Marijuana.com

PotShot

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html

The crusades were a rather telling example of how religion can be used to inflict suffering on people. Is is safe enough to believe in the idea that George Bush, if able, would want to "offically" classify the war on terror as a religious crusade? Or does his foreign policy involve spreading secular freedom?

The above was an example of his mindset, unrestrained from speach-writers. Regardless of the official motivation, does he really believe that God is putting him on a divine path?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020911-3.html
Does it matter if W. fights a war in the name of God? Could it be done better if it were for entirerly secular(reality-based) reasons?

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

 

Cassius

I think he believes whatever is necessary for him to believe in order to acquire and retain more power, much like many other politicians.

So yes, I do think he believes he is divinely inspired.

Of course it could. Most of the terrorists we are pursuing are religious extremists, too. It will only incite them more the more religious we get about fighting them. It affirms their belief that they are martyrs.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Higher Logic

George Bush believes god talks to him and that god's will is imposed on him so he will follow the "voice" in his head to the end. He suffers from psychological disorders, and would be classified as a true believer in my book, doing anything in the name of his religion and his god.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Cassius

Well, I don't know that for sure. Are you certain he really believes it, or is it possible he espouses it for political reasons only? No one questions that he has said it, on more than one occasion, of course, but that doesn't mean he really believes it.

killer12382

If you TRULY believe that God is talking to you and telling you to do something, then you'd better do it. One of two things will happen: 1.You're insane and they'll lock you up or 2: God really is talking to you and since he's bigger than you, you'd better do it. Damn the consequences...God is on your side.

 

Mamabudz

Way I see it is is a Crusade...and it ain't pretty.

S2

Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation’s presidents, including the most recent.

An examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton during his eight years in office. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush’s 4.7.


Bush’s biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements. This was the year of September 11; he was especially introspective, and often looked upward for strength. In 2002, he cited Christ in five statements. Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents displayed only two statements in which Bush mentioned his Savior: the Easter and Christmas messages. It may be reasonable to conclude that the hostile press reaction to Bush’s mention of Jesus has pressured him into silence.

Such pressure was never placed on Bush’s Democratic predecessor. President Bill Clinton’s top year for Christ remarks was 1996—the year of his reelection campaign—when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.


In addition, the Presidential Documents list only three incidences of Bush speaking in a church through his first three years. By contrast, Clinton spoke in churches 21 times, with over half in election years. And often what he said and did in these churches was blatantly partisan, from identifying New York’s Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo as a “prophet” to instructing worshippers to go vote. No politician in modern times mixed politics and religion with complete impunity to the extent Bill Clinton did. Here is a sample:

“By the grace of God and your help, last year I was elected President.” Clinton, Church of God in Christ, Memphis, Tennessee, November 1993.

(Does Clinton think that God got him elected?)

“Our ministry is to do the work of God here on Earth.” Clinton to a church in Temple Hills, Maryland, August 1994.

“God’s work must be our own. And there are many questions before us now in this last presidential election of the 20th century.” Clinton to a church in Newark, New Jersey, October 1996.

“The Scripture says, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ And a week from Tuesday, it will be time for us to vote.” Clinton, Alfred Street Baptist Church, Alexandria, Virginia, October 29, 2000.

“But I am pleading with you. … I have done everything I know to do. … [But] you have to show. So talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to your family members, talk to your co-workers, and make sure nobody takes a pass on November 7th.” Clinton, Shiloh Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., October 29, 2000.

Bill Clinton’s vote-pushing in churches was no anomaly: His wife, as the U.S. Senate candidate for New York, did the same in November 2000, as did Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for president. According to The New York Times, on election eve 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned in seven churches in seven hours.

And while George W. Bush was pilloried for having the audacity to cite Jesus as his favorite philosopher in Iowa in December 1999, nary a reporter raised an eyebrow when presidential candidate Dick Gephardt said the following to Democratic voters in Iowa in December 2003: “He [Jesus] was a Democrat, I think.” Needless to say, Maureen Dowd did not accuse Gephardt, unlike she did with Bush, of playing the “Jesus card.”


God talk by a conservative Republican like George W. Bush is not tolerated, whereas liberal Democrats can talk about God as much as they want, even for explicitly partisan purposes. The double standard is quite sad and unfair. This is America, and politicians on both sides ought to be able to freely exercise their faiths—without attack.

PotShot

Thanks for the info S2. Undoubtedly, many past presidents have had religious convictions that influenced their actions. However--and some might think this to be unfortunate--nobody in the past had waged a "war on terror", where, at least currently, the enemy just happens to Islamic theists.

As a kinda of disclaimer, I do not agree with any person that allows theistic concepts to sway their judgement in any way. So Clinton is as horrible as Bush in this regard. While I do think that Bush has taken "the god thing" more to heart than Clinton, it is compounded by the fact that we are heavily involved with a bunch of religious fanatics in the Middle East.

The question is: Would an atheist president do a better job than a theist one? Does all this religious right talk help as we are dealing with even more insane theists?

I am not the only one who has equated this current struggle with the crusades. Besides Bush himself, there are many "on the other side" who see simularities as well.

HappyMan

The crusades are often misunderstood. They are seen as Christian wars only against Islam, a narrow and incorrect definition. The Crusaders were Catholic wars, legalized and authorized by the papacy against foes of Roman Catholicism. Non-Catholic Christians and Jews suffered as much as Muslims and it is an odd twist of political historiography that ignores the other victims of the crusades.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

TheNewGuy

Maybe because we haven't had to fight a "war on terror" before against Ilamic theists? This is the first time something like 9/11 happened (a large scale terrorist attack on US soil) in recent history, and we found out that it was caused by radical islamics. Why would we have gone after them before in such a big way?

Yes. The majority of our morals come from religion. Its almost impossible for someone who is a devout Christian to not be influenced by thier beliefs. An athiestic president (or agnostic or whatever, as long as he doesn't have an unalterable religious belief) would be more likely to make laws to protect the people rather than laws that protect morals. If religion was never a part of political decisions, do you think drugs would be looked at the way they are? Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is frowned upon in many religions, and drug use goes against that. If that moral principle wasn't pushed upon the people when this country was first started, things would be alot different then they are now. Who really cares if gay's marry? Would it influence how much crime there is? Would it influence how much money I make? No? Then why is it against the law? Morals. The government trying to protect morals rather than trying to protect the people. I think an atheistic president would look at things much more objectively than a religious president, and would therefore make laws that minimized harm rather than laws that maintained moral standards.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke