FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush’s Openly Religious Language





The Philosopher Princess
There is an interesting article on the separation of church and state appearing at http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/518/1/2/. I tracked down the article because I read its first part included in a (now locked) discussion under the topic “liberty” at http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14351. You probably don’t need to read those to get the gist of my comment, below.

From both sources:
Quote:
...[Bush’s] openly religious language. Standard and appropriate, or unusual and dangerous?...

A partial answer: It depends. For a person who believes a similar religion to Bush and who (also) wants to force others to follow the same religion, the answer is “standard and appropriate”. For a person who prefers freedom of religion (and freedom of other things), the answer is not necessarily “unusual” but certainly very “dangerous”.

It’s not the language itself that is dangerous. Bush certainly talks “freedom”. But his actions unequivocally show otherwise. The more laws and government “czars” we get, the less freedom we actually get. Bush’s religious talk is mainly a reminder that it’s only getting worse in the area of freedom, itself. Anyone who cares about freedom should be scared.
lycadia
The climate in this county, in particular, is growing increasingly hostile to people who are unwilling to tolerate the imposition of other people's religion upon them. I find it exceedingly worrisome that so few people are concerned about it, even people who are not a part of that fundamental religious mindset. Apathy is deadly to true liberty.
n0obie4life
Say, can we make your post an example post of to,

WHAT IS A GOOD TOPIC IN THIS FORUM

So everyone has to learn your ways and stop posting crap.
gonzo
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

(2) nearly 9 out of every 10 Amercians are Christian of one denomination or another

(3) a minority is not a majority



How is "areligious language" better than "religious language"??
The Philosopher Princess
Hi, lycadia! Thanks for your words of support for (real) freedom. You made me think deeply about one thing in particular, and now I have a friendly challenge for you. Smile
Quote:
Apathy is deadly to true liberty.
My thinking is that it is worse (for us who want freedom) to have people who are not apathetic but who actively work against freedom, than to have people who are apathetic.

Now, I think I do see your original intent, something along the lines of liberty is being taken away from us little by little, sometimes a lot by a lot, and those who don’t do anything about it and don’t care, are not helping. And I agree with you there.

But, it is not those who are apathetic who are the cause of anti-freedom. The cause is those who are voting for -- and monetarily and actively supporting -- the anti-freedom laws and the anti-freedom politicians who put them into place.

For example, I’d much rather have someone stay home and not vote, than to vote for an anti-freedom government program or politician. Voting for those things gives them legitimacy.

What do you think about this different way of looking at it Question
SunburnedCactus
If people do not vote then the results will not accurately represent the views of the nation.

Or something...
The Philosopher Princess
Hello there, SunburnedCactus! (What a cool name!)
SunburnedCactus wrote:
If people do not vote then the results will not accurately represent the views of the nation.
I submit to you that even if everyone voted, “the results will not accurately represent the views of the nation”. That is because many (most, really) preferences that people have are not offered -- not even close.

For example, if my choice in an election is between a Democrat who supports higher taxes for a new library or a Republican who supports higher taxes for a new war, then I have been presented with no valid choice because I do not want higher taxes, period. I will not lower myself to vote for the best of 2 “bad”s. I will not give my support to a better “bad”.

I would genuinely like to hear if you at least somewhat agree with me, or at least see my point.
tidruG
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I would genuinely like to hear if you at least somewhat agree with me, or at least see my point.

You're making a very valid point (about not choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils)
So then, how do we solve this problem?
One solution could probably be to get someone else to represent what the people really want. However, this new candidate will need backing - financial and otherwise...
More importantly, I think one of the major points is the one you made in one of your previous posts... do people really care? The general attitude these days is "Nevermind" and everyone;'s happy to select the lesser of two evils.
gonzo
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
“freedom”

And just what do you think freedom is?

Quote:
unequivocally

hardly.

Quote:
Bush’s religious talk is mainly a reminder that it’s only getting worse in the area of freedom

ummm isn't your language another fine example of the irony of the intolerance of intolerance? He's free to speak so long as he doesn't offend your areligious views?
SunburnedCactus
Another solution would be a politician who actually tells the truth. Laughing

Yeah, right.

I think a lot of people are genuinely confused by the ambiguous messages broadcast by politicians to the point that they can't be bothered trying to interpret what is actually being said. I suppose it is enough to put you off.

Also less people seem to be bothered by the impact of what their choice actually represent. I think the idea that the person you vote for will actually be running the country often provokes a far too ambivalent response.

Quote:
(What a cool name!)


