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.
I am offended that they are offended.
What they really have is "Delusions of Relevance".
Those who disdain the Lord God invariably have a replacement: materialism; a secular figure such as Marx; themselves.
I'm an atheist, and I supported George W. Bush. Your comment is off the mark.
The last I checked, any president is still a US citizen with the right of free speech.
If all the atheists in the country want to use it as a reason for not voting for the President...fine. Odds are all 2000 of them weren't voting for him anyway. Atheists tend toward socialism.
Where do you people get this stuff? I'm perfectly willing to live and let live, but damn....I get sick of hearing how neurotic, hateful, stupid that we (atheists) are from thread to thread. I think I'm a pretty normal guy actually.
You really believe this drivel don't you? It's amazing the things I learn about atheists on Free Republic these days. It's amazing I can even manage to log on by myself.
I'm unhappy? And here I thought I was a happy-go-lucky guy.
OTOH, if that P-O-S Clinton said something like that, I would be VERY offended, since there's no way in h%ll he could possibly mean it.
An "offended athiest" is a good thing.
Kind of like a light in a burglar's eyes.
I didn't say you were hateful or stupid. Some of your fellow unbelievers are, like this Niedow(sp) creep. He's twisted. But refusal to believe in something greater than yourself is a pretty clear defensive maneuver.
What percentage of the population are athiests? Are we talking about a tiny splinter group here? Answer: Yes! What percentage of athiests voted for Kerry? Should President Bush be concerned and apologize. I think not. Today the Supremes knocked out one athiest with an attitude, so the Prez can say whatever he wants. Someone, usually a leftist, is always going to find something he says offensive. They beg to be ignored.
Thanks for the ping!
I have gotten to the point that I believe atheists should be split into categories: anti-theists and non-theists. There are many non-theists but a growing number of anti-theists. They have gotten aggressive, cruel and have made it so that religious speech is actually less protected than other forms of speech. Reading the first amendment, it is clear that religious speech is actually to be elevated and afforded a special level of license.
INTREP - In a word, "tough" - Survive
I agree with what you said about atheists, since I am one. What's really bizarre, is that this so called "Athiest Movement" is taking on the worst traits and zealotry of religoius extremists...Why can't they just go on not believing as they see fit and leave everyone else alone?
I think that many atheists actually are envious and therefore hateful towards people who believe in God. This transcends any political or constitutional issues.
As someone who doesnt believe in god myself, all I expect from this society is that no one force me into a church/temple or mosque; that my "lack of religion" doesnt hold me back from availing myself of what this country has to offer. Any so-called atheist movement that suggests that they are in any way being religously,constrained,perscecuted or coerced in this country, is either delusional or simply driven by hatred.
I am not "offended" by the fact that others speak the name of god in public places. Even if I were offended, the constitution cannot and does not protect us all from being "offended"
This is all I have to say on this. I hope that the religious folks here don't lump "atheists" into one pot...we're not all fanatics. Some of us are even conservatives.
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.