Is Bush Too Religious?

Yes, yes I do..... Next question?

Oh, and by the way, it isn't a matter of stupidity we are talking about here. Tillich, Barth, and Niebuhr were not stupid. That is not the point. The point is that otherwise intelligent people have come to accept as truth something that can be neither proven nor has any sort of physical evidence in support of. Finding a stone with the name of "Jesus" on it doesn't prove anything regarding the validity of miracles, resurrection, or claims to be the Son of God. Until we find THAT proof, I remain skeptical although certainly bound by my own "belief prison" - I'm just smart enough to recognize it and challenge it, and ask for the same level of scientific inquiry that we would apply to any other equally fantastic claim. In particular, I find it appalling that foreign policy and great decisions of national import are being made based on religious myths and beliefs that have no basis in fact rather than upon cold, hard science. Oh wait.... I guess the "cold, hard science" part is where Bush and his Republican funding sources get rich while claiming to be religious.... Never mind!!!!

And, yes I appreciate civil discoure. Peace be with you always brother..... Believe it or not, I do believe more in a higher power than my challenging posts may imply.

 

I can certainly understand the viewpoints and perspectives of skeptics and scientists. Science is generally a tangible and faith is generally an intangible.

It is through faith that we who are Christians have come to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, the Son of God, and God Incarnate. It is also by experience as we have witnessed the power, glory, and majesty of Jesus Christ in our lives to effect change, bestow blessings, and work miracles.

To those of us who believe in the omnipotence of God we feel there is nothing He can't accomplish including but not limited to, miracles, the Virgin Birth, Jesus as who He claimed to be.

Limiting God just doesn't seem reasonable to me. The Creator of the Universe (an Intelligent Designer) is most certainly and most definitely omnipotent.

I am not sure anyone on here ever doubted your belief in a Higher Power. If I have ever implied that, I apologize.

 

Hi guys,

I had a question for Carl and then for Bill...

When it comes to the question as to whether or not Bush is "too religious" I'd rephrase it. I think what Carl said in a post just above summarizes the feeling pretty well:

In other words, it's not that Bush is "too religious," but that he brings his religion too easily into play when he makes practical decisions, combining church and state. Carl, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to show a preference for a Kantian separation of religious phenomena and the "cold, hard facts" that our state has to deal with on a day in, day out basis. If this is true, it wouldn't be out of the norm, or abnormal in any way; I'd put that separation at the forefront of our culture's ideals and mindset about religion.

I would also say that I personally disagree with that separation on theological grounds. To isolate religious experience to inner phenomena and separate it from one's beliefs about fact and truth would be to universalize it and empty it of its particular content.

Carl, I'm not sure if you would agree or disagree with me on what I'm about to say... it's hard for me to predict. What constitutes as proof depends on the theology, the culture and the dogma that is guiding the investigation. Isaac Newton did not anticipate Einstein's discoveries because he was operating with a different paradigm, even though his was reasonable, paid attention to cause and effect, and the need for scientific "proof." That does not discount the possibility that a wider rationality exists than Newton's, which also explains the phenomena that Newton explained, and applies to it coherently. I think similarly of the resurrection of Jesus, the "fact" of God, and that Jesus is Lord. Just because the resurrection does not act as "proof" in the strict sense does not mean it in no way confirms, from a rational perspective, that the Christian faith is true.

I also have a brief question for Bill.

Bill writes:

Bill, can you clarify for me what you mean by "pragmatic criteria of religious effectiveness?" I'm sure you don't mean a correspondence theory of truth, and it doesnt' seem like you mean a kind of "coherence" argument either. Just wondering, and if you are interested in responding, I'd just like to know.

 

Christopher,
Yes, you have fairly accurately summarized how I feel about religion and politics becoming too closely entangled, and yes to my view of the need for separation on the basis of Kantian philosophy.

Also, yes I agree with your analysis that there may be a yet-undiscovered-rationality that could provide the "proof" that I and so many others seek throughout the ages for the Christian claims of resurrection, salvation, and the deity of Christ.

Seems appropriate on this Christmas Eve that we seek that truth, does it not?

And to Jimmy - no apologies necessary. You have never offended me with your posts - I completely respect your opinion and your deeply held beliefs regarding God, Christ, and religion in general. Now as to your politics - well, we agree to disagree! But that's what makes the world go round, n'est pas?

 

Carl Writes:

Thanks for the response Carl.

Blessings on your household this holiday season! May you have a renewing vacation this holiday.

Chris

 

It would be interested to look at the countries that have the most separation between politics and religion and see how they operate economically, socially, morally, politically (in regards to personal freedoms), etc.

