Hey, Squiggy...In here...

Oh he is definately an outspoken christian, of that there is no doubt.

This,
This crusade, this war on terrorism
Click to expand...
however, is hardly what is meant by Crusade
 
He moderated it for exactly the reasons Eric specified. The meaning was clear when he said it and it's clear now. If you don't choose to accept it, that's hardly my fault. Watch what happens.

BTW, I never heard of xtians either. Good name for 'em, though.
 
Gonz said:
You have sources inside the White House? I'm impressed.
Click to expand...



No but just because it wasnt released to the press doesnt mean it wasnt said nor leaked. you have stories that have been leaked and posted them. how is this any different
 
chcr said:
Sorry, but that is clearly exactly what he meant.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna take Gonz's side here and say that the term 'crusade', although originally associated with the Crusades by the Papacy against Muslim invaders, has come to mean more than that.

A crusade can now be said to be any long-lasting or strenuous effort against somethng. If MADD says that's it's on a crusade against drunk drivers, they aren't saying that they're only aiming at stopping muslim drunk drivers...

The context is bad in this case, and Bush's script writers should've thought about that one and picked another term...but I seriously doubt that this was a freudian slip exposing Bush's feelings towards Muslims in general.

Thread-wise - there is no doubt that Bush is a Christian, and an active one at that. His speaches and opinions are strongly affected by his religious beliefs. So long as he doesn't allow those particular opinions to tinge public policy, it shouuldn't matter what religion he espouses.
 
A person's religious beliefs will always affect their decisions to some degree or another. Bush is no different. Presidents aren't in office just to make decisions based on public opinion polls. A President is elected as a representative to make decisions for the country. Any time a person makes a personal decision, he moral beliefs come into play. Bush was elected as an active Christian, and now he's acting like one. Obviously Americans approve of Presidents making decisions that are influenced by their moral beliefs; as someone mentioned here a few weeks back, virtually every mainstream presidental candidate claims to be a Christian. If they did not, it would be a whole lot harder to get elected. IMO, Americans think that if the politician has religious beliefs, they might be a more moral candidate and "take the high road". Americans want to believe that this country always does the right thing when an action needs to be taken. If their leader appears to be concerned with doing the right thing, then it gives them as sort of peace of mind.

Personally, I don't have any problems with a politician's moral views affecting his decisions. If they start to impliment policies that enforce their religion, then we have a problem. But as I see it, there are a lot of crooked politicians out there, and higher moral standards sure wouldn't hurt.
 
I wouldnt but the problem is that their beliefs affect public policy will affect me. and who decides higher moral standards? I have my own morals as does Bush as does Gonz and Squiggy and everyone else.
 
I wouldnt but the problem is that their beliefs affect public policy will affect me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but whichever President is elected, his beliefs will affect public policy. As long as the President does not try to use his power to dictate a national religion or something along those lines, he is free to weigh in his religious beliefs when making decisions.

and who decides higher moral standards?
Click to expand...

I am not saying that religious people necessarily hold higher moral standards than the average non-religious person, but there is a perception that that is the case. If a candidate does not claim to adhere to any religion, or does not lay out his own personal moral code to the public, it can be perceived that he does not have high moral standards and therefore is looked down upon.

This is why I beleive that so many politicans claim to be Christians. By simply stating that, they proclaim to the public that they hold that set of morals in high regard. Alot of them might not follow those teachings in the least bit, but by doing this, they can pretend to be a moral person.
 
Yes, but whichever President is elected, his beliefs will affect public policy. As long as the President does not try to use his power to dictate a national religion or something along those lines, he is free to weigh in his religious beliefs when making decisions.
Click to expand...



sorry but I have been feeling lately that he wants a national religion. the Day of Prayer was enough for me alone.




I agree with the latter half though
 
sorry but I have been feeling lately that he wants a national religion.
Click to expand...

That might be true. He's not about to institute one though.

the Day of Prayer was enough for me alone.
Click to expand...

:confused: There is a national day of prayer every year. A 1952 law states that the President should Proclaim a day out of the year as a day of prayer. In 1987 (I believe it was '87, someone maybe can correct me on this one, but I know it was during Reagan's term in office) an ammendment was made to that law that set a specific date every year as a day of prayer, instead of having the President pick a different one each year.

The national day of prayer's origins date back to when America was just being declared a nation. The continental congress issued the first day of prayer in 1775 or 1776 (again, a little shakey on the dates).
 
RDX said:
Yes, but whichever President is elected, his beliefs will affect public policy. As long as the President does not try to use his power to dictate a national religion or something along those lines, he is free to weigh in his religious beliefs when making decisions..
Click to expand...

What if his personal religious morals tells him that homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, or that overturning Roe vs. Wade is a moral thing, or that stores being open on Sundays should be overturned?

There's a big difference in someone's religious morals helping them make a hard decision, and someone's moral code forcing others to make hard decisions.
 
What if his personal religious morals tells him that homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, or that overturning Roe vs. Wade is a moral thing, or that stores being open on Sundays should be overturned?
Click to expand...

And what about those decisions? Aren't they moral decisions? How can you make those decisions without confronting some moral law? Are you saying is that these decisions have nothing to do with morality and therefore morality should not come into play? If these decisions cannot be argued on a moral basis, then how do we discuss these decisions?

There's a big difference in someone's religious morals helping them make a hard decision, and someone's moral code forcing others to make hard decisions.
Click to expand...

People's moral codes are forced on others all the time in America, and that is just fine. For example, if one person's moral code dictates that cannablism is acceptable and the other person's moral code says that it is not and makes cannablism illegal, isn't a moral code being enforced on the person that doesn't agree with it? Isn't he forced to make a decision based on someone elses moral code? Moral codes are not universal, people are forced to adhere to moral codes all the time whether they agree with them or not. Many scientists think that human cloning is not immoral, but if they are in America, they are forced to comply with a different set of morals. It happens all the time. To say that no one's moral code should be forced on someone else makes for a lawless nation.

Virtually all laws that deal with a person's behavior are a reflection on the moral standards of the majority of that nation (democracy), or are a relection of the moral standards of the rulers of that nation (monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, etc).
 
They are moral decisions yes. That is how they should be viewed. I will admit I am personally not affected by it so I shouldnt care but I have friends who are gay who are affected by it. However I feel the government should not and cannot govern morality. and I go by this old quote


When a congressman talks: listen When a congressman talks about society: take it with a grain of salt. When a Congressman discusses morality run
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top