Those Unstable, Superstitious Christians

[Reilly]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
Tippy,

Gotta agree with most of what you said. In today's world, and especially today's political environment, there is almost never a <b> right </b> move (or a <b> wrong </b> one either, for that matter).

The Democrats are almost never gonna give GWB credit for making good leadership decisions (and I use the word almost just in case there happened to be one particular instance or two that was a possibility). On the other hand, the hard-line Republicans are almost (there's that word again) never gonna find fault. This entire paragraph could be held to a mirror and reversed when the roles are reversed.

Truth be told, today's American politics is viewed by many in the same manner as sporting events are observed. For what seems to me to be way too many citizens, politics is seen as "us against them" when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. What they don't seem to understand, to my way of thinking, it that its really "us against us".

Nice post. I agree wholeheartedly. Welcome.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Hobbit
There have also been many kind, benevolent, and generous acts performed in the name of God. Bush isn't solely driving the country towards some single, diving will. He's just taking his faith into account when making decisions, which is something everyone does. When religion comes up, we always hear about how religion is bad because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Muslim fanatacism. However, we never hear about the people who follow the command "love one another" and are somebody's friend when no one else wants to be. You never hear about the churchs who collect food and other basic commodities and selflessly give them away to people who can't afford them. You never hear about the churches that give Christmas to children whose parents can't afford it. You also never hear of the people who, in the name of God, bring nutrition, sanitation, and medicine to some disease infested craphole corner of the world. You can't simply decide that religion, by it's very nature, is a bad thing simply because a few people have invoked the name of God while performing acts directly contradictary to his teachings.

Dubbyuh is NOT a Christian. He is an opportunistic little hypocrite using the the mantle of religion to hide the rot in his soul.

 

[jimnyc]

TROLL!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
too many times throughout humanities history have we witnessed horrible acts committed in the name of a god, any god. It would seem only natural, using basic unfeeling logic, that to place the direction of a country on what one person perceives as divine will, to question that very position.

And yet we have seen through the past century of humanities history more death and destruction by the removal of God completely and the "Supremecy" of the state. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Southeast Asia, etc. These make all the horrible acts made in the name of God look like a walk in the park.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And yet we have seen through the past century of humanities history more death and destruction by the removal of God completely and the "Supremecy" of the state. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Southeast Asia, etc. These make all the horrible acts made in the name of God look like a walk in the park.

really now? you have proof that none of these men used any sort of religion in their push for supremacy?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
The Democrats are almost never gonna give GWB credit for making good leadership decisions (and I use the word almost just in case there happened to be one particular instance or two that was a possibility). On the other hand, the hard-line Republicans are almost (there's that word again) never gonna find fault. This entire paragraph could be held to a mirror and reversed when the roles are reversed.

I totally disagree. Republicans have been very critical of Bush. Its Immigration policy in particular. Not vetoing that unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill. Prominent Republicans have no qualms whatsoever with finding fault with Bush when he does something they disagree with.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I totally disagree. Republicans have been very critical of Bush. Its Immigration policy in particular. Not vetoing that unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill. Prominent Republicans have no qualms whatsoever with finding fault with Bush when he does something they disagree with.

But did you ever hear Kennedy or KErry criticize Clinton on any of his policies. I'd venture a very safe no.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And yet we have seen through the past century of humanities history more death and destruction by the removal of God completely and the "Supremecy" of the state. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Southeast Asia, etc. These make all the horrible acts made in the name of God look like a walk in the park.

For the record, the catholic church DID put Hitler into position so the people would like him and choose him to lead. It was only late in the game that they reversed direction. He also DID claim to be a "christian" although it is clear he was claiming catholocism.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by jimnyc
By David Limbaugh

Why does it make so many on the Left uncomfortable that President Bush openly professes his reliance on God in performing his official duties?

Actor Richard Gere has joined in the chorus led by Ralph Nader and others condemning President Bush for mixing his faith with his governance. "One thing I've learned in my life is never to trust anyone who thinks that he exclusively has God on his side," said Gere to a crowd of like-minded Hollywooders.

Gere's brilliant insight followed a recent statement by perennial presidential aspirant and equal opportunity nuisance Ralph Nader lambasting Bush for not divorcing his faith from his public service. Nader was apparently disturbed by a passage in Bob Woodward's new book.