 

And visa versa if one was to conduct a complete study.

This topic might for a great MS or PhD research project.

 

I wish I could find the quote of the study done about how many time Bush has mentioned Jesus, Christ and scriptures vs how many time Clinton did. It was overwhelmingly Clinton by a landslide. Something like Clinton used the references 3 time more than Bush has in puplic forums.

Funny I thought.

 

Re: Re: Re: Well, I object....

I think god would be a thousand times more pissed at Bush for lying about WMD, because it has involved the loss of several human lives. It's funny how Born Again Bush(a term he never likes to use) never answered anything about why he lied, but would merely defer the questions in all the debates, how convenient.

Mr. Engineer, you have a right to your views in this free county. The problem with this Bush, unlike his father, is that he is always allowing his Born Again beliefs to interfer with things like stem cell research, abortion, etc.

Just a few thoughts!

Abner

 

The funny thing is that politicians have to mention deities at all to get their points across....

I think if I ever run for office I'll mention Zeus, Hermes, Amon-Ra, and Ba'al as frequently as possible. The real effect on human lives will be the same, but I'm sure that I would be seen as a joke. If it made others wake up and realize how much of a joke it is when our politicians mention equally unprovable deities (Christ, God, Allah) maybe we'd get beyond this need to have religion and fantasy mixed in with our politics.

 

Posted by Carl_Reginstein

Carl,
Is the real issue that Christ (or God or Allah or Zeus) is consulted or is it the fact that it is simply mentioned? In other words, if GW prayed (consulted) with God, but did not publically mention it, would that be OK?

Just curious, because I think most people in some fashion consult a higher order before making major decisions. I could not imagine changing careers, buying a new house, or having a child without seeking guidence from God's Word and comfort in prayer. God provides a peace or comfort about the decision (what you would call conscience). I see reaction from family, timing, events, etc. all as "signs" from God about a decision. He does not pop down into my living room and answer my question directly

When non-believers (used as a generalization, not an indictment) are engaged in such decisios, do not they not seek very similar guidence, but in a different context. Do they not rely on comfort of conscience, ethics, morality, education to assist in driving a decision? Don't we all rely on the intangibles and hope we make the right decision. I don't see how science can be invoked to help make a life decision.

If one does not consult some higher power; "consult our life experiences", if you will, then we would make decisions on a whim, gut feel, or strict emotion and I can't imagine that would be a healthy way to run a country.

 

I am constantly reading that more and more surgeons pray before operating.

Now, I cannot speak for Carl, but from what I have been reading, hearing, and observing, it's not that Bush and those who agree with him politically pray, it's their social agenda that's the issue.

Again, as I have mentioned time and time again, when liberals pray and advocate a liberal social agenda, that's okay! You never heard anything from the liberals about MLK, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton invoking God. That's because their social agenda matched their politics.

Don't misunderstand me, I supported and still do, many of the liberal social agendas (anti capital punishment, etc.)

 

Bush's contradiction

Hi Jimmy!

I agree with you. I believe the difference here is that most of what GW is advocating is not fundamentally Christian. It is not Christian to constantly defend huge Corporations, while cutting services to the poor, the disabled, etc. I find his priorities quite Greedy and contrary to true Christian beliefs. Furthermore, what I find disturbing is that fact he instructed his staff to never use the term "Born Again" in relation to him. If that is what you are, don't be afraid to say it.

Abner

 

Re: Bush's contradiction

You see, that is my whole point. Republico/religious conservatives pay lip service to the whole "Christ is King" thing, but when it comes to actually doing anything good for humanity, they are quick to line their pockets with gold first while spouting off about moral decay and liberal lawlessness.

I do not think that Jesus is a Republican.

Maybe Zeus is, but not Jesus.

LOL

 

Re: Re: Bush's contradiction

What's more humane than liberating 50 million people from a brutal dictator (Iraq)? What's more humane than giving women the freedom to vote and go to school (Afghanistan)? What's more humane than 15 billion dollars to combat AIDS in Africa?

Republicans care about people and humanity. Jesus was very Republcan when he told the man at the Pool of Bethesda to get up and walk. The man wanted Jesus to pick him up and place him in the pool and had lain there for 38 years waiting for someone to give him a hand(out).

That's the Republcan way. People do for themselves and take responsibility; they don't depend on the government that actually makes matters worse.

Nearly every historian tells us the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson (whom I supported along with his programs) have actually created more poverty as those who "benefitted" from those programs became dependent on them and didn't take resonsibility for their lives and lift themselves by their bootstraps.

Government programs most generally don't solve much; they perpetuate the cycle.