Where’s that gory ox that polycarp was holding? Here’s your candidate.
Now HERE’s a guy with poor conviction. I just about fell out of my chair with laughter.
Are you terrified yet?
TB: *Bush wasn’t afraid to say the words “Personal relationship with Jesus Christ” or “accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior” in front of a national audience. Gore was more hesitant, presumably because he thought it would alienate some people. He just stressed that he still “went to church”. In my mind, that says that Gore has less conviction, and is playing to the polls. *
Hmmm. While I’m quite willing to believe that Gore was “playing to the polls” by being more reticent about religion, I’m kind of surprised that you would assume that Bush wasn’t. Being less outspoken about Jesus automatically equals toning it down for the voters, and the opposite approach automatically equals conviction and independence? Why should we not simply conclude that Bush was also “playing to the polls”, trying to please his audience? He just happened to have a different audience to please than Gore, and his target audience happened to prefer more outspoken talk about Christianity.
Mind you, I think it likely that both men in private life are committed and sincere Christians. But I see no reason to assume that Bush’s public attitude towards religion on the campaign trail (or the rest of his public attitude for that matter) was any less carefully scripted for PR purposes than Gore’s was.
TB: *“In god we trust” “One nation under God” “Mine eyes have seen the glory” “All mem are given by their creator certain unalienable rights” (I know it’s a misquote but it’s close) Sorry, it’s in our heritage. *
Having religious aspects in our heritage, though, is emphatically not the same thing as having a national religion. I think what you mean is that as a society, we have a majority religion: in general, theistic, in particular, Christian. As a nation, however, i.e., as a sovereign state with powers of governance, we certainly do not have a national religion. In fact, our Constitution forbids it.
I hear you. Not much sense in arguing over each others perceptions though.
You’re splitting hairs. Again, drawing lines where you wish, but not recognizing that the ideas blur together. The way I see it, government, society, and religion, are all constructs revolving around the concept of people living together. A person’s opinions about one will color their opinions about another.
In the end, you’re welcome to believe that government and society and religion are separate entities and can exist independently. Like ice, liquid water, and steam are all separate entities, I suppose. But I’ll point out that they are made of the same materials (people or H[sub]2[/sub]O), just in different form.
I hate to do this, but cite? Not that I’m calling the truth of that into question, but I’m curious to read the entire article if you’ve got it handy 
Sure, I’m terrified, but I’m terrified of the entire Bush administration. Did you intend this as proof that Ashcroft’s personal beliefs are directing the way that he does his job?
Thunderbunny, Kimstu summed up beautifully exactly what my next argument against your contention of our “national religion” was going to be, so I won’t touch that again.
What if one of his personal beliefs is that women should be kept pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen? Or that homosexuals should all be carried out, shot, and buried in mass graves? Or that computers are the tool of the devil and the Unabomber was right on? Is it your belief that he should be able to declare all of these things in his capacity as the President? I am not saying that he needs to set all of his beliefs aside. Yes, he is who he is, but he is also the President. In that capacity, he needs to remember that he represents the country and not just himself.
I don’t find it disrespectful. He can attend church on Sundays – that’s his religion. I draw that as my analogy to your “kissing his husband” example (although I could, if I felt so inclined, go off on how he couldn’t have a husband because of the way most of the states in this country are about that, but that’s a soapbox for another thread :D). I’ve been trying for the last half hour to think of something he could say in the course of a speech to the public that would be espousing his chosen lifestyle in an inappropriate way, but everything I came up with was completely ridiculous because I know no gay person would actually say it. If anyone can help me out here, I’d appreciate it.
And then people say that supporters of a separation of church and state are overreacting when they object to a blatantly religious statement being stamped by the US Mint on every last red cent in the nation. :rolleyes:
Personally, DDG, I object to both “In God We Trust” on the money and the blithe assumption of our leaders that everyone appreciates their continuous stream of Christian sentiment.
Here are two articles on the subject:
I’m a bit concerned about the Bush-as-private-Christian vs. Bush-as-President vs. Gore-as-reticent-Christian scenarios being painted. If I ran for President, what would you expect me to do? And why?
I would only ask that you consider that you are not only speaking to Christians, Muslims and Jews. When Bush says “All Americans, whether you are Christian, Muslim or Jewish”, I think he fails to recognize that all Americans can’t be so neatly catagorized, yet are still American. That seems disrespectful.
I would also hope that you would keep your beliefs a bit more discreet. Carter was a devout Christian and everyone knew it, but I don’t recall him quoting the bible in his addresses to the nation. I would expect one to show their beliefs by example rather than by exclusionary statements. I would also hope that you could refrain from using words like “crusade” when discussing military action.
Personally, I believe that you would be more thoughtful than that. Hell, I would probably even vote for you
Good Gravy, people. Bush has as much right to quote the bible as anyone. I see that most people agree that he has the RIGHT to do so, but don’t think he SHOULD. But why? It becomes inappropriate if it annoys people and makes them not want to vote for him and support his policies.
In short, the question of appropriateness is a political question. The prayer is inappropriate if it interferes with his political goals, and appropriate if it helps his political goals. The prayer was not offensive, was not hateful, was not bigoted.
