Not that I am seriously contending that he is evil and from Hell, but I do find that statment of his to be slightly over the top. Attacking the current administration in such a manner is not going to win Kerry much support from people who beleive in the Bible IMO.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Attacking the current administration in such a manner is not going to win Kerry much support from people who beleive in the Bible IMO."
I really hope you aren't implying that Kerry doesn't believe in the bible, because he's DEFINETELY catholic.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a note, he never says Bush, and was talking about works of compassion, and you can't just talk about it, you actually have to do things to help people. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I really hope you aren't implying that Kerry doesn't believe in the bible, because he's DEFINETELY catholic. "
As the article states. No, that is not it at all. Nor do I say that he was insinuating that Bush is not religious either. It is just my opinion that his comments about "faith and works" are kind of petty. I realize that my opinion is colored by my own personal faith, but to say that Bush has not accomplished anything (works) or that those works are not inline with the religious beleifs that Bush proclaims, just because Kerry, or his supporters, don't agree with his decisions is not a valid critique. As a person with christian beleifs, I interprit it as yet another attempt by Kerry to sling mud. Only this time Kerry is citing the Bible to add legitimacy (sp?) to his statement. It is my opinion that many of those who beleive in the Bible will see it as such.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: ``The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?'' Kerry said. ``When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?''
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment ``was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack.''
umm... "attack"? Can we define "attack"?
And if this isn't an attack, but rather, discourse (as it seems to me), then surely Scripture may have its (time-honored, may I add) place.
Jesse Jackson? ML King? Bush himself, I believe, has quoted a piece of Scripture or two in attacking (oops, discoursing) Saddam and Al Qaeda....
But why am I griping? Of course this childish stone-throwing is par for an election year.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my goodness gracious. A politician speaking in a church has the gall to use a verse in The Bible to persuade his audience that he is the better candidate. What is the world coming to?
And here I thought The Devil worked more through shady backroom dealings, lies, and unnecessary wars.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but not in this case.
The dems have been throwing anything they can at Bush for 3 years now and trying to see what will stick. They've complained about the most ridiculous things and I think the middle of the roaders have started to tune out some of their ridiculous claims...
But here goes Bush doing the exact same thing. Who gives a rats buttocks if Kerry invokes the name of god and quotes scripture?
I don't think this will help.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, are only Republicans allowed to make religious references? Because it's not like Bush has been shy about quoting the Bible at people. We're talking about a man who's said in interviews that he believes he was PICKED BY GOD to lead the country through 9/11.
I mean, Kerry was just quoting the Bible on the importance of works; it's not like he was saying, as Bush actually has, that he's the candidate favored by the Christian God.
posted
I think y'all missed my point. It was not that Kerry, or any politician, cited the Bible or made a religious reference. My point is that IMO Kerry's statement is a thinly vieled attack on Bush and that the point of his statement was weak and kind of petty. To say that someone has "faith and not works" is what Kerry was implying. My point is that Bush has "works" and that to say he has shown no compassion just because you don't agree with him on many instances is to misuse the referenced piece of scripture. Now I realize that this position is highly dependent upon my personal faith, and my personal slant on christianity, but I do think that many others with a similiar christian upbringing will feel as I do that his statement was nothing more than slinging arrows at Bush, not a serious critique. And some people will think that inacurately (sp?) using scripture to sling arrows in a political debate is kind of sleazy.
edited for grammar and speeling b/c I suck at both
Whereas Kerry's point, apparently, is that Bush does NOT. I haven't seen Bush do a lot of Christian deeds, myself, although he does a whole lot of TALKING about being Christian; your mileage may vary, naturally.
So your disagreement appears not to stem from the use of the Bible as a source for quotations, but the use of the Bible as a source for quotations when used to support an idea with which you disagree.
posted
Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.
quote:By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for President by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church. Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership"--leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for President, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."
Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999. At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next President. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be President, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be President. He merely said he believed God wanted him to be President.
quote:A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.
posted
I was pretty sceptical on reading just the selected bits that this was a thinly veiled attack on Bush. Reading the whole article, it looks like a critique of the administration. You know what, though, that's what the opposition parties are SUPPOSED to do! For crying out loud, that's what the Labour Party's 1997 Time for a Change campaign was all about - it basically said "look, we're fed up of 18 years of Thatcherism, it's made a mess of Britain and here's what we're going to do about it" - and thanks to the public mood at the time being in agreement they scored a landslide election victory. As for the Bible quotation, I think that was perfectly appropriate for the context, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. If Kerry's point was "here's lots of talk, but no action where it matters" then the quotation was spot on.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Kerry truly believes that President Bush, while talking a lot of Christian-speak, has woefully failed in his position of leadership to follow through on Biblical principles of leadership.
