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

where was it that said "thou shall not kill" - the 10 commandments?? (i seriously am not certian since 1) i'm not christian or jewsish 2) i'm not much into religion).

is there a lil subscript by "thou shall not kill" that says "killing is not wrong, murdering is wrong".

whether it is a killing or a murder is depending on whose eyes you are looking thru.

i read part of a literal translation Bible, and the way it seemed to me that the hebrew word that is translated kill, in the older translations, from the middle ages like the KJV and other translations, is really needs to be translated murder, as it is the newest translations like NASB, and NIV. It does depend on whos eye you look through, that why america has laws against it, and the Bible if i remember right gives certain paramters for it as well.

You are correct in your assesment of the 10 Commandments. The Bible also says this:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-10
1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven-- 2 A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted. 3 A time to kill and a time to heal;

This clearly defines that there are conditions in which killing is appropriate, and could be considered the subscript you refer to. You're right in assuming that the difference between killing and murder is objective. The Koran in this verse, defines killing in terms of believers and non believers:

4.93: And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell;

This also seems to place conditions on killing.

I'm not convinced that there is a conflicting moral code here, religiously speaking.

Define murder versus kill. Or better yet, don't split hairs at all.

As for geep, please, don't tell me the Bible doesn't contain contradictions. I don't think anyone can get behind that argument.

so, the 10 commandments says in a broad statement that you should not kill and in the bible, it gives reasons for killing. to me, that's contradiction.

No, I won't get behind that, either. I just was responding to the Dude's request for subscript. I still am curious about conflicting morals. Give me examples. If religion is not the basis for morals then what is? Is it possible that morals are less a social thing and more of a personal thing?


I think that what I meant to say was it sounds to me more like definition than contradiction.

I suppose that depends if you consider morals inherent or enforced. Or more accurately, if you believe human beings are inherently good or have to cling to an established set of rules to avoid robbing and killing one another. There is the obvious fact that most "morality" is ultimately self-serving, e.g. laws against murder because we don't want to get murdered. I would say then that the basis for morals is a desire for self-preservation.

Does GW's bible say "Thou shalt not murder." or "Thou shalt not Kill." If you look in the bible, there is a "." after kill. End of sentence.....

personally, my morals come from what I think is right or what is wrong.

i do a lot of things that are contrary to what a religious moral would say.

depends on the person. for me, this would be false. for you, maybe yes.

i dont need anyone to tell me what i should think/believe.

I agree that morals are self serving to a point. The pattern seems to break down a bit when some things, such as sexuality, come into the picture. What would be self serving about about morals regarding bestiality? Morals do seem to provide a social blueprint for the advance of humanity as a whole (i.e. bestiality does nothing to continue the human race). I am not making a judgement of my own on bestiality, just using it as an example. Are morals learned?

That is how I think I would define my morals, too. Why do you believe some things are right and some are wrong? Is it based on personal experience? Were you taught these things from birth? Does it have something to do with your interaction with the people around you?

Spirtual Integrity
 

The fact is I want a president with integrity. If he did not live by his beliefs once he was elected he would have no integrity in my eyes...regardless of his religious position.

different scenario. 2 people almost never has the exact same morals. it's all based on his/her interpretation of some event/text/whatever.

if laws are made from morals, whose interpretation do we take?

look @ islam right now. there are a lot of extremists that take "strict constructionist" interpretation of the quran. i have a lot of friends that take the book moderately (if that at all).

there is no way to prove if your morals are more correct that somebody else's.

Laws cannot enforce "morality" either. While you and I don't have the exact same morals, we do have some in common. If you think stealing is wrong and so do I, what difference does it make where we derived those morals from? Morals like the above example come in many flavors, many shades. That's usually where the conflict seems to come in. If I think downloading MP3s from the internet is stealing, and you don't, isn't that just an elaboration on the definition of stealing? It doesn't make our morals conflict- just different in definition. Many people look to religion for definition of their morals- not just christianity or western culture. The morals defined by many religions and across different cultures are strikingly similar in their broadest forms, in their basic essence. Where they seem to differ is in their definition more than their basic content. Are the definitions of one more correct than another? I don't know of a measure of correctness that could be used to determine that.

