President or Wannabe leader of christian fundie theocracy? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tropple · 06-04-2004, 09:26 AM

Hi,

Is anyone else taken aback by Bush's frequent comments having religious overtones?

A recent CNN ticker (~02/03 June) comment has him talking about bringing freedom to "50 million souls in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Today a CNN story has him praising pope john paul, giving him the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest U.S. award offered to a civilian), and calling him "a devoted servant of god."

Not that either statement is particularly offense, but WTF? I don't think that it is the place of any elected official in the United States to make official statements about "souls" or rate religious leaders on their performance.

Have any of you read Robert Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100?" It deals with a revolt against a christian fundie theocracy in the US.

I don't think there are really any presidential candidates worth voting for, but I find Bush becoming increasing... scary?

Delvid · 06-04-2004, 01:33 PM

I agree with you. His agenda is driven by religion. He also says shiat like that to appeal to his fundie base.

seretogis · 06-04-2004, 01:47 PM

I am more worried about having a President with absolutely no concept of morality than one who happens to have a different idea of it than I. All people, whether they admit it or not, are influenced by their religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

Kadath · 06-04-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I am more worried about having a President with absolutely no concept of morality than one who happens to have a different idea of it than I. All people, whether they admit it or not, are influenced by their religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

Though not all people believe their actions to be the will of God.

hannukah harry · 06-04-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I am more worried about having a President with absolutely no concept of morality than one who happens to have a different idea of it than I. All people, whether they admit it or not, are influenced by their religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

what's the difference between someone with no concept of morality and a different one that you?

Sparhawk · 06-04-2004, 04:59 PM

This speech by then-candidate John Kennedy in Houston pretty much sums up my views on the Presidency and religion:

Quote:

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice-President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues --for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in--for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant ministers would tell their parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly on the general populace or the public acts of its officials--where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom. Today, I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you- -until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great National peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

This is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office which must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so- -and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him- -and who's fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty", that we "did not believe in liberty", or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "freedom for which our forefathers died."

And in fact, this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom-- and when the fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed our church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common Newspaper usage--I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for the views to my critic of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...So Help Me God."

pan6467 · 06-04-2004, 05:32 PM

Amen to the speech and thank you Sparhawk for bringing it back into focus.

Sparhawk · 06-04-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Amen to the speech and thank you Sparhawk for bringing it back into focus.

I only wish that, 44 years removed from JFK's speech, we wouldn't have to still be talking about these issues. *sigh*

MSD · 06-05-2004, 08:17 PM

The president wants a Constitutional amendment to subject us all to his beliefs, and at the same time, bishops in Colorado warn parishoners that they will not be allowed to recieve communion, a punishment that the church tends to reserve those who commit mortal sins (the ones that they say will send you to hell.)

Is it any wonder that some of us get nervous when we see blatantly religious symbols and statements towering over us in courthouses and schools?

phredgreen · 06-06-2004, 07:49 AM

an article, found today via MEFI:

Quote:

as found here: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_4636.shtml
Bush Leagues
Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record

This is a massive concern to me. The separation of church and state is vital, and this kind of behaviour by our president shits in the face of our constitution. Like most other news, the statements in this article are allegations, but it's a recurring theme, one which wouldn't have some truth to it if it didn't keep reappearing on a regular basis. This has to stop. Running the country like this will lead to democracy falling apart.

pig · 06-06-2004, 12:51 PM

To answer the poster's question, for me personally, yes.

I agree that you can't practice a religion and not have it influence your decisions, but I think Bush has been pushing the limit for a while...all the faith-based initiative programs and the financial links to the the fundamentalist Christian groups. Without going into detail about my feelings, because I think they would probably just be a bunch of Bush/right-wing flame bait, I have to say that I'm not sure if the Administration has pushed beyond the fine line of separation of Church and State or not, and frankly that line of separation is always going to be tough to define. All I can say is that Bush, Ashcroft, and a bunch of the other PNAC crew scare the beejesus out of me. I don't really care if they've crossed the line, their affiliations are enough for me to be suspicious of them.