We can make up all sorts of “what-ifs”…what if he had said gays should be killed, what if he had declared Judaism to be Satanic, or whatever. The point is that he did not do any of these offensive things, he read from the Bible. Reading from the Bible is not in itself offensive. If he had read Fred Phelps style quotations about how homosexuality is an abomination then that might have been offensive, but the 23rd Psalm? Come on.
Public figures do not give up their right to religious speech simply because they hold public office. They cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, but reading the 23rd Psalm does not establish a state religion, or prohibit the rest of of from freely exercising ours.
I am as atheistic as the come, but this is a non-issue.
There’s a difference between George W. Bush, private citizen, and President Bush, the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Whether anything else does or not, I would say this definitely falls under the wording of the Constitution that there shall be no government-established religion.
Even here in Mississippi, state & federal office buildings are prohibited from displaying religious symbols at Christmas. Even if every person who worked there were a Christian, when they’re an employee of the government, they’re acting as a representative of that agency and its policies whenever they’re at work. So is George.
I agree. GWB is guilty of spewing Christianity. However, I remember quite clearly one of GWB’s speeches in the days immediately following 9/11. At one point a question was posed to him from the news media audience, and although I don’t remember the specific question, it must have caught him off guard and without a prepared answer, because his actual answer was “I’m a loving guy.” And, with those words, an accompanying, obvious show of heartbreaking, on-verge-of-tears emotional response because of the recent tragedy. He did not ally himself with a specific religion, but only declared himself to be a “loving guy.”
Ever since that point I have been comforted knowing that someone who feels as he apparently does, regardless of his personal religious beliefs, is in control of the situation.
Of course there is a distinction between the President kissing his husband (the President making a religious reference in a speech) and the President or Congress passing a law that everyone ought to go out and smooch on a member of the same sex (making “In God We Trust” the national motto, etc.)
As far as religious references in speeches go…there is a distinction between a president saying “Because I am a (Christian, Jew, Rastafarian, whatever) I believe in (justice, freedom, defending the unborn, immediate unilateral disarmament, showing compassion to the poor, legalizing marijuana. etc.)” and saying “Americans are (Christians, believers in the God of Abraham, monotheists)”. This is a fine distinction to make, rhetorically speaking, but most politicians don’t even bother to try. (“Americans are a religious people…” “Americans have a deep faith in God…” Well, no–some Americans, even most Americans, are religious people with a deep faith in God, but not all Americans.)
Greenlady, I don’t wanna bust your balloon or anything, but there is another interpretation of that. I remember it well. He was (gently) criticized in the first days following 9/11 for seeming UN-emotional, even cold. I forget where the loudest criticism came from, and I guess I’ll try to find it if you insist, but memory tells me that within 48 hours we got the brimming eyes and trembling lips, which struck me as completely insincere. Doesn’t mean it was, it’s just how it struck me, given the previous criticism.
stoid
Because if social pressures do not admit of having no religion, eventually one religion will gain supremecy, and the next thing ya know – BAMMO! – theocracy! (See history for examples, esp. Iran, circa 1950’s.)
If I was speaking to you, I would ask you “are you deaf?” AGAIN, nobody is saying he doesn’t have the right to push his christian dogma, the question is whether it is appropriate for him to do so in his capacity as President of the United States.
Irrelevant. The government of the U.S. is supposed to be secular. I don’t care what gods people worship on their own time, but I do have a problem with the supposed leader of this secular nation using a time of national crisis to push his religious dogma.
Our culture is not so impoverished that the only heritage the leader can look to for guidance in a time of crisis is that grown from a group of vagabond goat herders.
If Bush would like to offer some comfort, and try to bring the nation together, he should try to do it without using the lore of his own particular religious sect. Of course, he is not a great man, so this is really too much to expect, and of course, his using of the biblical verse is, unfortunately, perfectly in keeping with his very imperfect character.
I don’t understand your statement. Saffostar stated that he would be terrified if Ashcroft allowed his personal beliefs (namely his evangelical ministry) to guide his actions. I don’t see evidence of this in your quoted article.
Maybe if Ashcroft had said “I’m enacting this legislation because JAY-SUS told me to”, then your caution to be terrified would be warranted. Currently, I don’t see it.
Regarding other points related to whether or not the public should have known that Bush would be bringing religious undertones into office, personally, I think all the signs were there. One debate that I particularly remember is when the candidates were asked which historical politician the candidate most respected. Among answers of FDR and Jefferson, Bush responded that Jesus was his most respected politician. (Sorry, I don’t have a cite. But it has been referenced several times on the boards.)
Pushing his religious dogma? You make it sound like he’s proseletyzing. Do you really think Bush has an agenda of converting Christians every time he appears on TV? :rolleyes:
Do you really think that Ashcroft isn’t letting his personal beliefs interfere? Does it just seem coincidental that Ashcroft’s overturning of Oregon state law happens to reflect his history of responding to this issue. He has determined that he knows whats right for the people of Oregon, regardless of the silly law they passed.