Thanks! Very Happy
tidruG
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Another solution would be a politician who actually tells the truth. Laughing

When you find the ideal politician, thank him and start figuring out a way to come back to Earth Wink
gonzo
SunburnedCactus wrote:
genuinely confused ... the person you vote for


Speaking of genuine confusion on your part.... You do understand that the American president does NOT "run" the country, don't you?
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks for a very thoughtful post, tidruG, discussing “solv[ing] this problem”. I do have some ideas of solutions, though too many to mention right here, and the one I’m actually working on in my “spare” time is quite complicated.

But there is one answer in our midst that I contend is actually a real solution, albeit partial. That is: not voting for bad (“evil”, as you say) and encouraging other people not to vote for bad. Consider how this is something real, because, currently, a lot of the opposite is happening.

There are a whole lot of people who encourage people to vote -- no matter who and what they vote for. I think you might agree that there is a really strange myth -- which is very popular these days -- that voting for anything is better than not voting. Anytime it gets close to elections, we all hear and read this (if we’re listening and reading).

Debunking this myth is what I’m saying is a true and valid (partial) solution.

Jumping a little, and yet staying on this topic: Have you listened much when the media interviews people concerning new elections in various countries abroad? One of the things the interviewees say over and over again is “we hope the citizens of [country x] show up to vote in this new election so that the election process and the government will gain legitimacy”. Hearing this, we must realize that the same thing is going on here. But what is getting legitimized is not something of which we should be proud.

One thing is, it’s easier to catch these things when we’re watching other countries. The public voting process just happens to be an area I’ve studied and pondered a fair amount in my own country, the USA.

In conclusion: Currently, many people get embarrassed if they don’t vote (even when they vote for bad). I would like to encourage people to get embarrassed if they vote for bad.
SunburnedCactus
gonzo wrote:
Speaking of genuine confusion on your part.... You do understand that the American president does NOT "run" the country, don't you?


Yeah, sorry I wasn't sure how to phrase that (and thus came out with said nonsense).
tidruG
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Thanks for a very thoughtful post, tidruG, discussing “solv[ing] this problem”. I do have some ideas of solutions, though too many to mention right here, and the one I’m actually working on in my “spare” time is quite complicated.

I'm game to read your solutions (if you have the time to post them of course Very Happy)
The Philosopher Princess
gonzo wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
“freedom”
And just what do you think freedom is?
I commend you for asking that question. Asking it in no way implies that you don’t have your own definition(s), but only that you’re interested in what I mean when I use it.

What I generally and casually mean by freedom is being able to do whatever one wants as long as it is not directly harming other people or their property. When someone is not hurting anyone else directly, but they are forcibly stopped from doing what they want, then, in that particular area, they do not have freedom.

Freedom means that individuals may harm themselves or their own property if they wish (though of course others can attempt to persuade them to do otherwise, which is a way to possibly indirectly stop them). Freedom does not include special privileges for groups that individuals don’t have. For example, if something in particular is considered non-freedom theft when an individual does it, then no majority can (validly) vote to do that something, because it is still non-freedom theft.

There can be and should be (and, to a certain extent, are) more comprehensive and formal definitions of freedom that are consistent with my casual one. (And also many that conflict.) For example, directly, harm, people, and property must be defined. But one will find that no matter how many further definitions are added, more will still be needed. That is the nature of thinking and language. Being comprehensive and clear can fill books.

So, how do we get around this problem? We define to the extent needed by the reader and/or writer. So, gonzo, if ever there were particular examples (hypothetical or real) that you wanted to see how they would be judged in my view of freedom, you could ask. If you kept asking and I kept answering, eventually you’d be able to anticipate my answers because you would understand (even if you didn’t agree with) my working principles.

But already, you can, for example, distinguish my philosophy (including my view of freedom) from those philosophies that give extra rights to majorities. However, you can’t yet tell (probably) whether I consider “intellectual property” (e.g., patents) to be equivalent to “regular” personal property. You may not be able to tell whether I consider animals to be sovereign. But you can most likely tell that my view of freedom does not mean that people have a right not to be offended. Hey! You say something related! Very Happy

No doubt about it: I really like your signature slogan! There is no such (inalienable) right. However, what happens if we voluntarily agree not to “offend” in a certain context? Well, then others do have a “right” to be “offended” because we gave them that right. But to fully understand this, we’d need to further define offend and right.

Rights, inalienable and other kinds: .....another discussion for another day..... Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
gonzo wrote:
How is "areligious language" better than "religious language"??
It’s not necessarily better. As I’d said before that,
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
It’s not the language itself that is dangerous.
If a little kid points a water pistol at you and shouts, “Give me your money!”, you might just laugh.

If a masked stranger in a dark alley points a gun at you and shouts, “Give me your money!”, you might not laugh.

