Bush sharing his faith

NandoTimes ^ | July 1, 2002 | Bill Straub

[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."

[My2Cents]

Surely you can do better.

I choose not to give the "Rev." Lynn, or his comments, more than a fleeting thought. Somewhere I remember the admonition to not cast pearls before swine, vis-a-vis providing a rebuttal to Rev. Lynn's stupid apostasy.

[TightSqueeze]

Lord, Thank You for a President who is willing to acknowldege you in both word and deed and who isn't afraid to confess you as Lord and Savior to his country.

Yeah, I am old enough to remember the last president who made it a point of expressing his religious beliefs publicly, his name, one-term Jimmy Carter.

[skeeter]

Vescere bracis meis.

I'll save my really choice insults for a more worthy subject than that night crawler Rev Lynn.

[Alan Chapman]

...most atheists use it [Jefferson's letter] as one evidence that not all the founding fathers were Christian.

I find that curious. I've never seen that argument made. But, letter aside, more than half of the founders were in fact Freemasons and not atheists.

[Alan Chapman]

What Rev. Lynn is saying then is a man or woman in public office must conceal any and all personal expressions of "religious" faith.

President Bush didn't just express his religious beliefs. He said he intends to use a belief in his God as a litmus test when appointing judges. There's a distinction. What Rev. Lynn said doesn't mean president Bush can't attend church while he's the president.

What if that same individual's character and integrity is due to personal "religious" convictions and the honorable conduct of said individual is based on "religious" motives?

Then that's great. What if an individual's character and integrity was derived from the Church of Scientology? What if an individual's character and integrity was derived from his parents?

It shouldn't matter from where integrity and character are derived but that integrity and character exist.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Someone should remind "Rev" Barry Lynn of how many Religious themes were included in George Washington's farewell address. (I believe that 1/3 to 1/2 of it was on the importance of Religion).

For those of you who don't know "Rev" Lynn debated a baptist minister on the topic Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity. After the tape, Lynn threatened to sue the Baptist minister if he followed the customary practice of selling copies of the debate.

The tapes are now available. So if you want to see how Lynn stands up to a real minister. Go Here.

[Sci Fi Guy]

According to Lynn, Bush may in fact have unwittingly hinted that he intends to violate the Constitution regarding the appointment of federal judges.

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."

Yawn, All Article 6 means is that we cannot require a particular religious adherence in order to run for office. That is we cannot pass a law saying only Baptists, or Lutherans can run for office.

[Alan Chapman]

Our Christian heritage is what made this country great...

Well, that is your own personal opinion. Many people of many faiths also helped make this country great. When you speak of our Christian heritage you presume to speak on behalf of others as though everyone shares your religious beliefs. Perhaps in the future it would be appropriate to say my Christian heritage...

...why we're still having this argument is proof of the damage done by the ACLU and folks like Barry Lynn.

The argument is taking place because people are still trying to use the force of government to finance and advance their religious dogma, as was done in the Old World.

This is a country founded on Christianity.

It may be true that this country was founded on Christian ideas. But, that doesn't mean that the country was founded to be a Christian-only country. People are free to practice whatever faith they chose, as they should be.

[LarryLied]

Would you still praise the president for discussing his faith in public or would you prefer he keep his beliefs to himself since they have no bearing on the obligations of his office?

Sure they do.

[Alan Chapman]

He does not want to load the judiciary with Christians.

I never said he did. And neither did anyone else.

You sound like you want to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Do you think all judges should be atheists? Religion should not be an issue.

Religion, or lack thereof, ought not be a consideration at all. It's irrelevant.

[RAT Patrol]

. He intends to make a concerted effort to stack the bench with judges who share his religious beliefs. And while this might seem virtuous and heroic it sets a dangerous precedent. The Office of the President ought not be used to advance one's religious dogma wether the president is a Christian, a worshipper of Mother Earth, or a worshipper of Xerxephius of Alpha Centari.

I was replying to the above statements.

[Alan Chapman]

Let me add that what I "loves" was the hypocrisy it exposes. They cry separation of church and state only when it serves their political goals. Be consistent and don't let tax dollars fund the desecration of religious symbols either then.

I don't understand what any of this means.

What do you "loves" and what hypocrisy are you talking about?

Who is "they" that cry separation?

Obviously, I'd be opposed to the desecration of any symbols with taxpayers' money.

[Alan Chapman]

I choose not to give the "Rev." Lynn, or his comments, more than a fleeting thought. Somewhere I remember the admonition to not cast pearls before swine, vis-a-vis providing a rebuttal to Rev. Lynn's stupid apostasy.

I understand. Rebuttal takes effort.

[streetpreacher]

Come to think of it... if the Declaration of Independence doesn't have any legal force, are we technically still part of Britian? Hmmm...

[RAT Patrol]

"loves" was a typo but I was referring to your comment about my first post. Nevermind. I meant "loved" btw.

"they" meaning "liberals" - the ones who think everything religious should be removed from public life except religious desecration in the name of art.

Sorry for the rushed post but I thought you'd take it in context with our previous posts.

[Alan Chapman]

When replying to posts it really helps to copy and past the part you're replying to. Otherwise it makes it difficult to know what you're referring to (I have to go back and forth and try to guess which comment you're addressing).

[streetpreacher]

Come to think of it... if the Declaration of Independence doesn't have any legal force, are we technically still part of Britian? Hmmm...

I guess so!

BRITISH TO RETAKE AMERICA? DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISMISSED!!

By: Doug Sefried

Ass Press (Jun 26, 03:38 PM) SAN FRANCISCO The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today declared the United States Declaration of Independence as null and void because it has several references to God. The decision left many Americans stunned and angry and the future of the once great country in doubt. A United Nations world court will now determine if America will be returned to the British, the country that the United States declared its Independence from on July 4th, 1776. Yesterday, the United Nations declared martial law in the United States, dismissing the elected government and freezing all personal assets. Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to meet with the United Nations next week to possibly begin the power transfer.

[Undivided Heart]

Neither was the letter to the Danbury Baptists, but that letter is holy scripture to the "wall of separation" people. We can't have it both ways.

[RAT Patrol]

When replying to posts it really helps to copy and past the part you're replying to. Otherwise it makes it difficult to know what you're referring to (I have to go back and forth and try to guess which comment you're addressing).

Okay. I will do that for you. Since this is a relatively short thread and 10 of the posts are just between you and me I didn't think it was necessary.