Posted on 07/02/2002 2:11:50 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
President Bush is taking the tone of a preacher again, declaring that Americans have "received our rights from God" and that he feels "the prayers of the people" as he carries out his duties.
In Cleveland on Monday, at what was characterized as a Rally on Inner City Compassion, Bush sought to rally support behind his faith-based initiative. He asserted that the United States "should not fear programs which exist because a church or synagogue or mosque has decided to start one."
Since taking office, Bush has frequently cited his Christian beliefs and his desire for religion to play an increased role in American society - a stance that has drawn objections from secularists and civil libertarians.
Bush says that faith helped him in his own battle with the bottle, and he maintains that religious convictions can help an individual - and society - in need.
He cited his religious beliefs last week after a federal appeals court prohibited schoolchildren from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase "one nation, under God," in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Bush, responding to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, said that the United States is "a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty" and that citing God in the pledge "doesn't violate rights."
"As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence," he said at a news conference in Alberta, during the Group of Eight summit.
At the same news conference, Bush also mentioned that he had visited with victims of the Arizona wildfires earlier in the week and found them to be "hurting a lot."
"And I was trying to figure out how to bring a sense of hope, and I thought that the best thing I could say was that there is a God who loves them," Bush said. "And I believe that's the case. And as a result, I feel comfortable in my life because I have that belief and understanding."
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush's proselytizing runs the risk of blurring the line between religious practices and running the government.
"He does not seem to want to keep even a decent distance between government and religion," Lynn said. "He wants to mesh the two together in whatever manner he can create. "
For a short time after Sept. 11, Lynn said, Bush appeared to embrace diverse viewpoints.
"Now it's full speed ahead to prove the Religious Right is sitting in the Oval Office," he said.
According to Lynn, Bush may in fact have unwittingly hinted that he intends to violate the Constitution regarding the appointment of federal judges.
In criticizing the 9th Circuit's decision, Bush said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
Article 6 of the Constitution expressly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."
"He said if you're not religious, you can't be a judge," Lynn said. "That violates a central principle of our constitutional system."
That's where people like you, who genuinely want to help others, come in.
Who cares, right? Somebody's gotta' work at McDonalds. I hate the elitism among many "conservatives" and libertarians.
You should be free to give away as much of your own money to help whomever you wish and organize with others to do likewise. Politicians ought not be deciding to which worthy causes your money should go. That decision should be yours to make.
...do you think Christians should be able to witness to non-Christians?
Sure.
How about public demonstrations or preaching on the streets to passerbys? Isn't that forcing their Christianity on people who don't want to be exposed to it?
How about public demonstrations and preaching of homosexuality? Isn't that forcing their lifestyle on people who don't want to be exposed to it? Would you like it if a group of homosexual activists congregated on the sidewalk in front of your church to pester people and handout literature?
The problem with streets is that they are a common area. If you allow one group to peddle their wares then others will also want access. Personally, I'd prefer that people not use the streets for solicitation. I'd prefer that cities sell off their parks to private companies who could lease the use of those parks to various groups. Those groups could advertise their events in the newspaper and such.
This is prevarication, commonly known as bullsh5t.
Have some self respect and withdraw your comment.
So God didn't get it right the first time and had to send someone else in to clean up, eh? Since the 10 Commandments were part of the Old Covenant, were they done away with too?
A finer case of circular reasoning can hardly be found on the Internet.
I'm glad for you that this is curious. It all has to do with the spirit of the commandments. It is my belief that not one of the commandments would be bad for this country. Obviously, the founding fathers new this, and derived much wisdom from the spirit of these commandments. It's quite factual to say only 30% are actually used as a basic dictim, but 100% of the intent was used and is still used today.(I'm not saying that all should be law, just followed.)
Based on the intent, which is obvious to anyone, oh, except hardcore atheist and agnostics who somehow tend to not have a tinker's Damn worth of common sense, the commandments form a basis to our law. BTW, Adultry is unlawful, it's just not enforced. So your Sadusaic logic, is quaint, but uneffective to the masses.
I might add, that I will agree with you that most of the prayers God receives do in fact happen during the playoffs, many righteous jestures toward heaven are given as well as glories and praises...especially in the touchdown zone areas and during snowbowl games where not so obvious "tucks," often referred to as the "Tucks Miracle." are judged by the holy stipped ones.
You come into a thread and instead of rebutting an argument with a coherent and reasoned response you call people names (link). Some of us actually have a genuine interest in discussion. That's how people learn things. It seems you have time for name-calling but little time for anything else. Perhaps it is you who should spare us.
Bush said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
I stand by my initial statement.
To which god is the president referring? Is he talking about Amen Ra? Maybe he means Ishtar. No, wait, he means Horus. This is precisely why the president should not make comments like he did.
But, the president saw an opportunity to score political points and gain favor with a particular group of people. That's why he made the comment.
I'd be less concerned about wether or not the president thinks rights come from God and more concnerd about his comprehension of the concept of rights and how they're defined.
That being the case, you go down a couple of notches.
Argumentum ad Hominem.
You've got nothing.
This is what you stated Alan, remember?
What I've got is you pegged as a gutless wonder. You made a statement you can't possibly back up and you insist that it is the gospel. That makes you a liar Alan.
Your statement is a lie. For it to be true, you would have to provide a quote from President Bush stating that he will not appoint any judges who don't believe in the same God as he does. You failed in that effort because it can't be done.
Ad hominem this Alan. :-}
Once again, Argumentum ad Hominem. Please spare me the spam.
Your statement is a lie. For it to be true, you would have to provide a quote from President Bush stating that he will not appoint any judges who don't believe in the same God as he does. You failed in that effort because it can't be done.
I provided the quote several times. Here it is again in case you missed it.
"Bush said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
Now, you tell me. Is the president talking about a god in which he believes or a god in which somebody else believes? What possible reason would he have for saying he intends to appoint judges who understand that rights are derived from god if he himself didn't believe in that god? If he intends to appoint judges who believe rights come from the god that GWB believes in then it logically follows that he has no intention of appointing judges who believe otherwise.
It really isn't that difficult to figure out.
If you think this statement supports your fraudulent claim, you are even worse off than I gave you credit for.
POP QUIZ
1. With what Christian religion is Rev. Lynn affiliated?
2. In historic terms, the Pilgrims were referred to, as a group, as S___________
3. With what Christian religion were the Pilgrims affiliated?
See any connections?
Nobody is familiar with Bradford's History of Plimoth Plantation or any other history pertaining to the Pilgrims?
Interestingly, the DOI says, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
It doesn't say our Lord, our God, or the Almighty. It doesn't even say our. And it makes no difference wether people believe their Creator is God, Mother Earth, or the Queen of K-Pax.
I've noticed a tendency of many posters on this forum to presume to speak of others, such as in the phrase, "our Christian heritage," as though it somehow engenders the use of government for the advancement of their ideas. No true Christian would employ such a means to advance their ideas. Truth can stand on its own merit. Only lies need the force of government for their advancement.
Very astute of you, Alan, sincerely. I am a Christian, though many people in this forum would say that I was not. It is one of the things I was trying to ask people about earlier, but I didn't get any takers.
In any case, the "their Creator" pick, much like those who choose to pick things out of context from whatever scripture they ascribe to, is very misleading. Most people, in fact, think that the Declaration of Independence begins with this line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
But these ARE NOT the first lines of the Declaration; in fact, there is a beautifully written paragraph that serves as a kind of preamble, and it is written as follows:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the polical bands which have connected them with antoher, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
It seems that the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" are being claimed by Bush, as often happens in history, by the powerful in order to obtain even more power. What do you think?
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.