Inauguration(sorry if I misspelled it) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MageB420666 · 01-20-2005, 09:55 AM

Ok, I was just watching a little television and caught part of the Inauguration.

Let me just say that I don't think that I have ever been as pissed off at the current mood of the United States government and general public.

What the hell is up with all the references to God? This just makes me so mad! What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Religion is infiltrating the political realm, and it's not a recent idea, but it is accelerating and getting worse.

I remember two years ago when I graduated high school, there was representative from our state senator to make a speech and it was pretty much a campaign speech, nothing about the transition we were making the goal we had accomplished, the thing that sticks out the most in my mind about it was the story he told about the senator, it went like this, when the senator was a kid he had a Jewish friend who would spend the night on Saturday's, and if the Jewish kid wanted to eat the sunday breakfast at the senator's house, he had to go to CHURCH with them. At this point the crowd stood up and gave a standing ovation and was cheering their heads off, and me being jewish, I just sat there, offended has hell and wondering what the hell the crowd was cheering at and why they would think forcing someone to go to church in order to eat was a good thing.

So now to get back on topic. I was just wondering how many other people here are as pissed off as I am at how religion and the government are being brought together. Why arereferences to God allowed in Inauguration speeches, what about the citizens and voters who are Atheist, Buddhist, Shintouist, Wiccan, Satanists, etc., etc. Hell, people are even trying to get laws passed based upon religious moral principles. Now I'm all for people having their own moral values and practicing them, but not forcing them on others. Political speeches need to be about politics and plans for the future, not religion.

Paq · 01-20-2005, 10:05 AM

I don't understand why they are cheering a man who forces a jew to go to a christian church in order to eat with the family on sunday....I mean, i'm not against attending a religious service that isn't someone's own beliefs as i consider it a cultural change/learning experience, but it is definitely not something to cheer. I mean, what is teh goal, "Hey, looky here, i just converted this here heathen jew to christianity"....yeah, that's gone over SO well in the past....

as for God in inaugural speeches...well, i feel that most people have their belief and if they espouse that when showing gratitude for being in office, fine, but when they start talking about how they are going to drive this country based on that belief, not fine...I didn't hear the speech in question, but i am pretty sure i know which way bush was heading....

kurty[B] · 01-20-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666

what about the citizens and voters who are Atheist, Buddhist, Shintouist, Wiccan, Satanists, etc., etc.

They make up the 48% that voted against Bush, and according to some Christian religions the heathens are becoming more and more and soon the "end of the world" will come when the heathens are cleansed from the Earth.

It doesn't much please me either, but that's why I don't watch/listen to Bush's speeches.

wnker85 · 01-20-2005, 10:31 AM

I'm confused here. I do not see how the Church is creeping into the government. Are you just being overly sensitive to people in the government talking about their Christian faith? Those in office should be able to practice what they want and to be able to talk about it freely and practice it.

You are Jewish. He is Christian. You can not tell him not to put his hand on the bible and talk about God, unless you take away all the things that you hold dear to your faith.

Until, there is a law that says that we have to go to Church, or believe in the Christian faith I do not see the church infesting the Government (as you put it)

archer2371 · 01-20-2005, 11:18 AM

These references to God are not anything new to Inauguration Ceremonies, example, John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address:

Quote:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning--signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Or how about the first Inaugural Address of George Washington:

Quote:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years--a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

Maybe perhaps the last Inaugural Address of Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Quote:

Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage--of our resolve--of our wisdom--our essential democracy.

If we meet that test--successfully and honorably--we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and children will honor throughout all time.

As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen--in the presence of our God-- I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail.

In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war.

We can and we will achieve such a peace.

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately--but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes--but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.

I remember that my old schoolmaster, Dr. Peabody, said, in days that seemed to us then to be secure and untroubled: "Things in life will not always run smoothly. Sometimes we will be rising toward the heights--then all will seem to reverse itself and start downward. The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward; that a line drawn through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend."

Our Constitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument; it is not perfect yet. But it provided a firm base upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.

And so today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons-- at a fearful cost--and we shall profit by them.

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.

We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one." We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear.

We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.

The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world.

So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.