It’s not the language. It’s not the words. It's what the language actually stands for, from the position of the speaker. It’s what the language seems to stand for, from the position of the listener. Both of the latter are important.
n0obie4life
My question is being ignored Rolling Eyes
The Philosopher Princess
n0obie4life wrote:
Say, can we make your post an example post of to,

WHAT IS A GOOD TOPIC IN THIS FORUM

So everyone has to learn your ways and stop posting crap.

n0obie4life wrote:
My question is being ignored Rolling Eyes

Gosh, n0obie4life, I guess it was I who was supposed to answer your question. I apologize! The truth is, when your question came in, I was so new to Frihost that I had no idea whether you were serious or speaking tongue-in-cheek. With your last post, I’m going to treat it as the former.

I don’t know what it means to “...post [as] an example...” but if you want my agreement, you have it in full. I will say that before posting I did read the rules and have attempted to follow them. But I am always open to suggestions for improvement.
n0obie4life
lol. Its okay. Don't worry.

Thanks. I'll make your post an example of what is a good post for this forum.
ocalhoun
What happened to the president's freedom of speech?
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
What happened to the president's freedom of speech?
Who said anything “happened to the president's freedom of speech?” (I do not intend this to be a statement at you. It’s a true question.)

If you have read the full context of what’s been said on this thread, and you believe someone is trying to take “the president's freedom of speech” away, please let us know who is doing so (please quote the text) and tell us why you believe that. If you reread the whole thread, and find you are mistaken, please let us know that too. Thanks.
Billy Hill
This may be slightly out of context, or completely irrelevant, but here goes... EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in the US has used God in his platform, his speaches, his addresses and/or his other dealings with the Presidential Office.
The Philosopher Princess
gonzo wrote:
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

(2) nearly 9 out of every 10 Amercians are Christian of one denomination or another
I’d like to understand your view, gonzo. Are you saying your goal is to, not only not have a separation of church and state, but that you would like Christianity to be the one religion of America?
What would you propose happen to the Jews, Buddhists, Islamists, Hinduists, etc.?

The government already forces Christian holidays on the supposedly secular country; the legal tender says "In God We Trust"; it won’t deliver mail on the "Sabbath"; and of course much more.
gonzo wrote:
(3) a minority is not a majority
That is obvious, so you must have a deeper meaning. Would you like to see the religion of the majority force their religion on that minority -- even more?
The Philosopher Princess
gonzo wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Bush’s religious talk is mainly a reminder that it’s only getting worse in the area of freedom

ummm isn't your language another fine example of the irony of the intolerance of intolerance? He's free to speak so long as he doesn't offend your areligious views?

Ummm, you might want to reread what I wrote in context. I have shown no offense at the language, itself.

I am not intolerant to language. I am intolerant to laws that interfere in people’s lives. I am intolerant to people's earnings being confiscated in the form of taxes to support a monopoly of force against its citizens.
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I am intolerant to laws that interfere in people’s lives.


Then you are intolerant of the law that forces school-teachers to not talk about God?
Flower Powder
It just look as if we are going back in time, back to the medieval time when governments and religions where one... But what really scares me is that, since USSR disappeared as such, and since the cold war does not exist anymore, a new equilibrium rules the world : Christians vs Muslims... Back to the Crusades like...Scary. So far only minor countries used to have dictators and religion partying together... But now the most powerfull country in the world is lead by a so-called religious man. This is terrifying... So what solution ??? I think USA should really reassess their view on the world and start to use their power into creation instead of destruction, that would be more of a religious value. Let's all be Buddhist...
The Philosopher Princess
Fantastic post, ocalhoun! Your question shows deep thinking, because my answer to it should separate my philosophy from others that claim to be for Freedom (as well as others that don't).
ocalhoun wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I am intolerant to laws that interfere in people’s lives.
Then you are intolerant of the law that forces school-teachers to not talk about God?
Yes. I am intolerant of such a law. However, before any readers jump to conclusions, let's better understand this area of (not) interference.

In a World of Freedom, who gets to decide what can and cannot be taught/talked about in a school (from hereon referred to, generically, as curriculum)? The answer is the people who voluntarily participate: teachers, school administrators, students, parents/guardians. Agreements can be made between these people, voluntarily, so as to direct the curriculum, etc. Anyone who is not happy with the agreement-to-be, is free to go elsewhere.

With this paradigm of Freedom, the teachers and parents who want God to not be mentioned agree on their school curriculum. Also, the teachers and parents who want God to be mentioned as often as possible agree on their school curriculum. And so on. These curriculum agreements restrict what can be taught/talked about, but no interference in people's lives has occurred because people enter into the agreements voluntarily. Any restrictions are welcomed by the participants. The restrictions help newcomers -- teachers and students alike -- to know whether that school, with its curriculum, fits them or not.

When an outsider (a non-participant) attempts to force curriculum on these people who have voluntary agreements, this is interference. Freedom prohibits this. Outsiders should mind their own business, not other people's business.

