[quote]teamstaley wrote:
actually it was me, JULIANNE who thought it was funny. I have a right to my own opinion and I am not asking anyone here to read into my own political viewpoint. -Julianne[/quote]
Julianne:
You might be expressing your own viewpoint. however you are using the “teamstaley” name.
Moriarty,
"The next two words in my post were “I assume.”
And I have no doubt that you were. Here’s the short of it - some people think Bush is actually trying to do away with secular law and replace it with the Bible. I say I can’t possibly see why these people think the way they do, so I’d like to see some evidence that Bush thinks that way.
And I still have yet to see it.
“I don’t think you will ever be satisfied then, because even if the were/is the case, Bush, being a politician, will never come out and say that.”
Probably right, so as a result, I tend not to make wild claims about things I really don’t know about.
“Simple question to you though…Do you or do you not beileve that Bush’s primary rationale for opposing gay marriage is religious (not that there’s something wrong with that)? Honestly.”
Honestly - I completely believe that Bush’s religious beliefs play a part in him wanting to preserve traditional marriage. But that is a far cry from trying to bring ‘God’s law to the masses’. John Kerry doesn’t support gay marriage either, and I am sure his religious beliefs are also a part of his defense of traditional marriage. My point is simple - opposing gay marriage does not automatically make you a closed-minded evangelical literalist who wants to burn heretics at the stake.
“1) Third-party says Bush doesn’t like gay marriage because the Bible says so, but look at the other things that Bible says are bad too!
2) You say: Show me where Bush wants to legislate God’s law
3) I pointed out that I believe that Bush wants to prohibit gay marriage because that is God’s law”
Yeah, and I think number 3 is incorrect.
“Again, suggesting that Bush opposes gay marriage because of religious reasons wasn’t a “charge,” I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
Me neither, and I see nothing wrong with refuting it robustly.
“And as far as actual proof of Bush’s intentions I don’t see how you will ever get that, but it my mind it is pretty clear that Bush’s reasons are religious. Others feel similarly.”
I don’t mean lie-detector style proof, but I wouldn’t mind - if all these claims are going to ultimately produce reams of commentary and satire - to at least be right.
Ultimately, my underlying after-school special message was that the Left could stand a bit of moderation and get out of the business of making loony claims.
This was supposed to piss some people off? It was hilarious to me and I consider myself an ardent Bush supporter. I copied it and sent it to my Republican friends and we all got a big kick out of it. I’d say the goal of angering people backfired… at least in my small piece of the world (Massachusetts).
What I found offensive, however was when George W. Bush personally came to my door and rung my doorbell. When I opened my door, he handed me a pamphlet and was pushing his crazy “religion” on me!
This is how some of you actually think! I wonder if people realize that exit polling concluded that religion had as much impact on this election as it did in 2000. Get over it Democrats… you LOST!
Many years ago, I had read a version of the joke that began this discussion thread. Of course, its pretty funny. I thought at the time that it did indeed highlight what I thought to be many of the inconsistancies in the Bible.
Since then, several things have happened in my life that have led me to a strong faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible. I will spare you all the details, but it will suffice to say that now I study the Bible in great detail as much as I can.
I have come to realize, as someone mentioned in a previous post, taking a passage of Leviticus as a final law is no more effective than reading a chapter from the beginning of a mystery novel and thinking you know who committed the crime.
During Jesus’ ministry on earth, the Pharisee’s (high priests) tried to constantly trip him up with hyper-literal interpretations and trick questions about the “old law” (or Old Testament law), in ways pretty much exactly like those at the beginning of this article. They want to discredit him in the eyes of the Jewish people, the majority of whom still followed the “old law”. Jesus came to satisfy God’s promises to His people, to bring a new “law” that superceded the old ways, and to bring a little common sense to the old laws in some cases. So of course the priests were seriously threatened by it. Jesus answers many of the Pharisees’ questions quite cleverly.
If you want, anyone who wants to see this need only read the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Whenever a Gospel refers to Old Testament scripture, it will be footnoted and referenced in most Bibles. There are several direct reference to old Levitical laws in the Gospels, too many to recount here. So if you’re really interested, pick up a Bible.
But if you decide not to, please don’t be one of those people who tries to apply jokes such as these in a serious attempt to discredit the Bible when you haven’t even began to study it in detail yourself.
[quote]beans wrote:
Many years ago, I had read a version of the joke that began this discussion thread. Of course, its pretty funny. I thought at the time that it did indeed highlight what I thought to be many of the inconsistancies in the Bible.
Since then, several things have happened in my life that have led me to a strong faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible. I will spare you all the details, but it will suffice to say that now I study the Bible in great detail as much as I can.