There has always been a benediction given and always an invocation at the luncheon. This is not a new found fad, but a tradition among Presidents that goes all the way back to George Washington.

quicksteal · 01-20-2005, 11:38 AM

If you want to watch Bush's inaugural speech, go to www.foxnews.com. They're the only news source with free video.

If you didn't think President Bush was going to mention God in a speech, then you have no idea about him. I just finished watching his speech, and he talked about the importance of freedom. He said that it is his beliefs (and the beliefs of many in this country) that drive him to work towards gaining freedom for all the world. I guess, in this way, his religion has an effect on what policies he puts in place. But individual freedom is not a religious policy. Observing religious holidays or following a religious code would be religious policies, and the President is not pushing for any such action. That is separation from church and state, at least in my view.

Lebell · 01-20-2005, 11:43 AM

I don't understand why another person's faith in God offends you so much.

Separation of Church and State means that the state can't force you to follow a certain faith. It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular political figure has such convictions.

As to GW's particular faith, as much as it turns you off, it has appeal to another part of the populace.

ShaniFaye · 01-20-2005, 11:44 AM

If I were president and someone told me I could make no references to god I'd be pretty pissed off, why should I ignore my belief's just because "you" (used in a general sense") dont like it.....why should I be limited on what I say based on what I believe because someone else my think different. It would be MY speech, why should "you" be able to tell me what to say/or not say in it?

When "you're" president you can leave out the god references all "you" want, it is MY right as a citizen of the US to mention god in my speech if the belief's I hold dear include him

(please remember the "you" references are not directed to any poster on the board)

ShaniFaye · 01-20-2005, 11:53 AM

(I forgot to add)

It amazes me that for a country that was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM people get so bent out of shape at the mention of the word God.

I would have every expectation that if a satanist were to be elected president then that person would be hailing satan, if a wiccan got it they would be talking about (insert unknown god/goddess) name. Now while it may not be what I believe the very foundation of the founding of this country gives them that right.

OFKU0 · 01-20-2005, 11:57 AM

God dammit Mage, that's the Urnited States of Amorica president you are talking about. Jesus Christ have a little faith would you.

Now pass the biscuits please.

/sarcasm.

MageB420666 · 01-20-2005, 12:57 PM

I get pissed off because the President represents the ENTIRE populace, not just those that follow his convictions. I have no problems with the President having and following his own personal morals and convictions, When it comes to his own personal life. When he allows them to enter the Office of the President of the United States of America, then I have a problem, Bush doesn't oppose gay marriage because it posses a physical, financial, or mental threat to the populace, he opposes it because of his moral convictions, which, when your representing a large body of people that is not unanimously following that same belief, is wrong.

Oh, and archer2371, I said that it wasn't a recent occurence, I know it has been going on since the founding of this country, but that doesn't mean its right.

quicksteal, I do have an idea about Bush, and I didn't mean this in the context of "oh, no I didn't know he would say that" it was meant as a "I know he's going to/does mention God in the speech, but I don't think he should.

ShaniFaye, He can say whatever he wants to about his God and his faith when he is not in an official Government position, if he is making personal comments that are at a private function or some other such thing were he is not representing the nation then, yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants, but not at in a situation where he is representing millions of people that may or may not agree with his views.

What I was trying to get across with the little side story in my first post was not about converting the heathen Jews or something of that nature, I was just giving an example of the fact that many will vote based upon the candidates religious convictions and standpoint, but not have any idea what the candidates political stances and goals are, unless their related to a religious moral value(i.e. the candidates stance on abortion or gay marriage).

Seaver · 01-20-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

I get pissed off because the President represents the ENTIRE populace, not just those that follow his convictions.

So because he represents a broad rainbow of people he should give up on one of the things that helped him win the presidency? Or even change who he is suddenly to fit your convictions?

Quote:

I was just giving an example of the fact that many will vote based upon the candidates religious convictions and standpoint, but not have any idea what the candidates political stances and goals are, unless their related to a religious moral value(i.e. the candidates stance on abortion or gay marriage).

So it's ok for you to vote on something you believe in strongly (political issues), but not ok for others to vote on something they believe in strongly (religious issues)?

Look I think he's taking the God-based politics a little far (creationism based sciences for one). But I'm religious myself, I would rather have a religious man in office than an atheist anyday.

