quote:

---

I see it to mean that he feels that his actions are the actions that God would wish him to take, not that he makes them because God told him to.

---

And this reassures you, that he would go 'Deus Vult!' at any criticism?

Incidentally, comrade IP, the word you want is 'deity.' "I before e, except after c and some other exceptions we're not going to tell you about, because then we can laugh at you when you screw up."
 

---

Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
 
As a disciple of God, and as such a believer that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior I would pray that God work and speak through the leader of our nation.

I would be weary if he didn't.

That fact is whether our president is a disciple or not, that doesn't mean that he is not carrying out God's will.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I'm really getting sick of people complaining that Bush is supporting Israel blindly for two reasons. The first is that he simply isn't. He flat out condemned Israeli attack on a terrorist leader that incidentally killed several women and children and his administration has hardly offered whole hearted support for Israel's assasinations of Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and his successor. The second reason is because when you have a country that has been a loyal ally for over 50 years and has been the victim of terrorism for its enitire history and you have recently been made the victim of terrorism yourself then you should support that ally. Even more so when the country helps develop technology for you (improved version of the Patriot anti-missile missile called the Arrow), provides valuabe intell for you both recently and historically (obtaining a MiG that was superior to American fighters in Vietnam), and has even allowed itself to be attacked without retaliating in order acheive a greater purpose (not attacking Iraq after it launched SCUD missiles at Israel during the Persian Gulf War).
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 
Newfoundlogic, I said morals, not beliefs. I'm trying to figure out how else I would like to reply to you.

KoM, no I would find that just as frightening as anyone else. I would expect him to be able to justify his actions, with respect to the relevant issues. Belief that they are the actions God wishes him to take doesn't, in anyway, remove his duties to the public and his position.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Not everyone holds the same morals and an aetheist can lead a moral life too.
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
Sigh, I'm pissing off people everywhere this week, I stand humbly corrected.
Satyagraha

[ July 18, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
While not everybody has the same morals, I do think there is a core set that everybody would agree to : Children are to be protected, murder is wrong, rape is wrong - this sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 

quote:

---

As a disciple of God, and as such a believer that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior I would pray that God work and speak through the leader of our nation.

---

quote:

---

I'm not denying the widespread belief that God can speak to us personally. I have no problem with a politician that believes he is receiving spiritual guidance, but speaking for God - or rather having God speak through him is entirely beyond this.

---

quote:

---

move to Saudi Arabia or Iran

---

quote:

---

David was viewed as a King-Priest

---

quote:

---

They bother me when religious belief is favored over scientific knowledge.
They bother me when legislation is based on solely religious grounds without secular justification.
They bother me when religious faith is teamed with a certitude approaching arrogance and a refusal to consider other avenues.
They bother me when it appears that anyone who does not believe in the same religion will not be given the same consideration by this leader.
They bother me when the religion in question predicts a final war between good and evil that begins in the very region this particular leader is meddling in without sufficient secular motivation.
They bother me when they add to the appearance of a president who clearly believes that the end always justifies the means. And let me tell you, nothing frightens me more than a politicla leader with that belief.

---

Thank you for saying what I couldn't quite figure out how to say, Chris.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
One thing that the present President Bush has that his father lacked is a sense of moral conviction. It was this lack that led George H. not to send the tanks on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, which even he now admits he should have done. People who do have moral courage will always offend and be opposed by people who do not believe in God or in any moral absolutes. But I say more power to those who have moral courage.

I voted for Gore, but George W. is turning out to be a better president than I expected.

[ July 18, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I don't believe for a minute that God speaks THROUGH GW Bush any more than he speaks through someone like, um, ...me.

Let's suppose God had a message for America. Would he entrust it to someone who alienates over 1/2 of the population, just because he's currently in a leadership role?

Seems like an inefficient use of God-speaking-through-someone effort.

Sure, he's got the media's attention. And the message certainly would get out on Fox and the Conservative airwaves.