Laws dictating curriculum -- including whether God may or may not be mentioned -- are clearly interference. Laws are outsiders to voluntary agreements. Freedom prohibits this. Anyone supporting such curriculum-interfering laws -- including any politicians, judges, and the citizens voting for either side of a curriculum issue -- are interferers. They are people who mind other people's business, instead of just their own. They have no valid place in Freedom.

(This is not making an argument against all voting. That is another subject. See Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom at http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14944.)

(.....to be continued in my next post.....)
The Philosopher Princess
(...continuing from my previous post...)

You might ask me about government schools, where people have been forced to participate against their will (in the form of confiscated earnings, i.e., taxes). These people have been forced to participate, so shouldn’t they be able to have a say in the curriculum?

Let me answer in a crude but hopefully clear way. If a man is being forced to rape a woman because a brute with a gun is threatening them both with death, shouldn’t the man have a say (a choice) in which sexual position he uses? If the rapist doesn’t get a say, shouldn’t there be laws forcing the brute to give him one?

I hope you can see what ridiculous questions these are. Having a say in the raping position is irrelevant when you consider the initial acts of force. The relevant issue is how to eliminate the initial force, how to stop the interfering gun-toting brute.

So too with government schools. People should not be forced to participate and support schools against their will. Being giving a say in what the curriculum should be (e.g., whether "God" should or shouldn’t be discussed) is irrelevant when you consider the initial acts of force.

People debating whether "God" should or shouldn't be taught in government schools have no clue about Freedom -- or, they do have a clue, but want nothing to do with it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, let's go full circle on this thread. It started with discussion about Bush talking about God. In a World of Freedom, Bush can talk all day long about God if he wants. But at the point that he puts "God" into curriculums, etc. then he has turned from a talker into an interferer -- just as is someone who takes "God" out of curriculums.

The only people who should participate in curriculum setting are the voluntary participants, themselves. Other people are outsiders and interferers. People who support Freedom do not support interferers.

As said all along, Bush's "God" talk reminds those of us paying attention and who care about Freedom that he wants to interfere in others' lives. It's not the talk itself; it's the acts of actual interference.

More could be said so I await sincere questions and challenges.
gonzo
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
gonzo wrote:
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

(2) nearly 9 out of every 10 Amercians are Christian of one denomination or another
I’d like to understand your view,


It's not "my view". They are objective truths.

Quote:
The government


.. serves the people

Quote:
already forces Christian holidays on


Forces? So this entity removed from the will of the people (government) "makes" already Christian people celebrate Christian holidays? Why don't you fess up that you're in the teeny tiny minory and are bothered by "the way it is".


Quote:
the supposedly secular country


Suppose again please. The country is older than the word. But that aside what in the wolrd inspired you to assume that the country was either itself spawned of secularism or that securalism in act was the intent of the founders??


Quote:
the legal tender says "In God We Trust"


Wow, that sure doesn't sound complicit with secularism, does it? Gee, I wonder why...

Quote:
Would you like to see the religion of the majority force their religion on that minority


Any by "force [on]" you mean specifically what?

Coerce them to practice the rights? no
Insist they attent functions? no
monitor their communications for dissent? no

Expect them not to violate God's just design? yes

Is that synonymous with a sane, educated man's sense of "force"? no

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I generally and casually mean by freedom is being able to do whatever one wants as long as it is not directly harming other people or their property


This sounds like the typical atheist definition of freedom. What do you mean by "harm"?

Quote:
nature of thinking and language.
Are you sure you want to use a conjunction there?


Quote:
what happens if we voluntarily agree not to “offend” in a certain context

And why would we do that?

Quote:
we gave them that right

I can no more grant you rights than you can grant me rights. You are confusing "right" with either "privilege" or "power".

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
gonzo wrote:
How is "areligious language" better than "religious language"??
It’s not necessarily better. As I’d said before that,
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
It’s not the language itself that is dangerous.
.


fine. How is areligious better than being religious? in any mode? in any mode of rational significance?
rwojick
I think religous language by an elected official is a strict question of the separation of church and state.

It is not so important that the speaker know the difference as it is that YOU know the difference.

If Bush talks about Religion then he is tallking to you about Religion. If he talks politics then he is talking about politics and if he he talks about law then he is talking about law.

If he mixes them then YOU should separate them.

I was not mis led into war. I was not led into war. He said he had evidence of WMD's. Well, to me this should have led to a discussion on this. Isn't one of the founding pricnciples of this Country (US, I do not know where you are) that each has the right to bear arms?

Don't we have WMD's? Is it legal for us and illegal for other Countries? Good luck selling a system based on equality if you want to have special laws for you and OTHER laws for other people.

