Bush leads America in prayer

[Nambe]

This is London from the Evening Standard

President George W Bush and top aides have began a day of commemorating the September 11 attacks with a church service of remembrance and prayers. ---

During the service, members of his administration read aloud Biblical passages stressing faith. ---

FBI Director Robert Mueller, reading from Ephesians, said "take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand the evil day ... in all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil." ---

[chiburb]

1. I believe it!

"Bush leads America in prayer"
And A-Rod leads the American League in home runs...

FBI Director Robert Mueller, reading from Ephesians, said "take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand the evil day ... in all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil." ---

Yep, gotta ward off those evil Democrats!

[SpiralHawk]

43. That quote sounds likes its right out of the Koran

It's Crusade Vs. Jihad --

-- Slugging it out in the new millennium for the coveted trophy: Apocalytic Tombstones for One and All.

[frank frankly]

62. right on

and a kick

[saigon68]

96. HE'D BETTER PRAY FOR HIMSELF

God has a surprise for him some day. He is just as guilty of muderering children, as the soldiers who shelled and shot them.

[WillParkinson]

2. Of course....

Atheists and people with different faiths didn't perish in the tragedy. Or, if they did, who cares?

[The Zanti Regent]

124. Did he recite Mel Brooks Prayer from "SIlent Movie"?

"Oh Almighty Dollar,
You are what we're after,
'cause if it wasn't for you,
we'd be in the Crapper"

AMEN!

[Journeyman]

3. Somehow, all I can picture is a lot of junior executives. . .

up all night furiously trying to find unique quotes on "evil" and "the good fight" and other assorted banalities so their bosses can look learned before the Usurper & Thief.

[grytpype]

4. Let's all pray up to Jeebus real hard with our Pruzident

smite our enemies
burn our bushes
whatever
thank you jeebus

[meow2u3]

78. The first two lines of yours are very relevant

smite our enemies
burn our bushes...

That's cuz the bushes are our enemies :evilgrin:

[Chico Man]

5. Disgusting

:puke:

What an absolute disgrace this guy is.

[SoFlaJets]

6. Remember the Natl.Day Of Mourning?

days after 9/11 happened?I remember rooting for our young president that day to help bring us back together.Man he has really been a disappointment since the day he was brought to tears in the oval office hasn't he?I mean I actually wanted him to succeed,to help us as a nation to heal-to BE a uniter not the divider he is(and I guess always was)now.Somewhere and for some reason he went for all politics all the time,denegrating the dem controlled senate-puttin a steel barrier up between anyone but him and the priveledged few,the same ones who get most of the $$$ the GOP can steal away from the treasury with tax cuts and no-bid contracts.What a damn shame this guy had some real potential,if only he would have used HIS OWN BRAIN-not Roves'this could have been a sucessful president-to think I actually considered voting for him at one time...

[underpants]

9. I remember how partisanship was thrown out the window by the Dems

and the Repubes in kind went full force on the "blame Clinton" express.

You are right anything and everything can be explained by this clowns as "9-11 9-11 9-11" but any criticism is "politicizing 9-11" :eyes:

please that is all they've done and they are ALL politics. There is no analysis in policy making, their are no assessments of what has been done. It's all message even if that message has nothing to do with what they are actually doing.

[Ernesto]

12. Boy, were you snookered!

I was very concerned @ the fact that we had been attacked. But the big the FEAR I had was that we are possessed by an ignorant, life-failure, bumbling, facist little punk.... I knew that many people were about to die. It was obvious that the "little dictater" was soon to unleash the most powerful military on the planet. Unfortunatly for us, the "adults are in charge"........WAKE UP THE F**K UP AMERICA!

[panzerfaust]

83. Assistant Weekend Night Manager at Pizza Hut

That's where Bush's native ability and intelligence would have taken him.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. Fished In!

Think for himself?!? With what?
The Professor

[MUAD_DIB]

7. And we get on our knees and pray.....

....we won't be fooled again.....

[Ernesto]

13. ALL RIGHT, MUAD_DIB!

The perfect line!

[tom_paine]

8. Doesn't Revelations say the AntiChrist feeds on prayers of the unwitting??

And that he will fool everyone into believing that he is a Man of God?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

10. FLAMING DARTS OF EVIL?????

Bwa-hahaha!

Sounds like a 50's B movie.


Feel safe.
Ashcroft watches over us all.

[chasqui]

101. How did you do that?

[Spentastic]

11. But Dick Cheney is closing fast with sacrifices to Satan.

What's next?

Armour of God tanks

and

Flaming Dart missiles

and the faith shield missile defence system.

You'd better fucking pray because it won't bloody work.

[cosmicdot]

14. I pray that we can get to the truth ... 2 years after-the-fact ..

as time continues to pass ... and, decisions and directions are made based on unknown truths and coverup

[Doctor Pedantic]

15. Calm down, people

I don't appreciate the posts ridiculing Scripture. Don't believe, but don't attack other people for their beliefs. I can't stand W, and I think is view of Christianity is antithetical to what Scripture actually teaches. However, I don't doubt that in his own way he is a man of faith. I think it's perfectly appropriate for Americans to commemorate this day with prayer (or meditation of in any other way), and if he wants to do it at a church service, that's fine with me.

[Spentastic]

16. What

"don't doubt that in his own way he is a man of faith"

Yes he believes he has a God given right to do whatever he wants.

[monobrau]

18. Go ahead an pray

I'll be in the can, making an offering to the super-hero sky god that's supposed to protect us.

[Ernesto]

19. BULLSHIT

Let him do lt in the GD church then. NOT in my white house. We do NOT live in a stinking theocracy.

[Doctor Pedantic]

20. No, we live in a democracy

Which means that everyone -- even the president -- has the right to practice his or her religion. People, including many posters on this thread, who would not attack other religions (e.g., Judaism, Islam, Wicca, or whatever) because they are "tolerant" seem to have no problem attacking Christianity and Christians. Last time I checked, liberals and progressives were supposed to be the open-minded ones.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

25. Doc, Momma always told me that if I wanted to stay out of arguments,

don't talk religion.

I've got my beliefs, you have yours and that's great. It's just that when the religous start defending their brand, it seems to attract every belief that's anxious to prove that it's right and others are wrong.

It's a waste of time and bandwidth to discuss it because no one is going to change anybody else's mind.

IMHO, the best way I have found is not to get in a religous discussion on this board. There are some awfully bright folks in this forum on all sides of the spectrum and can quickly bring a thread to realize a new meaning of the word "quagmire."