As far as the question of a President with a different set of moral beliefs vs. one without any, I would say that 1. All people have a set of moral beliefs. They have to in order to make decisions in their everyday lives about what they will do and what they won't, and what they think is right and wrong, and 2. I disagree with the idea that I would rather have a fundamentalist, extreme religous person with an openly claimed and defined moral code than say, a moderate hedonist, in office any day. People can quickly become blinded by their "moral" systems if they can't temper them with some tolerance of other views.

bouray · 06-06-2004, 02:54 PM

Sparhawk hit the nail on the head with the JFKennedy speech. If we continue down the path we are taken, only those who share in those beliefs that our president and his sheep will be able to maintain all the freedoms that we can take for granted.

DelayedReaction · 06-06-2004, 08:12 PM

Wow phredgreen, if that article is true I'm glad I'm voting for the other guy.

Could you imagine being a member of the Secret Service, and having to hear that every day? Imagine what would happen if some of their recordings were leaked to the press.

kutulu · 06-07-2004, 01:26 PM

Honestly I can't stand Bush, I think he's one of the worst things that has happened to America in a long time, but I have a hard time thinking it's as bad as the article makes it look. I hope that article about Bush is an exaggeration because it scares the shit out of me.

I think Bush and the Republican party have been crossing the line between church and state, but I can understand if others haven't. At the very least, they have been constantly blurring the line with the hopes of getting more of God's influence on the state. Overall, I think many of them would prefer that we blended in elements of theocracy into the govt.

The most disturbing thing right now to me are the churches that are threatening their followers if they don't vote along the churches views. We need to strike back at them at start revoking tax exempt statuses from them. If they want to be spiritual AND political, fine, let them. But in return they should be treated as political groups and not recieve the perks that go to religious groups.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-07-2004, 09:03 PM

No offense but I think that you all are crazy. Just because Bush and many republicans alike abide by and stand by the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the same philosophy that is largely responsible for our nation's founding and its philosophy as well as its (past) morals, doesn't make them fundies nor does it mean they want a theocracy. If anything I am more afraid of the radical and overwhelming atheism that is being perpetuated on this country by radical groups like the ACLU.

Superbelt · 06-08-2004, 03:27 AM

OOh he's a fundy. He is a born again who was turned in large part by Billy Graham. He's a fundamentalist. He doesn't want a theocracy but he is inserting religion into our government at an alarming rate. And doing things that were expressly warned against by our founding fathers.
I tell you what though, the chief law enforcement officer in this country, Asscroft DOES wan't a theocracy.

The ACLU isn't perpetuating atheism. ACLU is for free expression and the constitution. They help christian groups, athiests and all other kinds of religious groups. The help they provide to christian groups just isn't big news for the So called liberal media.

jcookc6 · 06-08-2004, 04:10 AM

Re phredgreen's article, Pres. Bush has reason to fear the press. THEY HATE HIS GUTS, and would do anything that they possibly could to defeat his re-election.

Superbelt · 06-08-2004, 04:22 AM

Also, I wouldn't call Bush someone who abides by the Judeo Christian Philosophy.

Being a "good" christian is more being anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-contraceptive, anti-gay marriage. (It goes without saying that many christians believe the above list to not be christian values.)

It is also being compassionate. It means not cutting money to poor children, like Head Start. Not discontinuing the programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools; integrate art into school curriculums; funding for low-income students and teachers to visit Washington, D.C.; community technology centers for low-income areas; dropout prevention; Even Start, a co-educational program for children and parents.

Christians want to help those who need it. So they wouldn't terminate programs aimed at helping adult and juvenile state and local prisoners gain literacy, life and job skills.
----

He cut 400 million from after school vouchers. He cut money from a program intended to get more cops on inner city streets.
Cut 35 million from a childrens hospital doctor training program.
Cut 60 million from the Boys and Girls club of America. He did this days after visiting one of their sites. That's kind of cruel. I guess he wanted to get his photo-op in before they had to shut down.