Seventh grade civics would help.I think on that subject we are all illiterate!
biga57
Flower Powder wrote:
It just look as if we are going back in time, back to the medieval time when governments and religions where one... ........................... Let's all be Buddhist...


All religions go arm in arm with politics and with the ones amongst them that like to hold the power. All religions when deeply involved in the "Res Publica" become dangerous for freedom.

I think states should be completely detached from any religion . Free religion in free state.

Think only what the world would have been if Catholic religion wouldn't have curbed scientific research for hundreds of years. Think of what happened to Galileo. How many scientists were burned on the stake during inquisition ? Look at what is happening in Iran . Please list a religious state where Muslim religion has favoured scientific research. Actually since Muslims religion is the strictiest of them all, in those states where this religion is more powerful , the entire scientific comunity is non existent. Development is zero.Iinventions are nothing.

What is the contribution to the progress of the world given by integralist muslim nations ??

Buddism is more a philosophy than a religion. That's why it is the best of them all. How many wars were done in the name of Buddism ?
The Philosopher Princess
gonzo wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
gonzo wrote:
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

(2) nearly 9 out of every 10 Amercians are Christian of one denomination or another
I’d like to understand your view,
It's not "my view". They are objective truths.
When I asked for “your view”, I was asking for the relevance of your 3 “truths”; I wasn’t challenging their truthfulness. But since you then talked so strongly about their being “objective truths”, it then made me question their truthfulness. (Funny how that works Smile.)
~~~~~~~~~~
For #2, I found this at http://adherents.com/rel_USA.html.
Quote:
U.S. Religious Affiliation, 2002
[...]
Religious Preference[:] Christian
% June 1996[:] 84
% March 2001[:] 82
March 2002[:] 82
They have a lot of statistics and other information on the religions of the world. So, gonzo, you and they seem to disagree a bit. From where do you get your stat?
~~~~~~~~~~
For #1, what exactly are “JudeoChristian values”? Do you have an objective definition for that?
peetter
Bush's underlining and promoting of Christianity is doing USA no favours when it comes to their cituation in the middle east. People there are very religious, and they feel america is trying to achieve a modern day crusade and spread christianity among them with force.
I don't think religion has any place in modern day government. It is, after all, just belief. There are no solid facts behind it.
And people should have the right to freedom of religion, and nobody sould be forcing religion on other people.
I think america's next president should be a democrat, like clinton, that wouldn't be provocative and religious, but rather peaceful and ready to solve things by discussion, and still firm when the push comes to shove. Clinton was all that.
shabda
I dont generally read the threads in world news. But this one just made me change my mind. Amazing insight and style of writing.
Before writing anything I must make my bias clear. My orkut profile says I am a left liberal. So its no surprise that I dont exactly like Bush.

Does a government have the right to impose its relegion on its citizen. All of us will say no. But then how come some of us agree that allowing gevernment to teach that darwins theory is wrong and that the world might have been created by (Judeo-christian) god, is right. Im from India, so does that give me the right to teach that the world was created by hindu gods?

When you say minority is no majority, do you mean that the majority can or should be given some rights not available to minorities? Being a Hindu, a majority in India, does it allow our govt. to treat us better than christians?

Quote:
Expect them not to violate God's just design? yes

And what exactly is God's just design? Is it the Christian God's Just design or the Hindu gods just design? I would expect them not to violate the country's just law. JUST based on common sense and not on some relegion.
biga57
When in a country religion is tightly interlaced with the people that govern it , there is no escape. Religion becomes like the vine to the big tree, actually like poisonus ivy....

However there are nations where religion , it seems to me, do not excercise control of governing bodies. In this precise moment I am thinking of Japan...as opposed to Philippines for example..

North European countries like Finland for instance as opposed to Italy..

Iran as opposed to ...well it is kind of difficult to find a good example in the Middle East isnt'it?
kodabasi
biga57 wrote:
When in a country religion is tightly interlaced with the people that govern it , there is no escape. Religion becomes like the vine to the big tree, actually like poisonus ivy....

However there are nations where religion , it seems to me, do not excercise control of governing bodies. In this precise moment I am thinking of Japan...as opposed to Philippines for example..

North European countries like Finland for instance as opposed to Italy..

Iran as opposed to ...well it is kind of difficult to find a good example in the Middle East isnt'it?


Iran opposed to Turkish republic which is a country with democratic and secular state.
kodabasi
peetter wrote:
Bush's underlining and promoting of Christianity is doing USA no favours when it comes to their cituation in the middle east. People there are very religious, and they feel america is trying to achieve a modern day crusade and spread christianity among them with force.
I don't think religion has any place in modern day government. It is, after all, just belief. There are no solid facts behind it.
And people should have the right to freedom of religion, and nobody sould be forcing religion on other people.
I think america's next president should be a democrat, like clinton, that wouldn't be provocative and religious, but rather peaceful and ready to solve things by discussion, and still firm when the push comes to shove. Clinton was all that.


