Bush

[ED]

I just finished watching PBS "frontline"

Did anybody else watch this program? Well here is a link, I say to everyone, read very carefully before you respond.

 

Arpa you going to love this one

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/

[gamavor]

Ha-Ha-Ha, Ho-Ho-Ho!!!!

[gurgen]

What has been George W. Bush's impact on America's conservative evangelical Christians?

 

Maybe the other way around?

[gevo27]

I just finished watching PBS "frontline"

Did anybody else watch this program? Well here is a link, I say to everyone, read very carefully before you respond.

 

Arpa you going to love this one

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/

Nothing significant was directly quoted from Bush himself, other than references to religious literature in his speech. Atleast wherever an opinion was stated in that article it was quoted, so we know its second hand if not worse info.

 

I do not understand what the problem is here? Is it that he is forcing religion and state to interact? NO.. i havent seen anything like that. Is it that he is changing laws to fit better for his religion? umm.. not if the democrats have anything to do with it. etc etc etc.. so what is the problem with him reffereing to religous literature, and being a religouse president who is not afraid of the criticism he will take from people such as some on this forum board...

 

No one complains of the lack of religion because the lack of religion never shows any values, and thats how society likes it. "Everything goes from order to disorder" very very true statement!!!! infact i think its some sort of law in physics o chemistry or something..

[Stormig]

Pollution.

[Sasun]

Gevo, you are asking valid questions. There is nothing wrong with being religious and expressing it as a president. However, self-rightousely acting like a messiah in the world is very-very wrong IMO. A clear case is the Iraq war, as if he has no moral responsibility to anyone and can defy the UN since he is this magical leader from the magical land.

[Arpa]

I just finished watching PBS "frontlline.

 

Arpa you going to love this one 

I don't give a rat's arse what everybody beleive or for that matter, don't, as long as they keep it to themselves.

I have asked this on numerous occasions; Why do people preach and proseltyze their brand of relegion? Is it because they feel embarassaingly idiotic for having fallen for it and are looking for company to assure themselves that they are not the only idiots after all?

If some people would rather hav God ride his chariot over the clouds hurling bolts of lightning... I'd rather watch the Road Runner and Wily Coyote cartoons.

Edited May 21, 2004 by Arpa

[gevo27]

Gevo, you are asking valid questions. There is nothing wrong with being religious and expressing it as a president. However, self-rightousely acting like a messiah in the world is very-very wrong IMO. A clear case is the Iraq war, as if he has no moral responsibility to anyone and can defy the UN since he is this magical leader from the magical land.

I would have rather seen this war than not... The UN is BULLS**T.. and everyone including the UN knows it.. please... UN has done nothing.. cant even kep a peace keeping mission in tact..

 

I think we as a more capable country have a right and infact an "obligation" to intervene in the affairs of a ruler gone bad!!!.. can you contest that it was better for thousands of children be killed and gassed and i mean.. we all know what iraqs former regime was.. can you honestly say, that if you knew there was a rapist, and you knew who it was, you wouldnt do anythign to stop him> ? maybe in your neighborhood eh> ? Sasun jan, there were many many more moral reasons to attack than not..

[gevo27]

Pollution.

I dont get it.. but i would like to.

[Sasun]

I would have rather seen this war than not... The UN is BULLS**T.. and everyone including the UN knows it.. please... UN has done nothing.. cant even kep a peace keeping mission in tact..

 

I think we as a more capable country have a right and infact an "obligation" to intervene in the affairs of a ruler gone bad!!!.. can you contest that it was better for thousands of children be killed and gassed and i mean.. we all know what iraqs former regime was.. can you honestly say, that if you knew there was a rapist, and you knew who it was, you wouldnt do anythign to stop him> ? maybe in your neighborhood eh> ? Sasun jan, there were many many more moral reasons to attack than not..