Well, I could be cynical and say that people don't want their dog to get nailed by some pervert, but let's address this honestly. In the case of something like beastiality, I would say that "morality" stems from a squeamishness towards something that is considered unhealthy or sociopathic. Lots of things do nothing to advance the human race, such as new brands of cola, yet there is no moral objection to them. I would think morals are rather to prevent the degredation of the human race (i.e., beastiality is a coupling with a lower species).
Morals are enforced by society, so in that regard, they are learned. I don't think human beings come out of the womb with any sense of right and wrong.

and we dont come out of the womb already done something bad either. (sry, had to quip in).

I agree with both statements, although Dude, that certainly puts you at odds with Christianity, which has an established belief of Original Sin. The debate is a classic- "Are humans intrinsically good or evil". I think we have GREAT propensity for both. What keeps us in check are these learned morals passed on from generation to generation. Do you think religion is the transport of these basic morals? Or, perhaps just one of them? If so what are the others? It seems to me that the more successful religions of the world have a well defined moral code as the hinges of their philosophy (not referring only to Christianity). It also seems to me that perversion of these "religious" morals often leads to great evil.

I think religion can be a transport, but societal pressure seems to be a greater one. How are you defining success in terms of religion? Size? Longevity?
Your last thought is right on target with me. Killing in the name of.

I think size would be a measure of success. These organizations seem to point themselves toward size as a goal (conversion of the unbelievers). That might be more of the reason for their success than the morals they possess. I think, personally, that your morals are generated by the significant people and events you come in contact with throughout your life. The basis for your morals develop early, and you refine them as you get older. You look at a situation and filter it through your own "moral codes", changing their definition as the situation demands. Many people develop similar morals through their self-perpetuating nature (i.e. I learned them from my parents and passed them along to my children). The collection of these similar morals generate a "social morality". This social morality seems to be what we try to enforce with laws. Do you believe that laws should reflect morality? Maybe laws are another transport for them? Seems to be a "chicken or egg" type of argument- which came first, rules (laws) or morals?

So what are you listing among the successful, and, more to the point, what religions don't have a moral base?
I think that laws are even more a case of societal self-preservation than morals, being that morality is a loose arrangement and laws are pretty hard and fast. We're on the same page so far as the rest of your thoughts go.

Successful religions might be Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (ranked by size according to Adherents.com). Examples of religions without well defined moral codes would be Unitarians (who avoid "dogma"), Paganism (accentuating ritualism over pragmatics) or most types of polytheism. I agree that the purpose of laws is societal self preservation. In my original post on this thread, I stated "Some of us out there would actually LIKE to see morality make a comeback in our "legal" system." Your response was "Equating Christianity with morality is the major flaw in your thinking." If laws and morals promote societal and/or self preservation and morals are learned from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to religion, then discussing morality without religion seems to deny full hearing of the subject. If George Bush derives his morals strictly from his religion, and I derive my morals from my parents and have no religion, then by removing religion from the discussion I have removed the validation of his morals, yet kept mine intact. If morals are a personal function which lend their similarities to society and cannot be judged to be correct, then his source of validation could also not be determined as correct or incorrect. I believe that religion does belong in a discussion of morals, but I agree that religion does not equal morals. If society is to be preserved then morals and laws are the vehicles for this preservation. I believe religion (not just Christianity) has endured partly because it had something to offer to the discussion of morals, but it does NOT monopolize the subject. Should we remove religion from our moral discussion of what we regard legally as right or wrong? Could we and still address these situations fully and honestly? Is tolerance (on either side of the religious issue- Pro or Con) more the question than morals themselves?

For almost two centuries non-white males were prohibited from voting in this country. Currently in almost every state in the Union homosexuals are prohibited from getting married. It was only rescently that the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional. And that is just here in the United States where freedom exists around every corner... Just because something is morally correct it doesn't mean that it is legal or vice versa.

Back to the original poll. The religious practices of a president really don't concern me as long as they remain outside of the oval office. While I don't have a problem with our president asking (insert your god here) for advice, I don't think that he should be basing this countries actions on his religious beliefs. And to say that only christian beliefs are moral or kind is completely absurd. Have you ever heard of the spanish inquistion, or abortion activists. Every religion/group of people throughout time has had its own violent sects. The Musslim, Buhdist, Jewish, Hindu, etc religions are inherintly no more violent than todays christianity

I would like to remind the Bushies of his comment about the "crusade" we are on in the middle east. The statement illustrated profound ignorance, zealotry, or both. He may mean well, but the man is a blind fool.

follow own religion, whatever the religion is shouldn't affect how they work as a president.