I totally agree with you
Herbz3
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


From both sources:
Quote:
...[Bush’s] openly religious language. Standard and appropriate, or unusual and dangerous?...

A partial answer: It depends. For a person who believes a similar religion to Bush and who (also) wants to force others to follow the same religion, the answer is “standard and appropriate”. For a person who prefers freedom of religion (and freedom of other things), the answer is not necessarily “unusual” but certainly very “dangerous”.


I completely agree with this and think that Bush's openly religious language is "standard and appropriate" for people who believe in a similar religion, but if he was to take his religious attitude to the next level, his religious attitude could become very dangerous. He could send soldiers off to war saying that they will be greeted in "heaven" with welcome arms...... Idea sound like anything we've been hearing a lot of lately? (cough... extremists... cough)
The Philosopher Princess
That's a good one, Herbz3! How do you like this piece of "news" from http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189?

The Onion wrote:
December 7, 2005 | Issue 41.49

Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom

WASHINGTON, DC-Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God.

While journalists and presidential historians had long noted Bush's deep faith and Cheney's powerful influence in the White House, few had drawn a direct correlation between the two until Tuesday, when transcripts of meetings that took place in March and April of 2002 became available.

In a transcript of an intercom exchange recorded in March 2002, a voice positively identified as the vice president's identifies himself as "the Lord thy God" and promotes the invasion of Iraq, as well as the use of torture in prisoner interrogations.

A close examination of Bush's public statements and Secret Service time logs tracking the vice president reveals a consistent pattern, one which links Bush's belief that he had received word from God with Cheney's use of the White House's telephone-based intercom system.

Officials privately acknowledged that there is reason to believe that the vice president, as God, urged Bush to sign legislation benefiting oil companies in 2005.

"There's a lot of religious zeal in the West Wing," said a former White House staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's possible that the vice president has taken advantage of that to fast-track certain administration objectives."

An ex-Treasury Department official and longtime friend of Cheney was asked to comment on the vice president's possible subterfuge. "I don't know. I certainly don't think it's something [Cheney] planned," he said. "I do know that Mr. Bush was unfamiliar with a phone-based intercom, and I suppose it is possible that Dick took advantage of that."

A highly placed NSA official who has reviewed the information released Tuesday said Cheney masked his clipped monotone, employing a deeper, booming voice.

Said the NSA source: "It sounded as though the speaker, who identified himself as God, stood away from the intercom to create an echo effect."

On Capitol Hill, sources are expressing surprise that Cheney, a vice president with more influence than any other in U.S. history, would have resorted to such deception.

"The vice president has a lot of sway in this administration," said a former White House aide. "But perhaps when President Bush was particularly resolute and resistant to mortal persuasion, the vice president chose to quickly resolve disputes in his favor with a half-decent God impression."

For many, the revelation explains Bush's confusion in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"I was very surprised by the president's slow response in New Orleans," political commentator Bill Kristol said. "The president told me that he was praying every day in his office, but had received no reply. I had no idea what he meant, but of course, it all makes sense now."

At the time of Katrina, Cheney was on a fly-fishing trip, from which he returned on Sept. 1.

According to highly placed White House sources, Bush's senior advisers are trying to shield the president from the news. Aides are concerned that too harsh an awakening might shake Bush's faith, which has been a central part of his life for nearly 20 years.

"It's hard to tell the leader of the free world that he has been the butt of an elaborate and long-term ruse," a former staffer said. "Maybe it would be easier to take if it came from Cheney's God voice."

© 2005, Onion, Inc.

It would be funny, if it weren't so close to the truth Exclamation
Herbz3
Quote:
"I was very surprised by the president's slow response in New Orleans," political commentator Bill Kristol said. "The president told me that he was praying every day in his office, but had received no reply. I had no idea what he meant, but of course, it all makes sense now."

At the time of Katrina, Cheney was on a fly-fishing trip, from which he returned on Sept. 1.

According to highly placed White House sources, Bush's senior advisers are trying to shield the president from the news. Aides are concerned that too harsh an awakening might shake Bush's faith, which has been a central part of his life for nearly 20 years.


wtf? Ill take this as proof of Bush's intelligence.
biga57
[quote="kodabasi] Iran opposed to Turkish republic which is a country with democratic and secular state.[/quote]

Well, thank for your help. However I consider Turkey already part of the European Union. It is NOT what I would consider a "middle east" country...
You may try again.....
TRANScend
gonzo wrote:
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

(2) nearly 9 out of every 10 Amercians are Christian of one denomination or another

(3) a minority is not a majority



How is "areligious language" better than "religious language"??


