The 'Dangerous' Faith of President Bush

[Bullypulpit]

People who have no means of realizing a sense of personal well being in universal eternity must attack those who do or even claim they do. It is a threat to their very core fears of separation, aloneness, death and non-existence. These people MUST refute and demonize those who have made personal existential resolutions or face a fear that they are too frightened to. They turn into clingers (I like to call em Klingons for kicks) to defend themselves. Immediate gratification, materialism, and remote causes become the means for them to attempt avoid the unavoidable. Saving a whale or a tree becomes snake-oil disguised as an elixer. I'd feel sorry for em but it would be a waste of emotion. Hopefully they'll come around on their own.

In this you are mistaken. Even though I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being, I have no fear of "...separation, aloneness, death and non-existence...". The meaning of life is derived from life itself, I do not need someone telling me what that meaning is. Or worse, trying to impose his/her definition of the meaning of life upon me or anyone else. There is plenty of room in this world for religions to exist in harmony. Their leadership just needs to stop asserting they're the only ones who are right.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Just so we are clear here...Are you advocating an anything goes government without any moral compass at all?

Why does not being a Christian automatically disqualify anyone from having ethics and morals?

 

[missredeyes]

Interesting Red how all these sites are extemely liberally biased.........Secondly the reason no -one is taking kerry to task for his faith is he has none, the media, and other elites are fully aware of this, that was the point of the article.......What you are saying is yes lets all have our faith but it should never influence the decisions we make everyday in our lives...........Thats absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!!! Bush did use intelligence reports, that by many had incorrect information of which he based his decisons on. Make up your mind, did he use his faith or bad intelligence..Can't have it both ways to suit your assertions.

man you really are a republican.. misinterpreting what is CLEARLY typed out in front of you..


so once again..
WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS PRESIDENT, NO, YOUR DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON FAITH.

and my mind has clearly been made up for some time now.
bush used his faith and poor intelligence reports to make decisions


kerry does have faith, but doesn't solely go by his faith regarding U.S. affairs/government/senate decisions. he has made that very clear in the presidential debates.

quote from debate made by kerry:

"I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."

therefore..
he does have faith.. but realizes that you should not press your own beliefs on anyone because they may not agree with you, and that would be wrong to force someone to believe what you do.

 

[Bonnie]

Why does not being a Christian automatically disqualify anyone from having ethics and morals?

So morals and ethics are okay, just as long as they dont' come from any place religious?? Then how do all religious and non religious people live in harmony with eachother if everyone is told they must live under secularists ideas..........?

 

[Bonnie]

man you really are a republican.. misinterpreting what is CLEARLY typed out in front of you..


so once again..
WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS PRESIDENT, NO, YOUR DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON FAITH.

and my mind has clearly been made up for some time now.
bush used his faith and poor intelligence reports to make decisions


kerry does have faith, but doesn't solely go by his faith regarding U.S. affairs/government/senate decisions. he has made that very clear in the presidential debates.

quote from debate made by kerry:

"I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."

therefore..
he does have faith.. but realizes that you should not press your own beliefs on anyone because they may not agree with you, and that would be wrong to force someone to believe what you do.

So your OPINION is that no president should use his faith as a way to see right from wrong.........Then what should he base it on ..There are many people who have the OPINION that he should base his ideas and principals on his faith. So since kerry has decided to not make faith what he leans upon to make decisions and decide who he actually is as a man, then who is he actually representing? And since when is taking a moral stand on an issue to the point of changing the Constitution inncorrect and shoving it down everyone's throat, if he was elected into office to do just that? Yes kerry has stated he will defend the Consititution as any president would, terrific, and I suppose no Liberal has made legislation to change or add to an Amendment? How come when libs do it it's okay, but when the Christian majority wants it done it's wrong?

 

[missredeyes]

So your OPINION is that no president should use his faith as a way to see right from wrong.........Then what should he base it on ..There are many people who have the OPINION that he should base his ideas and principals on his faith. So since kerry has decided to not make faith what he leans upon to make decisions and decide who he actually is as a man, then who is he actually representing? And since when is taking a moral stand on an issue to the point of changing the Constitution inncorrect and shoving it down everyone's throat, if he was elected into office to do just that? Yes kerry has stated he will defend the Consititution as any president would, terrific, and I suppose no Liberal has made legislation to change or add to an Amendment? How come when libs do it it's okay, but when the Christian majority wants it done it's wrong?