Why are these programs cut? They are fat, culled to pay for ludicrously massive tax cuts. Tax cuts that go inordinately to the rich.

Quote:

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
-Jesus Christ

And being a good christian means being a good environmental steward for the planet that God left in our care. And he fails miserably.

ARTelevision · 06-08-2004, 05:52 AM

I don't have anything good to say about religion.
It seems to be one of those things most people need.

I'm never pleased about the relationship between religion and politics but we have this pesky tradition in this country that mixes the two. We also have a population that favors mixing politics and religion.

I look at this issue as political necessity and it doesn't affect my vote.

Charlatan · 06-08-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcookc6
Re phredgreen's article, Pres. Bush has reason to fear the press. THEY HATE HIS GUTS, and would do anything that they possibly could to defeat his re-election.

So all of the pro-Bush editorials I read are what? My imagination?

What you meant to say was that some in the press do not like him and would like to see him replaced... you do a disservice to those journalists who like and support him.

Delvid · 06-08-2004, 12:55 PM

Superbelts comment about asscroft is right on. I am from missouri and voted for a dead guy so he would not be our senator. Looking back I wish he had won and was a senator and not the AG. Ashcroft is a Jesus Taliban.

Paq · 06-08-2004, 12:58 PM

very interesting article and something that i have heard from a couple of my friends who are interns at capitol hill. He really does scare me bc he honestly sees in black and white and as one said, he's traded the bottle for the bible...

I can honestly respect a religious person or atheist, as long as they are true to their belief system, can make rational, informed decisions, can understand that an issue may have more than two sides and can understand that even friends can disagree..he's not even close on any of these things...
That is what scares me...

06-04-2004, 09:26 AM	#1 (permalink)
tropple Junkie	President or Wannabe leader of christian fundie theocracy? Hi, Is anyone else taken aback by Bush's frequent comments having religious overtones? A recent CNN ticker (~02/03 June) comment has him talking about bringing freedom to "50 million souls in Iraq and Afghanistan" Today a CNN story has him praising pope john paul, giving him the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest U.S. award offered to a civilian), and calling him "a devoted servant of god." Not that either statement is particularly offense, but WTF? I don't think that it is the place of any elected official in the United States to make official statements about "souls" or rate religious leaders on their performance. Have any of you read Robert Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100?" It deals with a revolt against a christian fundie theocracy in the US. I don't think there are really any presidential candidates worth voting for, but I find Bush becoming increasing... scary? __________________ +++++++++++Boom!

06-04-2004, 01:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I am more worried about having a President with absolutely no concept of morality than one who happens to have a different idea of it than I. All people, whether they admit it or not, are influenced by their religious and/or philosophical beliefs. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-04-2004, 05:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Amen to the speech and thank you Sparhawk for bringing it back into focus. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-06-2004, 12:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	To answer the poster's question, for me personally, yes. I agree that you can't practice a religion and not have it influence your decisions, but I think Bush has been pushing the limit for a while...all the faith-based initiative programs and the financial links to the the fundamentalist Christian groups. Without going into detail about my feelings, because I think they would probably just be a bunch of Bush/right-wing flame bait, I have to say that I'm not sure if the Administration has pushed beyond the fine line of separation of Church and State or not, and frankly that line of separation is always going to be tough to define. All I can say is that Bush, Ashcroft, and a bunch of the other PNAC crew scare the beejesus out of me. I don't really care if they've crossed the line, their affiliations are enough for me to be suspicious of them. As far as the question of a President with a different set of moral beliefs vs. one without any, I would say that 1. All people have a set of moral beliefs. They have to in order to make decisions in their everyday lives about what they will do and what they won't, and what they think is right and wrong, and 2. I disagree with the idea that I would rather have a fundamentalist, extreme religous person with an openly claimed and defined moral code than say, a moderate hedonist, in office any day. People can quickly become blinded by their "moral" systems if they can't temper them with some tolerance of other views. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

06-06-2004, 02:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
bouray Insane Location: Bayou Country	Sparhawk hit the nail on the head with the JFKennedy speech. If we continue down the path we are taken, only those who share in those beliefs that our president and his sheep will be able to maintain all the freedoms that we can take for granted. Last edited by bouray; 06-06-2004 at 03:00 PM..

