Hyperbole’s OK no matter who’s using it. I simply remember from your Zell outrage how important it is to identify hyperbole as such, which is what I was doing.
Bush’s expression of his private faith during his inauguration ceremony does not constitute an official recognition of any faith.
In the same way, he may express his appreciation for his wife without the audience believing that the government is now mandating that all persons marry soft-spoken Texan schoolteachers named ‘Laura.’
I take the law and the Constitution very seriously, and that’s why I’m happy the law and the Constitution permits such expression of faith. If you think it doesn’t, I urge you to supply the relevant case law to this discussion.
Content aside, he’s the most stupefyingly dull speaker I’ve ever heard. I could almost hear the attendees in the back rows of the platform saying, “For God’s sake, shut up so we can start getting hammered.”
But if he had to live his life emulating Christ, he never would have sought political leadership; that wasn’t Christ’s approach.
The question about the hijackers’ conduct and objective standards deserves more words tahn I can type now. I’m not ignoring it, but I would like more time to respond.
I would disagree. W is a horrible Speaker, but Kerry is just damn dull. He’s smart, but every time I listen to him talk, I get the overwhelming urge to fall asleep.
I suspect he would read erotic literature and it would still be so.
W, on the other hand, may trip all over this words, may invent new words, and may piss you off…but in any case, you’re probably not going to be falling asleep after 15 seconds.
As has been previously mentioned, just because this is technically correct doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I think it’s an awful idea and he should shut the fuck up with the sky pixie crap.
I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that the level of god-mentioning he did was unconstitutional, per se. In fact, I’m not sure if ANY level of god-mentioning, in an inaugural address, would be unconstitutional. (That’s an interesting question, actually… if Jesse Jackson, who is a clergyman, had won the presidency, and had gotten liquored up, and had basically given a Christian sermon as his inaugural address, or state of the union speech, and was literally saying “only through Jesus can you go to heaven” in an official capacity as president, would that actually be, in some way, illegal? Could he be impeached for doing so?)
Anyhow, digression aside, I assume that there’s at least some hypothetical extreme case in which you WOULD find the level of god-mentioning in an inaugural speech to be, if not unconstitutional, then at least inappropriate. If so, then the question becomes, where is the dividing line? What’s the criterion for determining whether the level of god-mentioning is inappropriate. And you seem to be proposing “as long as 51% of the population isn’t bothered, it’s appropriate”. Is that, in fact, what you claim? Or were you just saying that in passing?
I don’t disagree that his expression of private faith during the inauguration is violating the separation of Church and State, but let’s turn the situation around a bit. What if, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush had an epiphany and the Goddess appeared to him. The next day, he jumped on the Net and did some research and converted to Wicca. He rewrote his speech to show his new found faith, invoking the Goddess and the Three-Fold-Law.
Mr. Bush gives the same speech, but invokes the Goddess and Wiccan principles. Do you honestly think conservative Christians would sit still for that or offer plaititudes about “expressions of personal faith” ?
His father isn’t much better. I stood in the hanger bay of the USS Truman while he droned on for an hour one afternoon. Montone voice, stood too far away from the microphone. I only heard the words “Barb”, “Oceania”, “stationed there,” and “cannibalism.” Very surreal.
You are simply declaring something that I think just isn’t so – in a pluralistic society, I think people should be mindful of the fact that 51% != 100%. I think this president in particular has done a poor job of that, but it’s nonethelss necessary.
WTF? This would hold true for the electorate no matter what the change. If we elect someone trusting that their beliefs are one thing and they get up one day and they’re something completely different, then yes the electorate has every reason to be upset. Hmmm, maybe that’s why Kerry wasn’t being inaugurated today, the electorate could never build any trust in what his beliefs were going to be from one day to the next.
Well, we simply disagree. And there’s a practical component to this issue: in this country, we elect our leaders by popular vote. Since it’s well-nigh impossible for any national leader who espouses a “sky pixie” philosophy to get the support of a majority of voters, I’d say it’s unlikely that your view will soon find expression in our elected leaders.
The issue isn’t the CHANGE in philosophy, the issue the Christian-right would have is the philosophy he changed to.
If, tomorrow, Bush converted to Islam, do you think he’d have the loving support and adulation he’s got now? Not by a long shot, no matter how devote a Muslim he became.