Peace
:toast:


Feel safe.
Ashcroft watches over us all.

[schultzee]

29. What is with that Ashcroft thing at the end of your post, and the

number? How did you get that?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

32. It's a Wiccan coded jpg that when run backwards says nasty things

about whatever religion the viewer is.

:evilgrin:


Feel safe.
Ashcroft watches over us all.

[schultzee]

35. Interesting. I don't have a specific religion. I just study religions.

schultzee

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

37. Then that's why it didn't say anything!

:toast:

[Doctor Pedantic]

38. I Think We Agree

All I'm asking is that people use some restraint and respect. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind regarding whether and what to believe. You're right -- that's a waste of time. But I do feel compelled to speak up when people are being unduly vicious in attacking religious beliefs and believers. We wouldn't put up with attacks based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or non-Christian religious beliefs. I'm just asking for the same consideration for the Christian community on this Board (and we do exist!)

O8)

[Proud_American]

71. Doc, I think the point is that

the Cabal doesn't sound any different than those on the other side of the planet they've sworn to destroy. That's not an attack. It's pointing out the utter hypocrisy of it. i.e. They kill in the name of religion and that's bad yet we kill in the name of religion and that's good. I think that is the implied message that some of us find appauling..

[PassingFair]

106. Oh Doc,

If Bush were leading morning Alien Encounter meetings with fake antennae on his head would we have to be respectful of that? To this agnostic, all supernatural beliefs are equally silly. Where do you draw the line on this restraint and respect thing?

Just wondering....

[Chucky]

107. Where the majority of the public does.

Reply to ...

Where do you draw the line on this restraint and respect thing?

Just wondering....

[PassingFair]

108. So it goes by the numbers?

n/t

[PassingFair]

109. Christians are outnumbered....

if you add the total world population together. You're being a bit provincial, aren't you?

[PassingFair]

110. Er, Ok so it goes something like this....

It's OK to deride some of the people, all of the time;
but it's not OK to deride most of the people, even some of the time. Just wanted to get clear on that.

[Chucky]

113. Who's being derided ?

[schultzee]

28. They are attacking his "selective" use of Christianity, not Christianity.

George is a cafeteria Christian because he only uses selective parts of the Old Testament to justify his love of killing, starving the poor, and giving to the rich.
He has much in common with the Southern Baptists who justifed segegation and harsh treatment of Blacks because birds of a feather do not mix. He is not religious, don't you realize its nothing but a bloody act! He is playing to the dumb and dumber in this nation.

[SammyWinstonJack]

121. Exactly

He is NOT religious and you're right, it is just an act. Too bad some can't see through it.

[zonmoy]

94. re "No, we live in a democracy"

we attack christians because christians are the ones doing their best to coerce their beliefs on everybody else. If we were in a muslim country we would be working to stop the coercion of islam on all in that country.

[saskatoon]

122. Not when he uses it to justify his criminal actions

representing this country

[schultzee]

24. Ditto! Let him keep his hypocricy to himself and let the REAL God

judge that pretender to the presidency.

[schultzee]

23. Does he ever read the New Testament? It might contradict his hatred

and love of violence. The REAL Christ does not go with his hate, fire, brimstone, and Old Testament. I had a New Testament course in college, and George does not know Christ as he is portrayed in the New Testament.

George's God has horns and a tail.

[Chucky]

45. All of the scriptures read were from the New Testament.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. It's not appropriate in the role of one's office

Pray on one's free time. To have the government praying to a partisan belief system is to drive home the concept that those of us not subscribing to it are not equal, not valid and not welcome.

I'm sorry if denigrations of the scripture bother you, but your brethren are shoving it down our throats, so some are responding to the unprincipled attack. It is an all-out groupthink purge of non-believers from this administration and they bring yet more taint to the concept of religion. Agnostics and Atheists generally don't kill other people for their belief or guess, so permit us some outrage at further encroachment by the forces of righteous destruction.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but public voicing of intolerant and exclusionary guesses is abusive. Let's remember that religion, if not the cause, was the excuse and motivating mechanism of the events of two years ago; people who don't believe in "afterlifes" and "rewards" don't do such things.

[Chucky]

47. You must be forgetting Stalin and Mao.

Reply to ...

"Agnostics and Atheists generally don't kill other people for their belief or guess, so permit us some outrage at further encroachment by the forces of righteous destruction."

[sybylla]

48. Purity was correct

Unfortunately, there is always a likelyhood that some powerhungry fascist will come along and adopt whatever belief system they think will help them control the masses.

With GWB, he has been told/convinced that conservative christianity is the way to placate the people and oppress the opposition.

With Mao and Stalin, they perverted the socialist tenet that religion is the opiate of the masses as their means to placate the people and oppress the opposition.

It's all about divide and conquer and not at all about believing or not believing in a religion.

It's called a wedge issue and whether or not your are Christian, you should be appalled by GWB's perversion of it for political gain.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. No I'm not; Atheism had virtually nothing to do with their crimes

All of the people killed by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot were not killed in the name of Atheism or to crush religion. For the vast--the overwhelming--majority of their victims, religion wasn't even an issue. For the ones for whom it was, it was largely for the political nature of the religious organizations to which they belonged, usually with a leadership position. Throughout the Soviet-style Western governments, religion was allowed to exist (although begrudgingly and tightly controlled or marginalized) and it was not belief per se that was what got one into trouble. Killing in the name of Atheism is extremely rare in comparison to killing for the big whatever(s).

It's a tired cliche that all victims of these types of historical regimes are specifically because of religion; it would be just as fair to say that anyone executed by governments with official religion or tolerant of religion were acts of religious-motivated killing. I guarantee you that you don't want to see that, it'd swell the already huge numbers of victims of religion throughout the ages, further overwhelming comparitive deaths caused by Atheism. If all persecutions or deaths caused by governments with a stated policy of non-religion or Atheism are to be attributed to Atheism, then the reverse should be true.

You have to remember that for people without religion, the subject often just doesn't come up. Many atheists don't wake up and go about their days actively destroying religion, they just ignore it and go about their business. A government with no religion can not have all its faults blamed on the lack of it any more than the Church of England is responsible for every dead wog in its colonial empire.

Religion is often used as an excuse or a justification for butchery and conquest, that is why it's so dangerous. With core belief tenets that certain things are to be believed without question, it's easy to get people to do horrific things, even when they don't benefit from doing them.