06-04-2004, 01:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
Delvid Insane Location: Missouri	I agree with you. His agenda is driven by religion. He also says shiat like that to appeal to his fundie base.

06-05-2004, 08:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	The president wants a Constitutional amendment to subject us all to his beliefs, and at the same time, bishops in Colorado warn parishoners that they will not be allowed to recieve communion, a punishment that the church tends to reserve those who commit mortal sins (the ones that they say will send you to hell.) Is it any wonder that some of us get nervous when we see blatantly religious symbols and statements towering over us in courthouses and schools?

06-06-2004, 08:12 PM	#13 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	Wow phredgreen, if that article is true I'm glad I'm voting for the other guy. Could you imagine being a member of the Secret Service, and having to hear that every day? Imagine what would happen if some of their recordings were leaked to the press. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

06-07-2004, 01:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Honestly I can't stand Bush, I think he's one of the worst things that has happened to America in a long time, but I have a hard time thinking it's as bad as the article makes it look. I hope that article about Bush is an exaggeration because it scares the shit out of me. I think Bush and the Republican party have been crossing the line between church and state, but I can understand if others haven't. At the very least, they have been constantly blurring the line with the hopes of getting more of God's influence on the state. Overall, I think many of them would prefer that we blended in elements of theocracy into the govt. The most disturbing thing right now to me are the churches that are threatening their followers if they don't vote along the churches views. We need to strike back at them at start revoking tax exempt statuses from them. If they want to be spiritual AND political, fine, let them. But in return they should be treated as political groups and not recieve the perks that go to religious groups.

06-07-2004, 09:03 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	No offense but I think that you all are crazy. Just because Bush and many republicans alike abide by and stand by the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the same philosophy that is largely responsible for our nation's founding and its philosophy as well as its (past) morals, doesn't make them fundies nor does it mean they want a theocracy. If anything I am more afraid of the radical and overwhelming atheism that is being perpetuated on this country by radical groups like the ACLU. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

06-08-2004, 03:27 AM	#16 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	OOh he's a fundy. He is a born again who was turned in large part by Billy Graham. He's a fundamentalist. He doesn't want a theocracy but he is inserting religion into our government at an alarming rate. And doing things that were expressly warned against by our founding fathers. I tell you what though, the chief law enforcement officer in this country, Asscroft DOES wan't a theocracy. The ACLU isn't perpetuating atheism. ACLU is for free expression and the constitution. They help christian groups, athiests and all other kinds of religious groups. The help they provide to christian groups just isn't big news for the So called liberal media.

06-08-2004, 04:10 AM	#17 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	Re phredgreen's article, Pres. Bush has reason to fear the press. THEY HATE HIS GUTS, and would do anything that they possibly could to defeat his re-election.

06-08-2004, 05:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I don't have anything good to say about religion. It seems to be one of those things most people need. I'm never pleased about the relationship between religion and politics but we have this pesky tradition in this country that mixes the two. We also have a population that favors mixing politics and religion. I look at this issue as political necessity and it doesn't affect my vote. __________________ create evolution

06-08-2004, 12:55 PM	#21 (permalink)
Delvid Insane Location: Missouri	Superbelts comment about asscroft is right on. I am from missouri and voted for a dead guy so he would not be our senator. Looking back I wish he had won and was a senator and not the AG. Ashcroft is a Jesus Taliban.

06-08-2004, 12:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	very interesting article and something that i have heard from a couple of my friends who are interns at capitol hill. He really does scare me bc he honestly sees in black and white and as one said, he's traded the bottle for the bible... I can honestly respect a religious person or atheist, as long as they are true to their belief system, can make rational, informed decisions, can understand that an issue may have more than two sides and can understand that even friends can disagree..he's not even close on any of these things... That is what scares me... __________________ Live. Chris