TokyoNiGHTS

Can you find whats so hypocritical about this:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashwt.htm

Lovesbitch

wow, just wow. you think at some point his people would just tell him to not talk. Like ever.

And how is a person "equally patrotic" if they can't be president cause they don't believe in his God.....

He really is a bigot.

Milt Palacio

There's a possibility that the Republicans will run a Mormon candidate in 2008 and the Democrats will run a Jewish candidate in 2008.

Now wouldn't that knock the Christian extremists on their ass?

WalkingOnSunshine

I think he is saying that people will attack him even though he has never said/acted like that. That is just the way it is. Granted it could have been phrased better but oh well.

As well it is his own personal belief that he finds it hard for someone to be president without having a relationship with the Lord. Is he not allow to have an opinion? Also, it was quoted there that he is mindful to protect the rights of those that do and do not worship.

How is he a bigot then? Because I just do not see it.

TokyoNiGHTS

Ofcourse he's allowed to his own opinion. Don't be a hyprocrite about it though. As Lovesbitch pointed out, he says he think someone is less patriotic if they aren't religous, yet before that he says that someone that isn't religious shouldn't be president. How's that not viewing them as less patriotic?

SuperDeluxe

Umm the title of the post is really misleading.

THe article quotes..that Bush doesnt see how you can be president without having connection with the lord.

The title? You cant be president without having a relationship.

Please edit the title. Its misleading at best.

TokyoNiGHTS

Edited, although it didn't change the topic name on the main page.

SuperDeluxe

Thank you toyko.

Jerry D

I fixed the topic name on the Main Page. I'll be back to comment on this later.

JW77

Thanks for fixing the title Jerry. Oh, and thanks to you too TokyoNiGHTS...for realizing that changing the title would be a good thing. I appreciate that.

Mio

Excuse me whilst I get my copy of the amendments.

*runs off*

That man.. just.. GRRRR...

alli balli

...HATE!

That's all for now.

*Ledi*

I second the emotion, my friend.

*Circe*

This is actually a pretty interesting topic...quite weird, actually, since it was brought up today in my Poli Sci class...

My Prof. produced an editorial about a year old from the New York times, written by a woman named Susan Jacoby where she ponders why the presidential candidates, or any political candidate for that matter, are being forced into vocalizing their religious beliefs? She argues that politics should be seperate from our our personal religious inclinations, pointing to the fact that the founding fathers intended this all along.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find one mention of a "god."

"Dismissing the inconvenient fact, some on the religious right have suggested that divine omnipotence was considered a given in the 1780's - that the framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution because his dominion was as self-evident as the rising and setting of the sun. Yet, isn't it absurd to suppose that men as precise in their use of language as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison would absentmindedly have failed to insert God into the nation's founding document?"

The article is long. I tried to find it online but you have to buy it from the NY Times which I thought was absurd but whatever. Anyhoo, you get the gist of it.

However, some of the Lettrs sent to the NY Times in regard to the editorial can be found, and one of them has a nice refute.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63


In that one, a man says Jacoby's argument is invalid, because in the Declaration of Independence it says: ''we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .''

And then he goes on to say that Christianity worked well during the Civil Rights era (Dr. King)...but I personally wouldn't really take that one as the Bible was used during the Civil War to proclaim slavery is ok...(it does say so in the Bible!)

But then, there is another letter, which I found particularly wonderful.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63

Another reason candidates should take religion out of politics is that suggesting that only people who are in some way religious should hold office conflicts with the letter and spirit of Article VI's command that ''no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.''

Sounds very nice. So how can George say he can't think one can become President without believing in "the lord."

Oh, and just for the fun of it, here are some facts about religion in our Secular Nation:

*The National motto: "In God We Trust," first appeared on coins in 1864, but did not become the "national motto," until July 30, 1956.

*However, intitially (as in, in 1787) the coins were printed with the motto "Mind Your Business." (Which actually, I think reflects modern American society more than "In God We Trust." )

*On the eve of the American Revolution, fewer than 20 percent of American adults adhered to a church in any significant way, compared to the 60 percent that do so today. (There goes the argument that we were always religious. )

*The phrase "One Nation under God" was not added into the Pledge until 1954.


All of these were taken from my Poli Sci Book: American Gov't and Politics Today.

UnsilentMajorty

The point I think a lot of people are making is that this President now thinks he has a "mandate" from the Ultra-Conservative Christian Right (the fanatical, Bible-Thumpers) and is going to try and pass laws that tie directly into these beliefs, I.E:

A) Ban on Gay Marriage and defining marriage of a man and woman in the eyes of God and State/Federal laws

B) Banning Abortion (Roe vs. Wade) because a lot of Christian Fundamentalist believe abortion is wrong based on Religion alone.

The big problem I have with all of this... as I would assume most people who don't like Bush... Is that he is NOT looking out for the majority or the country as a whiole.

He is basing almost all of his policies on the religious beliefs of a few extremists as well as what will make wealthy people richer and corporations even more money with complete disregard to the fact that most of the United States population does NOT fall into those categories. He's turned the U.S. into the home of the Heterosexual, White Male, Ultra-Religous, Unwaveringly devoted Patriotic, top 1% and not the land of the free, home of the brave and opportunity for all.