Posted on 10/17/2006 4:57:30 AM PDT by IrishMike
When future historians try to explain the presidency of George W. Bush, his religious fundamentalism unquestionably will be a central focus. It has made him certain about the correctness of his policies, especially the Iraq invasion, and emboldened him to push forward where other presidents, including his father, would have been far more cautious.
Few writers feel comfortable discussing this aspect of Bush because tolerance for people's religious beliefs is deeply ingrained in American law, history and culture. Implicitly, we are therefore led to accept that we cannot judge others on the basis of their religious beliefs, no matter how crazy they may be. In effect, this gives a free pass for people to say and do things that would otherwise be condemned or even outlawed if motivated by something other than religion.
As someone who is not at all religious, it is particularly hard for me to interpret or even comprehend those with deep religious beliefs, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I have no frame of reference upon which to base an analysis that makes any sense to me.
Consequently, I am grateful when those who are religious raise the same questions I have in my mind about what motivates Bush and how his religion influences his policies. One who has done so is the well-known writer, editor and blogger Andrew Sullivan, who has just published an important new book, "The Conservative Soul."
Sullivan comes to his subject as a devout Catholic and a traditional conservative. It is also important to know that he is openly gay, which means that he necessarily stands apart from the Catholic Church and the conservative movement, both of which are operationally hostile to homosexuality.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Yeah, you could say that!
Implicitly, we are therefore led to accept that we cannot judge others on the basis of their religious beliefs, no matter how crazy they may be. In effect, this gives a free pass for people to say and do things that would otherwise be condemned or even outlawed if motivated by something other than religion.That's a common misinterpretation of Separation. In reality, there are plenty of things that cannot be said and done despite the fact that they are motivated by religion. We do not, for example, permit human sacrifice. We also don't permit (theoretically) people to codify the specific beliefs of their religion into law (though anyone trying to buy beer in a "dry" county would quite accurately observe that this idea is often circumvented).
The religious liberty that is a result of Separation is actually a compact of sorts: people in this nation are free to practice whatever religious beliefs they choose, but there is a corresponding responsibility to respect the rights of others.
Yes, some actions are outlawed, but they are outlawed for all. Beliefs are not outlawed.
Not even atheism. Or :gasp: Islam.
-Eric
He is lying through his teeth...
But when we get into other areas of public policy, there are necessarily going to be conflicts. At one extreme, there are countries such as Israel that are explicit theocracies. They have state religions, and all their laws are consistent with that religion.This guy was making a lot of sense until he hit this point. Israel is not a "theocracy", but Iran is. Why not use the obvious example?
-Eric
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Now, it ain't so palatable to them, is it? They are the ones bashing the religious folks, now they want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in their hell...
"But when we get into other areas of public policy, there are necessarily going to be conflicts. At one extreme, there are countries such as Israel that are explicit theocracies. They have state religions, and all their laws are consistent with that religion."
This guy was making a lot of sense until he hit this point. Israel is not a "theocracy", but Iran is. Why not use the obvious example?
The answer your question is simple and is in found several places in one red word below...
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.
Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.
Moses wrote Genesis. This is why such people will jump up and down screaming when the Ten Commandments are displayed or the Creationist idea of monogamy from the book of Genesis is introduced.
The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
This is the whole crux (pun intended) of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).
This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are. (Also, consider NAZI eugenic breeding programs.)
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
"A devout Catholic"
"and stands apart from the Catholic Church"
"a traditional conservative"
"and stands apart from the conservative movement"
Huh? A doubleminded man?
Bruce Bartlett says:
"Consequently, I am grateful when those who are religious raise the same questions I have in my mind about what motivates Bush and how his religion influences his policies."
This says a lot about Bruce Bartlett.
utter load of ant-Christian crap
And using Sullivan as an authority on which to base his opinions, even after suggestuing Sullivan is "set apart" from traditional Christianity, is strictly to gain a platform to launch an assault.
This author doesn't understand Christianity in the least.
Perhaps he can explain how Jesus was not the perfect role model to be followed.
"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world..." -- Roger Williams, Baptist preacher
Jefferson never wanted to purge God from government, he wanted instead to ensure that the State did not establish an "official" religion nor have grounds to persecute any particular religions, (such as Baptists, who were still actively being persecuted by many State governments).
Jefferson believed God was the Supreme power over all men and that government was subordinate to God.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237.
America today has failed.
Today the religion of secular humanism has become the State religion. The Federal government has become an armed church aggressively promoting its beliefs, a creed.
The Federal church mandates doctrinal behaviour and they demand obediance by force of arms, and/or by denial of contracts, (funded by the people of all religions).
It is time to overthrow the religion of secular humanism from the Federal government.! ... and from schools, and from the State governments.
The Feds use force to spread their belief system. It is time to reclaim the Constitution, but to do so requires the impeachment of members of both parties and the majority of judges.
This nation is succumbing to a revolution and will not know it has happeneded until much too late.
We can thank the average American citizen who doesn't have the confidence of their own beliefs, have no standards, and/or have no interest in defending the US Constitution by force of their vote.
We can also thank the majority of Christians who do not follow their faith and vote for anti-Christian politicians or allow them to ascend to power.
Sullivan is hardly devout, since he rejects the moral teachings of the Church, and he is not a traditional conservative -- he voted for Kerry in the last election, for heaven's sake! He is simply a gay activist for whom obtaining government imprimatur of homosexual activity is the single most important issue.
Nonsense. The fact is that all morality is based on human decisions, by definition.
The claim that some holy scripture or other simply evades the issue -- it is a human decision to follow one holy scripture and ignore all the others.
Exactly. This is typical of the media. They don't want to come right out and condemn the military, so they take a useful idiot like Murtha and put his anti-military comments on display 24-7.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.
By definition, morality is an esoteric ideal...
Two men cannot have "sex" with each other; sex is defined by the axiomatic state of mammalian reproductive biology... it requires no human permission.
It is the leftist "Holy Grail," their phantsmagorical fetishism...
You are correct but that was not my main point.
Joke #1
At one extreme, there are countries such as Israel that are explicit theocracies.
Joke #2. Israel is a secular state.
In Sullivan's view, true conservatives should just as strongly oppose Bush's religiously based expansions of government as they would those promoted by liberals.
Joke #3, you're out. Bush's govt. expansion has hardly anything to do with the religious right's agenda. The biggest expansion, Medicare D, was a stupid pandering attempt at influence-buying. Bush was the first president to fund embryonic stem-cell research. I have no clue what anti-porn measures Bartlett is talking about, and there has only been one recent attempt to crack down on internet gambling.
This guy may be a prolific writer, but he's certainly a very shallow one.
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.