Gevo jan, I disagree. War of aggression is never a moral thing. If that was the case, every country who was capable should attack another country for its faults. And I assure you, every country has faults, hence there is an excuse to attack them if some country views itself as some kind of a savior of the world. You see, the US is another country in the world with equal rights and responsibilities as the other countries, not a special country with special rights and less responsibilities. That is principal in a democracy. Whereas the US has behaved like a special country that does not have to be like other countries as a member of the UN and the world community in general. That is arrogance, and the US will pay for that, unfortunately it will be the people paying not the leadership.

 

if you knew there was a rapist, and you knew who it was, you wouldnt do anythign to stop him> ? maybe in your neighborhood eh> ?

 

I certainly would not bomb the whole neighborhood for a single rapist. And if the rapist was a former friend of mine I would be deeply ashamed.

[Stormig]

I certainly would not bomb the whole neighborhood for a single rapist. And if the rapist was a former friend of mine I would be deeply ashamed.

Ah, I think you strike a cord there, especially in the last sentence, though once again I disagree about the "shame" part. Still, how true, how true - Dumsfeld and Sodamn Insane shaking hands...

[gevo27]

Gevo jan, I disagree. War of aggression is never a moral thing. If that was the case, every country who was capable should attack another country for its faults. And I assure you, every country has faults, hence there is an excuse to attack them if some country views itself as some kind of a savior of the world. You see, the US is another country in the world with equal rights and responsibilities as the other countries, not a special country with special rights and less responsibilities. That is principal in a democracy. Whereas the US has behaved like a special country that does not have to be like other countries as a member of the UN and the world community in general. That is arrogance, and the US will pay for that, unfortunately it will be the people paying not the leadership.

 

 

 

I certainly would not bomb the whole neighborhood for a single rapist. And if the rapist was a former friend of mine I would be deeply ashamed.

OK, Sasun i do agree with you to an extent.. but we must remember that Iraq was getting completely out of control, i think there was more obligation for the Iraq war than vietnam. Vietnam was not specificaly for "the people" but i am sure that you can see in some ways this Iraq war was unselfish, and not only to spread democracy. I can not comprehend living in that type of a regime, where we are not allowed to go to school and learn, where women are literally slaves and killing a whole schol of kids is like teaching people a lesson. Please, i am sure if you lived in Iraq you would rather have the war than not.. Well i would. ... The fact that there wee noe "WMD" found does not mean Saddam wouldnt, or couldnt in the long run... or it doesnt mean that since we were told it wasnt found, then it wasnt found, there are millions of ways we can interpret this. But the fact is, we have done more good than harm by going through with this war. I am surprised to see anyone attack Bush for being greedy for this war, and accusing him of taking an oil manopoly... He hasnt used the oil for anything other than rebuilding Iraq, we are paying for this war, and it wasnt Bush that declared war, that is out of the presidents hand remember, our constitution requires something like 3/5 of the congress to approve and decalre war. OK, i have to go bac to studying.. lol.. but i have much to sa about this

[Stormig]

Gevo, you are the average American. Feel proud. Just like any average American, don't even wonder if your own government has got out of control already. What you do best is interpret the Bible, so, yes, like the average American, you should have a lot (the world) to say about this, just like you confuse women in Iraq (educated) with women in your best buddy country, Saudi Arabia (where they are confined to rules of "comportment" indeed), because humility and modesty is apparently a highly-prized national virtue, just as not reading about Bush-buddy oil contractors getting lucrative hand-me-downs is. Bush, the benevolent American president. Historians will one day form a society for his adulation and the clearing of his name like Brits do for Richard III.

[Stormig]

There is nothing wrong with being religious and expressing it as a president.

Now, with regard to this bit, I disagree with a president actually expressing his religion. It is personal and best kept away from public apart from his right of observance, at least with the hopes that it won't be opening a venue of abuse, and what is on personal levels may be offensive to others. What if the American president were a Satanist? Not a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, but a Satanist, but he was nonetheless president because he (supposedly) had the right "stuff" for his capacity. I wouldn't want to hear a "God bless you" or "Satan empower you" or whatever they say from a head of state any more than I would want to hear about his thoughts about his daughters' misbehaviour or his battle with alcoholism. None of my business.

