Polls show Americans are 'confused'

I pray every day for the unPresident in the way God wants - yet he still acts more the idiot and makes it more easy for the rich to pass through the eye of a needle!

0 Replies

"FRIDAY: Pray that the President and his advisers will recognize their divine appointment and will govern accordingly... "

Divine appointment. That's very scary!

0 Replies

Butterfly ballots were sent by the Divine Providence, didn't you know?

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

"FRIDAY: Pray that the President and his advisers will recognize their divine appointment and will govern accordingly... "

Divine appointment. That's very scary!

Your bias alone--anti-Bush, anti-Christian, or both--makes it scary.

Clearly the assumption those who wrote this make is that--by definition--Bush and his administration are in power because God wishes it. (Had Gore won that would likewise have been through God's "divine appointment". That they (the authors of this prayer) then ask that Bush and his advisers "govern accordingly in compassion, mercy, and truth" should come as no surprise nor be scary to anyone with a passing knowledge of the Christian faith.

0 Replies

Dear Scrat:

It's clear that you don't know me. I am not specially anti-Bush (I was against his position on war) or anti-Christian.

I find it scary that "divine appointment" is used, in any way, for an elected official.

It is citizens who elect Presidents. It's not "God's will".

If we start to believe that the powers of the Executive do not come from the people -who appoint him-, but from a Superior Being, then we start to believe in absolute power.

0 Replies

Rule by divine right . . . now there's a modern concept, tried, tested and true . . . just ask Louis XVI . . .

0 Replies

Divine appointment!!!

Sounds way too much like "the divine right of Kings."

0 Replies

The Devine Bush - isn't that mixing of shrubery, a common english grammatical error?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Yes, kuvasz, it is a terrible thing that anyone would consider praying for our president. What a terrible thing indeed.

typical reaction from a right wing mullah.

thinking that prayer sanctifies government actions, as if this was an islamic republic like iran is and afghanistan was.

apparently you can't see too deeply into this issue, it is that the bush administration allowed the distribution of this literature to the american armed forces which tries to link religion with bush. the government permitted this all to advance their claim that Bush is doing God's will. all so the claim can be made to those who do not support bush can be challenged that "who can go against the will of God?" and places objections to bush and his actions as heresy.

there are disturbing historical parallels here of using religious iconography to support leaders who are criticized that you just seem to ignore, or at worst, endorse.

0 Replies

I think more people need to read.

0 Replies

Welcome aboard Kashmir, have a safe ride! Smile

0 Replies

thanks BillW!

0 Replies

Whoa!

Kashmir

Welcome.

Make that WELCOME!

0 Replies

Down boy, down Smile

0 Replies

Thanks for the many welcomes! Very Happy

0 Replies

Yes, welcome, Kashmir! We hope you find this an enjoyable planet, where the inhabitants are mostly civilized and friendly...

0 Replies

but, some, cantankerous.

0 Replies

Welcome Kashmir.

What should people be reading?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Yes, kuvasz, it is a terrible thing that anyone would consider praying for our president. What a terrible thing indeed.

typical reaction from a right wing mullah.

Yes, anyone who isn't automatically against prayer or against the notion of praying for the president is a "right wing mullah". Rolling Eyes

(How creative of you! You must have spent hours coming up with that!) Cool

kuvasz wrote:

thinking that prayer sanctifies government actions, as if this was an islamic republic like iran is and afghanistan was.

I'm sorry, my memory must be failing me. Can you show me where I wrote that?

kuvasz wrote:

apparently you can't see too deeply into this issue, it is that the bush administration allowed the distribution of this literature to the american armed forces which tries to link religion with bush.

I simply fail to misconstrue it as you do. "The Bush administration allowed the distribution of this literature..."??? You think this is a crime? I'm confused. What would you have had the government do; deny a private group their first amendment right to send mail to American citizens? That would seem to be what you are claiming, but I find it hard to believe that you really think the government should bar a religious group from printing and diseminating religious materials as the group sees fit.

kuvasz wrote:

the government permitted this all to ...

The government permitted this because the first amendment bars them from doing otherwise.

kuvasz wrote:

there are disturbing historical parallels here of using religious iconography to support leaders who are criticized that you just seem to ignore, or at worst, endorse.

No there are not. Despite your attempt to spin this, this was not government action it was private religious action and Constitutionally protected. There are no parallels to anything sinister outside of your head.

