Posted on 01/14/2005 3:32:57 PM PST by 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.
Wrong.
In 1954, the abiding, foundational, underlying, overall cultural gestalt was formalized in yet another public way.
You are still avoiding responding to the essentials of the analogy.
Nice to hear from you tob2!!!
The secularism doesn't surprise me. Many theists see themselves of stalwart champions of virtue and enemies of secular thought.
What intrigues me about the text I quoted, is your above board contempt for science. Now, I've always thought that certain christians held science in contemp, and have since Copernicus, but you're the first I've actually known to come right out and display it.
What is it exactly you have against science?
Bush's comments were "divisive," they say, and an insult...
He just CANNOT WIN !! There will be always somebody nagging
I guess agnostic will serve as a description. It's not that I don't feel the existence of far greater things than myself, more that I'm not ready to pin it down.
The concept of being endowed with rights by our Creator is not inconsistent with that to me...actually, I think of it as an obvious truth.
Atheism requires a certain arrogance, IMO.
"The real distinction between America 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."
All the Constitution says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This applies to LAWS passed by CONGRESS. There is nothing here inhibiting the President's freedom of speech. As an American, if the President wants to say he believes in God, then he is free to do so. I don't see that Congress is passing any laws coercing these people into believing in God.
If these people feel so strongly, then what they need to do is start a new party called The Atheist Party, whose candidates will promise never to mention the word God nor ever make any allusions to religion - (just long as they don't violate the Constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion).
Ping.
Evidently you've had a poor history teacher.
Trace out where the values enshrined in the founding documents originated from.
Read the Federalist Papers.
etc.
etc.
etc.
and
etc.
And your response to the Mars colony situation would be?
"I've never encountered anyone who proselytizes as much as some atheists."
Me neither.
Or how touchy they. Or how they wish to completely take away your Constitutional given right of freedom of worship.
And your point is....?
the fact that nonbelievers and so-called 'seculars' are one of the fastest growing segments of American society
10 + 5 = 15, a 50% growth. But it's still only 5 more people. 100,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 101,000,000, a 1 % growth. But it's a million people more. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Evidently you've had a poor history teacher.
Nothing in my post is "poor history". Evidently, you cannot refute those facts.
Trace out where the values enshrined in the founding documents originated from. Read the Federalist Papers.
Nothing in the Federalist Papers make specific reference to "CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES" or "INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN IDEALS AND VALUES" as being the founding principles of our Republic, -- you know this. - You're bluffing.
And your response to the Mars colony situation would be?
How could a constitution modeled on our own be 'taken over' by fanatics from either radical faction, if they all worked within its framework?
TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI OF BARBARY
Treaty signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797.
Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797.,
Ratified by the President of the United States June 10, 1797.
Entered into force June 10, 1797.
Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I can't FORCE you to notice the facts in the founding documents and the early founding fathers's papers.
You are free to ignore the evidence aplenty. I have no burning desire to try and force you to see the obvious.
Interestingly, somewhat like God, our founders left enough wiggle room for diversity that you can very slightly rationally make your claims.
Those claims don't really jive with history nor the founding documents and associated early papers. But, hey, Communistic revisionism is a growth industry in our era. Help yourself and pay accordingly.
How could a Constitution modeled on our own be taken over by fanatics? It's been done and is increasingly being done in our era. Evidently your poor history background is matched by blindness to the news.
Gives you a nice out, doesn't it.
Of course, you neglect to discuss the context and reasons for such language! LOL.
There's still a ton of history that you are glossing over and ignoring.
Common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.