Amen, Mr. President
 

I recently watched a movie (Deterrence) where the character playing the president stated he had to follow the spiritual belief system of an atheist regardless of what his true beliefs are. It’s a practice that all presidents have to take.

Well that’s obviously not accurate, but it did present an interesting area of thought. Should anyone who’s president be an atheist while in office? Or at the very least an agnostic? Christianity follows the Bible, and therefore all that’s happened and WILL happen; such as Armageddon. Does this have the possibility to affect decisions that in turn affect the entire world? Would being an agnostic keep the focus on the here and now and not allow possible events to be tainted with religion good or bad?

I personally think I’d would like a president to believe in God, that means he probably believes certain acts are good or bad whereas someone that as the leadership in China who doesn’t; could make decisions such as denying the freedom of religion. At the same time I have to wonder if the president believes that the end of this world is a reality if that would ever cause a bad scenario to happen.

i voted agnostic.

that way, he's choosing the middle ground.

govt should not encourage/discourage religion, and govt shouldnt be run on the basis of religion like gwb is doing.

If GW wants to be a religious, more power to him.

Is he the only president to say god bless america during a speach?
If he wanted to run this country by Christ's teachings, well we would be rather peaceful.

Now what would happen if Lieberman became president?

Would that mean he would not work on Saturday due to his highly orthadox beliefs?

well, if we ran the country by buddhist teachings, it would be peaceful.

if we ran the country by islamic teachings, the country would be rather peaceful (look @ how peaceful afghanistan was under taliban).

but i dont wanna live under christ's teachings. i dont wanna live under anyone's teachings except my own.

what's next? blue laws?


and if lieberman became president, i can almost swear to you he would work on saturday cuz he's not gonna let religion dictate what he would or would not do as prez.

While I want the President to be able to follow their faith.

I also want them to recognize that they are running a nation of individuals with a variety of beliefs,
thus this is bigger than themselves.

They should take the original concept of separation of church & state and follow that.

Facts will give them the best choice for the situation at hand.
Faith will help them followthrough & deal with the stress.

You are kidding about the taliban right?

Women getting beat because the were not covered by burlap.
Good religon, peaceful as hell.

Nobody said you had to live under Christ's teachings, I said IF he wanted to, and again he would not be the first president to have faith in a god and use his faith to help him make very difficult decisions.

And for lieberman, if he is as orthadox as they say, thou shall keep the sabbath holy.

i'm talking about peacefulness, not liberties. you know the crime rate in afghanistan under the taliban?

i have no problem w/ a president living under anyone's teachings. just dont use religion to make national decisions. i dont care what he/she (she??) uses to make personal decisions, that's none of my concern.

no, he's not as religious as you think. he's pro-gay rights, pro-choice

The idea that our elected represenatives would be forced to give up their religious beliefs while in office is a bit frightening. I do not believe in a "God", but I really don't mind if others do. Many liberal atheists seem to want to force their lack of beliefs on everyone else, which imo is just as bad -- if not worse -- than wacko apocalypse-fearing Christians. Where is your tolerance? Where is your compassion? Do you only believe in standing up for freedom of religion when it benefits you and your beliefs?

You can blame the elitest anti-God zealots for the slow death of an established moral system in the US. While many Christians do not hold my beliefs in several respects, I'll take a system of right-and-wrong that means well over a hateful group of anti-everything academics that want to essentially dismantle our society, any day.

Leave the religion at home to help deal with personal stuff.
I don't want to be governed by religious beliefs.

There ya have it.

He can practice whatever he wants but it needs to stay out of offical business.

If the day ever came and he had his finger on THE button, I dont have the slightest problem with him saying "oh lord give me the strength to do this.

He is only being himself and being honest with his beliefs - I don't think there is anything phony about this man. So.... God Bless the USA.

Re: Amen, Mr. President
 

You seem to assume that belief in a God is necessary for morality. It is not - I do not belief in a God, but know perfectle well what is good and what would be bad. In fact, judging from some actions of the current president (and previous ones), I'd say that I might be more moral than all of them combined...

Having him say that it ok, but all the events that lead to this moment should happen without religon.

my bottom line : i dont want a prez going around doing stuff cuz of a "moral calling"

True dat, i wouldnt want my president to stop future progress of the nation,because it goes against old school religious ideas(stem cell research) though GWB played that well enough to leave me moderatly happy, coulda turned out a lot worse.

But i think a pres should just keep his mind on his job, and do what is best for the country, and he should do this by keeping his eye on the economy, and foreign policy, etc. He shouldnt let his personal ideas get in the way. Though, thats hard to not do. All in all, i think agnostic would be the way to go, a nice, middle of the road guy. But then again, most agnostics can never decide on shit it seems, i wouldnt want the prez to be indecisive..

Religion teaches morals. Since when are morals a bad thing?

That's the big fallacy really. Religious people are no more or less moral than anyone else.

one could argue that religion also teaches to be intolerant of others who don't conform to that religions' brand of morality.

the freedom of religion is extended to everyone, even our elected president.

for god's sake, does it really matter if he ends his speeches with "god bless america"? it's not like he's going around and passing religious-based laws left and right, he doesn't have that power.