But what about the rest of us? Are we doomed because this is God's only mouthpiece? Shouldn't God send a draft over to NPR or maybe The Funny Times or some outlet that reaches people so they know that this time it's God talking and not just more GW Bush-speak?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
By not wanting to alienate his more conservative voters.

The Republican party is pretty deeply embedded with the Religious Right and while alienating them won't chase them to the Democrats side, it is fair to say he can't risk losing any votes considering some of the deep divides his administration has left.

I don't know the man well enough to filter him from his soundbyes and campaigning.

It might very well be he is personally offended at the concepts involved in stem cell research and chose to act on that offended belief. And, it can be argued, that stem cell research is only a theoretical field that may not or ever reach the speculated potential.

Of course, my jaded cynicism says he isn't that ideal at the best of times, but that's just me.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Heh. Find something that a Republican President can do that a Democrat won't challenge as 'arguably wrong.'"

Resign?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Moral courage or blind stubborness? And frankly, I don't believe in moral absolutes - well, very few, anyway.

As to "Bush as God's Mouthpiece" - this is the same issue I take with every church in any organized religion.

If God wants me to hear/see/know/believe something, the all-knowing, all-powerful Supreme being can probably find a better way than to use someone who may never actually contact me.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Hah! Good one Tom.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Ron - but what happens when moral conviction blinds you to real life priorities? Was attacking a brutal but largely caged maniac more morally right than going after more immediately dangerous brutal maniacs?

I do doubt that that decision was based on religious values, I suspect political expedience and nation-building on a grand scale.

I read about the elder Bush's speech where he defended George W's efforts in Iraq, but I haven;t seen anywhere where he said he should have gone farther himself. Maybe I missed it? My impression was that doing so would have violated the agreement made with the allies at the time.

[ July 18, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

It might very well be he is personally offended at the concepts involved in stem cell research and chose to act on that offended belief. And, it can be argued, that stem cell research is only a theoretical field that may not or ever reach the speculated potential.

---

You think that a president has the right to ban or restrict anything that "personally offends" him or her? That is dictatorship. Then, again, I recall Bush saying at one point that his job would be a whole lot easier if the U.S. were a dictatorship.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
This is God talking. I emphatically HAVE NOT spoken through George W. Bush.

That is all.

Please return to your regularly programmed day.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Whoa! What was that!!!


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Let's suppose God had a message for America. Would he entrust it to someone who alienates over 1/2 of the population, just because he's currently in a leadership role?

---

Just to play devil's advocate, that may be true, but who else would have as much power to act? Now this does bring up frightening images of a crazy-man with too much power weilding it as he sees fit, but what if God really was using the President as an instrument in His plans?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Personally offend - or offends his personal religious beliefs, which may or may not be held by others.

As to whether God may be - as I don't know the mind of God, it's possible he acts through all things, including the rapist down the block and the pedophile in the news.

I have no way of knowing how God works or if indeed that "he" does.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"what if God really was using the President as an instrument in His plans?

I humbly submit that if God really wanted this to work efficiently, He would tell people that this was the case.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Bush senior had a far more advanced sense of moral conviction that W. Herbie knew about nuance (W has stated he doesn't do nuance), and complex situations. For instance, if Herbie had cared only about politics, he never would have helped raise taxes. It would have hurt the country not to, but he wouldn't have done it. Instead he raised taxes, effectively sinking his re-election.

Refusing to listen to alternative voices is not moral conviction, its moral blindness.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
And what if GWB is lying when he says that "God speaks to him"? Or what if he is out-and-out deluded?

What if it's merely an attempt to maintain the support of the radical right? What if he likes the power that the support of the radical right provides him?

And what if he believes that he can have a hand in the "End of Days"? Don't all good Christians believe that the second coming of Christ will be a good thing? What if GWB feels that, through his actions, he can help achieve it?