Woodward reports that when Bush was in the process of deciding to attack Iraq he prayed "for the strength to do the Lord's will." This "revelation" reportedly prompted Nader to tell the Christian Science Monitor, "We are dealing here with a basically unstable president … a messianic militarist.

A messianic militarist, under our constitutional structure, is an unstable office-holder. Talk about separation of church and state: It is not separated at all in Bush's brain, and this is extremely disturbing."

Hold on a second there, Ralph. One with a messianic complex would regard himself as a savior or liberator, according to dictionaries I've consulted. In the statements Nader is referring to, President Bush is doing just the opposite. He is asking God to give him the strength to do God's will. Nothing could be more humble; nothing could be less egotistical. Nothing could be less "messianic."

That's one of the ironic things about Bush's secular critics. They see him as a man literally eaten up with macho-pride and cowboy swagger, yet at his core, he is a man of extraordinary humility, a person who understands this historic moment is not about him, but about the causes, people, and most of all, God he serves.

And while Bush quietly admits that he cherishes his personal relationship with God, he doesn't claim his relationship is exclusive or that he's receiving direct orders from God, especially as to generalship of the war.

David Aikman, author of the new book "A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush," says that Bush is not unduly conspicuous about his faith. "He's never said God told us to go to war, never said God told me to do anything … He's been very careful," said Aikman.

So why do liberal elitists recoil like snakes when Bush makes references to his faith? Why do they act like it's newsworthy when the highest officeholder in the land admits to being a practicing Christian in a nation where most citizens claim to be Christians?

Well, one possible reason is that they believe in a pure separation of church and state, at least as it applies to the Christian church. Some adhere it to such an extreme degree -- as evidenced by Ralph Nader's ludicrous quote above -- that they insist it requires a Christian to separate his faith from his governance.

As if it's possible (or desirable) to create an internal Chinese firewall in someone's brain or his personality to cordon off his worldview from his decisions in office. As if Christians should not only keep their opinions to themselves, but from themselves.

How would Ralph like it if we told him he should not allow his moral judgments about corporate greed to affect his political advocacy or inform his candidacy?

Isn't the double standard painfully obvious? It's not the secularists' allegiance to church-state separation that drives them, but an abiding distrust of and hostility toward Christianity, which many of them see as a dangerous superstition.

A perfect illustration of this is an e-mail I received in response to my last column on the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist." My correspondent wrote, "when grown men and women believe Noah and his brood incestuously repopulated the whole planet, I am a bit dismayed that people can be so stupid."

There you have it. Christians are unstable, science-averse simpletons so weak they have to rely on a fictitious savior, so unsophisticated they believe in the forces of good and evil, and so reckless that they will fight wars to protect their national security even if many of America's traditional allies don't have the courage or rectitude to join them.

Oh, how far we've come in this nation since it was considered unquestionably noble to place our "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/23/121811.shtml

Piss on " American Gigalo" He is a POS and a failed actor to boot...

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Dubbyuh is NOT a Christian. He is an opportunistic little hypocrite using the the mantle of religion to hide the rot in his soul.

Much like you seem to be , huh , little man???

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by MadMax
Much like you seem to be , huh , little man???

 

[proud_savagette]

First off, Iwould like to ask you what you really think of 9/11. People just working, not doing anything wrong, and then boom. Thousands of people dead. That alone is enough reason to go to war, was it not? And there really were suspicions that Saddam and the Taliban had met several times and all that jazz, so there was reason to go over there. Besides, do you even know what Saddam did to his people???? And his sons, what THEY did to people??? Saddam's regime crimes are countless and endless. However the following are few examples of these crimes:

1. The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
2. The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
3. The arrest of thousand of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. The arrest, torture and executions of tens of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
5. The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sistre Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
6. The war against Iran in 1980 in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, and many doubles of that number were handicapped or missed.
7. The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
8. Using chemical weapons in the North and the South the details of which are below.
9. The occupation of Kuwait which resulted in killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and injuring many doubles of that number in addition to the destruction of Iraq.
10. The assassination of many opposition figures outside Iraq such Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami Mahdi and Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan in 1987, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan in 1988, and Shaikh Talib Al Suhail in Lebanon in 1994.
11. The execution of 21 Bath Party leaders in 1979 in Iraq , the assassination of Hardan Al Tikriti former defence Minister in Kuwait in 1973, and the former Prime- Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London 1978.

