In the recent ABC Nightline Interview with George W. Bush, he was asked by Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true. He replied:
For debate: Is this belief something that Bush essentially kept under wraps for the last 8 years? Was he previously pandering to the fundamentalist community, or have we just been unaware of his non-literalist leanings until now?
Another question - will this harm his “legacy” among the fundamentalists, or will they just go “meh”.
I think he just blew his chance at re-election.
Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, this thread is not about Obama’s beliefs. If you would like to start one, feel free. In the meantime, please do not hijack this thread with your usual tu quoque.
(at least we can be thankful he did not bring up Clinton…)
Was Obama elected with the aid of strong support from the religious right? He did get some significant support from religious voters which Democrats hadn’t enjoyed recently, but Obama isn’t pro-life and hasn’t pushed for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which are issues of import to social conservatives. I have no idea why you asked this question.
That said, when I heard this I found I wasn’t surprised. Maybe a little surprised he admitted it (in the last days of his term, of course), but not surprised that he feels that way. It wouldn’t fit his personality, even if it did fit his social views.
Did Bush ever say in the past that he blieved the bible WAS literally true?
A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that’s the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.
Great. NOW he starts saying things that kind of make sense.
Nice timing, George.
:rolleyes:
That’s what I’m not sure on… did he just say nothing and let people assume? Or what?
And to mswas: I certainly apologize to you for the “Christ bashing” in my OP. It was certainly uncalled for. I wonder if you could answer the original question though; will this harm Bush’s legacy among those that are biblical literalists?
I rarely get involved in these discussions, but WHY do you do this? They asked you a question about Dub, not about Obama. Stop hijacking the discussion! Back Dub all you want but this never provides for a good discussion.
Euphonious Polemic said it already. This is not a thread about Obama. Make a new thread.
ETA: You are not the only one who does it, but you do it a lot.
You can easily bash non-literalists. Literalists are utterly unimaginative and dim-witted, while non literalists are hypocrites for picking and choosing what they want to believe in their holy book.
I find it interesting that Christians have a sense of persecution, considering they are the most powerful religion on the planet. When a Christian is eaten by a lion nowadays it’s usually a wealthy, fat, moron at a Safari Park.
On topic: Bush was presumed to be really evangelical, but I suspect it was like the administration’s case for getting into Iraq. Lots of innuendo and people assumed what they wanted to believe.
Apparently the fundamentalists are pissed
Video News - CNN (WARNING: video - curse you CNN for making so many of your stories by video only!)
Well, did people assume Bush thought the bible was literally true? He’s born-again and an evangelical, and that’s never been a secret, but as far as I know, nobody’s ever said he was a fundamentalist or a literalist. And he’s a United Methodist, which isn’t exactly a fundamentalist denomination.
Not all evangelicals are literalists, remember.
I’m sure that the thousands of Christians who have been starved to death in Sudan, shot in North Korea, imprisoned in Cuba, sent for “re-education” in China, and murdered or abused at other places around the world take great comfort from your interest.
I fail to see how this is hypocritical. That’s a common charge thrown out against believers and I think it’s absolutely intellectually dishonest - as you say, either they’re idiots for accepting the literal truth of a contradictory and metaphorical document, or they’re hypocrites or somehow dishonest for not believing every word of the story or of their particular religious authority. Members of non-religious groups aren’t generally held to that standard and it makes no sense.
You forgot to mention the war on christmas. Isn’t that important to you?
Please note:
The “Christians are persecuted” “no they’re not” “yes they are” Thread
and the
“believers are hypocrites” “not they’re not” “yes the are” Thread
are next door. Thank you for coming. Please see the OP for the topic of this thread.
I thought martyrdom was a key tenet of their faith.
One third. Is that rare? I reckon it’s higher among Conservatives who supported Bush and McCain.