Quote:

He can say whatever he wants to about his God and his faith when he is not in an official Government position, if he is making personal comments that are at a private function or some other such thing were he is not representing the nation then, yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants, but not at in a situation where he is representing millions of people that may or may not agree with his views.

ANY political speech will not represent all of the people. So he talks about God which may put off people here and there. Politicians who support Abortion or Gun Control dont represent my feelings, yet they're elected fair and square to "represent" me anyways.

Oh, and Separation of Church and State was never a law, it was a guideline.

Mephisto2 · 01-20-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't understand why another person's faith in God offends you so much.

Separation of Church and State means that the state can't force you to follow a certain faith. It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular political figure has such convictions.

As to GW's particular faith, as much as it turns you off, it has appeal to another part of the populace.

Yep, I agree with Lebell.

So what?

As long as he doesn't pass any laws that are based upon religious dogma (as opposed to generally accepted social mores), then where's the problem? He can talk about God as much as he wants. It will turn some people off, and some will like it. Again, so what?

I'm atheist and I don't care. I think all of you who believe in God are mistaken, but it doesn't bother me that many (most?) countries are based upon religious ideals and refer to God in their constituting documents.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 01-20-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnker85

I'm confused here. I do not see how the Church is creeping into the government.

There is a small segment of the population that thinks the government must be run only by atheists. For these people, "God"="evil".

Dwayne · 01-20-2005, 06:04 PM

I dont mind the religious refrences, partly because I am Christian, but what I find worse is the hypocracy of seperation of church and state. In my town we were not allowed to play Christmas songs at the tree light ceremony. I dont mean jingle bells, i mean The First Noel or Away in the Manger. They have also changed the Christmas tree lighting to be called the lighting of the holiday trees. So why can Bush infuse Church in Government, but my fellow musicians cant.

irateplatypus · 01-20-2005, 06:33 PM

i irks me when people cite "separation of church and state" when their use of it suggests a lack of familiarity with its context.

"separation of church and state" is not in the constitution.
"separation of church and state" is not in the declaration of independence.
"separation of church and state" is not in the any of the founder's legal documents.

the phrase comes from a private letter sent by thomas jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.

here is what really matters, the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

in what way does the President choosing to cite God in his own inauguration ceremony violate this? a stronger argument is made in defense of using such citations... as a court prohibiting the President from including such language would be infringing on his ability to exercise his own. in their relentless denial of the truth, some people have construed the founding letters and documents to mean freedom from religion in all areas except for the homes of the faithful. i have yet to understand the source of such vitriolic hate of religion.

fibber · 01-20-2005, 06:54 PM

Not repesenting the population unanimously should have no restritions on the expression of a government official. Thats rediculous.

I can't even begin to think of a single thing that everyone in the country feels exactly the same about. Besides, nothing scares like homogeny.

-fiiber

Justsomeguy · 01-20-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666

Ok, I was just watching a little television and caught part of the Inauguration.

Let me just say that I don't think that I have ever been as pissed off at the current mood of the United States government and general public.

What the hell is up with all the references to God? This just makes me so mad! What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Religion is infiltrating the political realm, and it's not a recent idea, but it is accelerating and getting worse.

What the hell is with this sudden outrage on God? It must just be blown up media shit. It's just part of the U.S. culture. It's been around for a while. Maybe you just haven't noticed? Also, it's not getting "worse". Alot of discrimination has been eliminted from situations in regard to religion. God and Christianity are a big part of this culture. And from the previous election, I don't think it is leaving anytime soon. Also, I wanted to add, by getting so upset garbage like this, you really give extreme political organizations the upper-hand.

Honestly, animal rights people often annoy me by their extreme beliefs. I ignore it and let them speak. They're happy and I don't have to deal with their bitching anymore. I think applying that logic to many situations would really be an easy solution to alot of political garbage.

Bodyhammer86 · 01-20-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

There is a small segment of the population that thinks the government must be run only by atheists. For these people, "God"="evil".

Haha yeah, just ask the ACLU.

Willravel · 01-20-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666

when the senator was a kid he had a Jewish friend who would spend the night on Saturday's, and if the Jewish kid wanted to eat the sunday breakfast at the senator's house, he had to go to CHURCH with them. At this point the crowd stood up and gave a standing ovation and was cheering their heads off, and me being jewish, I just sat there, offended has hell and wondering what the hell the crowd was cheering at and why they would think forcing someone to go to church in order to eat was a good thing.

