Well, would you prefer I use the word “angers” rather than “creeps”? Are you telling me that a person’s public behavior doesn’t drum up emotion in others? What angers one doesn’t necessarily anger another, either…but you can be sure emotion plays a major part in politics.
So it bothers you that a man who believes in God will publicly admit that he prays to God? This is what gets you so upset? And this is sufficient for you to declare that he’s “a sandwish short of a picnic”?
No offense, but I think this shows that it’s your perpective which needs a bit of adjustment. Of course he doesn’t represent you in this regard. He doesn’t have to. He is exercising his faith, and he publicly acknowledges that he does. If you happen to disagree with him, then so be it. But to insist that he should NOT publicly admit to his religious views is a severe overreaction, IMO. Heck, I daresay that this is a lot more “creepy” that Bush’s admission that he does pray to God.
Pay attention. I never said I didn’t want him to publicly admit his faith. I said I have a problem with him admitting he confers with god on matters of state (and prefers that to conferring with his father – who I also disliked – but was at least experienced in matters of state. Conferring is not at all the same as prayer. Not even close.
You’re splitting irrelevant hairs. Whether you call it “praying” or “conferring” is irrelevant. Moreover, why shouldn’t a man who believes in God confer with him on such grave matters as the state of the nation? Heck, I’d find it a lot more disturbing if someone who professed belief in God refused to consult Him on matters of state, or refused to admit doing so.
Look, you’re clearly taking unnecessary offense. You are expressing intense outrage at GWBush’s admission to seeking God’s guidance on matters of state. This speaks more about you than about Bush himself.
Its not so much his “seeking God’s guidance” that would disturb me, but the possibility that he might well believe he has received such guidance.
No, I believe it speaks equally about Bush and me. As it should.
Don’t worry…I’m not offended – by you, anyway. Unless you’re a public servant doing what Bush is doing, I don’t really care what you believe. But yes, I am offended by Bush’s behavior. He has let his religion spill over into his presidency and is clearly unbothered by the fact that he has done so. He has no respect for the separation of church and state. Would you be so passive if he was consulting crystals before waging war? It’t the same thing. Mind you, he didn’t consult his secretary of defense. He didn’t consult the Secretary of State. He consulted god. I find it enormously unsettling.
So you are fine if he believes in God and acts on his beliefs (by praying), but if God actually responds to him (which you find absurd, with your closed-minded atheist-ishness, ignoring the fact that responst to prayer is a basic tenet of Christianity), thus giving him reason for his faith in God, that’s bad.
Because we all know that religious faith must be unsubstantiated, right?
My understanding of prayer is that it is a reflective time. Where you think about your relationship with your god. A conference is nothing of the sort. It’s highly relevant to the discussion. He should be conferring with his cabinet, fercrissakes…not an imaginary being. Regardless whether or not he “believes” in him, he is not a cabinet member.
No, it’s because we know that religious faith IS unsubstantiated. Regardless, consulting with your image of god rather than your flesh-and-blood cabinet suggests he has no respect for the form of government we’ve established in the U.S. over the last few hundred years.
Just reminded me of the hysteria when it was discovered that Nancy Reagan was consulting an astrologer, then using that advice to influence her husband. Only this time, it’s not the First Lady, it’s the President relying on superstition to run the country! And proud of it, dang it!
How soon they forget…
I’m no Bush fan, but let’s not hyperventilate over his religion.
Bush is a Methodist, for crying out loud. I don’t know too many Methodists who get all geared up about the Rapture. Methodists tend to be pretty low-key about their religion, in my experience.
I imagine Bush is just using his faith to political advantage. I don’t think he is a genuine fanatic; he just wants the votes of those who are.
I quite agree, I was raised Methodist, and a more staid bunch of hymn singing “normal” is hard to imagine. I know there is some significant theological distinction between Methodists and Presbyterians, but for the life of me I couldn’t tell you what it is.
GeeDubya benefits from cursory inspection by the Christian Right. He makes gestures and signifys his sympathy, but is careful not to tread too hard.
For instance, this whole “Rapture” thing. Many evangelicals consider the whole matter a steaming load, Stephen King meets Pat Robertson. It is a strong point of contention within that community (so far as I am privy). GeeDubya stays quite out of such theological disagreements, he wants to appear to be on everybody’s side, so that they will be on his.
Well, it seems to be a bit more than hymn-singing to me. He’s chosen consultation with god over his self-appointed cabinet.
[quoteFor instance, this whole “Rapture” thing. Many evangelicals consider the whole matter a steaming load, Stephen King meets Pat Robertson. [/QUOTE]
Now why would they think the rapture is any more far-fetched than the concept of heaven and hell?
>No, it’s because we know that religious faith IS unsubstantiated
That is the most closed-minded thing I’ve read this week. Granted, it’s only Monday.
>consulting with your image of god rather than your flesh-and-blood cabinet
Cite for his ignoring his cabinet?
Sheesh, the guy’s religious. He believes that there is a God who is omnipotent and can talk to people. If you believed that, as a great number of people do worldwide, wouldn’t you talk with the guy upstairs, especially about important things?
Just because he asks God for guidance does not mean that he ignores his advisors; indeed, you have provided zero proof that he has ever taken his perception of God’s will over the will of his cabinet.
If you try to bash a guy based on his religion, you’d better come up with better reasons than “Well, I don’t think religion is right” and “People who hold a belief that is different than mine but which is supported by billions worldwide creep me out.”
For one thing, the word “rapture” does not appear in the New Testament.
To be sure, there are references in the NT to Jesus returning to Earth and taking the righteous up to heaven with him, but most level-headed Christians believe they have no way of knowing when that will happen (and certainly no control over it). In the most commonly-held view, the day of the Lord will come “as a thief in the night” (to quote Peter). That is to say that it can’t be predicted.
It is a mistake to believe that just because someone is a self-professed Christian they must also be obsessive about “the Rapture,” Armageddon or “the end times.”
(For the record, I am an atheist. I’m not religious about it, though.)
Show me that there’s proof of a god and I’ll retract my statement. I’m not saying it’s not possible just that it has not been substantiated.
I never said he ignored his cabinet. If you’re going to quote me, then quote me. He admitted to Bob Woodward that he didn’t consult his high cabinet members, and it was confirmed by Rummy and Powell. Did you even watch the piece on 60 Minutes (may have been 60 Minutes II, but I don’t think so)?
If he believed that little green men were going to come down and end the war in Iraq with super-weapons made on Mars, would you think that’s OK too?
Again, I never said he ignored them. He made the decision to go to war largely on his own.
Look, pinhead…learn how to use the quote feature, or at least the copy feature. I don’t appreciate being misquoted, particularly by someone who believes Bush can run the country by having one-on-ones with his imaginary pal.
For the sake of clarity, you are saying that Christians believe in the rapture (the concept of being taken away to heaven), but that it will be a surprise…right?
If that’s the case, what is your argument? If it’s in the bible, and christians take the bible’s word to be fact, then they believe in the rapture. Right?
My argument is that it’s silly to be alarmed by Bush’s presumed belief in Jesus’s return to Earth. Most Christians believe that. Presumably all do. Are we going to disqualify Christians from being President?
Only a vocal minority call the return of Jesus “the Rapture” and get all geared up about it in a weird cultish way. Bush doesn’t seem to be one of them. Why the alarmism?
I believe someone else brought the rapture into the conversation; I was merely trying to clarify your stance. Thanks.