Yeah, there should be an option in the poll, "Should not allow their personal religious beliefs to cloud their judgement or direct their actions."

A few thoughts.

There are only two types of crimes, really. Malum in se (crimes that are wrong in and of themselves), e.g. murder and rape - things that even if there were no law prohibiting them, all would know that they are wrong; and malum prohibitum, things that are wrong because society disallows them, they are prohibited acts. Religion should inform and guide the former. It should have no say whatsoever in the latter.

I understand the need in human beings to believe in something larger than themselves, some overarching purpose and guidance for the world. That's great. But a nation composed of such divergent belief systems as America should never be governed upon the basis of one of those systems. Think on this: if you're an Episcopalian, you're not too likely to be happy in a Catholic theocracy. Nor are you likely to get on at all well as a Catholic in a Muslim theocracy.

I note in this thread a number of people equating religion with morals. Tell me: do you think the priests who molested children were moral people? How about the Rev. Fred Phelps, who openly promotes violence against gays? What about those Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and murder the doctors who work there? Are these really moral acts? The list goes on. Religion and its observance are no guarantee of moral behavior, just as lack of religion or failure to observe it is no guarantee of a lack of morals.

And for those who like to crow about 70-odd percent of America being Christian, I will paraphrase a wonderful quote I heard one day. "In a democracy, the many have as much right to suppress the one as the one has to suppress, if he could, the many."

Be religious all you like. But govern as a man, and be brave enough to set your faith aside when considering what's best for America.

I voted keep the beliefs he entered with. They made him the person that was elected.

Okay folks, the real problem here is not religion, the real problrm is politicians. We have eandered so far away from the framers original intent for govern ment. They saw a system where everyday people went and served, then went back home and went back to work, What we have now is a batch of little political robots. They have no idea what the real world is like, they were raised in glass houses and taught what to do, taught what to say, and taught what to believe. They are religious in thier convictions because it is a necessary element of getting elected.

I recently listened to a deate between the talking political heads on TV, they were saying "Arnold has no political experience, what does he know about government?" Well, I started to think, the men who put together our constitution didnt know jack shit about building the most powerful nation on the earth, and somehow they managed to lat the framework dwon for just that.

My point? Religion plays no role in the life of these puppets we call president, they do and say what they were taught to do and say, they believe in the flavor of the day and that is about as deep as they go. I dont care who you are for, democrat, republican, they are all what I call career politicians. How about electing a guy who has some real beliefs?

Lord help us when Bush finally makes the full conversion to Satanism. Or will we be able to take comfort in reminding ourselves that he is " only being himself and being honest with his beliefs"?

Funbob, the problem with that lies in politics itself. If you've ever read "all the king's men" by robert penn warren, it might help you understand what i'm saying. we can't just out of the blue elect someone who's really there to do right and will govern by true beliefs. in essence, we cannot elect someone who is not a career politician, it takes years to really get going in the game, and in order to come to power, almost every politician must make some kind of sacrifice, be it moral, or legislative, in order to move up the food chain, one can start out in politics that way, but through the years, after back alley dealings and forfeited causes, the passion, the respect, the ability to do what they truly set out to do is lost. example: Senator Bob wants to pass a piece of legislature helping little puppies, but in order for it to pass, he must get the support of Senator Joe, for that he must either promise that he will support Joe's proposal to kill orphaned kitties, or promise to help him somewhere down the line. that's just how politics works. and even if you replaced everyone in office now, that kind of operating would still arise. my point is mainly, idealism in politics is a fallacy.

Wow, I never really thought of myself as an idealist. I understand your point, and all that I was saying is we have reaped what we have sown here in this country. Government is too big, too intrusive. Politicians don't care about us; I could go on and on. I follow politics for a living; I have stories (that would make your toes curl) and have written a lot on the subject, none of this is a surprise to me. I know how the political machine works; I know how political candidates are groomed. At the same time, I also know that things have to change.

You make some good points Mystmarimatt, keep it up.

Man, this is why I don't like CNN, Fox News, or even BBC News any more. These kinds of (IMO) very disturbing stories just don't get the attention they deserve.