This is exactly why I left the church (and the republicans). I let God be a part of my learning morals and ethics. The bible is full of great lessons. I believe in the existence of sin and that we should try to follow morals, ethics, and logic to avoid them. Sins are destructive and selfish. I would never let my religion come into play when I was with a client, though. There are some places and timeswhere "evangelizing" is entirely innapropriate. Being the president is one of those times.

Not to mention that there are people in the church who try to use religion as a weapon. People use guilt and try to twist the words of God to push their own selfish interests. Case in point, that anus of a senator mentioned in the story above.

This is from a discussion on October 13th when the candidates were asked by moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News about the role religion plays in their lives.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were asked before the invasion or after the invasion of Iraq if you had checked with your dad. And I believe, I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority. I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?

GEORGE W. BUSH: First, my faith plays a big part in my life. That's when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very – it’s very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls. But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to. If you’re a Christian or you’re Muslim, you’re equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer in religion sustains me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, well how do you know? I said, I just feel it. Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else, but when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from what I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That's manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we’ve unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free -- that's what I believe, and that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the almighty, and I cannot tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march. So, my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me and religion is a part of me.

If this seems fine to you, read it again carefully. "I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the almighty" and "So, my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me and religion is a part of me." both stick out in my mind. Yes, seperation of church and state is no law, but I didn't get the memo saying we're switching over to a theocracy. Relying on God to make policy for the country is flirting with a theocracy.

OFKU0 · 01-20-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't understand why another person's faith in God offends you so much.

Separation of Church and State means that the state can't force you to follow a certain faith. It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular political figure has such convictions.

As to GW's particular faith, as much as it turns you off, it has appeal to another part of the populace.

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim every became president ( An American born muslim) and instead of the word 'God',...the word 'Allah' was used. Would those who support the word 'God' equally support the word' Allah'?

wnker85 · 01-20-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If this seems fine to you, read it again carefully. "I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the almighty" and "So, my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me and religion is a part of me." both stick out in my mind. Yes, seperation of church and state is no law, but I didn't get the memo saying we're switching over to a theocracy. Relying on God to make policy for the country is flirting with a theocracy.

Just to point out on the first quote. Freedom is a gift from God. If you think about the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were the first creatures that were given free will. (The tree of Knowledge of good and evil)

But, come on many laws are made with morals in mind. Many of these morals are instilled in faith doctorine. Just because he goes to church and leads a Christian life doesn't mean he is trying to make a army of goose-stepping christians. LEt the man talk about his faith. It is a part of him, and we the people should know what is going on in his mind. And if his faith plays a role then we should know about it, and how it might make him act.

wnker85 · 01-20-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFKU0

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim every became president ( An American born muslim) and instead of the word 'God',...the word 'Allah' was used. Would those who support the word 'God' equally support the word' Allah'?

I would, Aren't they they same, qwell at least the words. Allah means God in English right???

roachboy · 01-20-2005, 09:41 PM

i dont think the problem is his religion or that his speechwriters use that discourse (for reasons of at best questionable taste for some of us)--it is one the one hand that the vision of history and america's role in it is put in a way that gives it some kind of messianic mission in the world, and on the other comes framed by a speech that addresses nothing whatsoever in detail at all--which from another administration you might figure was part of the game of doing an inaguration speech--who wants to talk about bummers when your speech separates all these people from standing outside parties they cannot afford to enter?--but from this one, whose every move for 3 years (at least) has been predicated and continued on the basis of exactly that kind of refusal to deal with "details" like the empirical world--the "big picture" in this case is linked not to the world or even a fucked up image of the world, but on a notion of this mission to "spread liberty throughout the world"....

there is nothing so terrifying as a bad hegelian making speeches like this.

edit: i wish i could type i wish i could type i wish i could type

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFKU0

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim every became president ( An American born muslim) and instead of the word 'God',...the word 'Allah' was used. Would those who support the word 'God' equally support the word' Allah'?

Since you quote me, wonder no more: Given the same set of circumstances, I would completely support such a president using the word "Allah", as I would support a duly elected Hindu president using "Lord Vishnu", a Buddhist the "Lord Buddha", a Native American "The Great Spirit", etc.