I know that not all Christian fundamentalists feel this way, but I have heard enough of them (some through the media, and some directly) discussing the coming End-of-Days, to the extent that how we mistreat and exploit the earth is just not that important. Why worry about depleting the earth's fossil fuel reserves for the generations to follow--there won't be any generations to follow! Why worry about despoiling the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Why worry about acid rain, or despoiling the mountains in search of coal, or usable lumber? In a few years, it really won't matter at all, will it?

Look at Bush's actions...isn't this what he's already doing?

(And yes, I know, I said "doing" again. Sorry.)

[ July 18, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
According to the Bible, the prophets God did choose to speak through were not well received. Since they often bore messages of reproof and condemnation for the national leaders, they were at various times, run off, threatened with death, imprisoned, and put in a log like Isaiah and sawn in two. Jesus Christ was, besides being the Son of God, a prophet (even Muslims acknowledge that). And He was crucified.

Most humans do not want to hear from God, and they tend to react badly when He does communicate, no matter what means He uses.

But look, here's something that may be a real shock to some people. God does at times speak through each one of us. He gives us something to say we did not originate (and we are not aware of that fact), but something that someone else needs to hear. God gives someone else something to say that you need to hear. Often God chooses the person you most look down on and despise to tell you the thing you most of all need to hear. He does this to remind us that we need each other, that true success and happiness are not attained through selfish striving, but through cooperation.

I don't doubt that at times God can move President Bush to say something that God wants said. He probably even did that with President Bill Clinton, hard as that may be to believe.

If God insisted on using only sinless people to speak His word, then God's word could never be heard on earth, unless He thundered like He did on Mt. Sinai--and even then, most of the people could not understand what He was saying.

[ July 18, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I humbly submit that if God really wanted this to work efficiently, He would tell people that this was the case.

---

Again, to play devil's advocate, we have seen from our own evidence that God doesn't just come out and talk to people en masse very often. He usually talks to one person he trusts and has them deliver his message. That is, if God exists at all.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, just for the record, I don't look at Bush as some sort of prophet. I am not sure how much I approve of the things he has done, or if he is doing God's will. But I do believe that he is a decent man who honestly tries his best to seek to do what he believe's God's will is. So even if he bungles up trying to do the right thing, I think his heart is in the right place and that counts for something in my book.

I do not think he is a tyrant, a war mongerer, or evil. But I do allow for the fact that he may be misguided and flawed.

I only want to point out that it is possible that God inspires him for the good of our country and the world. Whether or not it is likely, I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't doubt that at times God can move President Bush to say something that God wants said. He probably even did that with President Bill Clinton, hard as that may be to believe.

---

What do you mean by this statement, Ron?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I would really like a reporter to ask GWB which of his statements were God's and which were his own.

[ July 18, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Well, start by limiting God's statements to the ones which are grammatically correct....
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Again, to play devil's advocate, we have seen from our own evidence that God doesn't just come out and talk to people en masse very often. He usually talks to one person he trusts and has them deliver his message."

And this has worked so well, so far, right?
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
Beverly:

quote:

---

He usually talks to one person he trusts

---

quote:

---

According to the Bible...

---

quote:

---

But I do believe that he [GWB] is a decent man who honestly tries his best to seek to do what he believe's God's will is. So even if he bungles up trying to do the right thing, I think his heart is in the right place and that counts for something in my book.

I do not think he is a tyrant, a war mongerer, or evil. But I do allow for the fact that he may be misguided and flawed.

---

Here's the problem: George W Bush is NOT a decent man. Look at his actions. His goal appears to be to gut the compassionate center out of our government and provide more money to the rich, and to well-off companies. Look at what he's done with tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, logging companies, etc.

When he was CEO of Harken Oil, he sold his stocks within a week of learning that they were going to tank, and a week before they did. He profitted over $300 thousand dollars. This is, BTW, more than Martha Stewart made when she sold her ImClone stocks...

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html

The tax breaks he is so famous for do benefit the wealthy far more than they benefit the poor. And how does the country pay for those tax breaks (besides going into a huge debt)? The social services for the poorest in this country are cut. Bush would visit a social services provider and praise them, and claim credit for all the good that his government helped them do, and then cut their budgets as soon as he got back to Washington (I exaggerate; he would sometimes wait a few weeks).