If those two statements are true, how can you object to Kerry's speaking on them?
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm.. I guess if I thought that this was the case, Mr. Keats, then I would not have taken exception to Sen. Kerry's comment. I think that reacted to his statement in a way that I just assumed that he was throwing more mud. Most of Kerry's campaign has been based upon blatantly showing contempt for President Bush and his administration in order to stoke the fires of anger against Bush. I saw/see this comment as a continuation of such.
If Sen. Kerry has a problem with President Bush acting the way he does b/c he feels it is contrary to the religion that Kerry holds dear, then I would not have a problem with his statements.
On the other hand, if this was yet another attempt to smear G.W.'s image and appeal to the middle class who Kerry wishs to make beleive have been treated with a lack of compassion by this current administration, then I feel comfortable with my previous statements.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, the joke here is that I really doubt EITHER of them are all that devout of Christians. I know that's a judgement that I can't really make, but I'm basing it on the idea that true Christianity and American politics are not something that easily go together. To believe that there are TWO of them, both running for President, (and both members of Skull & Bones) is a little far-fetched.
The sad thing is that Kerry has to make his faith some part of his campaign because Bush has made it a large part of his public service. When 80 percent of the voters claim to be Christians and when Bush panders to them in order to drive his numbers up, Kerry really has no choice but to at least try and show himself as a viable Christian alternative.
And yeah, I'd call this mudslinging too. Making your faith a significant part of your public service is going to be slinghing mud at somebody, anyway. I'd prefer that Kerry not stoop to Bush's level on this, but I'm sure his political advisors are much closer to his ear than I am. It's pretty much the disease of the democratic party: trying to beat republicans by appearing to more republican.
IMO
I'm no Kerry fan, so please don't think I'm apologizing for him.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I find it odd that no one ever doubted bush's faith when he was running... but now kerry has to make himself seem like a christian? I mean, the guy's been catholic all his life... its not like he's suddenly started going to church because he's running for president.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:John Kerry is a Catholic. His grandparents were Jewish converts. Nevertheless, he is strongly pro-abortion.
Knight Ridder journalist Steven Thomma quotes one of Mr. Kerry's aides, David Wade, who says the senator is "very private about his religion" and does not actually go to Mass very often.
Mr. Wade then makes it sound as if his boss goes to church purely for political reasons: "If he's in someplace like Davenport or Dubuque, with a big Catholic community, he'll go to church."
posted
Out of curiousity has Kerry ever spoken about how he reconciles his Catholic faith with his views on abortion?
That's something I'd like to know. Because if his faith is only superficial and only used to garner votes, then that certainly would impact my opinion of him.
I'd much rather vote for a man who steps up and says "I don't attend church. I have private beliefs about God, and I don't like to talk about them" than for someone to pretend to be religious and quote scripture and not back it up.
Or, I'd rather an athiest who states they don't believe in God at all than someone who uses religion solely as a way to get votes.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who have you been voting for then, Belle? If you think politicians don't use their faith to "sell" themselves, you're fooling yourself. Hell, Clinton was a very "religious" man, too, even while he was getting blow jobs in the oval office. Priests who are pedophiles, the religious right being caught in bed with whores. Give me a break.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry is Catholic? Well, that rules him out for winning the race. When was the last Catholic president? When was the first?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1961-1963 and 1961-1963? Was that a trick question? One of the most popular presidents in history who just happened to be catholic. And, we nearly elected his brother to the same office, which so threatened some, they killed him.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kennedy, another massachusetts liberal catholic
Belle- I think his positions have been fairly consistent, in regards to social issues the vatican opposes. While he's been a strong proponent of abortion rights, I think its clear from his statements that he doesn't believe the vatican should be engaged in american politics, and that religion, and legislation, are seperate things. Which, from my standpoint, is a very good thing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, in answer to your question, Kerry told the St. Louis Post Dispatch, "What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith is an article of faith. And if it's not shared by a Jew or an Episcopalian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or someone else, it's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate your personal religious belief for the rest of the country."
