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.

[Cultural Jihad]

Like it or not, the USA was founded on the principle that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, under due process of Constitutional law.

The very foundation of our system of self-governance is this Christian notion that people have intrinsic worth and value based on the fact that God loves us. This idea that people have intrinsic worth and value was a huge departure from the old world's ideas. If it were not for Jesus Christ, we would not have human rights as we understand them today.

[Quix]

Methinks that the avoidance of the Mars analogy is because you know it's a very apt, fitting analogy and that you have no fitting response.

I read the rest of your posts as largely chaff that misses the boat. But I'd expect that from your perspective. It would be relatively impossible for it to be otherwise.

I think others have pointed out some falsehoods in your contentions quite well enough, BTW.

Pehaps your silence affirms that.

[Quix]

QUITE SO!

FREEDOM !!!!!!!OF!!!!!!! RELIGION

IS AN ENTIRELY

different thing

than

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

Sheesh!

[jonestown]

You are free to try to come up with a convincing argument for human rights. Other atheists have tried, and failed.
105 Cultural Jihad

The men who wrote our Constitution/BOR's did not appeal to religion in any way in forming a "convincing argument" to protect our rights.
Quite the opposite in fact; -- they noted in the document that no religious test shall ever be required for any office in the USA. [Art VI]
Like it or not, the USA was founded on the principle that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, under due process of Constitutional law.
Our Constitution makes that principle quite clear, and only mentions religion in a generic sense.

The very foundation of our system of self-governance is this Christian notion that people have intrinsic worth and value based on the fact that God loves us.

Centuries of 'Christian' kings, supported by Christian churches, belie your 'notion'. Our system was developed in -opposition- to the concept of Church & State sovereignty. -- Our system insisted that 'we the people' are sovereign, not a God or a King.

This idea that people have intrinsic worth and value was a huge departure from the old world's ideas.

Indeed it was. And 'organized' state religions opposed that idea with fervor.

If it were not for Jesus Christ, we would not have human rights as we understand them today.

Believe as you like. But keep religion out of our Constitutional law & the processes of government. -- Remember, 'no religious test shall ever be required', - not in the USA.

[Cultural Jihad]

** Christianity & Democracy **

God loves us, so we must be lovable.
If we're NOT lovable, then why would God love us?
We must be worth something, if God loves us.
In fact, that's our only REAL worth.
The source of ALL our worth is in the fact that God loves us.

Often, you hear Protestants say: "It was really Protestantism that is the root of democracy. If it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't HAVE democracy, because they question authority, which allowed the secular world to grow up, and that allowed the separation of Church and state, so that you don't have the Church running society. So if it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't have democracy."

Protestants say that. It's one of the points they seem to like to make. I don't agree with that one minute, because the whole idea of democracy is that each individual human being has worth and value. Why give everybody the vote if everybody doesn't have some kind of value? If we're all a bunch of serfs that are just to be ordered around, or slaughtered in battle, to keep the ruling class in position, or to make them richer, why have a democracy?

Just in the very idea of human rights: God endowed every one of us with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's really fundamental to our Constitution. Well, where does that idea come from, the idea that each human being has value? What a difference from the ancient worlds' ideas! Where did that come from? It came from Christianity; it came from religion. Because God loves us, God came down and took on a human form, and died a horrible death, for us! That means we are something. We have some value, that we can't be just slaughtered, we can't just be enslaved. That's the whole basis of HUMAN RIGHTS. Without Jesus Christ, there would not be democracy as we understand it.

Of course, the Greeks had democracy in Athens, but it was limited: not for women, not for slaves. I think at some point, it was just for property owners. It wasn't for everybody. This idea that every single human being has worth and value, and you cannot go out and kill them, or throw them into jail and torture them: that makes sense to us. We just sort of say: "Well, of course. Obviously." That's because we live in a Christian culture. We grew up in it, and so we take it for granted. But if it weren't for Christianity, the people who devised the idea of democracy would not have had anything to build on. That idea would have just died.

Catholicism was the religion for 1500 years. Very deeply imbedded in the whole idea of Catholicism is the idea that Jesus died for us, and that gives us our worth, the fact that God loves us. If you look at the incredible humanitarian behavior of Catholic clergymen and religious nuns and monks over the centuries, and centuries, and centuries: that says something. Setting up hospitals for the poor: it was Catholics who did that. Setting up schools for the poor: it was a priest who came up with that idea, which was very radical for its time.

You can see this idea of Christianity giving the lowest people a sense of worth, giving EVERYBODY a sense of worth that they never had before, and the fact that Christianity has first appealed to the very poorest. Slaves were the first people who really believed in Christianity, because instead of being NOTHING, they were now SOMETHING.

[Beckwith]

Atheism is the highest form of arrogance.

[Quix]

Well said.

[jonestown]

Cultural Jihad wrote:

** Christianity & Democracy **

Often, you hear Protestants say: "It was really Protestantism that is the root of democracy. If it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't HAVE democracy, because they question authority, which allowed the secular world to grow up, and that allowed the separation of Church and state, so that you don't have the Church running society.

So if it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't have democracy."

Protestants say that. It's one of the points they seem to like to make. I don't agree with that one minute

Catholicism was the religion for 1500 years.

Very deeply imbedded in the whole idea of Catholicism is the idea that Jesus died for us, and that gives us our worth, the fact that God loves us.
If you look at the incredible humanitarian behavior of Catholic clergymen and religious nuns and monks over the centuries, and centuries, and centuries: that says something

---

Over two hundred years ago we formed;

A Republic, Not a Democracy

Address:http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm


A Republic, Not a Democracy

Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts.
Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes.
"I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.


