You mean they didn’t already? :eek:
Skimming through some of the posts, it seems the retort has been, “but it’s not unconstitutional to talk about God!!!” Whatever. My point was that, in speaking about God, at the same time as swearing to uphold the constitution, is somewhat deceitful. The laws of faith do not mix with the constitution. It’s like putting faith on the left channel, and our rights on the right channel. And when listening in stereo, it comes out as garbage.
Garbage that’s been put forth by virtually every president from Washington onwards. But don’t worry - I’m sure you’re right and all of them are wrong.
:rolleyes:
Jimmy Carter was probably the most devoutly religious president we ever had. The man taught Sunday School before and after his presidency. His religious values dictated much, if not all, of his policies.
Although he would love to share his religion with you, Mr. Carter would never force his religion on you. I feel that Mr. Bush and many Republicans/fundamentals would love to force their religion on me and on others.
President Carter quoted from the Bible at his inauguration.
Here’s a quiz: who mentioned “God” more often: Jimmy Carter in his inaugural speech in 1977, or George W. Bush in his 2005 inaugural speech?
The next question: Which president has done the most to institutionalize “faith-based initiatives” as part of government programs?
That’d be George W Bush.
Carter’s 1977 inaugural address mentioned “God” precisely once, and that was in a direct quote from the Bible. “…and to walk humbly with thy God.” (Micah 6:8)
Bush’s 2005 inaugural address mentioned “God” three times, once in a quote from Abraham Lincoln.
What do I win?
An appreciative nod. I should have asked which address quoted more from the Bible.
In his inaugural address, the subject of this thread, I can find no references by either president.
When I heard that Bush mentioned God three times in his inagural address, my first thought was WTF? Only three times? Did we reelect a queer-loving athiest?
But then I found out that he also mentioned the “maker,” the Sermon on the Mount, the “truths of Sinai” (which I assume to be code for the Ten Commandments), faith, and the soul (twice). He even threw in a Koranic fig-leaf.
And all was right with the world again.
Three times? You mean this whole pitting is about three times? According to the OP, “Every frickin’ word was riddled with God.” What are we now, perpetuating ignorance?
Aside from God, Carter mentioned Micah, the Bible, and spirituality (from which he said our society is defined.) I never cease to be amazed by the cluelessness and duplicity of the left.
Normally American heads of state quote Biblical passages at inaugurations and other such functions, and the quotes are, in general, so agreable to the senses of any moral or ethical individual, I see no reason to take offense.
Personally, I now want Bush to quote from the Bible as often, and in context as specifically, as his handlers dare allow. What motivates and informs the decisions of our President? Well, if it’s his faith to a great degree, I really want to know all about it. The damage has been done as far as sensibilities are concerned, both at home and abroad, vis the whole “Separation of Church and State” technicality. Bush obviously doesn’t care about those who dislike the idea that religiosity has crept into policy, so there’s scant reason, at this juncture, to keep up the “uniter” charade any longer. Attitudes can’t get much more polarized than they are now, so why not have some complete candor (for a change), and let us in on the master plan?
Let’s encourage our President to be as open as he can be about his ties to the likes of Bob Jones, and Dr. James Dobson. Let’s invite frank discussion of the resonance between the Bush world view, and that of the radical Christian Right. And then, by his actions, we can then trace the line of reasoning, the seeds of ideology that achieve fruition in policy. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” yes? Christian Republicans, I want to know all about it. Care to witness a little more?
Oh, that’s the exoteric meaning, yes. But if you read more carefully, you can discern the esoteric meaning, which is that everyone will get a crystal in the palm of their hand which will turn red on their thirtieth birthday.
I thought you would have realized that.
I never get the memos.
Well, we did send a memo about wearing jeans today for casual Friday, but there was the whole exoteric/esoteric thing again, and…
And yet, somehow, a President’s actions and policies matter, while a speech doesn’t. “The subject of this thread” is the extent to which a president allows his particular brand of religion to direct his actions and policies.
But of course you know that, weaselboy. Care to answer the question as posed, now?
Yeah, Brick, damn. Can’t you read? The title clearly asks, “What happened to the extent to which a president allows his particular brand of religion to direct his actions and policies?”.
Really? That’s the subject?
That is the subject of this thread. Please pay attention.
What you don’t understand is that threads are like Supreme Court decisions. They mean exactly what Elvis wants them to mean in context of advancing his idea of justice.
Please read again, more slowly this time. Feel free to move your lips if necessary. Then, perhaps you can address the question posed to you.
manny, lib, do you have anything useful to say? About anything, for that matter?