The only thing I can't figure out here is whether you just hate Bush, hate Bush and Christians, or hate Bush, Christians and the first amendment guarantees to freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Yes, kuvasz, it is a terrible thing that anyone would consider praying for our president. What a terrible thing indeed.

typical reaction from a right wing mullah.

Yes, anyone who isn't automatically against prayer or against the notion of praying for the president is a "right wing mullah". (How creative of you! You must have spent hours coming up with that!)

kuvasz wrote:
thinking that prayer sanctifies government actions, as if this was an islamic republic like iran is and afghanistan was.

I'm sorry, my memory must be failing me. Can you show me where I wrote that?

kuvasz wrote:
apparently you can't see too deeply into this issue, it is that the bush administration allowed the distribution of this literature to the american armed forces which tries to link religion with bush.

I simply fail to misconstrue it as you do. "The Bush administration allowed the distribution of this literature..."??? You think this is a crime? I'm confused. What would you have had the government do; deny a private group their first amendment right to send mail to American citizens? That would seem to be what you are claiming, but I find it hard to believe that you really think the government should bar a religious group from printing and diseminating religious materials as the group sees fit.

kuvasz wrote:
the government permitted this all to ...

The government permitted this because the first amendment bars them from doing otherwise.

kuvasz wrote:
there are disturbing historical parallels here of using religious iconography to support leaders who are criticized that you just seem to ignore, or at worst, endorse.

No there are not. Despite your attempt to spin this, this was not government action it was private religious action and Constitutionally protected. There are no parallels to anything sinister outside of your head.

The only thing I can't figure out here is whether you just hate Bush, hate Bush and Christians, or hate Bush, Christians and the first amendment guarantees to freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

Tut, tut now. I was merely pointing out that the basis of your remarks also appear elsewhere and have been used by radical religious Islamic clergy as a defense against criticism of governmental actions in Islamic states where religion plays so much a part of their cultural life and heresy is met with death fatwas. This much is true as to what was the basis of your post.

After all, when the Iranians used human waves against the Iraqis in the mid ?'80's I am sure that those soldiers were told that Allah Himself was guiding the hands of their leaders, and that they should pray to Ayatollah Khomeini, who was, of course blessed of and appointed by Allah Himself to guide their fate.

Considering your attitude, I guess it will fall upon deaf hears to even question the hypocrisy of all politicians ending their speeches with ".and may God bless America," as if the Creator of the Cosmos has specially picked out the good old US of A to act as His instrument on Earth.

That's a bit much and a tad little meglomaniacal don't you think?

And so too is having a religious organization distribute political positions disguised as mere faith based pamphleteering.

I doubt seriously that the US Army would have allowed the distribution of religious booklets that called for prayers of peace and non-violence, as the words of Jesus Christ Himself call for.

You seem not to know that the first amendment means nothing in the Army if it confronts the military mission. Just as the constitutional right of habeas corpus now means nothing and the government can steal you from your bed in the dead of night and never have to tell anybody that they even hold you.

But perhaps worst is that you don't appear to conceptualize the facts that the booklets tied in not the "President" but a specific president, Bush in the invocations. It is this personalization of leadership, no strike that, command, (because command is appointed, like Bush, where leadership is grown, unlike Bush), that is at the heart of the politicization of this situation.

This type of iconography, where a personality in a secular command position is tied in with the religious values and symbols is all too well known. Identifying a secular commander with the mantel of such religious symbolism, the connection, the projection easily can be made that what the leader does and who ordains him is done by the very will of God. Therefore, any criticism is cast as heresy. This was at the heart of why the booklets instructed the military personnel reading it to pray for Bush instead of the President. And again, had those booklets called for active adherence to the methods of non-violence uttered by Christ, the King, they would not have been allowed into the hands of active military people sitting in the desert.

It is a strange, but reliable constant that when these sorts of things are mentioned the rightwingers immediately cast this as a freedom of religion or speech issue and accuse their opponents of intolerance and suppression of expression, when at the heart of the issue is the selective manipulation of these freedoms by their political allies and heroes.

As to religion and my observations on its values, you know less than nothing at all about them and have attacked me as intolerant because I don't think the way you do about mixing the secular and religious worlds, and pointed out that your position on these matters can also found in the most inhospitable of places for freedom of expression..

0 Replies

Polls show Americans are 'confused'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know