Obviously the President should be entitled to his religious beliefs as much as everyone else, but it shouldn't interefere with the job. In any case, keep in mind that atheism is just as "religious" as state of mind as belief in the Christian God, Islamic faith, Buddhism, etc. The President's actions should be entirely secular and should no more favor atheists than they should Christians or any other religious group or mindset.

Nope. He does, however, have the power to appoint Supreme Court Judges. The final step is left as an exercise for the reader.

Liberman states in his book "In praise of public life" that he avoids non-emergency work on the sabbath, but keeps close to mind that the most important misvot is to care for fellow human beings and that to save lives or critical votes, he will break sabbath to do so. That response is indeed quite orthodox...the idea that Jews cannot do work for any reason on the sabbath ignores the reasoning behind the law.

That said, i think that the conscience and faith of the person we elect is all part of the package. I expect them to respect religious pluralism, but i could hardly trust someone who could "turn off" their religious convictions from 9-5.

By the way, nearly 77% of the US population is Christian, and all you need to get elected is 51%. ;)

And that concerns us how? Some of us out there would actually LIKE to see morality make a comeback in our "legal" system.

Equating Christianity with morality is the major flaw in your thinking.
Two trivial things. 1: With low voter turnout, 51% of the population would be not only a landslide but the largest amount of voters in years. 2: Electoral college invalidates 1, as well as your original statement.
Now, the real thing. Just because 77% list themselves as Christian doesn't mean they read sermons each day like Bush. I'd list myself as Christian on a survey, but I don't go to a church on Sundays, nor do I think the Bible has anything useful to say about today's world. Don't make mistake of thinking numbers shape reality.

It seems to me that GW has a limited field of vision when it comes to his ability to understand and synthesize complex issues, i.e. abortion, stem cell research, terrorism, and war, to name just a few. He sees all issues in terms of right or wrong, black or white. Like the bible, Bush's decision making process is not one that straddles the moral fence in any regard. An issue is either right or wrong. Period.


To me, Bush's nonsecular views are not a cause of his standpoint on issues, but rather they are a result of a lack of brain power required to comprehend and fully mediate a deep situation, like the conflict in the middle east, or islamic laws and practices. His lack of comprehension in all these areas causes an immediate default to his moral imperative that is grounded in christian teaching. Therefore, we cannot really fault Bush for his religious beliefs. Everyone has a set of morals that are relating to religion, be it one that is grounded in buddhism, taoism, christianity, islam, or even if you exercise your right not to have a religion, you still are making some choice. What we can fault Bush on is his inability to set those prebiased beliefs aside for four years, and instead of "leaning on religion," letting the beliefs set forth in a 2000 year old book do the work, he should rise to the occasion and use his brains to solve problems, because honestly, when was the last time the world agreed on whose God is right? answer: Never.

But the sad reality is that Bush lacks the brains to form a decent sentence, let alone mediate the world's problems. Ari Fliescher was the smart one here, he got out while he still had his dignity and good name. Bush is just a series of disgraces to this country's constitution, one after the other. And sooner or later he is going to put his foot in his mouth once and for all and we will all pay the price, be it war, sanctions, or just plain domestic unrest. Bush scathed the system in 2000, and should have never been put in office. He railroaded Gore into submitting, and he has done the same to all his opponents in every situation since- Afghanistan and Iraq are the two that come to mind immediately. Bush needs to be voted out, stat. But first the dems have to get their act together, and that may take a while, so for now we may have to live with another four years of bushisms and cowboy foreign policy. ...Sigh...

Oxidus,

Your point is made every time a reporter asks Bush about an alternate plan to the current circumstance.

For example, one will ask him, "I understand you are doing X but what will you do if Y happens."

Every time I've seen him he replies, "You aren't understanding me, I don't consider Y happening."

"But what if it does?"

"It won't."

Back and forth like that. Even if there are alternate plans that he doesn't want to share I would be more comfortable with someone stating that they would rather not discuss them rather than stating that they refuse to even consider alternate possibilities.

the legal system shouldnt be based on morals. it should be based on laws



and check out my sig for a cool bush quote!

Don't morals form the basis for laws?

The President has taken a stance or pushed legislation on those issues and other complex ones. There's plenty of material to argue about. It's not the President's fault you haven't bothered to take a look at them.

some do, some dont.

there are a lot of contradicting morals in the country (and the world for that matter)

First of all, Atheism is not a "lack of belief" it is an explicit belief that there is no god. God either exists or doesnt, whichever way you believe, it is still a belief.

Why do you associate Athiesm with being hateful? Whats wrong with being academic? Do you really think society will colapse if less people believe in an invisible man in the sky?

That is the point there are conflicting morals, and laws because man is a conflicted creation. So laws can be made, then can be broke (Court). Religion just trys to make a universal set of laws.

mamma i'm scarred....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rense.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Errand Boy - God Personally
Told Bush To Invade Iraq
By Chris Floyd
The Moscow Times.com
6-30-3

"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."