I wouldn't necessarily say that "areligious language" IS better than "religious language." The defining point, at least for me, is in the importance that Bush places on his religious convictions as related to other forms of knowledge. Although the majority of the United States is Christian and Judeo-Christian values to undergird our country, Bush's particular interpretation of Christianity is a minority standpoint. As well, the areas of the New Testament that he tends to give attention to are worrisome (Revelation, for instance, and his use of revelatory language in speeches regarding America's place in international issues/policy and in relation to the "War on Terror").
The Philosopher Princess
Howdy, TRANScend! Glad to have you!

gonzo wrote:
(1) JudeoChristian values are the foundation of western civilization

As you noticed, gonzo discussed “objective truths”, but as yet has been unable or unwilling to answer my question:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
what exactly are “JudeoChristian values”? Do you have an objective definition for that?

Now you discuss the same thing, as if it's clear what it is.

TRANScend wrote:
Although the majority of the United States is Christian and Judeo-Christian values to undergird our country

You must know what it is since you refer to it. True? Would you please help the rest of us out and tell us what you guys are talking about? (And then if gonzo uses a different definition, maybe that will prompt a response.) Thanks, TRANScend! Smile
The Philosopher Princess
Way back when, I knew it was downhill for the US when Bushy wasn't embarrassed to -- in public, no less -- name Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and yet Bushy is not capable of specifying what that philosophy is. There are many examples; here's just one.

From http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No1/jesus_philosopher.htm (and many other places):
The Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life wrote:
When George W. Bush named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher at the December 13 Republican debate in Des Moines—and several other GOP candidates followed suit—the first journalistic reaction was to note that once again religion had reared its head in presidential politics.
Quote:
For his part, Bush declined to speculate on what Jesus would have thought of the death penalty. "I’m a lowly sinner," he told a questioner at a January 10 presidential debate in Michigan. "I’m not going to put words in Jesus’ mouth."

Let's get this straight:
Arrow Bushy is following Jesus in all of his life's actions.
Arrow Bushy doesn't know what Jesus thinks of the Death Penalty.
Arrow Bushy supports the Death Penalty (knowing the Government has put innocent people to death in the past).
Arrow Bushy doesn't find any discrepancies in logic and doesn't seek to either
(1) find out what "his" philosophy proposes, or
(2) suspend his belief in his philosophy until he has more proof of its accuracy (i.e., consistency with Reality).

I mean, it's literally not possible to believe in a philosophy when you don't know what that philosophy is!