I have come to realize, as someone mentioned in a previous post, taking a passage of Leviticus as a final law is no more effective than reading a chapter from the beginning of a mystery novel and thinking you know who committed the crime.
During Jesus’ ministry on earth, the Pharisee’s (high priests) tried to constantly trip him up with hyper-literal interpretations and trick questions about the “old law” (or Old Testament law), in ways pretty much exactly like those at the beginning of this article. They want to discredit him in the eyes of the Jewish people, the majority of whom still followed the “old law”. Jesus came to satisfy God’s promises to His people, to bring a new “law” that superceded the old ways, and to bring a little common sense to the old laws in some cases. So of course the priests were seriously threatened by it. Jesus answers many of the Pharisees’ questions quite cleverly.
If you want, anyone who wants to see this need only read the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Whenever a Gospel refers to Old Testament scripture, it will be footnoted and referenced in most Bibles. There are several direct reference to old Levitical laws in the Gospels, too many to recount here. So if you’re really interested, pick up a Bible.
But if you decide not to, please don’t be one of those people who tries to apply jokes such as these in a serious attempt to discredit the Bible when you haven’t even began to study it in detail yourself.[/quote]
Good post Beans!
I’m right behind you beans! I’m not nearly as learned as yourself in terms of the bible but I like your convictions a lot. If anyone flames you, (they’re out there)for what it’s worth, I’ve got your back!
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1103171787934.Bitch_Slap_!.gif
[quote]derek wrote:
I’m right behind you beans! I’m not nearly as learned as yourself in terms of the bible but I like your convictions a lot. If anyone flames you, (they’re out there)for what it’s worth, I’ve got your back![/quote]
For learned, or at least vigorous rebuttals to evangelical Christian view on this topic, visit:
Enjoy!
BelleGueule,
Belle, is that a red-headed stepchild, or just some random kid that’s getting whacked?
Anyway, to the folks who got their panties in a twist:
It’s a joke. Relax. This was not some deep commentary on the Bible or Bush. Honestly.
[quote]Belle Gueule wrote:
derek wrote:
I’m right behind you beans! I’m not nearly as learned as yourself in terms of the bible but I like your convictions a lot. If anyone flames you, (they’re out there)for what it’s worth, I’ve got your back!
For learned, or at least vigorous rebuttals to evangelical Christian view on this topic, visit:
Enjoy!
BelleGueule,
[/quote]
Why are you bitch slapping ME? I just told someone that I liked his CONVICTION. Is that a bad thing? Right or wrong, I like people that stand for something. Do you think I really deserve that slap?
Anyway, I’d rather hear what YOU have to say on the subject rather than scanning the internet for anti-bible websites.
Lothario:
I have no idea: just copied it from the Peta-Sucks website.
Back to the second post of the thread, this article in the Economist takes a look at what Bush has actually said w/r/t religion:
Is George Bush too religious? Here is a closer look at what a much-misquoted president actually says and how it compares with his predecessors
?I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president.? What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?
Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. ?But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay,? the president continued, ?I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it’s a sacrifice, and I don’t need it for personal validation.?
Still, the first part of the comment goes to the controversial nub of Mr Bush’s religiosity. If you believe, along with him and John Calvin, that God involves himself in the workings of the world and all our lives, then you are always going to be vulnerable to the accusation that you think you have some sort of divine mandate.
Mr Bush clearly does believe God is involved in his life. Asked at a debate in the Republican primary contest in 1999 which philosopher he most identified with, Mr Bush replied promptly, ?Christ?because he changed my heart.? At a national prayer breakfast in February 2003, he said he ?felt the presence of the Almighty?. The president has talked of making decisions ?on bended knee?.
Mr Bush also seems to believe there is some sort of divine plan for the world. In his speech to Congress nine days after the September 11th attacks, the president said that ?freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.? In other words, God is involved in the affairs of men, and to be against freedom and justice is to go against the will of God.
By the standards of most evangelical Christians, these beliefs would be considered unremarkable. But Mr Bush cannot be judged by those standards. He is president of all Americans. What about the measure of America’s political mainstream? Do these beliefs make him ?too religious?, meaning that he crosses the fuzzy line between church and state? Not necessarily.
Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had rubber-chicken dinners.
Nor, in the American context, is the president’s belief that God is involved in the world’s affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the declaration of independence?no less?starts by appealing to the ?Supreme Judge of the world? and ends ?with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence.? Both references in America’s founding document are considerably more sectarian than Mr Bush’s comment about God not being neutral between freedom and fear. They associate God with America’s national interest; Mr Bush did not.