I think my respect for him just went up a notch. Someone who actually doesn't think the job comes with a mandate from God to impose his religious agenda. Impressive.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, Kayla, you are correct on both. That was my point. There has been a whopping one president who was catholic. While he is highly recognized and is still looked at with a fantasy memory, he was still the only president who has not been typical WASP heritage.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh trust me Kayla, I'm not naive to think that any claims a politician makes about religion can be trusted.
What I don't like is Kerry quoting the Bible and trying to use religion against Bush when his aides even admit he only goes to church to garner votes. If he wants religion to be outside politics, why is he quoting scripture to attack his opponnent? I think what he did was a low blow.
If he isn't going to make religion an issue, don't use scripture to attack the current president. If he does bring it in, then he's opening himself up for scrutiny into his religious life.
I don't vote for candidates because they're Christian. It gives them a leg up, certainly, but only because that means they are likely to line up with me on the issues I believe to be important. I would vote for an athiest that opposed abortion before I would vote for a person like Kerry who claims to be Catholic yet supports it.
And I don't mean that no person can be Catholic if they support abortion, but certainly his stance on abortion isn't the only thing that calls into question his devotion to the Catholic faith. Come on, his own aide admits he only goes to church if he's in an area with a high Catholic voting population?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I don't like is Kerry quoting the Bible and trying to use religion against Bush when his aides even admit he only goes to church to garner votes. If he wants religion to be outside politics, why is he quoting scripture to attack his opponnent? I think what he did was a low blow.
While I strongly believe that reIigion should remain outside politics, I see no problem with a political candidate, religious or not, calling attention to the fact that an administration that panders shamelessly to the religious right, has done very little to follow a very important and basic tenet of said religion.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WA, he could have criticized without invoking scripture.
Kerry is insinuating that he can interpret Bush's actions, in light of scripture, and find them lacking. That is a huge step-out as far as I'm concerned.
For one thing, many people do not find Bush's actions to be "faith without works", for another, to claim that, is to not only claim that Bush's actions are not works born of faith, but to make a judgment about Bush's faith itself.
That's where I think it was a comment that was uncalled for. Kerry has no right criticizing Bush's faith or saying that it's not real - he doens't know that. He has no way of knowing what is between George Bush and God. Bush did not attack Kerry's religious beliefs.
I am now doing so because turn about is fair play - if Kerry wants to bring it in to the fray and say "Your works don't bear out your claims of faith" then it's only right that we examine Kerry to see if his works bear out his claims of faith. I'm finding they do not.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears that people who're actually religious take quoting scripture much more seriously. I'm an agnostic, and I quote scripture all the time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, you're just right. It's a low blow. It's mud slinging. What you don't realize is that most voters are not as discriminatory as you are. They don't think these things through. Kerry and his advisors feel that they have to stand toe-to-toe with Bush's blatant abuse of his faith for political ends because, since most voters are not as smart as you are, it's an effective way to get votes.
Why do you think Al Sharpton gets national recognition for anything? Because he "preaches". Why do you think the majority of Christians are going to vote to re-select Bush? It's not like he's done anything for them recently. Even the gaybashing ammendment is just a political appeasement stunt. It's all about image image image cowboy hat image mission accomplished image chosen by god image image image Kerry raises taxes by nine hundred bazillion dollars the moment he gets in office with scary music playing right along image image image.
quote:I'd much rather vote for a man who steps up and says "I don't attend church. I have private beliefs about God, and I don't like to talk about them" than for someone to pretend to be religious and quote scripture and not back it up.