Read "The Book on Bush." Yes, it has many of the "Liberal" diatribes against GWB, and some of the claims against him are recognizable as Left-Wing rhetoric (again, like the Right Wing hasn't done the same--or worse; much worse).

http://www.amazon.com/exec /obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032735/qid=1090210147/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6289133-3228119?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He's flawed, but he's not misguided. He knows right where he wants to go. He is profiting from this presidency. And sometimes I really don't think he gives a **** about "God's Will." I think he puts it on like I put on a jacket--as the moment suits him. Here's the problem: if a man claims to represent the will of God, he gets to cloak himself in the aura of God. People who follow God, and are looking for a say in the way things are run accept that, and move forwards with it. Unfortunately, it then subjects Bush (in this particular case; but I'd have given Carter the same crap if he tried to pull it) to the same mysticism and illogic that religion wraps itself up in. You can't prove anything, but then neither can you disprove anything. Bush can claim anything he wants to as "the will of God"--or others can and will do it for him--and who's to say that's not right. By invoking the cloak of religion, he hides his acts and motives behind a-logical acceptance.

Because, as you all know, there really isn't any God at all. For Bush to claim that God speaks through or to him is, of course, a lie or a delusion. And the only reason Bush would lie like that is to obtain and maintain power, both political and (perhaps more importantly to him) financial. Or if he's deluded...remember: he's got his finger on the button, and we know he ain't afraid to use it, unilaterally and without any rational justification.

Sleep well.

--Steve

[ July 19, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ok, so that is your *opinion*. It is quite clear that you have one. You are obviously biased, so how can I trust what you say?

That is the problem I have with politics. It is so difficult to find unbiased sources of information and I have neither the sufficient time nor interest to be well versed in the doings of the President and the other leaders of my federal and local governments. I just have to do the best with what little info I have--usually judging between biased arguments. *sigh*

quote:

---

Because, as you all know, there really isn't any God at all. For Bush to claim that God speaks through or to him is, of course, a lie or a delusion. And the only reason Bush would lie like that is to obtain and maintain power, both political and (perhaps more importantly to him) financial. Or if he's deluded...remember: he's got his finger on the button, and we know he ain't afraid to use it, unilaterally and without any rational justification.

---

Ok, now that is just rude to those of us who firmly believe in God. You are essentially saying that we are all lying or delusional.

You seem pretty certain that there is no God. Can you prove that? I can't prove to you that their is a God and I have yet to see someone prove there is not.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Sorry, Bev.

I know you and I strongly disagree on that one.

But how am I to deal with someone saying something like:

quote:

---

But look, here's something that may be a real shock to some people. God does at times speak through each one of us

---

That statement presupposes that God does exist. That the person making that statement knows God exists.

I know that He does not.

All the people here who believe in God talk openly about Him as if He does exist; they take His existence as a "given." How am I to counter that?

Personally, I do not take offense. I know you (and plenty of others) believe strongly in God, and Jesus, and the afterlife. I believe that it's all just a wonderful fantasy. I apologize if I have offended you, or anyone on this forum.

Your experiences in this life have led you to the conclusion that God exists. My experiences have led me to the conclusion that no such entity as God (as described by any of the religions I am familiar with) exists. For all I know, we might even have a heck of a lot of common experiences! We have just interpreted them differently.

But isn't this why we read? Isn't this why we post on forums such as this? To learn and understand the way that other human beings think, and deal with the world. I would really like it if religious people could sit down (or stand, if you must; but don't lie down--you might fall asleep) and think about the real atheists point of view. No God, no Satan, no Heaven, no Hell, no Jesus, no salvation. Life (hopefully long, and full of love and happiness, and the creation of children and other good things to benefit the world and the people to come after; but not without pain, and suffering), then death, then nothingness.