There's an odd concept in this country that the dominant religiosity that pervades our lives is somehow being persecuted. That's laughable. The idea that my not wanting to have it shoved down our throats at every turn by government engaged in governing is somehow persecution of the tormentors is galling.

There's been plenty of persecution of religion throughout history, but it's almost always been done by other religions; so join me in pointing a big honkin' finger at religion as the problem.

What do you say about this?

[Chucky]

53. My point is that the Atheistic societies of Stalin and Mao killed plenty

... of people (10's of millions, actually) for whatever reason (religious or not). I would agree with you that there seemed to be no discrimination in their killing. And they have killed more people (by a factor of at least 10) than anyone else on the planet for all the time that mankind has existed.

Does it really matter so much to you why they killed ?

[PurityOfEssence]

56. You miss the point or are deliberately obfuscating it.

The point is that Atheism is not traditionally a mechanism for killing other people; folks don't march out and exterminate people in the name of Atheism becoming the "proper" way to think, whereas history is one bloody smear of religious and "religion enabled" state mayhem. Religion is now and always has been an excuse and even a compelling reason for killing.

It's extremely important. It's an issue of mindset: the Atheists tend to not kill to enforce their belief or guess. Non-believers also don't go into suicide killings very often, due to a lack of belief in an afterlife. Mutual fear of death and injury is one of the great glues that has held mankind together: banding together against murderers is one of the springboards of civilization. Unsettlingly, fundamentalists who are willing to kill themselves to kill others are a huge asymmetric issue to face, and except for isolated incidents, it's a very modern phenomenon.

Yes, it really does matter how and WHY they killed. Atheists, agnostics and assorted non-believers are demonized, when in reality, we tend to respect life MORE. Religion is not rational; there may be something out there, but the mental process that convinces one or sustains it is not logic. Logic is the test to which all public policy must be constantly held, otherwise nothing means anything. If religion is allowed into government, then feelings equal tested reality. In the case of fundies, they're BETTER. Thus, we have an aristocracy and a group of inferiors. Religion in government is by definition anti-democratic because it grants some peoples' words greater validity and access.

You are trying to say that certain Atheistic governments are just as bad as religious ones, thus erasing any responsibility of religion. It simply isn't true. It isn't true by numbers, degree or mechanism. Above all else, a belief in no god has essentially not been the impetus for killing and subjugation, nor has it been a justification very often.

[Chucky]

57. If atheists respect life more, ... then why do atheists also kill more ?

I understand your point that Atheism has not been a rallying cry for killing.

My point is that Atheism has been even less successful as a rallying cry for not killing.

My support for this is the fact that the atheistic societies of the 20th century have killed more people in just this one century ... than have been killed over the course of the history of man on this planet.

That atheists have not killed for religious reasons is obvious ... after all, atheists have no religion ... but atheists kill, nonetheless.

[PurityOfEssence]

61. Please defend that statement

Atheists kill more? That is simply not true either on an individual or group basis. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and used the power of religious rhetoric to ascend power and throughout his reign. Mussolini used the cover of religion, although it's truly up for grabs just how he felt. The Imperial Japanese were religious.

McVeigh was a good Catholic boy who asked for and received last rights.

The "state atheistic" governments of the 20th century were responsible for far fewer deaths than the religious ones.

What are those symbols on the wings of Luftwaffe planes?

[Chucky]

63. You need to check your numbers. I can provide support for the ...

... fact the the atheist societies Stalin and Mao alone were responsible for, at least, 10 times as many deaths than any other ideologies (including ... religion). It is estimated that they are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million in less than 50 years.

I can have the numbers for you tomorrow.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. You're still wrong

It wasn't the "Atheism" that did the killing, nor was it an excuse for it, except in very few instances.

[Chucky]

68. You may very well be correct ... however, it seems that atheism ...

... doesn't stop the killing either, ... or decrease the killing, ... or, even keep the killing from increasing.

Reply to ...

"It wasn't the "Atheism" that did the killing, nor was it an excuse for it, except in very few instances."

[PurityOfEssence]

70. It takes away a key mechanism

For centuries, people have been led to fight the infidels and to endure their ongoing hopeless lot in life because of a promise of some reward in a far far better place.

If widespread assumption of any existence after life is reduced somewhat, people will not go about such mischief so willingly, and they'll concentrate on making life itself more decent. I can dig it.

The excuses are torn away, and you have to sell it to the peasants to go out and kill for your wealth. It makes it harder.

I have to get back to work now.

[Chucky]

79. It's already been tried. It only increases the killing.

For centuries, people have been led to fight the infidels and to endure their ongoing hopeless lot in life because of a promise of some reward in a far far better place.

If widespread assumption of any existence after life is reduced somewhat, people will not go about such mischief so willingly, and they'll concentrate on making life itself more decent. I can dig it.

This idealism might have been appropriate before 1950, but, because of the experiments with the atheistic societies of Stalin and Mao, and their upping the ante on killing, ... this is no longer a viable sentiment.

To hold to this, one must continue to be willfully ignorant of the history of the 20th century ... something you seem intent upon.

[PurityOfEssence]

84. Religious belief is often used to justify killing; Atheism is not

You're using fatuous conservative pronouncements in place of facts. Your waving about of superior knowledge of history is simply unfounded.

The fact remains that these "Communist" states never whipped up the frenzy to kill based on a justification of the enemy being of an unacceptable religious belief. They didn't go on wars of conquest using "religious belief" as a threat or inducement to their own people. There was precious little killing or imprisonment of believers who were not seriously inovlved in anti-government actions.

I don't like communism; I'm a capitalist.

You are shockingly ignorant of 20th century history or are deliberately misrepresenting it. The very idea that you could repeatedly proclaim your superior knowledge of it is laughable.

Religion, though not often the root cause, has been by far and away the method of inducing populations to go out and kill for the country. The 20th century is sodden with the sacred blood of this abuse and you're so willing to turn a blind eye to one the chief failings of belief that you are incapable of facing reality.

You are not only wrong about the history of the 20th century, you are monumentally wrong. Atheism is not generally used as a justification to kill on either a personal or broad social basis religion is.

Maybe there is some supreme being, and maybe the net effect to mankind is good, but that does not erase the vast hatreds, subjugations and outright murders for which it is an active mechanism. I doubt you will ever accept this.