What's worse is that I can picture a lot of my fellow Americans reading this story, nodding in approval, and turning to the next page.

To answer the topic question, however: I can't expect a President to change his religious views to suit political philosphy. However, if he has extreme religious views (as some say Bush does) than I believe it is important to the State that he follows the will of the people with regards to how their religious beliefs affect political change. He (or she) should not enforce ideology specific to his religious leanings; rather, go to church on Sunday, pray before a meal, and whatever other innocuous tasks there may be. I don't like all this business of altering federal websites to reflect the "philosophy" of the administration. Perhaps it's constituent pandering--but has any other president in recent memory gone to such lengths? Sure, perhaps they have suppressed sensitive information in the interest of national security, but changing documents already made public raises my hackles.

Edit: typo

"God told me to strike...." isn't that their reason too? hmmm.......

Aaaargh. The war in Iraq really frustrates me.
Not from a moral point of view, but from a logical and strategical point of view.

Afghanistan was war on terrorism, Iraq is war for terrorism.

Go Bush. Doing what Al-Quaida has failed to do for years.

If God told Bush to strike at Saddam, I have another reason for not being Christian.

I believe the Iraq war was about the "kick ass to scare the shit out of the Arab's domino effect".... At least that's my personal opinion, and I whole heartedly agree with it.

In Germany a while ago a TV anchorman was nearly fired because he said that Bush and Bin Laden share some patterns of thought.
At that time the statement produced a public outcry.
They both claimed to only do the "right" and "natural" thing and of course they got this insight from religious education.

If I now read this new story, I get the same idea as MacGnG.
Maybe the TV Guy wasn't so wrong after all.
If only more people would find Bush's remarks at least a bit frightening.
I would expect an "God told me to..." from the pope but from the president of the United States it makes me think about building a bomb shelter in my garden.

Bush is a deeply religious person, and I am fairly certain you guys are taking those remarks out of context. BTW what about religion, more importantly christianity, scares you Liberals?

Gah, start another topic then, Mojo_PeiPei!!!

Thar ye go sire ;)

:D

Well, my guess is that God told Bush to go after Afghanistan, while Allah told him to go after Iraq.

He listened to both.

BINGO!!!!!

Thank you for saying that, because while it may not be what everyone wants to hear, it is, for better or for worse, the truth.

As far as suppressing your religious beliefs upon taking the Oval Office, that is absurd. Religion is part of what shapes each and every one of us(even if you have no religion, that is an influence). Just as the where and when we were raised, our education and life experiences influence who we are. Would you ask someone who deeply believed in a certain economic theory to suspend that theory when taking office just because it is not held by everyone? No, you would not. Religion is not inherently bad or good. It derives its worth or lack thereof, from its practice. This being said, aspirants to our hightest office, must not let religion DOMINATE their thought process and decision making, but like all of their life experiences it will have influence. All of our Presidents in modern times have been religious - and most used the term "God Bless America" in speeches. While I am not a huge Bush fan, this is not a topic I feel he should be criticized on - there are so many other and better points to bitch about.

I think it was the whole United States that told Bush to go into Afganistan.

According to the Moscow Times, Bush said God told him to attack al-Qaeda, then kill Saddam. I'd link to the article, but it was posted in full on the previous page of this thread.

Keep dreaming. Count me among those that did not.

Keep religion out of the government. Thats all i've gotta say.

I like the arguement from, i believe, "the ten commandments judge" or whoever in a part of a speach i saw on the news... : *This isnt about the commandments!.. or religion! .. This is about the belief in all-mighty God!!*

...........¿?¿???¿?!! I mean.. am i missing something here?? I dont think the concept is quite grasped.

Nice post.

Of course the president should keep his religion. The fact that anyone voted otherwise suprises me. The president has the right to freedom of religion just like anyone else. No one is suggesting that the president's relgion automatically becomes the de facto religion for the country, but the idea that you would have to change your religion to hold public office is directly opposed to the principles that this country was founded on, and downright scary if you ask me. Religion for most people is a very serious topic, and a truly religious person could not just switch religions while they were in office. At best they would just be lying about their religious beliefs because it was required by law.