In these two core beliefs, then, the president’s religiosity does not seem out of the mainstream. Yet it is worth examining Mr Bush’s religious rhetoric more closely, for he does speak about religion more often, and more openly, than most of his predecessors. Mr Bush uses religious rhetoric in five main ways:
? As a literary device. In his first inaugural address, he referred to the parable of the good Samaritan: ?When we see that wounded traveller on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.? He is especially fond of references to hymns: ?There is power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people,? he said in the 2003 state-of-the-union address. Critics have complained that such quotations are code to please evangelicals, who recognise them. But religious imagery has been common currency in American public speaking since John Winthrop’s ?city on the hill? in 1630. Lincoln’s speeches are rich with the sounds and rhythms of the Bible. Mike Gerson, the president’s chief speech-writer, argues that to fillet out references to God would flatten political rhetoric.
? As consolation. ?This world he created is of moral design,? said Mr Bush at the National Cathedral three days after the September 11th attacks. ?And the Lord of life holds all who die, and all who mourn.? American presidents have long used religion in their role as comforter-in-chief. Remember Ronald Reagan’s tribute to the crew of the space shuttle Challenger: ?We will never forget them…as they prepared for the journey and ?slipped the surly bonds of earth? to ?touch the face of God?.? Mr Bush’s usage is little different, and sometimes as eloquent.
? As history. On his trip to Africa in 2003, Mr Bush visited a slave-trading post at Goree Island, in Senegal. ?Christian men and women,? he said, ?became blind to the clearest commands of their faith…Enslaved Africans discovered a suffering Saviour, and found he was more like themselves than their masters.? In talking about the historical influence of religion, Mr Bush is highly unusual among presidents. But this is the least controversial feature of his rhetoric, since it concerns itself with historical facts, rather than the justification of present policies in religious terms.
? Arguing for his faith-based policies. Potentially this is more problematic, since the point of Mr Bush’s faith-based initiative is to use religious institutions to deliver social welfare. The proposals have been criticised on those very grounds (for breaching the wall between church and state). But Mr Bush is careful not to claim too much for the role of faith, saying merely that religion is an aid to social welfare, not the heart of it. ?Men and women can be good without faith,? he told a national prayer breakfast in 2001, ?but faith is a force of goodness. Men and women can be compassionate without faith, but faith often inspires compassion.?
? To talk about providence. At a 2003 prayer breakfast, Mr Bush argued that ?behind all of life and all of history, there’s a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God.? Yet, as he admitted in his 2003 state-of-the-union address, he does not think himself privy to that purpose: ?We do not know?we do not claim to know?all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.?
By God, by George
All this amounts to a great deal of God-talk. But is it too much? Does it cross the line? That depends, of course, on where you think the line is.
Mr Bush has been careful not to sound sectarian when talking about religion. He angered many supporters by claiming, for instance, that Muslims worship the same God as Christians (a view espoused by Harry Truman but not by most evangelicals). He visited a mosque after September 11th. ?We do not impose any religion; we welcome all religions,? he said at a 2001 prayer breakfast. ?We do not prescribe any prayer; we welcome all prayers.?
By and large, Mr Bush has not associated the workings of providence with America or himself. The best evidence is his frequent assertion that ?the liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world. It is God’s gift to humanity.? To many Europeans, this formulation seems unnecessary. They argue that liberty is good in itself, not because it is God’s gift. But to Americans the association is almost axiomatic, since it is rooted in the declaration of independence (?all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?). In some ways, Mr Bush is actually rejecting the ?exceptionalist? claim that America is a unique nation singled out by its liberty.
Mr Bush’s followers have been less prudent. They talk as if he has the mandate of heaven. ?The Lord has just blessed him,? said Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network. ?I think President Bush is God’s man at this hour,? said Tim Goeglein, of the White House Office of Public Liaison, soon after the September 11th attacks. But when Mr Gerson said the same thing (?Mr President, when I saw you on television, I thought God wanted you there?), Mr Bush retorted: ?He wants us all here, Gerson.?
Lastly, while Mr Bush goes on about the importance of faith, he never talks about policy?even issues with a moral component?in terms of doctrine or revelation. Evangelicals, for example, want to ban gay marriage because (they say) it is against God’s will. Mr Bush never says this. He opposes it on the grounds that marriage is an institution so fundamental to society that it should not be changed. That is also why he has been so cautious in arguing for his faith-based policies.
That said, to speak frequently and directly about religion in a divided America can itself be divisive. Some Americans think religion should be purely private. The Texas Republican Party’s 2004 platform ?affirms that the United States of America is a Christian Nation?. The Supreme Court discusses the words ?under God? in the pledge of allegiance. When he talks about religion, Mr Bush rarely strays far from the mainstream. But America is a country in which the place of religion in the public sphere has never been fixed, and probably never will be.