Why did Hitler fight in the East? Living space and to fight the godless communist hoarde was his justification; that's literally how he sold it to his people, liberally salted with racial derision toward the filthy Slavs. He used god to justify killing; Stalin didn't use "they believe" to justify his expansionistic moves of the 30s and 40s.

You are wrong.

[Chucky]

87. You misunderstand my intention. I have conceded that Atheism ...

... has not been a major motivation for the killing of others.

After all, ... how could it be. It is, in effect, a non-belief system.

My point is that Atheism seems not to hinder killing.

I came into this discussion in response to your apparent blaming of religion for the majority of the killing that has gone on in the world.

My only point in responding was to demonstrate, by showing that the societies which have killed the most people for all of man's existence on the planet have been the atheistic societies of the Soviet Union and Communist China.

For your proposition to hold up, when religion is removed from a people's mindset, the amount of killing attributable to that people should decrease.

But this is not consistent with the facts.

The facts show that when you remove religion from the consciousness of a given people, ... the killing attributable to those people actually increases.

So, once again, I will agree with you that atheism, in and of itself, cannot be fingered as a major motivation for killing, ... however, it appears to be just as true, and maybe more true, ... that atheism actually creates a moral vacuum which results in many times more killing than have ever been killed for any religious cause.

If you doubt that this is true, ... do your own math.

Compare the amount killing which has been done for a religious cause ... to that which has occurred in non-religious societies.

You might just be surprised.

[short bus president]

104. atheism seems not to hinder killing

because atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a supernatural god figure, and not its own moral philosophy. Try "secular humanism" for a moral calculus (more appropriately weighed against the moral calculus of organized religion) instead of "atheism."

Your formulation of the issue attempts to compare "apples" with "disbelief in oranges."

[chasqui]

102. Atheism was not the issue.

What you seem to be getting at is the idea that 'morality resides with religion,' and that atheism bred the moral permissiveness that allowed genocide to occur. I disagree with this concept, since morality stems from laws of human interaction that are pretty common across the spectrum, regardless of religion, and as such, Belief in God is not equal to a Superior Moral Spine.

[Doctor Pedantic]

81. When is "his own time"?

Can't the president attend a church service if he wants? I've gone to weekday church services to commemmorate 9/11, too. What's the difference?

There's no question that many people have killed in the name of religions. There's also no question that religion has provided a moral framework and a committment to peace among many other people. And let's not forget the contributions to art, architecture, literature, and music.

All's I'm saying is, there are plenty of reasons to dislike W, his perversion of Christianity among them. But don't indict all of religion or all of Christianity, or turn this into a battle over the evils of prayer, in doing so.

[panzerfaust]

85. Religionists allow no one their 'Own Time'

I recall a change of command ceremony. It was made clear that there would be a benediction/prayer. It was also made clear, by the XO, that we would all participate, or at least appear to: “When the chaplain starts those of you who are believers can bow your heads in prayer – and if there are any of you who are not believers, then, believe me, you had damn well better pick that moment to check your shoeshines.”

Religion is organized repression. It exists for the benefit of the rulers.

“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

[Chucky]

88. Sounds to me like you coercion stemmed from the fact that you were ...

... in the military. Why else would you accede to such a demand ?

[chasqui]

103. Hell of a place to look for Freedom.

I was in the Army - still am, inactive, though.
There was similar situation that arose during a leadership course I attended: There were a number of us that refused to go the 'non-denominational services.'
Once everyone had left, we were all asked to justify, rationally, the reason we had for refusing to attend. What struck me about that is that (a) We had to be rational about it, and that (b) We had to justify it.
Initially it appeared to me that it was a good thing, and a bad thing rolled into one, what was requested of us; but on further thought it was all a good thing. Kudos to the TAC Officer for this. He demanded rationality, nothing bad about that, and he also reminded us that 'when a soldier needs a leader when the going gets rough, religion is just another tool that a leader will use for motivating the troops.'
So what it boils down to is pragmatism, and one has to be able to separate the motivation from the result.
This issue is far more complex than just 'religion vs. atheism' seems to imply.

[PurityOfEssence]

97. The "official" ceremony should be neutral

Say warm reflective things, evoke community and whatever. Hell, even have a shared moment of silence, but be inclusive and don't endorse the concept with the rousing voice of governmental policy.

Then, finish the ceremony and invite those who'd like some old time quotifying to come on in and get holy. I'm not--nor are most others--saying he "can't ever attend church services". It's a tough job, but every job should have some down time.

It's the wicked attempts to slop over the lines that are illegal and morally wrong. I guarantee you it will be used as a further bit of leverage by some theocrat saying that whatever encroachment they're suggesting at that moment should be allowed because the President evoked the name of god (who is, of course, an undeniable fact, unlike evolution or global warming) in some speech or other.

The frog in the water analogy that so many have drawn is so apt here: throw a frog into boiling water, and it jumps out; put it in water and slowly turn up the heat and you'll kill it. Leaving that silly motto on our money is repeatedly used as proof that we're a holy government, founded by christians on the tenets of the existence of god. That's why all of this needs to be hemmed in.

[HFishbine]

17. We will

"take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand the evil day ... in all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil."

Oh, we will. We will.

[schultzee]

26. All he can quote is hatred, violence, and death. Does the C student

ever read the REAL Christ's message of love, compassion, and brotherhood? No, he does not.

[schultzee]

21. What a laugh! That hypocrit would starve the poorest and give to

the richest. This is disgusting! Barf.

[Parche]

22. joke

I am going to hurl a cheney if I see smirky prayin

LET US SPRAY

[lumpy]

27. Somber day

I am thinking of the pain my neignbors are feeling who lost a son in the Pentagon attack. When perusing TV I am thinking of the somber faces, bowed heads and maudlin-muted voices of the political hypocrites who brought death to the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[joshdawg]

30. The hypocritical bastard!!!

[Snellius]

31. "Our Father, Deliver Us From Me"

That's the only prayer to which I say "Amen"

[IkeWarnedUs]

33. Alternate headlines

Fox leads hens in prayer.

or

Rapist leads victim in prayer.

or

Cat leads mouse in prayer.

[Dr Fate]

34. I am not a practicing Christian, so those comments are not for me...

...I guess I'm not a "real" American, although they still want my tax money...go figure...

[schultzee]

36. They like to keep em dumb, so they can just take orders and feel

that massa bu$h knows best even when he steals the bread out of their mouths.