It's called tolerance and acceptance and frankly, we could use more of it in this country.

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

It's called tolerance and acceptance and frankly, we could use more of it in this country.

you know full well, lebell, that what is at issue in this kind of discussion is not what george w bush chooses to believe as an individual.
it is about the political implications of the way in which he chooses to deploy those beliefs.
these are seperate the one from the other.
but you know this.

the problems with bush's particular variant of christianity and its relation to politics are legion if you do not share that particular variant of christianity as a frame of reference and there are a wide range of possibilities for belief insofar as christianity is concerned--fundamentalist/pentcostalists in the baptist mode ARE NOT the only or even the dominant mode of being christian. this particular style of belief carries with is a whole series of correlates that run directly counter to whatever democracy the us has in place--and they are connected to a wider political agenda that is about intolerance in significant ways.
you cannot conflate the two and then talk about the need for tolerance. as if it applied equally to both registers.
it is both conceptually wrong and politically disengenous to do so.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know full well, lebell, that what is at issue in this kind of discussion is not what george w bush chooses to believe as an individual.
it is about the political implications of the way in which he chooses to deploy those beliefs.
these are seperate the one from the other.
but you know this.

the problems with bush's particular variant of christianity and its relation to politics are legion if you do not share that particular variant of christianity as a frame of reference and there are a wide range of possibilities for belief insofar as christianity is concerned--fundamentalist/pentcostalists in the baptist mode ARE NOT the only or even the dominant mode of being christian. this particular style of belief carries with is a whole series of correlates that run directly counter to whatever democracy the us has in place--and they are connected to a wider political agenda that is about intolerance in significant ways.
you cannot conflate the two and then talk about the need for tolerance. as if it applied equally to both registers.
it is both conceptually wrong and politically disengenous to do so.

I do indeed understand what you are saying.

Ironically, I have just ran into this once again in my personal life, this time with the issue of being a devout Christian and the playing of Dungeons and Dragons. (I'm sure you can construct the essentials of the issue if not the particulars.)

I also agree that Bush wants to change certain laws baised on his religious beliefs (most notably those on abortion).

But I would also argue that he is genuinely concerned with doing the right thing and how he should lead this nation in light of his faith, which ultimately I don't see as a bad thing (even while I disagree with some particulars).

In otherwords, we have a leader with very strong convictions which are based in Christianity. Most would consider the teachings of Christ to be good things, even if they don't believe in him themselves.

Likewise, if he were a devout Buddhist, I would consider his convictions a good thing, knowing something about Buddhists.

So yes, I disagree with some of his policies but I think it is a mistake to be offended by his faith when it is a central part of what makes him who he is, and presumably, who we chose to elect.

If his policies and laws truly conflict with the first ammendment, then that is why we have courts.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 12:26 PM

Oh, and my original admonishment for more tolerance and understanding applies to Christians as well.

This however can be difficult if a person is called to be tolerant of something that is the antithesis of one's convictions, which of course is how some Christians feel about homosexuality and abortion.

Still, I think even in these areas there is quiet communication that never makes the headlines.

tecoyah · 01-21-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

In otherwords, we have a leader with very strong convictions which are based in Christianity. Most would consider the teachings of Christ to be good things, even if they don't believe in him themselves.

I would think the issue is not the thoughts of GWB, but the actions. If he seemed to follow the teachings of the Christ.....I would take little issue with him. Sadly, he does not. Or at least so it would seem to many Americans, Myself included.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I would think the issue is not the thoughts of GWB, but the actions. If he seemed to follow the teachings of the Christ.....I would take little issue with him. Sadly, he does not. Or at least so it would seem to many Americans, Myself included.

Well, if anything, there is a battle among Christians to define what exactly being "Christian" means.

So I can respect their convictions while not agreeing with all of them.