Look at GWB from the point of view of an atheist. A government leader who wraps himself first in God, and then in Patriotism, and the two together.

Exactly as you said--you cannot prove your case, and I cannot prove mine. BY GEORGE W BUSH WRAPPING HIMSELF IN THE CLOAK OF RELIGION, HE PLACES HIS CHOICES AND DECISIONS IN THAT SAME RARIFIED FIELD OF "UNPROVEABILITY". He becomes, to himself at least (and at first)--but also to people who are used to thinking in terms of accepting the inherently unproveable--indisputable. How can you question a man, his motives, or his decisions, when he claims that he is acting out God's will?

And he (Bush) does that. He makes decisions from his "gut." He doesn't read more than the headlines, he doesn't watch the news, and he doesn't read more than brief summaries while in office (and this isn't Michael Moore talkig either, Bush has admitted all this himself--Hell! See the interview in People Magazine!). And no one thinks he's very bright. MY DAUGHTER, AT TWELVE YEARS OLD, BEAT BUSH'S HIGH-SCHOOL SAT SCORE! So you have an ill-informed president (proud, I might add, of his being ill-informed) making decisions that effect the country, and the world. And he claims that God speaks to him, and no doubt tells him what to do.

And you buy it.

And I don't.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
...wait a minute!

I'm biased? Why? Because I don't believe in God.

And you do. But you're not biased. Or are you?

How can I believe what you say, if you're so biased in your belief in God?

Or am I biased just because I hold a belief opposite to yours, and as strongly as you do?

If I were a mild atheist, would I not be so biased?

Come on!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
No, ssywak, I was only referring to your political bias. It is strong without any regard to religious beliefs one way or the other. I hear your disparaging remarks of Bush and his actions and I pause and think, "I'd like a second opinion please! From the other side?"

And after statements in mixed company affirming that "of course there is a God, silly people!" I can understand why you responded the way that you did. I try not to do that myself, and I may slip now and then. You are forgiven.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Wowzers...Hatrack overall Love for GWB is getting odd. First you have OSC calling him "our Abraham Lincoln" and then others on here slyly calling him a potential Prophet! Don't say it isn't so...people are saying that BECAUSE his message is received poorly by people, just like the Prophets of old, it MUST be true! Yikes!

These God apologists have a tough time with this whole "god speaking through me" thing. His message is garbled? And maybe it was meant to be garbled? Huh? Is God a bad communicator? He INVENTED communication! You would think he would be good at it. In fact, some say he did...he laid some some good laws, sent a guy specifically down to not only reinforce them but to add a few of his own...and even his own flock can't agree on them. Yeesh.

fil

[ July 19, 2004, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Tell me, do you think President Bush's decision on stem cell research was motivated by science or religious belief?

---

Science alone can NEVER tell us the correct action to take.

Let's take it as a given that embryonic stem cell research will produce cures to fatal or debilitating diseases that will not exist for 100 years without it.

That fact alone does not tell us we should support embryonic stem cell research. Such a conclusion requires the premise that curing fatal and debilitating diseases is a desirable outcome. This is not a question science can answer. It is a moral question, one I hope most people in the world agree on.

Science can help us predict the likely outcomes of particular actions (or inaction). It can also help us predict which interim outcomes are mostly likely to lead to particular outcomes further down the causation chain. It cannot help figure out which ultimate outcomes are desireable.

Dagonee

[ July 19, 2004, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
"Correct" or "right" are moral interpretations of a given action.

Fair enough Dag and as always, well said.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
The next Apraham Lincoln? How does that make sense?
To divert the topic a bit, ever heard of something called Listeria? It's a bacteria found in ready to eat lunch meat. Bush's policies have put on hold, for the meat corporations who support him, life saving meat regulations such as microbial testing.
The No Child Left Behlnd Act seems to, by my limited view leave a lot of children behind by gutting schools and funneling money into private schools that really don't need it.
Not to mention the useless testing.
There are also ergonomics reform to consider.
Bush's policies show that he doesn't care about the poor and workers... Only about big business.
Jesus hung out with the outcasts of society, with the poor, sick and needy. He stated constantly through paribles about the importances of helping others.
It is NOT just liberal propaganda, do not throw away information just because it is from a source you hate...
If Bush is an instrument of God, no wonder I resist organize religion so much... The thought of Bush being an instrument of God scares and bothers me so much...
Not to mention is narrow view of sex education. It's making things worse, not better, tying up hands instead of freeing them...
(oh look, 6,000, cool)
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Abraham, I think.