[Bandit]

40. Any passages from his favorite philosopher?

I would venture a guess that every passage read was from Old Testiment.

[Mari333]

41. Jesus to Bush

GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN

[Chucky]

46. All of the scriptures read were from the New Testament.

[Selwynn]

50. The only thing that hurts worse than Bush taking the name of god in vain..

Is the attitude of people on the DU forums that are so bitter and cyinical of people with spiritual beliefs.

I wish they wouldn't have read from the Bible, becuase I don't feel it is very inclusive of the thousands of Americans with other beliefs, or no beliefs at all, and it hurts my heart to hear Bush taking the name of Christian for himself and uttering prayers as though he was a just man only to have him turn around and committ such otrocities.

That said, after being hit with that grieving experience, I then get to come here, and be grieve again by the never ending barrage of disrepsectful, rank venom cynically spewed forth against religion in general and peopel of faith by so many here. It's just sad.

No, its not good that Bush wraps himself in the viel of christianity while claiming to represent all Americans - but its also no good that the people who claim to be "progressive" have such closed-minded hatred towards people who do believe. I believe. And I ask for your respect. Not your conversion - just your respect.

Sel

[Zenaholic]

42. God bless America and deliver us from GWB!!!

Amen.

[teryang]

44. politico-religious propaganda day

All together now, let's repeat and reinforce all the Orwellian jingos of 911.

[bushisanidiot]

49. Who The Hell Is AWOL Praying To? Satan -

His leader?

[tweekinnow]

52. The Pandering Scumbag

Go kill some more people George,Starve some women and kids, accept payoffs from your cronies.Christian my ass...:puke:

[symbolman]

54. He swore to uphold the Constitution

and there's a little clause I believe about seperation of Church and State in there..

so cut the talking to the Invisible Man act you serial, excuse me, MASS murderer..

He should be impeached to praying in public.. we have religious figures for that, not his JOB..

of course he'll claim he's unlelected the minute someone tries to impeach him..

[Chucky]

55. There's nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and

state.

It says that Congress shall make no law establishing a State church, ... nor any law interfering with the freedom of religion.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. This is entirely wrong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That means that the very subject is closed. It's not about a particular religion, as the fundies would have it, it's about the concept of religion itself. It does not say "an establishment of A religion", it's about the very concept. A strict constructionist could take this to ridiculous degrees, but by constantly letting vigorous theocrats encroach more and more, it's taken as precedent for further abuse.

It shouldn't be on the money, because this is saying that we the people--in order to be full-fledged members of society--agree that there is a god. Worse, by having it there, people can say "See?!! It's proof that we're a godly government." That's used as an excuse for faith-based charities and who knows what else. It shouldn't be on the wall of the House of Representatives, and there shouldn't be chaplains in legislative sessions for the same reason. As for chaplains in the military, I'm a softie for anyone laying down his/her life for the country, so let 'em have them.

There is no mention of a supreme being in the Constitution. Mention is made of a "creator" in the Declaration of Independence but that's nothing more than a position paper; it is not, nor ever was, a set of laws. Madison, Jefferson and others who had a hand in founding our government wrote about their reasoning behind the wording, and it is consistent: religion is to have nothing to do with government in this country.

[Chucky]

59. So, ... your concern is that Congress has made a law respecting the ...

... establishment of religion, ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ?

[PurityOfEssence]

64. endorsing it in governmental function takes the freedom away

Why is this so hard to understand? To demand children to say a pledge with "god" in it is to FORCE them to believe or go along with the gag. To invoke it within the functions of one's job as a public employee is to deprive others of their freedom. I have the freedom of throwing rocks at the beach, but not if there's someone's head in the way; the test is the denial of the rights of others.

The opposite of having the ten commandments in public buildings is not the hate-filled intolerance of having nothing or a nice abstract sculpture, it's to have a crucifix with a big red circle and a slash. It shouldn't be an offense to have compulsory religion of a divisive nature absent in the symbolic house of us all. It is an offense to have a big sign there that says "there's no god", just as it's an offense to have a monument falsely claiming to be the source of our ethics that starts off with "I am god, the only one, and you shall have nothing before me including these pesky secular hobbies". That's offensive.

Exercise of religious belief under the endorsement of government is the denial of my beliefs. I have no interest in telling you what to believe or forcing you to endure my worship as part of my duties as a public employee, and by the Constitution it's the same for us all. The Constitution is not pro- or anti- religion; it's religion-neutral.

[Chucky]

67. I thought we were discussing the president's praying in a memorial ...

... service. Do you consider that a governmental function ?

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Absolutely

I would cut some slack and go for a silent moment, or something like that, but invoking a specific religion in the guise of ones job as a public employee is beyond the line. Like everything else in life, it's a question of degrees, and these guys push the envelope as much as possible. Gosh, how cruel of any of us to not want an all inclusive moment of community instead of partisan co-opting of the national grief.

It's polarizing.

The public remonstrations should be of as inclusive a nature as possible. For those of us who see 9-11 as yet another act of selfish religious mass murder, having our national sharing be steeped in more religion is just depressing. It's bad enough to have dangerous beliefs assault us from afar, but to have people use that as an excuse to tyrannize us with their own is nauseating. Why not just a remembrance and soft cameraderie?

If you don't think that Junior's deliberately using every incremental moment to equate himself with a religious leader and entwine his version of god with the common agreement, you're not watching or playing the same game.

He should have made some commemorative speeches, and then gone into private service to invoke his scripture.

If you can't put displays and proclamations about your faith away when performing specific functions of your job, you should be in the private sector. Mercifully, that's where he's headed.

[Chucky]

77. Don't you realize that the your logic cuts both ways ?

A memorial without any religious elements would not be inclusive.

It would be atheistic.

There is plenty of memorial observance of Sept. 11 which includes no religious involvement. To get into a tizzy everytime a religious word is uttered is not being inclusive of your fellow Americans who are religious.

To live in America is live in the melting pot which includes people of religion. To expect not to ever encounter references to another's religion is illogical or just plain selfish.

It's like choosing childlessness. Just because that's your choice, you can't expect everyone else to not talk about their children.

The president is religious. He included references to religion in his participation in a memorial to Sept. 11. It is only natural that he would.

Maybe next time you'll elect an atheist president.

[panzerfaust]

86. We DID NOT ELECT bush

[PurityOfEssence]

93. Nice moniker!

I guess that makes you the ur-RPG, eh?

Certainly apt for one who's trying to expel overwhelming force...