Uday had a penchant for taking his frustrations out on women. Witnesses report that he has a nearly insatiable appetite for women, who would emerge from his chambers battered and bruised — at best.

Uday reportedly murdered at least half a dozen women and tortured countless others. When one woman complained about the abuse, Uday had her "stripped naked, covered in honey and killed by three starving Dobermans," according to Middle East Quarterly.

In an interview with Laurie Myrloie, an Iraqi defector described being tortured at Uday's order for "no particular reason" and on other occasions with specific reasons. When the defector (an editor at the national newspaper) refused to write an editorial ordered by Uday, the defector was whipped with electrical cables. On another occasion, he was jabbed with "large needles."

On another occasion, the defector said, "Uday also killed his friend Muhammed Qaraghuli in a particularly brutal manner. He forced three bottles of gin down his throat by continuously beating him. Qaraghuli passed out. Uday then ordered that he be on a merry-go-round at an amusement park. Qaraghuli fell from it onto a metal stake that went through his head." Prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003, Uday ran Iraq's Olympic committee in much the same style that he applies to his personal affairs. According to several Iraqi Olympic athletes who defected between the mid-1990s and the present, athletes were "beaten and humiliated" when they lost games. Some reported being flogged, beaten and imprisoned.

According to ESPN, Uday has athletes "beaten with iron bars. Caned on the soles of their feet. Chained to walls and left to stay in contorted positions for days. Dragged on pavement until their backs are bloody, then dunked in sewage to ensure the wounds become infected. If Uday stops by a player's jail cell, he might urinate on his bowed, shaven head. Just to humiliate him." Even ping-pong players were subject to torture for poor performances. Let's go out there and win one for the Ripper!

And finally, his other son, Qusay:
Qusay swiftly helped Saddam eliminate any real or perceived threat to the regime by using bloody and shocking "tools of repression" to blackmail, force confessions, and destroy opponents.

Authorized interrogation, jailing, and execution of political prisoners and their families.

Periodically ordered during 1988-99 mass prison executions of several thousand inmates ("prison cleansing").

Led crackdown against the al-Dulaym tribe in 1995 and local Shi'a revolt in 1997.

i thank you for your ignorance. Au revoir.

 

[jimnyc]

proud savagette, you rule!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Dubbyuh is NOT a Christian. He is an opportunistic little hypocrite using the the mantle of religion to hide the rot in his soul.

And I suppose you can look into a man's heart and understand his intentions and his standing with God? Or did God tell you that Dubya is not a Christian?

 

[proud_savagette]

Hehehe. Nice one!

 

[NewGuy]

proud_savagette
Junior Member

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Folsom, CA. Yep, right next to Folsom Prison, the place in Johnny Cash's song Folsom Prison Blues, though he was never actually there; he bought the song from a prisoner there.
Posts: 8

I bet I have seen you around town......

 

[kingjames04]

The left only proves its own arrogant hypocrisy when addressing separation of church and state.

The President saying that freedom is Gods gift to the world is not equivalent to enforcing his personal religion.

Exactly who is going to claim that God and freedom are not compatible?

It seems only a theocrat would use Gods name to restrict freedom.

Does the left fear a theocracy, or are they asking for one?

Maybe it should also be asked why they seem to think that freedom of religion is only possible by restricting the President's freedom of speech.

Or haven't they heard of the ninth ammendment.

 

[deaddude]

"The left only proves its own arrogant hypocrisy when addressing separation of church and state."



Example Please



"Exactly who is going to claim that God and freedom are not compatible?"



I would argue that it would depend on the deity in question and on ones interpretation of that deity.



"It seems only a theocrat would use Gods name to restrict freedom."



Freedom to do what? Possibly freedom to have a homosexual marridge? Where do you draw the line and how?



"Does the left fear a theocracy, or are they asking for one?"



I greatly fear theocracy, the catholic churchwas once the most powerful organization in the world, and look what it did. The protestant reformation led to wars all over Europe with catholics and protestants killing eachother over the number of sacrements.
Religion is a powerful thing, so powerful that it can set its adherents at each others throats over the smallest details.


"Maybe it should also be asked why they seem to think that freedom of religion is only possible by restricting the President's freedom of speech."

Sure the president can say all of the religious claptrap he wants, but its when he fails to seperate his religious views from his descesions or allows those views to affect those descesions that I get worried.