From here:
(Bolding mine)
And those who wish to worship several “Almighties?” What about those who don’t want to at all? I’m really getting tired of this Christo-centrism pervading our government at all levels.
Yeah, it’s short and lame, but that pissed me off.
Uh, ok.
Quite frankly, as a resident Atheist Hethen/Curmudgeon, I think if you’re getting your panties in a twist about a sentence in a speech that really has nothing to do with religion or Establisment-Clause issues at all, you’ve got your priorities fucked up.
It’s not as if polytheism is suddenly illegal because Bush’s speechwriters are attempting to appeal to the widest audience possible. Lighten up.
Did you also notice the legislature’s recent re-affirmation of “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” as our national motto? I’m not usually one for slippery slope arguments, and I’m not sure how slippery this slope is, but added to attempts to label textbooks or do away with evolutionary theory in public schools (or add creationism), I think we have, if not establishment cause issues, the making of/support of a hostile environment for those who aren’t Judeo-Christian in their beliefs or lack thereof.
I don’t think it was intended as a slam against atheists. It’s just standard politician-speak for “We have freedom of religion.” For example, Clinton made a speech in Saudi Arabia arguing for freedom of speech and religion, saying he looks forward to a “global political society in which everyone is free to worship G-d as they like and be free to disagree” It’s more that atheists are just under the radar…like that story about Bertram Russell.
Russell had been sentenced to jail during WWI for protesting the draft, and when he was being signed in, he listed his religion as “agnostic”. The warden read it and said, “I don’t know what religion that is, but I suppose it doesn’t matter. We all worship the same G-d, don’t we?”
Russell said that the comment kept him happy for about a week.
I think that you are getting pissed rather quickly.
I think that “an Almighty” is a pretty vague phrase and doesn’t necessary mean Christian. He didn’t even say “THE Almighty” which I could understand upsetting you a little more. I think that your Almighty could be several gods/goddesses. For the athiests - he only said that you were free to worship, not that you had to.
Not really. Ol’ stofsky’s been in a slow burn since November 2000. He’ll flame out at some point since it appears he’s run out of substantive issues and is down to the dross now.
Well, it doesn’t really piss me off. Anything Georgie-boy says pretty much just draws a rolly-eyes from me any more, not a cry of outrage.
But still, I’m not at all sure that wasn’t a deliberate slam at atheists. Those speeches are pretty carefully constructed, you know. Every word is carefully chosen. And the whole god in government issue has been pretty much in the public eye lately, with the plege brouhaha and all. And we certainly know which side of the issue Dubya comes down on. I do think that was a not-so-subtle slam.
I don’t know why it should surprise anybody, though.
So, does this mean I’m not allowed to worship both Kirsten Dunst and Heidi Klum?
Dammit Dubya, don’t make me choose!
It could have been worse. He might have said we were free to worship Jesus in any way we saw fit.
I just can’t see how that is a slam on atheists. We are free to worship an Almight any way we see fit. It doesn’t say that we have to, only that we are free to.
He also says the we are free to express an opinion. Can’t make me do that either.
(wait…wasn’t that an opinion?? Damn sneaky Bush.)
More substantive than Our Fearless Leader Of Men’s pronunciation (laughable though it may be). And more important to a larger segment of the population than a blowjob in the office.
Those of you piling on–first, I said it was a lame rant. Second, had Bush mentioned the freedom to worship or not to worship, what do you think would have been the reaction?
Err, that is, the thread about His (I capitalize it because according to some around here, He can do no wrong) pronunciation.
Ever notice that speeches aren’t written in Legalese?
"We not discounting those who are single by choicelove this is not meant to denigrate platonic relationshipsthe fact as near as facts can be proventhat people and animals, not to be specieistare free except for those who are jailed…excuse me, freedom-challengedin America, free to worshipdance/admire/genuflect/sing about an AlmightyBuddha/Hare Krishna/Zeus/David Koresh any way you see fitincluding the weight-challenged,
Somewhere at home I have an OLD newspaper article that dealt with a group trying to NewSpeak nursery rhymes. The author had a great line that I still remember: “It’s a NURSERY RHYME for God’s sake, not a blueprint for life!” My point is: don’t make too much out of it.
I am not trying to pile on ** stofsky**. I honestly don’t understand your complaint. Isn’t the freedom not to worship automatically included in the “freedom to worship any way you wish”?
I am really baffled why you are so pissed about this. It almost seems like you decided to be pissed before you ever read the speach and that was the only thing you could come up with to justify it.
Yeah, I’m not really sure about that. I’m pretty sure that Republicans outnumber atheists in this country.
Yeah, it is.
That was kind of my point–Bush said "freedom to worship an Almighty any way you wish.
And doesn’t that imply the freedom not to worship?? You are free to worship. He didn’t say “You are required to worship an Almighty.”
Can’t you see the difference?
I am sorry. I doubt I am ever going to get your point.
Many people in this country believe that freedom of religion means that you can choose to be a Baptist or a Methodist, and if you absolutely must, perhaps a Catholic or a Jew. It’s easy to see how Bush’s remark might play to those people.
It’s like saying that this is a great country because white people have freedom of speech. That doesn’t necessarily mean that black people don’t have freedom of speech, but it’s easy to infer that the speaker doesn’t care so much about the freedom of speech in non-white people.
Yeah, it’s probably over-reading it, and I imagine if pressed Bush would reluctantly admit that one has the freedom to be an atheist in this country.
Dr. J
Not necessarily, if he agrees with his father.