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 01:14 PM

all this said, lebell, my main problems with bush have only tangentally to do with what he believes personally.
i know that you are right in talking about the "quiet communication that does not make the headlines" between, say, folk who are gay and christians in general--i wonder about it when you come to evangelicals, not as inidividuals (i do not assume these folk are evil as people) but as a political bloc (different thing).....

i have a friend from high school (long long ago) who is an extremely conservative preacher--we disagree about politics, we disagree about lots of things, but we are still close friends--the point of mentioning him here is that he nonetheless does direct, material things that help many folk in dire situations every day--running a hlafway house, developing, getting sponsered, and fighting to maintain help for drug addicts, for the homeless in the city he works out of---and, what is more, has been willing to make sacrifices in his personal life to do it. even as he supports policies at the political level that seem to me at least to run directly counter to his personal committments.

at the end of the day, we squabble about the policy dimensions, and i cheerlead for what he does in the world he impacts upon.

the trouble i suppose is that i understand him as particular, as an exception. and he has never been able to tell me much about what others around him, in his religious community, are doing that would enable me to think otherwise of him. i do know that many religious folk try to do good work like this all the time, but often there are strings attached--the desire to convert, the tying together of political and religious positions, so that the one is presented as the other. but my friend doesnt do this, so far as i can tell.

so it is not as though i approach this question without a degree of experience-based nuance parallel to your own. just so you know.

stevo · 01-22-2005, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont think the problem is his religion or that his speechwriters use that discourse (for reasons of at best questionable taste for some of us)--it is one the one hand that the vision of history and america's role in it is put in a way that gives it some kind of messianic mission in the world, and on the other comes framed by a speech that addresses nothing whatsoever in detail at all--which from another administration you might figure was part of the game of doing an inaguration speech--who wants to talk about bummers when your speech separates all these people from standing outside parties they cannot afford to enter?--but from this one, whose every move for 3 years (at least) has been predicated and continued on the basis of exactly that kind of refusal to deal with "details" like the empirical world--the "big picture" in this case is linked not to the world or even a fucked up image of the world, but on a notion of this mission to "spread liberty throughout the world"....

there is nothing so terrifying as a bad hegelian making speeches like this.

So you think it is terrfying that bush has described america's mission to spread liberty throughout the world? How is this not linked to the world? I thought his speach was excellent and he described very well what we need to do to end the threat from terrorism, that is to spread liberty and freedom across the globe and put and end to the tyranny from which islamo-fascism breeds.

What sort of "big picture" do you have in mind? This is about as big as it gets.

p.s. enjoy the snow.

stevo · 01-22-2005, 07:36 AM

I also think think since this discussion is titled Inauguration, the speach our president gave should be posted here for all to read. Because it was such a damn good speach. Now its available for you to read and re-read.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ipt/index.html

Quote:

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half-century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical -- and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.

America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet, rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are -- the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.

And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well -- a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the GI Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.

To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance -- preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.

That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards,and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service and mercy and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.

Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes -- and I will strive in good faith to heal them.

Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as he wills.

We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages, when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty, when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" -- they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled.

History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still.

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength -- tested, but not weary -- we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

May God bless you, and may he watch over the United States of America

If only a democrat had delivered this speach, the whole country would be raving about it.

01-20-2005, 09:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	Inauguration(sorry if I misspelled it) Ok, I was just watching a little television and caught part of the Inauguration. Let me just say that I don't think that I have ever been as pissed off at the current mood of the United States government and general public. What the hell is up with all the references to God? This just makes me so mad! What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Religion is infiltrating the political realm, and it's not a recent idea, but it is accelerating and getting worse. I remember two years ago when I graduated high school, there was representative from our state senator to make a speech and it was pretty much a campaign speech, nothing about the transition we were making the goal we had accomplished, the thing that sticks out the most in my mind about it was the story he told about the senator, it went like this, when the senator was a kid he had a Jewish friend who would spend the night on Saturday's, and if the Jewish kid wanted to eat the sunday breakfast at the senator's house, he had to go to CHURCH with them. At this point the crowd stood up and gave a standing ovation and was cheering their heads off, and me being jewish, I just sat there, offended has hell and wondering what the hell the crowd was cheering at and why they would think forcing someone to go to church in order to eat was a good thing. So now to get back on topic. I was just wondering how many other people here are as pissed off as I am at how religion and the government are being brought together. Why arereferences to God allowed in Inauguration speeches, what about the citizens and voters who are Atheist, Buddhist, Shintouist, Wiccan, Satanists, etc., etc. Hell, people are even trying to get laws passed based upon religious moral principles. Now I'm all for people having their own moral values and practicing them, but not forcing them on others. Political speeches need to be about politics and plans for the future, not religion. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