[Chico Man]

89. You know what is selfish?

The president's behavior and his pushing of the envelope when it comes to his religion beliefs. He is offensive to many, many people, including myself, because he makes it a point, in each one of his public experiences, that we are paying for, to let the world know that his "God is Great".

I could talk myself into thinking that the great George Bush is harmlessly expressing his right to practice religion.

HOWEVER, make no mistake about it, there is an agenda here that Bush is pushing, and to ignore it is also illogical or just plain selfish. I do not want to live in a country so utterly brainwashed, straight from the top, that to believe in another religion seperate from that of the great leader I will feel suppressed.

It has been widely reported in the media that Bush consults with "God" as he makes decisions, and "God" talks with him and gives him advice and orders. "God" told Bush to put our men and women in harm's way. Would it not have made more sense to consult with the senators, congressmen, his cabinet, leaders of other countries, the UN, NATO, the VOTERS, etc. etc. etc.? Is our contry being run by "God"? Why was there no commnication between these parties? Does it matter to Bush what others think? If he can "talk to God", does he need advice from others?

What sheer arrogance this man reeks of.

[PurityOfEssence]

95. Can you get any more wrong?

I think you probably can, but it's getting ridiculous.

The opposite of "religious" propaganda at a public event would be the expression of irreligious or anti-religious ones. Saying nothing on the subject is neutral, as it should be. The opposite of the ten commandments being displayed as if the society agrees there's a god would be a sign saying "there is no god". Having nothing there is neutral.

What's the matter with neutrality?

How would you like it if your public grieving was led with many fervent variations of the following: "Well, since there's definitely no god, afterlife or ultimate design, lets all share a moment of reverence for these people who are no more." You'd find that offensive, wouldn't you? THAT is the opposite of public utterances of religious beliefs in the guise of official duties. Why can't he just have an inclusive "moment of silence" and statement of community/family joy, end the ceremony, and then inform everyone that should they wish to share in a religious one, they can step inside with us believers, or something like that?

Why the fuck does his dominant, intolerant, invasive assumption-described-as-fact have to be stomached in order to have a sweet community moment with our fellow beings? Do you really have no idea how selfish, abusive and sick that is?

Do you truly demand to have your government employees have free reign to spout their beliefs because you're persecuted if they're not allowed to cram their guesses down our throats?

Not mentioning the subject is NEUTRAL. Mentioning the subject is privileged, elitist, exclusionary, selfish, pigheaded, egocentric, divisive, abusive and childish. Demanding the right to do so an insult to the concept of coexistence. If you sneeze, and I say "you okay?" have I insulted your religion because I didn't say "bless you"?

Many people absolutely hate religion. Many people have had extremely bad times and emotional experiences at the hands of evil people hiding under the guise of religion. I am not one of them; I walked out of the Church--a mild one at that--at age six, and my parents respected my decision. But others I've known have depression, sadness and anger when being exposed to it. Do you demand the right to force it on them IN THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES? Are such people just told to not have a part in the shared grieving if they won't knuckle under to the dominant guess? What's the big problem with just saying nothing on the subject?

You are wrong. Saying that limiting the mention of religion is an endorsement of atheism or an atheistic statement is flat-out wrong. Many religious people can have a communal moment without feeling persecuted by not hearing brimstone and twattle in every gentle moment.

You've twisted and dodged in these two threadlets, but your premises are incorrect. There is a separation of church and state in our laws, taking references to cosmic guesses out is not a statement of atheism and atheism is not a motivator of or excuse for hate and destruction in the way religion has been. You are not right, and if it's a crusade to show how determined you are, fueled by righteousness, then blather on. These are important issues, and you need to hear them.

A person can live a perfectly decent, happy, productive, caring and beloved life without ever believing in the big whatever, and many who have chosen to ignore it don't think about it much at all. Their every waking hour is filled with all sorts of actions and thoughts without consulting, praising, beseeching or anything.

Religion causes a bunch of people to kill a bunch of other people, and the response of some is to get more religion; that's junkie thinkin'.

[Chucky]

98. You are wrong!

I decided to try your approach to this discussion.

Seriously though, ... you have simply expressed your feelings and opinions on this subject. Others have different opinions and feelings on this subject.

Why does hearing someone expressing their beliefs upset you so ? Are you afraid that you might convert ? Or are you simply intolerant ?

Would I truly insult you if I said "God bless you" after you sneezed ?

If we're such a great melting pot, why can't we all participate in life, and share our sincere feelings and opinions in community ?

I can contribute in a sincerely religious way and you can contribute in a sincerely non-religious way.

I don't have to do things your way and you don't have to do things my way.

We can hear each other and not get all wigged out.

This is the essence of the diverse country in which we live.

[PurityOfEssence]

100. public vs. private

(Actually, I borrowed it from McLaughin Group, but what the hey.)

What someone says under the guise of his/her position in government is tacitly endorsed by the government.

People can stand on the street corner with their megaphones all they want--and they do around here--as long as they don't cause accidents or restrain trade or something like that. The shrillness and incessance of it all just grates.

I've been VERY specific that the issue at hand is the performance of one's duties as a public employee. It's not just casual "ceremonial deism" most of the time.

Your intimation that I'm merely expressing "feelings" as opposed to the clearly thought out and transcendent logic of yours does not bear scrutiny. The arguments have been based on causality and law.

Who's being offensive? I say that no mention should be made for, against or about beliefs when exercising duties as a government official; you say that if someone is taking a stance on it and expressing his/her beliefs in a way that is offensive to others, it would be persecution to stop this person. No mention either way is somehow tyranny, yet partisan revelling is some kind of god-given right. That's silly. It's ethically and morally wrong. I doubt you'd tolerate it in reverse, and you shouldn't have to.

To force others (in governmental functions) to endure the domineering (not dominant) beliefs of others is not more tolerant than to just make sure everyone talks about something else.

People who don't believe are fair game in this society. We get fired, marginalized, maneuvered against, beaten up, yelled at, dismissed as immoral, and all sorts of other things on a constant basis. It's endless and largely condoned. To be constantly reminded of people in the majority feeling every right to do as they damn well please is a grinding experience. Knowing that the law should protect us from this but doesn't is just a further dispiriting reminder of the hypocrisy of much of our law. We deserve to grieve too. We deserve to not actively have it shoved down our throats that we are wrong and have no right to believe or feel what we do.

