President Bush

[rf33]

Rich, I agree that politicians should not push their religion on the people, but with the media coverage on Bush right now, don't you think that it seems improbable that none of his personal beliefs will come out? I do not think that a true seperation of church and state is possible when the President has his every move, thought, and action scrutinized by the media. Just my .02

rf33

/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[Knight9]

<font color=blue>My religion is very important to me, but, for a politician to try to push his religion on the masses is wrong, even if it is my religion. </font color=blue>

Seems to me that anyone suggesting that Bush is "pushing his religion on America" is really stretching it. There is a HUGE difference between stating one's own beliefs and forcing them on others. I mean come on here....I saw pre-election coverage where all they could talk about was that Bush was a Christian. Seems to me he was voted in either regardless of that fact...or perhaps even BECAUSE of that fact.

Talking about one's faith doesn't make you a fanatic. Seems to me if I was an American I'd be happy that the President in the Oval Office was reading a Bible and praying. Sure beats the activities of previous encumbents.

Kevin

 

[JOR_EL]

Rich,

I just want to extend a respectful handshake, on your post.

However our views on "faith" may-or-may-not differ, we are agreed on something that's important for America and Americans! (and to all those watching from all-over the planet, ...who consider the U.S. the "best-effort yet" among man's clumsy attempts to actualize ideals.)

Larry

 

[RichZ]

No problem, Larry! No matter what the view, each individuals views on religion must be respected. That's one of the most important fundamentals of our country!!

Rich

 

[RichZ]

Kevin and Ron, you guys are right to a degree, in my opinion, but I think a president should be more careful what he says. Things could be said in a more generic way. I realize it may be a small point, but it was the point of our discussion. I think it is inappropriate for a president to mention his own religious beliefs in a public statement, even if they are similar to my own. I always try to view it as if I was in the minority. How would I feel? It would be easy for me, as a Christian, to take no offense, but I realize that there are many who do not hold my religious views. It is fundamental to this country that all views must be respected. I realize that in times of stress, it's difficult to keep your views to yourself, but we're talking about the president of the USA here. He represents all the people of our great country, no matter what their views, and he should keep that in mind.

I don't mean those to be fightin' words, just my opinion.

Rich

 

[JOR_EL]

RF33, (Kevin below),

First, as to the idea that Bush may have "won" (don't forget the "popular vote" ) BECAUSE of his Christianity, let me say for this record that I voted for Bush.

And it had a lot more to do with Gore-and-Guns than it did with Bush-and-the-Bible! (His conservative-Christian association was a "minus" in my book.

[[I do not think that a true seperation of church and state is possible when the President has his every move, thought, and action scrutinized by the media. Just my .02]]

This thread is not the result of media scrutiny. It is the result of the post passed-on by a member of TBN, which seemed, to some, to have as its theme the idea that the really-significant aspect of the current President of the United States is the particular nature of his RELIGIOUS belief.

Like-it-or-not, this mix is seriously frowned-upon by many Americans, for a number of reasons, and some of them will step forward to be heard, when the issue is raised.

As to the "pushing" of Bush's religiosity: It doesn't matter whether the 'pushing" is done by Bush's emphasizing(for real, or for show) the role it plays in his function as our president, or by such writers as the one who penned the original post displayed here,...the pushing is being done.

For every action, there will be an equal-and-opposite RE-action (apologies to newton

Saying that bush is doing a good job is one thing.
Saying he is doing a good job because God is helping a good Christian, is presumptuous, and goes beyond a discussion of "government".

The fact of Bush's Christian leanings is noteworthy to the press (and many others) precisely because many conservative Christians don't hesitate to attempt to influence politics AND POLITICIANS to direct this nation towards paths that their beliefs dictate should be followed.

Do they have a right to do this? Of course!

Do those who disagree, and have different ideas about what concepts should influence our national direction have a right to see what is going-on re. the "Christians", and make their arguments-in-opposition?

Of course! ...that is what's happening here.