(look. just to clarify.. i don't like bush or kerry. but those are our choices.)

who is kerry representing????
kerry represents the country as a whole. by stating that this whole country is made up of all kinds of beliefs..not just one (christianity).

he's not saying "IM CATHOLIC AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BE"

he's saying.. "IM CATHOLIC, AND JUST HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT"

i don't think you need faith to know what is right and wrong.
there is a thing called 'common sense'
i'm sure you've heard of that.
not to mention intelligence reports.. facts, etc. (which we had discussed earlier)


(the last part of your post bonnie)
"Yes kerry has stated he will defend the Consititution as any president would, terrific, and I suppose no Liberal has made legislation to change or add to an Amendment? How come when libs do it it's okay, but when the Christian majority wants it done it's wrong?"


have liberals made legislation to change or add to an amendment coincided with faith??
please enlighten me.. because to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

and if they have/had done that.. it would be wrong.. just like it is wrong for the christian majority. i also guarantee that someone would have made a big fuss about it (i.e. reporters!!)

 

[Bonnie]

(look. just to clarify.. i don't like bush or kerry. but those are our choices.)

who is kerry representing????
kerry represents the country as a whole. by stating that this whole country is made up of all kinds of beliefs..not just one (christianity).

he's not saying "IM CATHOLIC AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BE"

he's saying.. "IM CATHOLIC, AND JUST HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT"

i don't think you need faith to know what is right and wrong.
there is a thing called 'common sense'
i'm sure you've heard of that.
not to mention intelligence reports.. facts, etc. (which we had discussed earlier)


(the last part of your post bonnie)
"Yes kerry has stated he will defend the Consititution as any president would, terrific, and I suppose no Liberal has made legislation to change or add to an Amendment? How come when libs do it it's okay, but when the Christian majority wants it done it's wrong?"


have liberals made legislation to change or add to an amendment coincided with faith??
please enlighten me.. because to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

and if they have/had done that.. it would be wrong.. just like it is wrong for the christian majority. i also guarantee that someone would have made a big fuss about it (i.e. reporters!!)

Well Bush is not saying everyone has to be Christian, and the fact that you have proof positive inside knowledge that Bush based his actions about the war soley on faith is laughable!
I never said Liberals have made changes or amendments to the constitution based on religious theology, that would be laughable also, rather my point was they make changes and it gets shoved down the christian majority's collective throats.... but claim it's okay BECAUSE it's not based on religious theology. So in other words as long as it's laws or changes that make secularists happy then hey that's all that matters right???
I could care less who you would like to see as president, this thread is about something much more important than that............it's about how leaders (specifically Bush)are being taken to task because they bring Christain principals into their jobs just as the rest of us do, and being accused that that somehow renders them incapable of making wise or constitutional decisions. Gee how very tolerant and open minded..........
Oh and the part about the media would be all over it if Liberals changed the Constitution to suit their liking :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: particularly nice touch!!!

 

[Zhukov]

its the fact that he tries to push that belief on EVERYONE using our government.

then I said:

I don't suppose....you could offer any examples?

and you respond with:

well since most of you can't comprehend what bush is doing with his faith..
here are some links showing you how he is trying to force his faith on others..

?

.....as if you had already proven to the world the facts of your fear mongering demagoguery, and we are all just too stupid to understand? Since at this point you hadn't yet provided a single fact, not one shred of evidence to back-up your silly concerns, perhaps it's not the best way to begin a response.



And then you proceed to give links to 18 opinion pieces on how awful it is for tax payer dollars to be given to charities because they might happen to be based out of houses of worship (who cares if they're more effective, and a better buy for our taxpayer dollar right?), and a link about how the AIDS epidemic in Africa is all the President's fault?

Well, I'm afraid you've failed to convince me.

Why don't you actually try to find out what the Faith-Based and Community Intiatives Act is. The President doesn't make law in this country. These intiatives were debated, ammended, and approved by our democratically elected public officials.

 

[wolvie20m]

I don't see him tryin to impose his faith on anyone. The only proof of this is government finacial support for anti-drug reform programs. To say I don't belive is to renounce your faith. I don't know about your beliefs but mine ask me to tell others not push it on them. Is having faith a bad thing. Is promotion of doing good and being good bad? Seeing as how this nation was formed to have the right to belive in whatever you want to belive in, I don't see that changing. So if you don't wanna belive don't belive, if wanna then believe. So long as government funds aren't used to support thier beliefs I don't see the harm.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So morals and ethics are okay, just as long as they dont' come from any place religious?? Then how do all religious and non religious people live in harmony with eachother if everyone is told they must live under secularists ideas..........?

