I would call PDiddie a liberal, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging when I think he's right about something.)

But I respect your point of view on this and your goal of not labeling people has some merit. I don't think I tend to do it often as is, but I'm going to think about it more.

And I commend you on "getting" the difference between attacking someone's policies or actions and attacking his or her faith. Too many people who clearly have a visceral hatred for Bush are not only willing to attack his beliefs but defend themselves for doing so. In most cases it appears to me that they are unwilling to take a hard look at their actions. It is far easier for some people to defend the indefensible than to admit their error.

I read his comments to be standing up for religious freedom and tolerance, not for religion itself. Are you arguing against religious freedom and tolerance, or just failing to understand his point?

I'm working to find the exact text of W's remarks before the Evangelical Committee.

Here's a start

http://www.rense.com/general31/arma.htm

I'll be back with more

This is what you wrote, with quotation marks around it - that's not done, unless the person being spoken of actually said it. What you need to substantiate is where you got the quote from, showing when and where Bush said this.

what trespasser and e-brown still have not acknowledged is the clear evidence provided by some of the posters here (myself included) of the president using religion in his political platform. are you two arguing for the sake of argument? you have not yet proven your points, and as a result this thread is getting very tired.
.

What is tiring is your inability to understand the point we are making. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER BUSH IS BASING HIS DECISIONS IN HIS FAITH. What matters is whether those decisions are good decisions and allowed under the Constitution and standing law. Period. That you are biased against his faith does not remove his right to hold that faith.

Interesting link, re: separation of church and state.
http://www.au.org/

c.i.

Gala<

Let's try not to encourage more "know-it-all" posts from either trespasser or ebrown.[/i]


:wink:

It does matter that he is making choices based on his faith, because those choices at best, are contradictory. All mighty-God tells him that abortion is wrong, but somehow God is not present when he decides to drill for oil in Alaska.

WilliamHenry, I'm not trying to encourage them, but I really don't understand their point. Except, now I do, because trespasser has attempted to explain, but I don't buy it. And they still haven't made their point, they've ignored the references posted that prove how much religion dictates his life. And they were rude to Pheonix, which is absurd, because she is a gracious moderator. I'm off this thread after this. Such is the result of the exponential growth of Able2Know, have to weed through, and know to avoid these two in the future.

There is a couple others Gala. But, ignoring is bliss! Sometimes I make mistakes and send replies; but, that is soon changed!

"Does Bush's religious faith inapproiately dictate policy" reminds of of the classic understatement when Admiral Byrd reported the conditons at the north pole as "a bit brisk"

Gala, dys, and BillW, I've been ignoring them people too, and my life spirit has improved 100 percent~! LOL c.i.

Gala<

You give these people a lot of power when their arguments cause you to leave an otherwise interesting thread

So tue, so true WH!