But this is what believing based on faith, rather than based on one's knowledge using one's mind (to the best of one's ability), does: It causes you to "believe" things that you have no idea in what you're believing. And you do this knowingly. You have to, by definition, suspend logic to believe on faith.
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, at least people who follow philosophies that they have no idea what those philosophies are..... at least those people won't ever make it to high office. Shocked Oh man! They do make it to high office! No wonder we've been forced into wars! They're wars of faith rather than logic! They're not wars of defense! They're wars of offense -- offensive, aggressive, violent religion!
~~~~~~~~~~
Religions and religious people don't bother me per se. As long as they're talking and doing their own stuff, and not forcibly interfering in my life, I don't much care.

It's when people use religion -- or, more often, misuse religion -- instead of using their brains, to support their idiotic policies affecting the rest of us, that I roll my eyes Rolling Eyes and empathize with the people of all countries who want to use violence in defense against this initiated force. Shame on you
horseatingweeds
Quote:
Flower Power: It just look as if we are going back in time, back to the medieval time when governments and religions where one... But what really scares me is that, since USSR disappeared as such, and since the cold war does not exist anymore, a new equilibrium rules the world : Christians vs Muslims... Back to the Crusades like...Scary. So far only minor countries used to have dictators and religion partying together... But now the most powerfull country in the world is lead by a so-called religious man. This is terrifying... So what solution ??? I think USA should really reassess their view on the world and start to use their power into creation instead of destruction, that would be more of a religious value. Let's all be Buddhist...


What are you talking about???????????????

Quote:
It just look as if we are going back in time, back to the medieval time when governments and religions where one...


The problem in the medieval times was that the state used the "church", and no one could read.

Quote:
But what really scares me is that, since USSR disappeared as such, and since the cold war does not exist anymore, a new equilibrium rules the world : Christians vs Muslims... Back to the Crusades like...Scary.


There is no balance of power between Christians vs Muslims. You watch too much al jazera. Anyway, "like" in the good old days of the cold war the Soviets kept all the crazy fanatics we are dealing with now under control. They went in and killed EVERYONE burned their homes and dumped poison down their wells.

Quote:
So far only minor countries used to have dictators and religion partying together...


As long as you don't view strict atheism as a 'religion'.

Quote:
But now the most powerfull country in the world is lead by a so-called religious man.


Yeh, so you would prefer someone with no moral or character? What I mean is morals and character are rare without sincere belief in greater powers.

Quote:
This is terrifying... So what solution ??? I think USA should really reassess their view on the world and start to use their power into creation instead of destruction, that would be more of a religious value.


I think you really need to pay just a little attention to what your country is actually doing. What you wrote is ridiculous!!! Is that what you think? We destroy? All America does is build. Certainly, some times destruction is needed. Sadam needed to be removed and now we are BUILDING a new country. One where they can come B**ch on our forum too.

Quote:
Let's all be Buddhist...


We can try. One problem. A single aggressor could take over the world.
TRANScend
Hey, Philosopher Princess.

That's a difficult question to answer, because, no, there is no objective definition of what "Judeo-Christian values" are that every one person will agree with. Loosely, I could say that Judeo-Christian values are those values that are interpretated as coming from either the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and/or the New Testament. Obviously, not everyone in the United States is Christian, so the idea of Judeo-Christian values being foundational to our nation is somewhat difficult to pin down here. A good example would be the concept of 'plague' and the way it relates to the Bible as the wrath of God. Comparing this understanding of the term plague with it's common usage to describe HIV/AIDS in the queer community, some interesting assertions could be made about homophobia in our country -- but to do so, one must step out of the medical mindset of plague and disease as realitively inocuous terms and into an understanding of the way that religious values/ideas shape our everyday discourse... why we call AIDS a plague but not other equally prevailent STDs, etc.

Making more sense or less?
The Philosopher Princess
Today is Christmas.

Today is the day that millions of people around the world engage in religious celebration. For most of them, the dominant religious value being celebrated is GREED. In the modern material world, this holiday is all about who gets what from whom and what to give in return…

However, there are those who claim that this holiday is the celebration of various religious (Judeo-Christian) values such as love, joy, peace, charity, sanctity of life, and the birthday of Jesus Christ.

For the Christians, the Christmas holiday is supposed to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ. However, religious scholars admit that they do not know when Jesus was born. One thing they do agree upon is that it was not in mid-winter (nor in the year 0000; it was actually 4 BC).

So, why do most Christian religious leaders (and their flocks) perpetrate this falsehood? It is because dishonesty is really one of their values. They claim honesty as a virtue, yet base their pre-eminent Christian holiday on dishonesty.

The real reason that Christmas is celebrated in mid-winter is to coincide with the Pagan holiday of Winter Solstice, the celebration of the sun returning, days getting longer instead of shorter, and thanking the Pagan sun god for warmth and life. The Catholic Church decided to adopt the Pagan holiday in order to convert pagans to Christianity, so the myth was created that Christmas was the birthday of Jesus. (Note: most other “Christian” holidays are similar mixtures of Paganism and Christianity.)

Hypocrisy has long been a Judeo-Christian value. The practice of hiding inner sins with outward piety is well documented in history and the Bible. The most famous Israelite hero, King David (“a man after God’s own heart”), hid his adultery by having one of his most loyal officers killed in battle (read II Samuel 11) so that David could have the man’s wife.

Judeo-Christian values, as taught in the Bible and practiced throughout history, include dishonesty, theft, war, murder, slavery, adultery, the divine right of kings, oppression, etc.

Sure, the 10 Commandments say not to do those things, but they are values, nevertheless, that are predominant in Judeo-Christian society -- especially in the governments that espouse Judeo-Christian values.

The definition of hypocrisy is claiming one set of values, but doing the opposite. It is these “opposite” values that Judeo-Christian political fanatics follow. Welcome to the dark side.

No, the US was not founded on these values -- the founders were attempting to escape these things. But the US Government of today definitely operates by these despicable Judeo-Christian values, teaches them, rules by them, promotes them, enforces them, and relies on myrmidon sheeple to continue believing the myths.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Winter Solstice! Very Happy
biga57
..........Hypocrisy has long been a Judeo-Christian value. The practice of hiding inner sins with outward piety is well documented in history and the Bible. The most famous Israelite hero, King David (“a man after God’s own heart”), hid his adultery by having one of his most loyal officers killed in battle (read II Samuel 11) so that David could have the man’s wife.............

Dear Princess, I really like your words above..

Your entire comment of Christmas events makes sense and in a way opens eyes to a different way of looking at things...

Against all religions. Only when man can live without religions there will be a real progress in life.
Related topics
bush and condi talking...
liberty
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Bush Wiretapping power
Bush Praises Iraqi Gov't, Asks for Patience
Define Religion?
Chemical Attacks - by US Forces // Impeach Bush
The Middle East Conflict
scientology
Home Schooling
Third World Christianity
Absurd cases of atheist discrimination
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.