01-20-2005, 10:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	I don't understand why they are cheering a man who forces a jew to go to a christian church in order to eat with the family on sunday....I mean, i'm not against attending a religious service that isn't someone's own beliefs as i consider it a cultural change/learning experience, but it is definitely not something to cheer. I mean, what is teh goal, "Hey, looky here, i just converted this here heathen jew to christianity"....yeah, that's gone over SO well in the past.... as for God in inaugural speeches...well, i feel that most people have their belief and if they espouse that when showing gratitude for being in office, fine, but when they start talking about how they are going to drive this country based on that belief, not fine...I didn't hear the speech in question, but i am pretty sure i know which way bush was heading.... __________________ Live. Chris

01-20-2005, 11:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I don't understand why another person's faith in God offends you so much. Separation of Church and State means that the state can't force you to follow a certain faith. It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular political figure has such convictions. As to GW's particular faith, as much as it turns you off, it has appeal to another part of the populace. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-20-2005, 11:44 AM	#8 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	If I were president and someone told me I could make no references to god I'd be pretty pissed off, why should I ignore my belief's just because "you" (used in a general sense") dont like it.....why should I be limited on what I say based on what I believe because someone else my think different. It would be MY speech, why should "you" be able to tell me what to say/or not say in it? When "you're" president you can leave out the god references all "you" want, it is MY right as a citizen of the US to mention god in my speech if the belief's I hold dear include him (please remember the "you" references are not directed to any poster on the board) __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-20-2005, 11:53 AM	#9 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	(I forgot to add) It amazes me that for a country that was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM people get so bent out of shape at the mention of the word God. I would have every expectation that if a satanist were to be elected president then that person would be hailing satan, if a wiccan got it they would be talking about (insert unknown god/goddess) name. Now while it may not be what I believe the very foundation of the founding of this country gives them that right. __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

01-20-2005, 10:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
wnker85 Registered User	I'm confused here. I do not see how the Church is creeping into the government. Are you just being overly sensitive to people in the government talking about their Christian faith? Those in office should be able to practice what they want and to be able to talk about it freely and practice it. You are Jewish. He is Christian. You can not tell him not to put his hand on the bible and talk about God, unless you take away all the things that you hold dear to your faith. Until, there is a law that says that we have to go to Church, or believe in the Christian faith I do not see the church infesting the Government (as you put it)

01-20-2005, 11:38 AM	#6 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	If you want to watch Bush's inaugural speech, go to www.foxnews.com. They're the only news source with free video. If you didn't think President Bush was going to mention God in a speech, then you have no idea about him. I just finished watching his speech, and he talked about the importance of freedom. He said that it is his beliefs (and the beliefs of many in this country) that drive him to work towards gaining freedom for all the world. I guess, in this way, his religion has an effect on what policies he puts in place. But individual freedom is not a religious policy. Observing religious holidays or following a religious code would be religious policies, and the President is not pushing for any such action. That is separation from church and state, at least in my view.

01-20-2005, 11:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	God dammit Mage, that's the Urnited States of Amorica president you are talking about. Jesus Christ have a little faith would you. Now pass the biscuits please. /sarcasm. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

01-20-2005, 12:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	I get pissed off because the President represents the ENTIRE populace, not just those that follow his convictions. I have no problems with the President having and following his own personal morals and convictions, When it comes to his own personal life. When he allows them to enter the Office of the President of the United States of America, then I have a problem, Bush doesn't oppose gay marriage because it posses a physical, financial, or mental threat to the populace, he opposes it because of his moral convictions, which, when your representing a large body of people that is not unanimously following that same belief, is wrong. Oh, and archer2371, I said that it wasn't a recent occurence, I know it has been going on since the founding of this country, but that doesn't mean its right. quicksteal, I do have an idea about Bush, and I didn't mean this in the context of "oh, no I didn't know he would say that" it was meant as a "I know he's going to/does mention God in the speech, but I don't think he should. ShaniFaye, He can say whatever he wants to about his God and his faith when he is not in an official Government position, if he is making personal comments that are at a private function or some other such thing were he is not representing the nation then, yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants, but not at in a situation where he is representing millions of people that may or may not agree with his views. What I was trying to get across with the little side story in my first post was not about converting the heathen Jews or something of that nature, I was just giving an example of the fact that many will vote based upon the candidates religious convictions and standpoint, but not have any idea what the candidates political stances and goals are, unless their related to a religious moral value(i.e. the candidates stance on abortion or gay marriage). __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