Ok, sorry. Please resume discussing.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 

quote:

---

That fact alone does not tell us we should support embryonic stem cell research. Such a conclusion requires the premise that curing fatal and debilitating diseases is a desirable outcome.

---

quote:

---

Jesus Christ put "Family Values" behind "Individual Values."

---

quote:

---

I would really like a reporter to ask GWB which of his statements were God's and which were his own.

---

Bob, if you order a transcript of his speeches, you'll find that the statements which were God's appear in red.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
/tangent
He was speaking to the Amish? The Amish were bothering listening? You guys all know true Amish don't vote and generally stay out of political discourses of any kind right?

/end tanget
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It's an untapped demographic, AJ, and Pennsylvania is a battle state.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Noemon
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
What I refer to Dag is in all of Christs teachings, there is some talk of the sanctity of marriage, but most of it calls for individuals to be the best people they can be, to do unto others as they would have done to themselves.

To be a good Christian, it is more important to be a good person than to be a good son, father, mother, etc.

Now, Paul, he's another can of worms all together.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Political bias? Well, I guess so. But again, I can collect facts to back up all my statements. Is that bias, then, or just an unpleasant truth that is opposed to the supposed truth that you would like to believe?

---

quote:

---

Please tell me why Bush's religious beliefs make him any different from a leader who's motivated by his lack of faith, etc., etc.

---

quote:

---

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

---

But read the whole article...I'm going to put some tin foil aside for the guys who produce this site, for hats, just in case.

[ July 19, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
An article full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. How do I know that is a fair representation? Just as a person on trial in the courts has the right to be represented by an attorney, I can't automatically accept someone's critical opinion without hearing a defense.

If the defense fails to convince, then I would be more inclined to believe the criticism. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Every human being deserves that.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know, if we were to cross-breed this thread with the religious discussion in "Mormon Theology Question" we would get this thought:

Why are the same people who are so reluctant to believe in God so sure they know what the President is up to? If you are going to be skeptical about one, where is the benefit of doubt on the other?

I am a political agnostic.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

Unborn fetus, outside the womb: YES

---

quote:

---

An article full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. How do I know that is a fair representation? Just as a person on trial in the courts has the right to be represented by an attorney, I can't automatically accept someone's critical opinion without hearing a defense.

---

And Bev, I think I'm one of the few people who debate here who posts pointers to sites that contradict my main points, or points to and ridicules sites that overmake my point.

So I hope you can forgive me when I become so bold as to actually post pointers to sites that support my statements.

BTW, you're more than welcome to make a defense. I would only ask you NOT to point to articles full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. That wouldn't be fair, now; would it?

And as difficult as people are to figure out, they're still a lot easier to figure out than "God."

And why do I need to give GWB the benefit of the doubt when he's shown us his intent through his statements and actions? Over and over again.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You still seem to think I am on the opposite side of the fence from you just because I want to hear from someone on the opposite side of the fence from you. I don't understand why you won't take me at face value.

*sigh* Now I remember why I tend to stay *out* of political discussions.

Edit: BTW, we are not talking about whether or not GWB exists. And few believers would claim to understand the motivations and doings of God. God tells us to be very careful in our judgements. We can't live life without drawing some conclusions, but when it comes to accusing people of things, we need to be careful. I am trying to be careful, that's all.

[ July 20, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
 

quote:

---

And why do I need to give GWB the benefit of the doubt when he's shown us his intent through his statements and actions? Over and over again.