The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?).

The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added).

The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.

In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York.
The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power.
The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?


Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob.

They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George.

In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty.

Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."

Ron Paul

[Cultural Jihad]

If all you can do is quibble over whether we have a representative democracy or not then I assume you are unable to address the original issue; but that is okay.

[jonestown]

Cultural Jihad wrote:

If all you can do is quibble over whether we have a representative democracy or not then I assume you are unable to address the original issue; but that is okay.

---

Here is the "original issue" between us. -- You claimed:

______________________________________


You are free to try to come up with a convincing argument for human rights. Other atheists have tried, and failed.

105 Cultural Jihad

---

The men who wrote our Constitution/BOR's did not appeal to religion in any way in forming a "convincing argument" to protect our rights.

Quite the opposite in fact; -- they noted in the document that no religious test shall ever be required for any office in the USA. [Art VI]
Like it or not, the USA was founded on the principle that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, under due process of Constitutional law.

Our Constitution makes that principle quite clear, and only mentions religion in a generic sense.
jones

---

You replied, inanely:

_____________________________________


** Christianity & Democracy **

The source of ALL our worth is in the fact that God loves us.
Often, you hear Protestants say: "It was really Protestantism that is the root of democracy. So if it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't have democracy."
Protestants say that. It's one of the points they seem to like to make. I don't agree with that one minute

185 Cultural Jihad

---

If all you can do is quibble over whether it is "really Protestantism that is the root of democracy" or not then I assume you are unable to address the original issue.

But that is okay.

[Hand em their arse]

"An atheist group is criticizing President Bush for saying he can't see how one can be president without a relationship with the Lord."


I hate replying like this but I'm getting the point where when dealing with groups, individuals etc. that just pull this crap all the time to bring attention to their cause, my new response is a simple two words... TOUGH SHIT!

[Dimensio]

Why?

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

The atheist/secularists are frothing at the mouth crazy. They don't see the absolute hypocrisy of their position. Everyone must bow to them! Everyone must not-believe like them! Everyone must worship their ideas!

...Wait a minute, I think they actually do believe in "God" - subjectively.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

Good one.

[jackbob]

I respectfully disagree when my Christian heritage and history is under attack.

I never attacked your Christian heritage. Stating the fact that those you hold up high were slaves to the King of England is not an attack, but a mere statement of fact. Live with it.

This is a sovereign nation. You stating; "this is a Christian Nation and the opening statement of our first official governing document makes it crystal clear that this nation is founded on Christian beliefs..." directly contradicts your claim now, "that I never implied this was a founding document of a sovereign nation". The Mayflower Compact is not the first official governing document of our nation.

If you are referring to the Constitution...

I said 156 years, not 167 to 168 years.

The most important statement in our Declaration is that we want to operate under the laws of God.

Sorry, not said, not implied, not remotely suggested in our Declaration of Independence as you claim.

If these founders had been atheists and unbelievers, they would never have been elected to represent those states.

You are absolutely correct here. And yes most were Christians (but not all). Even before the Constitution was adopted, the fight to throw out the Christian laws that were left over from the colonial days was already raging, with Madison and Jefferson leading the attack. It took till 1833 to finally eliminate the last of them.

[carumba]

"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."

There you go...intolerance for any view point but their own.

[jackbob]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Do you need to call in help against a half dozen atheists, of which most have already left the thread? Be a man, speak up for your self. Nobody pinged me to this thread, and I do not recall any atheist pinging for help.

The atheist/secularists are frothing at the mouth crazy... Everyone must bow to them! Everyone must not-believe like them! Everyone must worship their ideas!

Have you bothered to read the article and thread? Every single atheist on this thread, without exception, stood solidly behind President Bush "saying he can't see how one can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

Every atheist on this thread stated that they did not consider it "divisive," and took a strong stand against those atheist who said such.

You really ought to read the article and thread, before calling in you back up, which aren't needed any way. That is unless your "Moral Absolute Ping" organization is really a school children's debate club trying to get practice debating adults.

[little jeremiah]

Wow, you sure are on edge!

I have a pinglist, called the Moral Absolutes Ping list, for people who have volunteered to be on the ping list, because they are interested in the topic, which is very wide ranging. They want to be informed about issues which relate to morality and religion.

You have a problem with the existence of such a pinglist?

I wasn't calling "backup" - I wasn't even arguing or debating with anyone, just making a comment about the radical atheists mentioned in the article. You think I have no right to comment on an article on FR?

Atheists on FR are conservative in many ways and are generally much more tolerant of religion than the radicals quoted in the article, which were the frothers I referred to.

I think you need to drink some chamomile tea, soak in a warm tub, and go to sleep under a nice down comforter. You seem all riled up about nothing.

[jackbob]

The atheist/secularists are frothing at the mouth crazy... Everyone must bow to them! Everyone must not-believe like them! Everyone must worship their ideas! #197

To repeat;

The atheist/secularists are frothing at the mouth crazy...

And now;

Wow, you sure are on edge!

I don't know, but sounds to me like you are describing your self. At any rate, to answer your questions, I've not heard of anyone (myself included), being against ping lists. Nor can I imagine anyone thinking you "have no right to comment on an article on FR?" So relax and post away. No one is trying to stop you.

[little jeremiah]

I think anyone else who bothered to read my comment understood that the frothing I referred to was the atheists in the article, not mellow, calm, tolerant atheists on FR.

You may backtrack, but you sure sounded PO'd that I dare to post comments on FR.