Wow, looks like ziggeretten is a little quicker on the trigger than I am.
FTR, W. has never denied the story but claims he doesn’t think that way anymore.
—What you fail to understand is that most Americans share Bush’s faith and they take comfort in their belief in heaven–why should it bother you?—
Well, it doesn’t really hurt me… but I would hope that believers would realize that by making theological pronouncements on behalf of the country, he’s taking on an authority no one gave him. That doesn’t exactly rate as an important issue: but it is irksome that he’d assume that he has the right or the authority to speak for Americans’ religious convictions. That right is supposed to be reserved to the people: no one gave it to him. If he wants to talk about God, he can do it as a citizen, not in his role as a President. Maybe this distinction isn’t important to people. But I think it’s key to the political philosophy of our nation, and is always in danger of eroding to the point where we act like kingdoms of old: where nothing is good enough unless it’s approved of or expressed by the state.
Maybe it’s all the same to some believers, but to others, particular theology is very important, and very personal. For instance, when Bush talks, sometimes, “our” God protects us materially (during 9/11). Sometimes “our” God protects just our souls (seeing us “home”). But it’s not Bush’s job to tell us what God wants or thinks or does, whether its just one or both. We can pick our own spiritual advisors and insights.
Like the founders, I think people should be at least concerned that mixing government with religion can serve to demean and cheapen religion. When Bush makes sure to get a picture of himself and his Cabinet praying on the front page of the NYTimes right before he made his controversial decision allowing stem cell research on existing lines, that demeans religious belief: turning it into just another PR prop to prove that he’s devout and people shouldn’t come down on him too hard.
I don’t see any reason to doubt him on this.
and then
Interesting. You see no reason to doubt the self-serving statement of a politician, but you apparently automatically discount something written by a well-known and well-respected journalist in a book distributed by a major publishing house.
While i realize that:
a) You shouldn’t believe everything you read, even in books
and
b) Molly Ivins might be a little too “left” for some people’s taste (not mine)
she still seems, in my experience at least, to adhere to good standards of journalistic conduct and information-gathering. She’s not short of opinion, but she usually makes it pretty clear when she’s giving evidence and when she’s spouting opinion.
But maybe i’m being too hard on you. It could simply be that you’re one of those people who only believe a citation if it can be reached using a mouse. 
Well, one reason to doubt him is that he had to say that when he decided to run for president. He had no choice politically but to take that stance. As late as 1994, before leaving for a trip to Israel, Bush joked that he was going to tell the Israelis that they were “all going to hell.” I don’t believe that he just coincidentally had a big change in his belief system right at the time he decided to run for prez.
And even if he has changed, it should still disturb you that he ever thought that way at all. It’s a clear sign of an intellectual defect.
I wonder what Billy Graham and his son thinks about his change of heart?
Apos, back up a bit. Are you actually willing to concede that Billy Graham thinks?
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by Me. John 14, 6
Straight out of the mouth, if you believe, of the man himself. I’d call that a standard.
So I’d say it was pretty clear. If you’re christian then you should believe that all non-christians don’t get to meet up with god. I suppose that if this results in ending up in hell could be debatable, but any other interpretations are fudging the issue.
Since I was three when the Challenger exploded, I don’t know what Reagan said. Somehow, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was similar to what Bush said about the Columbia.
even sven- As a pagan, it irks me at times for the majority view to be imposed on me by society. However, at a memorial service, wherein the majority of those being mourned were almost assuredly Christian, I found his words to be appropriate.
Don’t make the mistake of trying to force your Atheism on others, even if it’s the president.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, but …
The way I see it, Christ is the expression of that aspect of God that is reaching out to us, for us to know Him. If you are looking for God, that is the aspect of Him you will meet first, and through which you will come to know Him. So, yes, John 14:6 is accurate, anyone who is looking for God will find Him through Christ and only through Christ … except there is no requirement to know either of them by those particular names. Anyone who is seriously looking for God (by which I mean the author of, and truth behind, our existence) will find Him, no matter what path they travel.