01-20-2005, 06:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
Dwayne Crazy Location: New England	I dont mind the religious refrences, partly because I am Christian, but what I find worse is the hypocracy of seperation of church and state. In my town we were not allowed to play Christmas songs at the tree light ceremony. I dont mean jingle bells, i mean The First Noel or Away in the Manger. They have also changed the Christmas tree lighting to be called the lighting of the holiday trees. So why can Bush infuse Church in Government, but my fellow musicians cant.

01-20-2005, 06:33 PM	#16 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i irks me when people cite "separation of church and state" when their use of it suggests a lack of familiarity with its context. "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. "separation of church and state" is not in the declaration of independence. "separation of church and state" is not in the any of the founder's legal documents. the phrase comes from a private letter sent by thomas jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. here is what really matters, the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. in what way does the President choosing to cite God in his own inauguration ceremony violate this? a stronger argument is made in defense of using such citations... as a court prohibiting the President from including such language would be infringing on his ability to exercise his own. in their relentless denial of the truth, some people have construed the founding letters and documents to mean freedom from religion in all areas except for the homes of the faithful. i have yet to understand the source of such vitriolic hate of religion. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-20-2005, 06:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Not repesenting the population unanimously should have no restritions on the expression of a government official. Thats rediculous. I can't even begin to think of a single thing that everyone in the country feels exactly the same about. Besides, nothing scares like homogeny. -fiiber

01-20-2005, 09:41 PM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think the problem is his religion or that his speechwriters use that discourse (for reasons of at best questionable taste for some of us)--it is one the one hand that the vision of history and america's role in it is put in a way that gives it some kind of messianic mission in the world, and on the other comes framed by a speech that addresses nothing whatsoever in detail at all--which from another administration you might figure was part of the game of doing an inaguration speech--who wants to talk about bummers when your speech separates all these people from standing outside parties they cannot afford to enter?--but from this one, whose every move for 3 years (at least) has been predicated and continued on the basis of exactly that kind of refusal to deal with "details" like the empirical world--the "big picture" in this case is linked not to the world or even a fucked up image of the world, but on a notion of this mission to "spread liberty throughout the world".... there is nothing so terrifying as a bad hegelian making speeches like this. edit: i wish i could type i wish i could type i wish i could type __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-20-2005 at 09:51 PM..

01-21-2005, 12:26 PM	#28 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Oh, and my original admonishment for more tolerance and understanding applies to Christians as well. This however can be difficult if a person is called to be tolerant of something that is the antithesis of one's convictions, which of course is how some Christians feel about homosexuality and abortion. Still, I think even in these areas there is quiet communication that never makes the headlines. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 01:14 PM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	all this said, lebell, my main problems with bush have only tangentally to do with what he believes personally. i know that you are right in talking about the "quiet communication that does not make the headlines" between, say, folk who are gay and christians in general--i wonder about it when you come to evangelicals, not as inidividuals (i do not assume these folk are evil as people) but as a political bloc (different thing)..... i have a friend from high school (long long ago) who is an extremely conservative preacher--we disagree about politics, we disagree about lots of things, but we are still close friends--the point of mentioning him here is that he nonetheless does direct, material things that help many folk in dire situations every day--running a hlafway house, developing, getting sponsered, and fighting to maintain help for drug addicts, for the homeless in the city he works out of---and, what is more, has been willing to make sacrifices in his personal life to do it. even as he supports policies at the political level that seem to me at least to run directly counter to his personal committments. at the end of the day, we squabble about the policy dimensions, and i cheerlead for what he does in the world he impacts upon. the trouble i suppose is that i understand him as particular, as an exception. and he has never been able to tell me much about what others around him, in his religious community, are doing that would enable me to think otherwise of him. i do know that many religious folk try to do good work like this all the time, but often there are strings attached--the desire to convert, the tying together of political and religious positions, so that the one is presented as the other. but my friend doesnt do this, so far as i can tell. so it is not as though i approach this question without a degree of experience-based nuance parallel to your own. just so you know. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-21-2005 at 01:18 PM..