MOSCOW -- SO, now we know. After all the mountains of commentary and speculation, all the earnest debates over motives and goals, all the detailed analyses of global strategy and political ideology, it all comes to down to this: George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."

This gospel was revealed, appropriately enough, in the Holy Land this week, through an unusual partnership between the fractious children of Abraham. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz was given transcripts of a negotiating session between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders from Hamas and other militant groups. Abbas, who was trying to persuade the groups to call a cease-fire in their uprising against Israeli forces, described for them his recent summit with Ariel Sharon and Bush.

During the tense talks at the summit, Bush sought to underscore the kind of authority he could bring to efforts at achieving peace in the Middle East. While thundering that there could be "no deals with terror groups," Bush sought to assure the rattled Palestinians that he also had the ability to wring concessions from Sharon. And what was the source of this wonder-working power? It was not, as you might think, the ungodly size of the U.S. military or the gargantuan amount of money and arms the United States pours into Israel year after year.

No, Bush said he derived his moral heft from the Almighty Himself. What's more, the Lord had proven his devotion to the Crawford Crusader by crowning his military efforts with success. In fact, he told Abbas, God was holding the door open for Middle East peace right now -- but they would have to move fast, because soon the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe would have to give His attention to something far more important: the election of His little sunbeam, Georgie, in 2004.

Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Ha'aretz:

"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

You can't put it plainer than that. The whole chaotic rigmarole of Security Council votes and UN inspections and congressional approval and Colin Powell's whizbang Powerpoint displays of "proof" and Bush's own tearful prayers for "peace" -- it was all a sham, a meaningless exercise.

NO votes, no inspections, no proof or lack of proof -- in fact, no earthly reason whatsoever -- could have stopped Bush's aggressive war on Iraq. It was God's unalterable will: the Lord of Hosts gave a direct order for George W. Bush to "strike at Saddam."

And strike he did, with an awesome fury that rained death and destruction on the mustachioed whore of Babylon, with a firestorm of Godly wrath that consumed the enemy armies like so much chaff put to the flame -- and with an arsenal of cruise missiles, cluster bombs, dive bombers and assault helicopters that killed up to 10,000 innocent civilians: blasted to pieces in their beds, shot down in their fields and streets, crushed beneath the walls of their own houses, boiled alive in factories, ditches and cars, gutted, mutilated, beheaded, murdered, women, children, elders, some praying, some wailing, some cursing, some mute with fear as metal death ripped their lives away and left rotting hulks behind. This was the work of the Lord and His faithful servant, whom He hath raised high up to have dominion over men.

And this is the mindset -- or rather, the primitive fever-dream -- that is now directing the actions of the greatest military power in the history of the world. There can be no doubt that Bush believes literally in the divine character of his mission. He honestly and sincerely believes that whatever "decision" forms in his brain -- out of the flux and flow of his own emotional impulses and biochemical reactions, the flattery and cajolements of his sinister advisers, the random scraps of fact, myth and fabrication that dribble into his proudly undeveloped and incurious consciousness -- has been planted there, whole and perfected, by God Almighty.

And that's why Bush acts with such serenity and ruthlessness. Nothing he does can be challenged on moral grounds, however unethical or evil it might appear, because all of his actions are directed by God. He can twist the truth, oppress the poor, exalt the rich, despoil the Earth, ignore the law -- and murder children -- without the slightest compunction, the briefest moment of doubt or self-reflection, because he believes, he truly believes, that God squats in his brainpan and tells him what to do.

And just as God countenanced deception on the part of Abraham, just as God forgave David for the murders he ordered, just as God blessed the armies of Saul as they obliterated the Amalekites, man, woman and child, so will He overlook any crime committed by Bush and his minions as they carry out His will. That's why Bush can always "do whatever it takes" to achieve his goals. And by his own words to Abbas, we see that he places his election in 2004 above all other concerns, even the endless bloodshed in the Middle East.

So what new crimes will the Lord have to countenance to keep His appointed servant in power?

© Copyright 2003 Moscow Times





Comment
lostonearth
6-30-03

Doesn't "revelations" and other prophecies state that there will be kings and false prophets that will claim direct "chain of command" to/from god?



Disclaimer

Email This Article




MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros

Don't be so quick to actually blame God. Dubya's own church has renouced his reckless use of violence.

It sounded like Chris Floyd was almost orgasmic when he learned of Bush's supposed hallucinations. However, "talking" to God is pretty common lingo among the devout. It's not a two-way conversion but refers to praying for guidance, then receiving some sort of subtle confirmation.

If a politician has a vision about a plan to provide universal and robust medical coverage to everyone, would you wonder about his affinity for unusual types of peyote?

Don’t answer that if you’re a Republican…

Tell me more about contradicting morals- name some.

I think he means things like "killing is wrong", yet we do so in wars, and in self-defense.

killing is not wrong, murdering is wrong