Does this make me “officially” not a Christian? I don’t think so, and if it does, I don’t care.
I think the reason stuff like that irks atheists (an I get irked by it too sometimes) is that there really is no need to invoke religious beliefs in many cases. It can simply not be said. So when it is said on those occasions, it really is the president going out of his way, with disregard to those who don’t share his beliefs.
Who is being intolerant? The pres. is clearly alienating those who don’t share his beliefs, I find that not taking the care to make a speech that might appeal more to people of all faiths and of no faith isn’t a lot to ask. He isn’t just the leader of the Christians of the nation; he’s the leader of everybody in the nation. Forgetting that is at best a lack of manners.
Hoping that the president might make his speeches religious-neutral is not being intolerant. It’s common sense when the audience of the speech is not all Christian. And Tristan, it’s certainly not “forcing atheism” on anybody. Thats like saying asking you not to mention your pagan beliefs in a speech is forcing Christianity on you.
Christian rules do not apply to non-Christians. I would not want to go to the Christian “heaven” anyway, if the only people in it are fundy Christians!
I am a Hippie/Deadhead. When Hippies die, we go to the land of Terrapin. The story of Terrapin is told in a series of song lyrics written by Grateful Dead poet Robert Hunter. We are driven to Terrapin in a psychedelic VW microbus, with either Jerry Garcia or Neal Cassidy at the wheel. In Terrapin we are reunited with our kind hippie friends who have already made the long strange trip.
Well, there you go then. That’s as valid a basis for a religious belief that I’ve seen. Maybe not as compelling as a virgin birth, walking on water, and a dead man rising up from a cave, but still pretty danged good! And it’s happy-based too!
And if I know Him by the particular name of “Beelzebub”, is that just another path?
Whatever takes your fancy, Steve but I count that as classic fudging of the issue. If the gospel had meant to be so easy-osy about definitions then it would have said so. The verse does not say, “through any way that you might want to loosely define as abstractly Me, all subjective, isn’t it?”
IMHO this is just evidence of a religion beginning to realise that the straightforward rules it used to have no longer sit so well with modern PC sensibilities. Unfortunately it’s now difficult to re-write the bible like we used to, so we have to “reinterpret” and to a unlikely degree to get closer to something we’re comfortable with.
Whether Bush believes the plain English original message, or has a whole subtler take on it (doesn’t seem likely does it?), he does know that no-one would thank him for saying non-christian astronauts don’t go to heaven. So even he knows that there’s only so far he can cram christianity into his speeches.
What about “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you?” That’s also in the New Testament - in fact, it’s only a couple of sentences before your quote. Biblical interpretation predates modern political correctness by quite a number of centuries; I am scarcely on the cutting edge, theologically speaking. And, yes, if worship of Beelzebub draws you closer to God, who am I to argue?
Well, yes, I prefer to know him by the particular name of Satan. I like to regard Hell as just another name for Heaven, good as a particular type of evil and “everlasting damnation” as “tea and scones by the river’s bank around July 20th”.
This ‘just another name for’ theology could catch on you know.
(No, I’m not being serious. I’m just playing God’s Advocate. )
My personal journey of faith has taken me down some quite peculiar paths … it leaves me disinclined to object on principle to the routes that others choose to follow.
Don’t know what route George W. Bush is going down, but I have to say to the Americans: come on, it’s not as if you didn’t know he was loud-mouthed about being a Christian when you voted for him. If you voted for him. If you know whether you voted for him or not.
right…
So you’re equally as sick with Bill Clinton’s (the Baptist) religious references in his speeches (do a google search…there’s plenty)? Start with his numerous campaign speeches in predominantly black churches.
Has there been a president (certainly in modern history) who has not made numerous religious refernces in his term, starting with his inauguration?
Actually, Billy Graham isn’t a real fire and brimstone preacher. While I don’t agree with a lot of his beliefs, he’s usually pretty rational. His son is a jerk, but Billy’s okay.