Bush's Remarks on Religion Offends Atheists

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 1/14/05 | Melanie Hunter

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - An atheist group is criticizing President Bush for saying he can't see how one can be president without a relationship with the Lord. Bush's comments were "divisive," they say, and an insult to those who don't believe in religious creeds or a deity.

Bush's interview with the Washington Times "demonstrates clearly that he does not respect the diversity of the country, and the fact that nonbelievers and so-called 'seculars' are one of the fastest growing segments of American society," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.

"He just doesn't get it," said Johnson, "and he seems to ignore the fact that in our Constitution we do not have a religious test for those seeking public office."

When Washington Times' editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden asked him about the role of prayer in next week's inauguration and what he thinks is the proper role of his personal faith in the public arena, Bush said: "First of all, I will have my hand on the Bible. I read the article today, and I don't - it's interesting, I don't think faith is under attack.

"I think there are some who worry about a president who is faith-based, a person who openly admits that I accept the prayers of the people, trying to impose my will on others. I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Bush said.

"That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have - or one of the greatest freedoms - is the right to worship the way you see fit. And on the other hand, I don't see how you can be president - at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a - without a relationship with the Lord," he added.

Johnson was also offended by Bush's claim that the difference between America and the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan was simply "the right to worship the way you see fit."

"The real distinction between American and governments like the Taliban is that at least on paper, we have a Constitutional commitment to separation of government and religion," she said. "We have freedom of and freedom from religion."

Policies like the president's faith-based initiative or efforts to keep the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance show that Bush is dedicated to using the power of the state to advance religion, argued Dave Silverman, communications director for American Atheists.

"He wants all Americans, including over 30 million non-religious citizens, to subsidize religion-based social programs, and he wants to protect ceremonial religious rituals like the post-1954 Pledge of Allegiance," said Silverman.

Silverman accused Bush of trying to turn the government into a "religion bully."

"President Bush goes far beyond keeping his faith to himself. He's trying to turn our government into a 'religion bully' where the state enforces religious belief and religious correctness. That's un-American," he concluded.

[jackbob]

Wow, six self admitting atheists on this thread (to include myself). Not one voiced agreement with the article, calling the President statement offensive. I got side tracked after replying to you (Melas) and stopped reading after #67. Only just now did I come back and read the rest of the thread.

First off I'd like to apologize to you (hinkley buzzard) for not alerting you to that last reply of mine #97, as it directly related to you. That is a low behind the back kind of jab. Though I didn't intend it to be such, and worded it in general, without mentioning you specifically by name, it was still wrong not alerting you. Thankyou for alerting me in your reply #113, which caused me to see my error. I am sorry.

No doubt about it hinkley buzzard, you are quite correct that you did not call Melas "stupid." Melas, you are wrong in #102 saying that he did. But, hinkley buzzard, you were wrong in #75 by saying; "I didn't say you were hateful or stupid." Thereby implying that Melas in #67 had accused you of saying that which you did not say. Melas did not accuse you of saying it.

Both of you made errors. Now lets get back to the name calling and insults. By the way hinckley buzzard, your launching psycho babble insults on atheists would be an immediate defeat to you almost anywhere but here at FR. The dishonest atheists, long ago developed and continuely refined those arguments. They got a head start on the dishonesty. The only reason such phony arguments might work for you here at FR, is because if the Atheists try using them in return, effectively, they will get banned.

As for me, I enjoy seeing atheist dishonestly insulted. It a nice change from the usual opposite I hear all the time. And I am an atheist.

[bray]

Fundamentalist Atheists are worse than the Taliban! I will Pray for his Salvation anyway.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Major_Risktaker]

Atheists have an impressive historical track record of being divisive.

Bush's comments were "divisive," they say, and an insult to those who don't believe in religious creeds or a deity.

Am I to presume, then, that Atheists would prefer a President who thinks he is God, then?

I guess so!

Below is the Atheist God Stalin himself with his divisive comrades. So divisive they killed 40 million Orthodox Christian Russians.

A celebration of Joseph Stalin's 50th birthday in the Kremlin, December 21, 1929, with party members Ordzhonikidze, Voroshilov, Kuibyshev, Stalin, Kalinin, Kaganovich, and Kirov, as a statue of Lenin looks on.

Atheists, Religion, Castro and Stalin

So by the same logic employed by the Patriarch, should Joseph Stalin, who during the later stages of his communist regime legalized the Moscow Patriarchate –

even though 80% of Russia's churches had been either utterly destroyed, converted to government and public buildings, or closed by the government, while 10's of millions of Orthodox Christians were martyred under the aegis of Comrade Stalin

– also have been a laureate for the "Order of the Knights of St. Andrew"? Or perhaps Bartholomew would even go a step further and argue that Stalin should have been canonized as a saint (after all, unlike Castro, Stalin opened more than a single church;

not to mention the fact that Stalin also trained to become an Orthodox monk in his pre-communist youth).

