Is this the kind of president you want?

In an interview with the Boston Globe, Bush announced that he is a "committed believer in Jesus Christ." He told writer Sarah Schweitzer that he plans to include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he campaigns down South. In the Globe interview, he said Southerners understand religious talk better than New Englanders.

"Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised," he told the Globe, "people who were left behind. He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2,000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."

For those of you opposed to mixing Church with State, how do you feel about this?

I don''t care what religion a president is. If they have the spiritual convictions to stand up for what they believe and not hide it, then yes, I think that counts as a positive mark for a leader of a nation.

Now, the caveat to that is when that person is too zealous in pursuing their religious beliefs in the legislation and direction of the nation.

So basically, does it bother me that Bush is a committed believer and is very public about it? No, I admire him for it.

If he tried to use his presidency to push those beliefs upon the citizens of this nation, who depend upon his leadership, then I would definitely have a problem with it, even though it wouldn''t affect me (I''m already a Christian, so that wouldn''t affect my life adversely).

Now, the faith-based initiatives that Bush is pressing, that''s another matter, and one where he may be abusing his position.

One thing I''ve never learned yet, but I''m sure you can answer for me, Ral, is whether these faith-based initiatives are just Christian, or if they include Jewish faith, Islamic faith, and others. If these initiatives are inclusive of all faiths (even agnostic/atheistic), then I think it is not a violation of the separation of church and state to promote them.

[edit]
By the way; you added that second paragraph to the quote while I was posting. Just wanted to say that I like the additional quote.
[/edit]

Thanks Farscry. I''ll look into the faith-based initiatives. I am pretty sure they are not limited to Christian organizations, but doubt they include secular ones - who already are eligible for federal dollars, by the way...

My reason for posting this is that I have seen a fair amount of hostility towards Bush for being overly religious in the public sphere. I thought this quote to be a fair example of a public figure expressing his faith, and was wondering if people could tell me if they have a problem with it and why.

Thanks Farscry. I''ll look into the faith-based initiatives. I am pretty sure they are not limited to Christian organizations, but doubt they include secular ones - who already are eligible for federal dollars, by the way...

Ah, good point, hadn''t thought of that. Let me know what you find out.

My reason for posting this is that I have seen a fair amount of hostility towards Bush for being overly religious in the public sphere. I thought this quote to be a fair example of a public figure expressing his faith, and was wondering if people could tell me if they have a problem with it and why.

When someone has a problem with a person being honest about who they are, and expressing their beliefs in a non-authoritarian (non-authoritative? I get those words confused...) way, then I pretty much stop listening to them at that point.

When I was in college, one of the first people that confronted me about my beliefs was your classic elitist atheist type (not regular atheist; they''re usually pretty cool, it''s the elitist ones I can''t stand). It seemed he couldn''t rest until he proved that my faith was unfounded.

I finally asked him one day why he didn''t just go run a giant Evangelical Atheist Tent-Revival, as he reminded me a lot of the classic in-your-face Southern Baptist preachers. I thought for sure his face was going to explode; he was so livid he was speechless. But my point was, he had become the exact same thing he so despised: those people who have to force their beliefs upon others.

I am tolerant of anyone who is willing to accept others'' rights to their own beliefs. I admire those who don''t hide their beliefs, but are able to balance that with not being pushy about it.

And if there''s one thing I''ve always liked about Bush, it''s the way that he is primarily a straightforward guy, especially regarding his faith.

Just don''t take this to mean I''m voting for him yet.

I really don''t have any problem with GW being a dedicated Christian.

Religion is a wonderful thing for most people who believe in it.

The only part that kind of freaks me out is when I hear that Bush says that God CHOSE him to be president.

One thing I''ve never learned yet, but I''m sure you can answer for me, Ral, is whether these faith-based initiatives are just Christian, or if they include Jewish faith, Islamic faith, and others.

Actually thats what bothers me is that President Bush thinks he is being all inclusive when he plans to include Jews, Muslims, and Christians with his faith based initiatives.

De facto inclusion of major religions only serves to limit minor religions and also seperate sects within each of the major religions. Do you really think Catholics would want to be lumped together with Jehovah''s Witnesses or Mormons? I know that if President Bush only conveyed with Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, the Reforms and Conservatives would be upset.

And then of course, there is the agnostics which we could pile in with the atheists and ambivilent. That would work...

If he is asked, I have no problem with President Bush stating he is a committed believer in Jesus Christ. I have no problem with ""God bless America"".

Assuming the position that God is on his side or God elected him to me is the utmost in vanity. (a deadly sin no?)

Dude, where did you get your quote? It was Dean that said that not George Bush.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...

It was fairly controversial because pundits felt it was Dean pandering to the South. Please post your link. I''d be curious to see which source is crediting that statement to George Bush.

Further, you have embarrassed us conservatives by saying ""I thought this quote to be a fair example of a public figure expressing his faith"". We are supposed to be making fun of Dean. Please edit your posts before Elysium discovers them.

Actually as I was reading it I thought it was Dean who said it too, Lawyeron. When Dean stands up for his faith when there''s actually something on the line like Bush has, I''ll take it seriously. I also agree that Bush''s religous convictions are one of the things I admire about him.

Nasty little hobbitses, I told you Ral was tricksy!

Hey Fang, let me explain my statement regarding faith-based initiatives better.

What I meant was this: if the program is set up for specific religions, then that''s not an appropriate way to utilize federal funds. If, on the other hand, the program is open for any religion to apply for and receive funds for their public services, then I think it''s a good thing.

So, in the way I believe it should be executed, Bush wouldn''t be approaching groups specifically, rather the program would be set up and any group that wants to can contact the feds to work out the details.

That make more sense? Sometimes I just can''t get the words out the right way.

Here ya go

Not exactly ""GOD chose me!! Wooohoo, break out my halo, sainthood here I come!""

Bush said to James Robinson: ''I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can''t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won''t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.''

So, he didn''t use the exact words of ""God chose me to be President."" My bad. However, ""God wants me to be President"" still makes me feel the same way.

I already said something nice about him in this post so cut me some slack, huh?

I was simply saying that things like that freak me out about him. Among other things.

**EDIT** Just realized that Lawyeron wasn''t talking to me! oops.

As a Christian, I believe that God has tasks in our lives that He has prepared us for. Sometimes you just get the feeling that you need to do something, that it''s one of those things that you need to do, regardless of whether you understand why.

In that sense, Bush may have had that sort of a feeling which led him to seek candidacy for president. Since we''ve seen how horribly Bush manages to mangle many of the things he says, I figured I''d give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant that he believed that taking the first steps were something God wanted him to do, and the results are part of the plan that God has for him.

The only other option is that he is claiming this as justification for what he wanted anyway, and that his faith was a tool he could use to get support.

As much as I don''t support many of his ideas for our nation, or actions he''s taken in office, I don''t really believe that he''s devious enough for the second option. He really does seem to be a fairly simple, straightforward man (I don''t mean that in a derogatory manner). I think it''s just that he says it the wrong way and manages to give many of us the creeps.

A few things:

1) Yes, I am tricksy. Damn, you lawyeron for revealing the true source of my quote before more people had jumped into the conversation! I have seen enough hostility to Bush''s religion that I was waiting to pounce on whomever took issue with this quote by letting them know it was their darling Dean...

2) Personally, I find the quote kind of stupid. In addition to taking a break off from insulting Southerners to insult Northerners, Dean also rubs me the wrong way by using the liberal buzzword word ""disenfranchised"" referring to Jesus'' time. Next he''ll be talking about a need for affirmative action among the oppressed Hitites.

3) If Bush did have a feeling that God had important plans for him because the country was going to face some hardship, I find the eerily prescient. Given that he seems to have been right, instead of it freaking you out, maybe it should convince you to convert...

"ralcydan" wrote:

3) If Bush did have a feeling that God had important plans for him because the country was going to face some hardship, I find the eerily prescient. Given that he seems to have been right, instead of it freaking you out, maybe it should convince you to convert... :D

Either that or maybe he actually knew that a certain ""something"" was going to happen before it did....

<Commotion>

Howard! Get away from my keyboard!!

Sorry ''bout that. I can''t stand that guy.

Anyways, it''s going to take more than him saying ""something''s going to happen"" and ""something"" happening to convert me. It''s all a bit vague.

However, I predict that ""something"" will happen tonight, and Dick Clark will be needed to narrate the events.

If I''m right I''ll be back on Monday to hear about all my converts.

Have a good New Years all.

Oh I''m sorry I blew it.

3) If Bush did have a feeling that God had important plans for him because the country was going to face some hardship, I find the eerily prescient. Given that he seems to have been right, instead of it freaking you out, maybe it should convince you to convert...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The easiest and most flimsy logic applicable, almost comedic when put to a supernatural spin.

Also, setting discussion traps now to ''get'' Dean supporters is, well ... an interesting tactic. It''s like conversation by sniper scope. ''Ah ha, I lied to make you look like an ass!'' doesn''t really make anyone look good.

doesn''t really make anyone look good.

Except me, I always look good.

Dean is Bush in Leftist clothing.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The easiest and most flimsy logic applicable, almost comedic when put to a supernatural spin.

Sure, for those who have convinced themselves that there can be nothing in the universe beyond the insides of their own houses and minds...

Also, setting discussion traps now to ''get'' Dean supporters is, well ... an interesting tactic. It''s like conversation by sniper scope. ''Ah ha, I lied to make you look like an ass!'' doesn''t really make anyone look good.

With the amount of Bush hating going on, I was curious to see if this issue applied to other candidates, or was merely an outgrowth of malice towards the president.

With the amount of Bush hating going on

Again painting with a broad stroke trying to characterize all Dem''s as virulent and irate. I''m surprised there weren''t words suggesting unpatriotism (word?) as well.

Before the Lewinsky ordeal, were all conservatives teetering with traitorous ideals when they despised Clinton? Were they helping foster terrorism indirectly (and giving Saddam windows of opportunity to exploit) by not blindly supporting the current administration? Is Gingrich and the Contract for America indirectly responsible for Saddam throwing out weapons inspectors?

Come on fang, I can give you plenty of quotes from this forum from people attacking the president purely ad hominem,and a few from Elysium himself saying ""I hate Bush"". We can discuss whether Republicans were as virulent about Clinton, but that doesn''t dismiss that people hold different opinons on issues than they would otherwise, just because you mention George Bush''s name.

Funny, it seems that everyone has an axe to grind-I''m not thrilled with Bush''s decisions, but I can''t say that his being this or that religion is really all that important to me, until he uses that position to pander to a particular segment of the voting public.

"mateo" wrote:

A child of privilege that has no business sense at all, who got to where he was essentially on his Father''s name and the efforts of his mentors, a former alcoholic who found the bible when it would get him elected, a yale grad that can barely string together a sentence.

Yeah, it really looks as if your opinions on Bush are just unbiased minor disagreements with his decisions.

A child of privilege that has no business sense at all, who got to where he was essentially on his Father''s name and the efforts of his mentors, a former alcoholic who found the bible when it would get him elected, a yale grad that can barely string together a sentence.

I think its safe to say he is a child of priviledge. The bit about know not having business sense is unproven. Im sure he was afforded benefits due to his father''s stature and his mentors are powerful members of the Republican party. You can be suspicious of this but in reality, most of us can benefit from family connections and mentors that have risen through the ranks. If he checked himself into rehab, it is safe to say he is an alcoholic. I would be careful putting this into a negative context as it can be perceived as hypocracy when showing concern or sympathy for jailed addicts in other threads. I dont know what caused Bush to find the Bible, but from what I perceive of him, I doubt he started believing jsut before running for office. He went to Yale. He has strung together several coherent sentences.

But seriously, Ral, does this one quote doom Mateo to permanent hatred of the administration? Most people say things like that out of frustration.

Does Mateo lose more respect because of these vile words or his lack of conviction?

Ral, does this one quote doom Mateo to permanent hatred of the administration?

This was never my point. I jut know some people have expressed disdain for Bush''s religious convictions, including here in the forums. I also know that people have a personal dislike for Bush that transcends any policy of the administration''s. The quote above from Dean is one that no one bats an eye at - until GWB says something similar, at which point ""we are living in a theocracy"".

To the credit of the people who responded before Lawyeron let the cat out of the bag - Farscry, belt, and yourself - you were above any partisan taint on your opinions. I was curious if that would have continued, and if anyone did take issue with the quote, what they would have said when I told them it was Dean.

Elysium calls this a ""discussion trap"", which I suppose is accurate, but it only catches the wild hypocrite - an animal that could probably use a little herd thinning...

the wild hypocrite - an animal that could probably use a little herd thinning...

To borrow one of your tactics:

If by herd thinning you mean educating them.

I''ll wager you would agree with me that you would be hard pressed to find a wild hypocrate on these boards if memory serves.