[gevo27]

Gevo, you are the average American. Feel proud. Just like any average American, don't even wonder if your own government has got out of control already. What you do best is interpret the Bible, so, yes, like the average American, you should have a lot (the world) to say about this, just like you confuse women in Iraq (educated) with women in your best buddy country, Saudi Arabia (where they are confined to rules of "comportment" indeed), because humility and modesty is apparently a highly-prized national virtue, just as not reading about Bush-buddy oil contractors getting lucrative hand-me-downs is. Bush, the benevolent American president. Historians will one day form a society for his adulation and the clearing of his name like Brits do for Richard III.

See the think is, i dont have time to state my opinion on every little detailed part of what is going on.

What you do best is interpret the Bible, so, yes, like the average American, you should have a lot (the world) to say about this,

 

I dont interpret the Bible stormy, its very clear. Me talking in these forums with reference to the Bible doesnt mean i am interpreting it.

 

I do see that certain companies are making millions of dollars off of these "projects" that must take place in Iraq in order to re-establish the info-structure. But do we want to say Bush selfishly went to war to aid in these companies in making this money?

 

I am looking at both the good and the obvious bad that has come out of this whole ordeal, and in no way is there more "bad" than good.. and thats what its all about.. no-one can do everything good, especially for Bush, there are too many critics that criticise him.. and sadly they are heard more loudly than thos who do not criticise.

I dont understand how you bring "Saudia Arabia" into the picture. its inconclusive with what is being discussed, if you are comparing the laws they have against women then that even is not comparable. In Iraq women had to value, not even materialistic. They were like animals, and very obviously treated as such. It wasnt beacuse of "islam" cultural ethics either, it was the regime carried by Saddam. In Saudia Arabia the laws set for women are from the religion of "Islam" yet why is there not such a problem in saudia arabia? maybe they have better knowledge of human rights. That is not to say that Saudia Arabia, or any other nation does not have its problems in these areas though, dont confuse the two dimension of issues.

[Sasun]

Gevo, how do you measure the good and harm and compare? Is war, death and chaos ever good? Where is the good part? That Saddam is gone? Well, lets see who is coming after Saddam and then we will compare the overall effect.

85 percent of Iraqis want the US troops out of their country. In a democracy, this is a such a big majority that it should be done really fast. It's not happening.

Who decides what is good? I think good is what Iraqi people want for themselves, not what the US administration thinks that is good for Iraqi people.

[Sasun]

Now, with regard to this bit, I disagree with a president actually expressing his religion. It is personal and best kept away from public apart from his right of observance, at least with the hopes that it won't be opening a venue of abuse, and what is on personal levels may be offensive to others. What if the American president were a Satanist? Not a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, but a Satanist, but he was nonetheless president because he (supposedly) had the right "stuff" for his capacity. I wouldn't want to hear a "God bless you" or "Satan empower you" or whatever they say from a head of state any more than I would want to hear about his thoughts about his daughters' misbehaviour or his battle with alcoholism. None of my business.

I really don't see why it is a problem. If someone says "God bless you" it is not offending at all. This is an expression of wishing well, so the intention is clearly not offending. Yet, if somebody chooses to be offended then the problem lies with this person, not the one who is saying "God bless you". There is not a single word that will please everyone.

If the people have elected a president who is religious, then there is nothing wrong really if the president says that he is religious. I agree, there is a limit to expressing his religiousness as that might not make the non-religious and citizens belonging to other religions very comfortable. But nonetheless, I don't agree that the president should keep it stricktly private and never express in public. After all, this part of his life, why hide it?

 

P.S. the same applies to a Satanist president, if people ever elect such a president then they would also like to be empowered by Satan. clearly, this is only a theoretical scenario and will never happen in real life.

[Stormig]

P.S. the same applies to a Satanist president, if people ever elect such a president then they would also like to be empowered by Satan. clearly, this is only a theoretical scenario and will never happen in real life.