[Quix]

Let's pretend . . .

You and 50 of your closest atheist friends are supported by the puppet masters in setting up a Mars colony. Pretend that it's been going for 25 years better and better.

Pretend that you have founded it fairly strictly and forthrightly on atheistic principles and values. However, in a token bow to charity toward all and malice toward none, you put a provision in the constitution allowing for freedom of belief and protection of minority Christians who might happen along later--protection from their being unduely mangled in the courts and daily functioning of society in any heavy-handed, life threatening or seriously limiting ways.

Pretend that after 25 years . . . over a span of 5-10 years, a handful of Christians succeeds in getting Mars courts based on that token protection thing to start overturning the atheistic values of the colony. And now, freedoms of expression, predominant, standard holiday expressions and other stalwart foundational principles of the society are put not only at risk but squashed by successive court rulings. The athesitic majority are seething with outrage at the wholesale undermining of the foundation of the Mars colony society. Yet the courts via skillful political moves on the part of powerful Christian minority folks are wave after wave overturning the very foundation of the Mars colony society.

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL AND WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO?

---

Like it or not, the USA WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IN BEHALF, ESSENTIALLY, OF FREE EXPRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN IDEALS AND VALUES.

The secular atheists priests of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE and of the RELIGION OF SECULARISM are wholesale trashing and undermining and destroying that foundation.

If they are so intent on remaking society in their image, let them go to societies founded on those principles. Christians came here to found the USA ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES AND VALUES.

The fact that we were generous hearted toward all was not meant as a camel nose in the tent to destroy the tent.

[Quix]

Quite so.

[Quix]

My dissertation looked at values and their . . . consequences.

I looked at atheists, agnostics and some well defined Christian groups.

In the process I investigated atheist publications--I think it was the American Atheist or some such.

Of course I was looking at Pentecostal groups, too.

Interestingly--and shockingly, to me--if one changed just a few words--maybe less than 15 specific words and phrases in the AMERICAN ATHEIST publications--they would read identical to the fiercest, most strident Pentecostal publications.

It was quite a shock to me.

A number of values tend to be a lot like a horsehoe--the ends, extremes can be closer together than they are to the middle.

[Quix]

BTW, I GREATLY appreciate your rather sensible and balanced, healthy attitude and perspective.

[Quix]

The ACLU was founded with the purpose of using it as yet another tool of the socialists, communists, globalists to divide and destroy our culture, society, country. Plain and simple. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Nada. None.

Premeditated, calculated, planned and successfully executed over and over and over to this day.

[Quix]

The ACLU was founded with the purpose of using it as yet another tool of the socialists, communists, globalists to divide and destroy our culture, society, country. Plain and simple. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Nada. None.

Premeditated, calculated, planned and successfully executed over and over and over to this day.

[Quix]

Excellent point.

Why--all around the worldl--is God's name taken in vain as a curse--especially JESUS?

You don't hear

"Oh Buddah!" or "Oh Muhammed!"

or

"Damn Krishna!"

etc.

Satan doesn't bother trying to degrade those already in his service. He focuses on The One who defeated him at Calvary and at the empty tomb.

[Quix]

I disagree.

Certainly not bad in terms of consequences when chosen as the BEGINNING of a heart change.

[Quix]

Great question.

It's usually hostility to the whole notion of God

usually

born out of parental horrors from hypocritical, abusive so called 'Christians' and/or raised by atheists who had such in THEIR childhood.

And, they are likely rather insecure about their parenting skills in inculcating lastingly their atheist dogma.

[gitmo]

You're an agnostic? The opening lines of your 'About' page would seem to indicate otherwise.

[gitmo]

Am I to presume, then, that Atheists would prefer a President who thinks he is God, then?

They had no problem when Clinton claimed godhood. One of his first speeches was taken from I Corinthians 2. He said, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into your heart, what I am going to do for you." I am paraphrasing from his speech, but that is pretty close.

[gitmo]

They would prefer him to say, "I don't need anybody to do this job. I can do it all by myself. I AM the president."

And then they call Bush arrogant. The man admitted the job is beyond him.

[Melas]

Pascal's Wager is a textbook example of a logical fallacy: Illicit distribution. When you draw venn diagrams of the sets, it becomes glaring obvious.

[Quix]

I understand your point.

There is a fallacy in it.

But I'm not about to try and ferret it out.

[Quix]

Evidently, you are declining to respond to the Mars colony thing.

[Melas]

Wow, sounds like a bunch of christian radicals out to change the national motto of the Mars colony....Oh wait, that happened in the USA, in 1954.

[Quix]

VERY EXCELLENT points.

THX.