This is silly.
Where in the world in any of our governmental documents does it say that the President, or any elected official for that matter, has to be impartial while in office? What is wrong with you people? Go read your American history- this nation was FOUNDED on religious principles- specifically, Christian principles. On that, all the founding fathers agreed. Even Benjamin Franklin adhered to the idea that God must be present in our government in order for it to run efficiently.
We pl;ace our hands on the Bible when we swear to things. Our President place their hands on the Bible when they swear their oath of office. Religion is an integral part of the government of our nation and the persons who run it.
To ask that a President and our elected officials leave their beliefs at the door of their offices is inviting danger in a very big way: If they do not answer to their God, to whom do they answer? The founders of our country would not allow atheists to hold office for that very reason. They had no accountability internally to anyone other than themselves.
I thank God that George W Bush holds himself accountable to God. I wish more politicians did.

I don't think people were asking your pres to throw away his religion while in office, but rather that he govern the country taking in mind that not everyone believes in god and that his actions should reflect that fact.
The way the shrub spouts off about god is troubling to some people.

How true...
If that were the law then that would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?
But seriously, I can't see any reason why an atheist president would be worse than a christian or hindu or whatever president.
Being atheist means adhering to the faith that there is no higher power anywhere. It does not mean having no morals, not sticking to what is right and wrong or to disrespect the people around you. You just have different points of view about faith.
It only makes bad presidents if they can't keep their faith out of their politics and then we are back at the start of the discussion.

Well times have changed (some would say for the better), back in the day people didn't bend over backwards to accomdate people who were in the minority.

Seriously, though,...
Anyone who has served in an elected or governmental capacity is required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Country. That being the case, the Constitution contains the phrase "...secure the blessings of Liberty..." This is a suggestion that liberty is a blessing. But from whom?
The Declaration of Independence declares "These things to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Liberty is recognized as a right established and endowed by the Creator. Thomas Jefferson was a self-proclaimed Christian, as were most of the members of the Continnental Congress. The Founders of the United States demanded that liberty would be secured by the Creator and that recognition thereof was inherently implied.
When the President swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, he is swearing to uphold the document and its amendments as they stand while he is in office. He is not swearing to uphold cultural requirements and fads and demands and such, but is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all foes, both foreign and domestic. Interpret that one with care! and

I voted agnostic, seems the safest bet to me. One's belief in god does not immediately grant them morals. There are hoards of unsavoury people who consider themselves "christians" - whether they actually are is another matter, but I only needed to see some evangelical tv from America to make an immediate observation: THIS IS FUCKED UP. Nor however, do I believe that a president should go agains his/her belief system - this would just cause problems. For the record, I don't think my good friend Dubya even believes in god, but surprisingly chrisitanity (or deviant forms of it at least) seem to still be thriving in the US - so he immediately has a huge audience. Justifying any action in the name of religion however, is quaint and stupid.

This is the problem that we have. This is why we're headed toward abstinence-only education and witholding AIDS-relief funding from countries that allow abortion.

I think that a leader should be guided by his or her religious beliefs, but that a leader should not impose the beliefs on a country.

I am atheist myself but I do realize that the vast majority of America is religous so I voted for the last option.

WHatever religious position they had entering; its not like everyone doesnt already know who they voted for.

Yeah, but he would probably work the other 6 days of the week.

Unlike President Shrub who has taken more vacation time than any other president (that's ANY OTHER) in US history. Hell, he typically takes the entire month of August off.

Bush is without a doubt the worst public speaker i have ever seen in my life. He can not think on his feet and i am constantly amazed that he is president of the USA. Did you ever see the movie "Being there" ( I think that's what it was called) with Peter Sellers.

Anyway, Bush has only given something like 7 or 8 press conferences because he KNOWS he can't think for himself.

Oh, he reads from a teleprompter ok, and knows when to make those rhetorical pauses and what not, but if you ask him a question, he is like a deer int he headlights.

The best was the great black out of 2003. Watching Bush on TV answer questions was PAINFULL. You end up pulling the covers over your head when he speaks because you are afraid that Extra Terrestrials will be watching and laughing.

Some people aren't public speakers, doesn't diminish his ability as a leader.

It's only my opinion, but it's one from the experience of people I met: I would haven more trust that a spiritual person may make better moral choices than that of someone that doesnt believe in God.

rather late in the thread to comment on this, but Jesus advocated the separation of church and state as well.