---

quote:

---

I would be interested in knowing what you think his intent really is?

---

quote:

---

The difference is that if Bush genuinely believes that his decisions are being guided by God, he is also less likely to second-guess them, plan for alternatives, or consider their deeper ramifications. In other words, it leads to hubris.

---

quote:

---

Every human has their own code of morals that influences their decisions. Bush's happen to follow along the lines of those found in the Bible. People who disagree with the Bible and don't share those morals disagree.

---

This is the idea that bothers me. Since when does George W have a monopoly on morality and specifically on biblical morality? I don't disagree with the Bible. I disagree with the president. Why is it that the religious right has first dibs on morality? At least in Oklahoma, there is a maddening ideology that if you don't lock step with the pro-life, anti-gay marriage crowd, you must be immoral and anti-christian. Consequently, anyone who happens to espouse those very few and very limited ideas, must be right about everything else. The result? Jim Inhoffe, the biggest joke in Congress since Mr. Smith went to Washington.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that. But so many people were saying that Bush was doing things motivated by religious beliefs. I said "Bible" to simplify things. That may not have been entirely accurate.

The point is he has a code of morals. So does everyone. Some people like his morals, some don't. Same with any leader.
 

---

Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
 
Agreed. Didn't mean to sound snappy. I live in Oklahoma and I get really defensive during election years.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Dag,

If you had actually taken the time to read any of those links, you would have discovered that 1) Yes, originally there was a concern that China was using its share of the UN funding to coerce women into having abortions, and 2) People both inside and outside of the Bush White House had since learned that the practice had stopped, and coerced abortions were no longer an issue.

Yet Bush continued to refuse to contribute the $34 million he had promised the UN fund, anyway.

I can fully understand the POTUS supporting initiatives that are in sync with American LAWS, but have serious problems with him (or, eventually, her) making up their own international laws to impose on other countries, counter to the internal policy of the USA.

Why do we even bother with laws, then? I thought the STRENGTH of America was that we were a nation of laws, as opposed to randomness, corruption, nepotism, charismatic leaders, "Cult of Personality", anarchy, etc.

[raid rant] I thought that's what Osama bin Laden hated so much about us. And now, apparently, Bush has decided he'd rather be just like him? [/rabid rant]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The fact remains that there is a difference between allowing a practice and subsidizing a practice. Whether the abortions are forced are not, they are still anathema to a large percentage of Americans. Bush is following the law. If Congress wants to force him to give this money to the Population Fund anyway, they can.

The laws in this country (most of them, anyway) are made in response to the political process.

And "making up their own international laws to impose on other countries, counter to the internal policy of the USA" is a ridiculous way to characterize this. We are giving people money. We have the right to put coniditons on its use. We are not telling people in other countries what they can and can't do. We are telling people in other countries what we will pay for.

And to use an attempt to align the use if taxpayer dollars with the moral views of a large number of taxpayers to like Bush to Osama is beyond the pale.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
To clarify:

quote:

---

In July, 2002, Bush cut off $34 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This funding had been allocated by Congress the previous December. Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in mainland China. His justification came from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion members of Congress and an anti-abortion organization called The Population Research Institute, which claimed to have obtained first-hand video taped evidence from victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization in county where the UNFPA operates in the PRC. The decision was praised by many in pro-life movement, including the United States' largest public policy women's organization, Concerned Women For America.

Abortion-rights supporters criticized the decision and point out that the PRI refused to release information that would allow the team to locate the women, and thus no independent verification of PRI's claims was possible. Nor was it possible to confirm that UNFPA funding was actually behind the abortion and forced sterilizations alleged in the video. However, he sent a fact finding team to the PRC to investigate the situation there, and the team reported that UNFPA funding did not go towards forced abortions or sterilizations. Bush thus disregarded the findings of his own investigatory mission on this matter. See [1] for more information on the PRI.

---

quote:

---

More than half the population has serious moral reservations about abortion; close to half want it banned or severely restricted.

---