Christianity grants itself intrusion as a right, while demanding respect in return. Most versions of Christianity are not tolerant or coexistant any more than conservatism is compassionate.

What's the matter? Why isn't it enough that the religious are free to worship, rant, convert, canvass, harass and do as they please as I pay their taxes for them? Must I also have my leaders force their guesswork into expressions of the community?

[Chucky]

105. ... and I pay school taxes even though I have, and will have, no children

Now, other than having to pay taxes, while religious institutions do not ... how is it that you, as an Atheist, feel that you are marginalized in this society ?

Do you really feel that the inclusion of religious commentary in a public memorial, the equivalent of my saying "God bless you" after you sneeze, is an offense to you ?

I mean, children run rampant through my neighborhood, but I don't insist that my neighbors keep their children indoors and out of my way when I'm out.

I realize that they appreciate their childrens' presence, even if I don't.

[PurityOfEssence]

111. When you collapse at 90, you'll be happy someone raised kids.

That 25 year old Paramedic who carries you to the ambulance was raised at great expense by individuals and by society. Society put lots of money into your upbringing too, virtually no matter who you are, so enduring the chatter and ponying up some bread for the big family is just paying your dues to the big club.

Taxes to maintain schools are directly helping to maintain and improve society; schools are necessary because successive generations are necessary and will be a benefit to you at some time.

Yes, the inclusion of religious commentary beyond a passing mention IS abusive. It's a slap in the face and a constant reminder that I am not really accepted by many of extreme and unscrupulous power as a full citizen. It doesn't destroy my life or ruin my day, but it ruins the moment for me and MANY others. It's a further reminder that many people of the majority have no compunction to break the spirit and letter of the law to force their beliefs on us and they'll grind it in more by bellyaching that they're unfairly restrained from shoving it down our throats even more. It's quite a fine little reminder when you're trying to have a nice feeling of warmth with your fellow citizens.

You also jump to a conclusion: I am not an atheist; I consider myself an agnostic, defined in this situation as one who says that there's no proof either way. I've made other references to this in these far too many exchanges in this thread, never flatly saying that there is no such thing as the big fill-in-the-blank, and mentioning the possibility. I think atheists, making a flat pronouncement about something they can't know for sure are wrongheaded in the same way as theists are. My working assumption is that there isn't anything there, but there's no proof. To me, it's just a big waste of time, and a dangerous mechanism to many.

I've already pointed out many ways I have been and will continue to be marginalized by society for my beliefs. I'm a big boy, and I can take it; I can also keep my children sheltered enough while still having them be active members of society. I just shouldn't have to as much as I do. It's the law and the promise of coexistence underlying the law that's so cynically broken that wastes too much time and energy.

Your attitude to the neighbors' kids is great. I think that you just can't believe people--decent, balanced, nice and productive people--would be so angered, disgusted or hurt by enforced religion bearing the official endorsement of our government. It's not just histrionics or grandstanding. I had an old girlfriend from an alcoholic, disfunctional-yet-intact and very large Catholic family who would cry at certain contacts with any version of Christianity. She would turn away--politely, but suddenly--from people of the cloth. Two siblings were institutionalized and she has been under care of some form or another for most of her adult life. Religion was a huge element in the illness. Religion is often a huge element in mental illness. Blythely invoking the name is not "casual" or "elective" to some who have it forced upon them. I've known quite a few people with some serious emotional problems, and EVERY ONE OF THEM had a major religious component in their ongoing problems. It's a hazard of belief: squaring reality with the big assumed system. Maybe it's not the fault of religion at all, but should these people be subjected to any more of this than necessary? Nobody's beliefs deserve to hold sway in this government, that's why I advocate religion-neutral, just as our founding fathers did.

I think you seriously don't believe people aren't just being drama queens about the whole thing, so if any of this really matters, track down some non-believing friends/acquaintances and ask them straight out. If you don't know any, then it might be an eye-opener to find some. Remember: the issue is GOVERNMENT and OFFICIAL endorsement. We're mostly aware of the society in which we live, and accept the constant presence in the non-official arena or move.

[Chucky]

115. Indeed I will be.

That's my point.

Although I don't necessarily see the benefit right now, chances are that somewhere down the road, the children of my neighbors (particularly if I can see the world as my neighborhood) will be of benefit to me.

Of course, everything has its plusses aand minuses.

Some of the neighborhood children may grow up to perpetrate harm on others, and there may even come a time when I, myself, am the victim of such abuse. So, I am not so blithe as to not recognize that, with every potential for good, there is also the potential for evil.

And so, I thread my way through life, seeking to involve myself in that which is fulfilling for me, and, hopefully avoiding that which may be offensive to me.

For, certainly, I have found that there is plenty in life to be offended by, and so I am, from time to time, offended. Sometimes it's the young, sometimes it the old, sometimes it's the natives, sometimes it's the foreigners, sometime it's the religious, sometimes it's the irreligious, sometimes it's the soccer moms on my tail trying to get to their kid's daycare, etc.

But I realize that, most of the time, these offenses are not intended. And so, I accept them as a part of the beauty and variety of life in a well-integrated society. I realize that it's all just part of the circle of life, where people do the things they do because they are who they are, which may be somewhat alike, but is always somewhat different, than what I do and who I am.

Such offenses are a part of life, like stubbing one's toe, or having it rain on one's parade. It's all about life and living. If I'm not offended every once in a great while, I fear that, somewhere, someone isn't living up to his/her potential.

Certainly, I have been greatly blessed by you in this respect.

I hope I have been as great a blessing to you.

P.S. I don't really believe that I ever pegged you as an atheist.

Agnostic, perhaps ... but atheist? I don't think so.

[PurityOfEssence]

120. Read post 105

"...you, as an Atheist..."

That's all fine. Try my suggestion, though, you might be very surprised. There's just no reason to keep it neutral; it doesn't offend anyone except the maniacs who demand that god be mentioned everywhere, and they SHOULD be unhappy; it's just the natural order of things.

[Chucky]

125. My bad.

[Chico Man]

112. Your comparison to "God Bless you" is insulting

You keep using thesame two comparisons but I don not buy it.

Don't you understand there is something drastically wrong with the president and his use of religion?

Is this the same as saying "God Bless You" after sneezing?

"His cabinet members report that he starts his weekly cabinet meetings by randomly choosing one of them to pray. (Since many were unaccustomed to this practice, several began writing down a prepared prayer before they came, just in case he called on them.) "

"When President Bush met Russian President Valdimir Putin, his first conversation with Putin was about his relationship with God..."