Sasun, are you actually saying that people will choose a president whose religion or religious views or outlook on life they actually subscribe to? Well, in the U.S., that may be the case, though ideally it shouldn't be. That way, they will not choose a president they don't agree with religiously? Hence, no matter how qualified, no Muslim president or no Rastafarian Afro-American president? It is a theoretical scenario for practical purposes and practical purposes only.

No, I still wouldn't want to hear my president say "God bless you" or quote something from the Bible to explain his outlook on life or his view on his policies any more than I want to hear such from a tax collector.

[Stormig]

I am looking at both the good and the obvious bad that has come out of this whole ordeal, and in no way is there more "bad" than good..

This must be the American dream. Bliss.

[America-Hye]

A SATANIST PRESENTLY SITS AS AMERICA'S PRESIDENT, YET POSES AS A CHRISTIAN. THERE IS NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT HIM OR ANY OF THOSE AROUND HIM. HE IS A DISGRACE TO AMERICA. HOW PROUD I WOULD HAVE BEEN IF McCAIN WERE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF THIS SATANIC CHIMPANZEE.

[America-Hye]

A man who spent 6 years in a prisoner-of-war camp in North Vietnam would have acted as a soldier in the White House. We would be on much better terms with our allies if Bush were not the President. We would be conducting ourselves honorably in Iraq.

[gevo27]

This must be the American dream. Bliss.

gee stormig, thx for all the bitchy sarcasm.

[gevo27]

A man who spent 6 years in a prisoner-of-war camp in North Vietnam would have acted as a soldier in the White House. We would be on much better terms with our allies if Bush were not the President. We would be conducting ourselves honorably in Iraq.

wow, out of nowhere we reort to name calling.. i have heard a lot against our president.. but now he's a monkey.?? oooooooookkkkkkkk

 

America Hye, what is he doing in Iraq that is not honorable. What did he do in Afghanistan that was so much better since noone seems to be complaining about that. Well, as i see it, all the obviouse failures or the length of this operation is giving people something to complain about. McCain'e whole election (or atleast what he advertises on tv) is bashing Bush. And frankly all the people that hate him speak up and cheer for McCain.. He has no plan for America that is better or can replace what has been set in motion.. but McCain is a seperate topic.

 

I am wondering though, if Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq, and McCain would have done better.. are you saying McCain would have gone through the war? Or what?

 

And what would McCain have done that would have been any better than what Bush has done? please explain.. would he have gone to Iraq and faught? Would he have gone and hand fed all the POW's? i mean.. what else is there to do.. The sad part is, the majority of the voters still will vote for Bush, but they are afraid of being called names so they just stay quiet... Bush will be re-elected...

 

OH OH.. i am still trying to figure out what exactly about bush makes him SATAN!.. if you can specify, please do..

 

now. my textbook is calling me

[Sasun]

Sasun, are you actually saying that people will choose a president whose religion or religious views or outlook on life they actually subscribe to?

I suppose they (the majority) would have to either subscribe to the president's religous outlook to some degree or at least tolerate it or be indifferent to it. I think it is possible for a non-Christian president in the US, a Jewish president is quite likely, a Muslim president is unlikely at this time but possible in the future if there is a right candidate, atheist president is also possible. A Satanist president is hard to imagine though, I don't think anyone likes Satan other than Satanists. Most people would not tolerate a Satanist to be elected.

 

No, I still wouldn't want to hear my president say "God bless you" or quote something from the Bible to explain his outlook on life or his view on his policies any more than I want to hear such from a tax collector.

 

Quoting from the Bible would not suit a secular president, that would not be acceptable IMO. But "God bless you" is a generic term used by everyone including atheists when someone sneezes. People don't even think about it when saying or hearing. And if a president says to the people "God bless you" where is the harm in that? If they don't believe in God then they will not pay attention to it and that's all.

[Stormig]

gee stormig, thx for all the bitchy sarcasm.

Yer most welcome. Spice up your Amerikanski life a bit.