There's nothing at all wrong with religiously based ethical systems so long as they don't advocate the harm of oneself, another or both. But you must also understand that ethical systems which do not derive from a deontological system are equally valid, again, so long as they do not advocate the harm of oneself, another or both.

Also, deontological ethics raises the question of "Whose deity is right?". With a system of ethics rooted firmly in its consequences to this life, in this world, that trap is avoided.

 

[White knight]

Listen to this interview and tell me if these are the tactics of a man with faith. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3895966

 

[Bonnie]

Why does not being a Christian automatically disqualify anyone from having ethics and morals?

Just curious here, Why have morals or ethics if there is no reason to. Do you really believe human nature is such that without some kind of foundation of religious principals ther would be more harmony in the world? And why then are our laws based on some of the commandments?

 

[Bonnie]

Listen to this interview and tell me if these are the tactics of a man with faith. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3895966

Looks like Bush has company now :

 

[White knight]

This whole argument of being guided by religious faith is flawed.

Mr. Kerry killed by his own hand; he did not use a religious conscientious objective status to get out of the killing.

Mr. Bush being a born again and guided by his religious faith did not impede the death sentences of more inmates including a women, then any other state. (I know everything is big in Texas. Ain’t nutin like a good ol Texas Bar-B-Q.)

Nobody tried to explain how is that a professed follower of the teachings of Christ can ignore his teachings and throw the first stone and still claim that Christ guides them.
Just like they can’t explain how the tactics in the story above fit into the teachings of Christ. It sounds more like something used by the Father of Lies.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3895966

 

[dmp]

This whole argument of being guided by religious faith is flawed.
Mr. Kerry killed by his own hand; he did not use the religious conscientious objective status to get out of the killing.
Mr. Bush being a born again and guided by his religious faith did not impede the death sentences of more inmates including a women, then any other state. (I know everything is big in Texas. Ain’t nutin like a good Texas Bar-B-Q.)
Nobody tried to explain how is that a professed follower of the teachings of Christ can ignore his teachings and throw the first stone and still claim that Christ guides them.
Just like they can’t explain how the tactics in the story above fit into the teachings of Christ. It sounds more like something used by Father of Lies.

Before you talk about Christianity and capital punishment, do some research - google is a good start.

 

[5stringJeff]

Nobody tried to explain how is that a professed follower of the teachings of Christ can ignore his teachings and throw the first stone and still claim that Christ guides them.
Just like they can’t explain how the tactics in the story above fit into the teachings of Christ. It sounds more like something used by Father of Lies.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3895966

What Bush did as governor was carry out the laws and punishments of the state. How does one jump from "He who is without sin, cast the first stone," relating to religious law, to saying that a state cannot carry out its laws?

 

[White knight]

Before you talk about Christianity and capital punishment, do some research - google is a good start.

You Explain it to us, or maybe you can't?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

mr. Bush being a born again and guided by his religious faith did not impede the death sentences of more inmates including a women, then any other state. (I know everything is big in Texas. Ain’t nutin like a good Texas Bar-B-Q.)

Nobody tried to explain how is that a professed follower of the teachings of Christ can ignore his teachings and throw the first stone and still claim that Christ guides them.

This proves he doesn't allow his religion to get in the way of his governance, as you assert. Maybe your incessant prattling will be silenced by your own evidence. Let us pray.

 

[White knight]

What Bush did as governor was carry out the laws and punishments of the state. How does one jump from "He who is without sin, cast the first stone," relating to religious law, to saying that a state cannot carry out its laws?

It was the law of the time for an adulteress to be stoned to death, as it is still the law in some parts of the region today. Jesus broke from tradition and the law and set a example for his followers.
So you agree, leaders should keep their religious faith out of our laws and government and not use it to get votes.

 

[Bonnie]

It was the law of the time for an adulteress to be stoned to death, as it is still the law in some parts of the region today. Jesus broke from tradition and the law and set a example for his followers.
So you agree, leaders should keep their religious faith out of our laws and government and not use it to get votes.

you may want to tell Kerry that as well, seems he is now courting religious voters, and geese killing gun toters as well.
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/kerry.guns.ap/