"BBC correspondent Justin Webb recently and correctly noted, “Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. . . . The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It’s not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles.” Indeed, if you ever have opportunity to speak with President Bush, and if you want to see the President’s face light up, simply let him know you are praying for him. Nothing means more."

LOOK AT THIS CRAP...

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

You, sir, are blinded. We have a major problem in this country. A group of insane religious NUTS (it seems yourself included) have stolen this country and turned it into a Bible thumping get your Crusade on NIGHTMARE. And they use you as front line cannon fodder because you are willing to try to spin these actions into nothing more than saying "God bless you."

Shame on you for being so controlled.

[Chucky]

116. Shame on you for being so paranoid (sort of a negative control, BTW).

I realize that the president is the flavor of the month.

Four years ago, we had a different flavor.

At some point in the future, we will have yet another flavor.

Isn't that what this society is supposed to be about ?

[Chico Man]

117. That makes no sense

Our current flavor is religion entrenched in the White House while ingoring signs or huge terrorist attacks and using the public fear to wage war for the interest of the promotion of Christianity and big oil business.

The main strategy of the curent administation is going to be to call those who make this call "paranoid" and "wacko" and caught up in "conspiracy theories".

The America People are starting to wake up. And maybe you should too. The current administration is not good for our health!

The current flavor in the White House is FEAR, sprinkled with "GOD", and coated with dirty OIL.

And I might add, we will do everything in our power to remove these criminal from office. We feel it is the right thing to do. If Clinton can be impeached for consensual sex, why should Bush be protected for murdering thousands on innocent civilians using God as an excuse?

The good people of this nation will not allow the takeover by energy comapnies and christian beliefs. Those who stand to benefit from these policies put up a good fight. Those who choose not to care do not care about democracy and are NOT patriotic.

You compare the murder of thousands of innocent civilians in the name of god a flavor of ice cream? Tell me, how is democracy supposed to work? By sitting by and marveling at the flavor of the month?

[Chucky]

118. What civilians did this administration murder in the name of what God ?

[Chico Man]

119. Iraqi civilians in the name of our President's god

And as citizens, we pay the bill.

On edit:

All under the guise of "National Security..."

[Proud_American]

73. And Christmas should not be a national Holiday.

But I say we keep it and just change the name to Religious Day or something like that.

[Chico Man]

90. Christmas is not a religious holiday in the US

It is an "economic boost" holiday. Why would we ever, ever, do anything that may prevent a select few from making an insulting amount of money? Now that would be disgraceful!

[colorado_ufo]

60. Jesus said,

"Not everyone who says unto Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

[tom_paine]

66. You mean Amerika

This nation no longer desrevs the 'c' in it's name.

That nation was a democratic-Republic.

This nation, Amerika is nothing of the sort but for the moment still has the rotting remnants of that old nation clinging to it.

But the usheviks will wash THAT off as soon as it's feasible.

[tinnypriv]

72. Are you guys turning into freaking IRAN?

n/t

[tom_paine]

91. No, a grotesque Orwellian amalgam of...

The Roman Empire
Apartheid S. Africa (without the overt racism)
The Soviet Union
Nazi Germany

Although right now, for the moment at least, we are still "kinder and gentler" than these others.

that is because Totalitarianims tailors itself o the national identity of the nation it seeks to rule.

So we will see a new Beast this time around...

[polpilot]

74. Please Jesus, say those polls aren't true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

[carpetbagger]

Dude needs to read his Bible: Matthew 6:1,5-6

Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

[carpetbagger]

75. Oops. Double posted.

But since I have some space to fill, here's a startling reminder of how much stronger our nation was while our cities were burning than we are now. Strange but true.

http://www.privilogic.com/wordsfail/

[cliss]

76. Whew, you know you've hit on a raw nerve

when you see that many posts.

I thought it was interesting when I listened to Bush on the radio as I was driving home from work today. He said "those evil ones have hijacked a religion", (meaning Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaida).

Sound familiar?

[DemonFighterLives]

80. I have a hard time seeing this leader as Christian.

He involves himself in so many dispassionate things. When we talk about evildoers, we ought to know who is to blame. It is not right to hurt the poor and send them to war only to chase greed and coruption. He is becoming just another Falwell or Swaggart. Believe George! Not all Christians are like you and your renegade swindlers. Makes for a bad impression of Christians.

[Bridget Burke]

82. Onward Christian Soldiers

I remember some ecumenical commemorations after the attack that were quite moving.

This strictly Christian, very public display only serves to emphasize that the administration views the "War on Terror" as a Crusade.

[somapala]

99. He s only best for this.. save a prayer in 2004 punk

[lostnfound]

114. President lacks restraint but: some lefties need it too..

lefties need to show restraint when they attack religion, for critical strategic reasons if not for simple courtesy. It's so EASY for rightwingers to win tons of votes by playing up their religion simply because the lefties are perceived as anti-religious. Until the left develops a position which shows respect for people's faith, they will be vulnerable to attacks and divided.

I for one appreciate Father Roy (founder of School-of-the-americas-watch), the nuns who demonstrate at the nuclear silos, the 'liberation theology' movement in central america that has helped expose just how vicious the U.S. client-state dictators are, and Gandhi whose '7 deadly sins' are posted on my wall.

[karlschneider]

123. Of course, Fr. Roy, the nuns and the liberationists could do what they do

without any imprimatur or connection with theology. I never cease to be amazed that some people think the solution to human problems lies with a non-human, imaginary source.

[lostnfound]

126. I can't judge for THEM whether that's true or not,

for them as individuals, that is. Certainly it is possible for people in general to be as enlightened/ethical/principled as a Father Roy without having any such beliefs. But Father Roy, unique as a fingerprint with his own life history as we all have, may depend very much on his belief in his -- as you say -- "non-human imaginary source".

Are organized religions dangerous mechanisms for oppressing the masses or fractured shards of truth, dusty and full of dirty fingerprints, that sometimes come alive when they find their way into a pure and humble heart? I think they are both of these things.

To clarify, my point is that respecting these people as individuals -- for the work that they do -- leads me to want to be inclusive and make room for them and their belief structure within my political framework. Not to ADOPT their beliefs as my own, but to be sensitive to them. Not only is that the right thing to do (towards any group of good will) but it's the smart thing to do, because rejecting them only drives thousands of their 'sheep' into the other 'flock'.