The man you are talking about there is Howard Dean, who was criticized for not being religious enough to carry the south because he is an infrequent attender of a Congregationalist church while the rest of his family were practicing Jews. When it wasn't enough to say we don't talk about our beliefs like that where I come from, Dean eventually gave in to the criticism and did mention God a few times on the campaign trail (though much less specifically or arrow-slingingly than this Kerry example) and then he got criticized for that, too. Go figure.
posted
Belle, I would think that many, if not most, people in this country base their decisions on political candidates at least partly on their own religious beliefs. I know I do. And I don’t think Kerry was insinuating that he could interpret Bush’s actions in light of scripture, I think he was very openly judging Bush’s actions in light of scripture. Judging someone’s actions and judging their faith are not the same thing. Kerry did not attack Bush’s beliefs, just his failure to live by them. This is, of course, a subjective opinion, but, in politics, subjective opinions are all anybody has to go on. I have no problem with Kerry doing this, because I have done the same thing myself. I always look to see whether a person who claims to live by a certain faith actually does or not. Usually it is very apparent. Now, does this action open Kerry up to the same scrutiny? Yes it does. But if he is comfortable in that arena, I don’t consider it a low blow to put himself there.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom and Keats, you're both right - most people don't take it as seriously as I do.
I just think if you're going to use scripture to make a judgment call about another person, you had better darn sure be in a position to know something about that person's spiritual beliefs. It's something that should only be done by a pastor, or a close friend. There are very few people I feel comfortable about calling up and saying "I think your faith is not being borne out by your works." Main reason is I'm not normally in a position to judge another person's faith. Not unless they've confided very closely in me.
So, I think it's a huge insult and completely uncalled for. But, most people won't see it that way.
So I'll hush complaining, since it really isn't an issue for most people.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, considering there are a lot of actually important issues involved in this election, I find it interesting that people nevertheless have to resort to complaining about things like this, or holes in Bush's military records decardes ago, or Howard Dean's laugh, and so on.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, are you referring to Kerry’s statement, or to it’s implications when you lump it in with all those other trivial things?
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm referring to the idea of complaing about Kerry quoting a Bible verse, when we could be complaining about far more important things.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally am of the opinion that if Kerry wants to quote scripture that is a great thing, all the better for his soul, but the problem I have with this is that he is doing it for personal gain, which destoys the point, so I agree the is inapropriate.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Kerry isn't actually making a judgement about Bush's faith. He's trying to win votes away from the traditional Republican base. That's all there is to it. It's a silly stupid game that we have forced on ourselves because we are too lazy to BE american politics and would rather just watch it like it was some sort of reality show.
We'd rather get high and mighty and offended when someone uses scripture to attack another candidate. We'd RATHER be able to describe the opposition party as wolves-in-sheep's-clothing than a point of view with which we respectfully disagree. We PREFER to have the greatest issues facing humanity today delivered to us in nightly soundbites, in between Michael Jackson's pedophilia and Martha Stewart's insider trading. Our culture ENJOYS turning everything into American Idol, where the point is to be the least original thing you can be and publicly embarass a bunch of other people in the process.
Do some research on the percentage of candidate coverage that actually discusses the issues at stake and the platforms of the respective candidates. You'll find the numbers to be stunningly low.
From the Center for Media and Public Affairs:
quote:Covering The Race, Not the Candidates—Only 17 percent of the stories covering the democratic race have investigated the candidates’ voting records, proposals or stances on issues as opposed to 71 percent of the stories focusing on poll numbers and behind-the-scenes tactics.
It IS possible to sift through the crap and pick a candidate that you feel is the best choice to lead the country, but you mostly have to do that on your own. And most people don't.
What do you expect when the White House has a big For Sale sign on the front door?
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I think that article, and others that quote worldnetdaily, are taking some quote out of context. Maybe he said he didn't attend mass on Sundays very often. From Time Magazine,
quote: Kerry is a former altar boy who complains when his campaign staff does not leave time in his Sunday schedule for Mass, who takes Communion and describes himself as a "believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic."
I found it particularly amusing that worldnetdaily was so offended by him attending mass in a ski outfit. You should have seen what my sister-in-law wore to my son's baptism! Catholics approach religion differently. However, I've never known a practicing Catholic to take it lightly. They dress oddly, go to mass on Saturday night and then go out drinking and carousing, or go out drinking and carousing then show up for early mass and go home and sleep it off. But they are there every week and are very serious about it. Even the ones who are dissenting. I was always amazed.
Oh, and at one point and time, he was so serious about Catholicism, he thought he'd be a priest.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Catholics approach religion differently. However, I've never known a practicing Catholic to take it lightly. They dress oddly, go to mass on Saturday night and then go out drinking and carousing, or go out drinking and carousing then show up for early mass and go home and sleep it off. But they are there every week and are very serious about it. Even the ones who are dissenting. I was always amazed.
