The spiritual considerations of GWB
while trying to find some references to bible passages pertaining to war (if anyone has a link to do with that, please post), I came across this article that discusses GWB, praying, the hard-right conservative and the relationship between bible-thumping & thumping the war drum. Well, kind of. It is definitely a worthwhile read.
Here is my favorite excerpt (a good passage, but it does not at all convey the theme of the article):
anyhow, here's the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0309-01.htm
as a side note, nothing has turned me off of christianity more than the type of christians mentioned in the previous passage. My dad is one of these and the church I grew up in was chock full of them. After nearly swearing off christianity, I am slowly realizing that this behavior and the attitudes shared by these people are not necessarily reflective of christianity, though I am still quite a ways from going to church every sunday. Sorry for the rant, that is not the point of the post.
Here is my favorite excerpt (a good passage, but it does not at all convey the theme of the article):
Quote:
The problem with middle-aged drunks turned Christian is that they can't sleep without yakking about Jesus, and they won't let anyone else sleep, either. Instead of embracing their religion as a private matter, they flaunt it as a mission to convert. They can become a terrible nuisance, especially to those born into the religion.
The drunk-gone-zealot may be reassuring to the troubled family. But it is not altogether reassuring to a modern world facing such a fanatic on the trigger of weapons of mass destruction that are capable of destroying the Earth several times over.
The problem with middle-aged drunks turned Christian is that they can't sleep without yakking about Jesus, and they won't let anyone else sleep, either. Instead of embracing their religion as a private matter, they flaunt it as a mission to convert. They can become a terrible nuisance, especially to those born into the religion.
The drunk-gone-zealot may be reassuring to the troubled family. But it is not altogether reassuring to a modern world facing such a fanatic on the trigger of weapons of mass destruction that are capable of destroying the Earth several times over.
anyhow, here's the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0309-01.htm
as a side note, nothing has turned me off of christianity more than the type of christians mentioned in the previous passage. My dad is one of these and the church I grew up in was chock full of them. After nearly swearing off christianity, I am slowly realizing that this behavior and the attitudes shared by these people are not necessarily reflective of christianity, though I am still quite a ways from going to church every sunday. Sorry for the rant, that is not the point of the post.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
There are a lot of horrible examples within the Christian faith, examples which definitely turn a lot of people off from Christianity in general. Sad, actually.
I imagine the same is the case with the islamic faith. The peaceful muslim majority has to be very frustrated
The Newsday article that the link points to is just one in a whole slew of articles (the initial salvo) which appeared at about the same time, criticising the religious views of the administration. It's just one more trial balloon as the Left tries to find the best strategy for undermining Bush.
Originally posted by finboy
Talking about someone having faith is a subtle way of calling them a kook. Newsweek from a few weeks ago was a good example. Without saying so, it sowed the seeds of doubt about the administration because the people in the White House actually (GASP) believe in GOD.
But when it involves policy, it's an important fact since we are a secular nation and have a distinct separation of church and state. Any threat to that separation is akin to revoking the right to free speech.
If for the word "article" you insert "rant", then I'd agree.
What do you do when you testify in a courtroom? You swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help you God." In some states, you even place your hand on a Bible (or least they used to, maybe that's a thing of the past in all 50 now). What did so many of us do for so many years every morning in public schools? We pledged allegiance to a flag that represented "one nation, indivisible, [and that was] under God..." What does the moniker on our currency state "In God We Trust".
There is separation of Church and State only in wording, not in practice. Never has been....
It can be argued that the effect of religion on said practice was relatively subtle up until now (though it would be a tough argument in some cases), but it's always been there to some degree. But some of our most ingrained legal and social traditions make no effort to hide their religious overtones. Now for me, the question really is, if the administration that is in office at any given time has religious views that reflect those of the voting majority -- isn't that part of what representing those people is all about?
I personally would say it should not be - even if their religious convictions were my own - because in a country this large, even a small minority can consist of millions of people. People whose rights count just as much as the majority's, whether they lost the vote or not....
Originally posted by bunge
But when it involves policy, it's an important fact since we are a secular nation and have a distinct separation of church and state. Any threat to that separation is akin to revoking the right to free speech.
I agree that we are a secular nation, but I think it's really dirty to play the religion card when it obviously isn't relevant in most things related to Bush. If Bush's religious behavior IS relevant, then why wasn't Clinton's LACK OF religious behavior (or immoral behavior) relevant?
The idea that Bush and his administration somehow represent a threat to the separation of church and state is another product of fearmongering. Of course they aren't a threat, they just have beliefs and they practice them.
Originally posted by Moogs
I agree in principle that the President and public servants in general should leave their religious convictions out of national security policy in particular, and in general any policies which affect the public at large -- that's almost everything they do. But it always boggles the mind how people overlook some of the obvious contradictions about our "separation of Church and State".
What do you do when you testify in a courtroom? You swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help you God." In some states, you even place your hand on a Bible (or least they used to, maybe that's a thing of the past in all 50 now). What did so many of us do for so many years every morning in public schools? We pledged allegiance to a flag that represented "one nation, indivisible, [and that was] under God..." What does the moniker on our currency state "In God We Trust".
There is separation of Church and State only in wording, not in practice. Never has been....
It can be argued that the effect of religion on said practice was relatively subtle up until now (though it would be a tough argument in some cases), but it's always been there to some degree. But some of our most ingrained legal and social traditions make no effort to hide their religious overtones. Now for me, the question really is, if the administration that is in office at any given time has religious views that reflect those of the voting majority -- isn't that part of what representing those people is all about?
I personally would say it should not be - even if their religious convictions were my own - because in a country this large, even a small minority can consist of millions of people. People whose rights count just as much as the majority's, whether they lost the vote or not....
Don't get started on those McCarthy Era anti-communist propaganda insertions of god into many facets of the government. Let's go back to the original pledge and E Pluribus Unum.
There is separation of Church and State only in wording, not in practice. Never has been....
You are so horribly wrong on this one. Open a history book and stop talking out of your ass.
Originally posted by finboy
I agree that we are a secular nation, but I think it's really dirty to play the religion card when it obviously isn't relevant in most things related to Bush.
I disagree with the premise of your post, but there's one thing I can agree with. Even you here are willing to admit that religion is playing a part in some of what Bush does. That's unconstitutional. It's treason as far as I'm concerned.