Kevin,

[[Seems to me if I was an American I'd be happy that the President in the Oval Office was reading a Bible and praying. Sure beats the activities of previous encumbents.]]

So our choice is between a rock, and a hard place?
Let's think outside the box, ...what's behind "door number 3"?

Larry

 

[PitbullMidwest]

JOR_EL,

The fact that many have perverted and abused the message of Christ for their own selfish gains in no way changes the message it self (i.e. All have sinned, if you will confess your sins to God, turn from them and believe on the name of Jesus, your sins will be forgiven). What about those who have put the Gospel into action and had a positive impact on history? Peter, Paul, Polycarp, Tinsdale, Luther, Tenboom, the Wesleys, mother Teresa, Lt. Techetah (led the attack on Pearl Harbor, convert to Christianity after the war and is responsible for evangilizing most of post war Japan), Billy Graham, etc.

The Biblical definition of faith is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1 For those who choose not to exercise faith and demand physical evidence, then I would suggest reading the book Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. WARNING: IF YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND AND YOU READ THIS BOOK IT MIGHT SHAKE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM TO THE ROOTS, of course for those who just claim an open mind they won't even consider reading it, after all they know everything all ready. There is more physical evidence to support the scripture then there is that Homer wrote the Illiad (sic?)

Christianity practiced on a daily basis is not religion, it is a relationaship. A relationship between you and a Savior who was willing to die for your forgiveness.

 

[JOR_EL]

Pitbull,

I apologise if this response strikes you as disrespectful.

There is a difference between replying to a discussion about the proper relationship of religion to American politics, ...and replying to simple proselytising.

The former is where this thread was generally centered, and the latter is where I believe your last post would take it.

So (this time I will be a little more brief: No one has suggested that Mother Theresa has not done "good". No one thinks of her when discussing the excesses of "organized" religion.
As to "evangelizing" (Japan or anyone else) being unquestionably good, ..that's a whole 'nother topic!

I will spare you the lengthy list of those who have had a "positive impact on history" WITHOUT necessarily putting "the Gospel into action".

Re. the "Verdict" book. I hardly think that someone's failure to follow a suggestion to read a certain book is a valid "test" for an open-mind. Books(and suggestions to read them) are a dime-a-dozen. Reading them all (i.e. following every suggestion) is impossible. I do not mean to denigrate your suggestion. Should I run across the book, I will look through it, at least.( to see what it is that so-impresses you)

The fact is that I have hundreds of books, and have read many of the general type you describe (judging from the title). And I imagine that my reaction may be somewhat different than yours.

My study-efforts have been directed at finding truth(Ah, such an ambiguous term!), not at joining a security co-op.

[[[Christianity practiced on a daily basis is not religion, it is a relationaship. A relationship between you and a Savior who was willing to die for your forgiveness.]]]

...under a system set up by His Father where death and suffering are the "price" of forgiveness. Sounds an awful lot like old pagan "appease the gods" stuff, ...not suprising, because that's where it came from.

Forgive me for not-buying it. I mean to be dead-serious, not flippant, when I say that TO ME, it's BS!

This is why I don't think we can have productive-exchange this far off-topic.

I wish you well, and ask a favor, ...do NOT pray for my "lost soul". I would consider it an insult.

Larry

 

[PitbullMidwest]

No disrespect taken.

My response and suggestion of the book was to your long winded post about missing tablets and physical proof.

<font color=blue>I wish you well, and ask a favor, ...do NOT pray for my "lost soul". I would consider it an insult</font color=blue>

I would be remiss in my Christianity not to pray for you, afterall, if your "study efforts" are to find truth without prayer you may never find it. My apology for the insult.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Good stuff, Scruffy. Nothing wrong with knowing something about the man in the driver's seat. Quite a contrast from his predecessor.

All countries have flags, but ours is the one I care the most about.

Its about time we worried more about Americans' rights to safety from terrorism, and less about the rights of people coming into the country.