NationStates Jolt Archive

Is George Bush too religious? Here is a closer look at what a much-misquoted president actually says and how it compares with his predecessorsp

“I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president.” What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?

Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. “But if that doesn't happen, that's okay,” the president continued, “I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation.”

Still, the first part of the comment goes to the controversial nub of Mr Bush's religiosity. If you believe, along with him and John Calvin, that God involves himself in the workings of the world and all our lives, then you are always going to be vulnerable to the accusation that you think you have some sort of divine mandate.

Mr Bush clearly does believe God is involved in his life. Asked at a debate in the Republican primary contest in 1999 which philosopher he most identified with, Mr Bush replied promptly, “Christ—because he changed my heart.” At a national prayer breakfast in February 2003, he said he “felt the presence of the Almighty”. The president has talked of making decisions “on bended knee”.

Mr Bush also seems to believe there is some sort of divine plan for the world. In his speech to Congress nine days after the September 11th attacks, the president said that “freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.” In other words, God is involved in the affairs of men, and to be against freedom and justice is to go against the will of God.

By the standards of most evangelical Christians, these beliefs would be considered unremarkable. But Mr Bush cannot be judged by those standards. He is president of all Americans. What about the measure of America's political mainstream? Do these beliefs make him “too religious”, meaning that he crosses the fuzzy line between church and state? Not necessarily.

Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had rubber-chicken dinners.

Nor, in the American context, is the president's belief that God is involved in the world's affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the declaration of independence—no less—starts by appealing to the “Supreme Judge of the world” and ends “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence.” Both references in America's founding document are considerably more sectarian than Mr Bush's comment about God not being neutral between freedom and fear. They associate God with America's national interest; Mr Bush did not.

In these two core beliefs, then, the president's religiosity does not seem out of the mainstream. Yet it is worth examining Mr Bush's religious rhetoric more closely, for he does speak about religion more often, and more openly, than most of his predecessors. Mr Bush uses religious rhetoric in five main ways:

• As a literary device. In his first inaugural address, he referred to the parable of the good Samaritan: “When we see that wounded traveller on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.” He is especially fond of references to hymns: “There is power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people,” he said in the 2003 state-of-the-union address. Critics have complained that such quotations are code to please evangelicals, who recognise them. But religious imagery has been common currency in American public speaking since John Winthrop's “city on the hill” in 1630. Lincoln's speeches are rich with the sounds and rhythms of the Bible. Mike Gerson, the president's chief speech-writer, argues that to fillet out references to God would flatten political rhetoric.

• As consolation. “This world he created is of moral design,” said Mr Bush at the National Cathedral three days after the September 11th attacks. “And the Lord of life holds all who die, and all who mourn.” American presidents have long used religion in their role as comforter-in-chief. Remember Ronald Reagan's tribute to the crew of the space shuttle Challenger: “We will never forget them...as they prepared for the journey and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God’.” Mr Bush's usage is little different, and sometimes as eloquent.

• As history. On his trip to Africa in 2003, Mr Bush visited a slave-trading post at Goree Island, in Senegal. “Christian men and women,” he said, “became blind to the clearest commands of their faith...Enslaved Africans discovered a suffering Saviour, and found he was more like themselves than their masters.” In talking about the historical influence of religion, Mr Bush is highly unusual among presidents. But this is the least controversial feature of his rhetoric, since it concerns itself with historical facts, rather than the justification of present policies in religious terms.

• Arguing for his faith-based policies. Potentially this is more problematic, since the point of Mr Bush's faith-based initiative is to use religious institutions to deliver social welfare. The proposals have been criticised on those very grounds (for breaching the wall between church and state). But Mr Bush is careful not to claim too much for the role of faith, saying merely that religion is an aid to social welfare, not the heart of it. “Men and women can be good without faith,” he told a national prayer breakfast in 2001, “but faith is a force of goodness. Men and women can be compassionate without faith, but faith often inspires compassion.”

• To talk about providence. At a 2003 prayer breakfast, Mr Bush argued that “behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God.” Yet, as he admitted in his 2003 state-of-the-union address, he does not think himself privy to that purpose: “We do not know—we do not claim to know—all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.”

By God, by George

All this amounts to a great deal of God-talk. But is it too much? Does it cross the line? That depends, of course, on where you think the line is.

Mr Bush has been careful not to sound sectarian when talking about religion. He angered many supporters by claiming, for instance, that Muslims worship the same God as Christians (a view espoused by Harry Truman but not by most evangelicals). He visited a mosque after September 11th. “We do not impose any religion; we welcome all religions,” he said at a 2001 prayer breakfast. “We do not prescribe any prayer; we welcome all prayers.”

By and large, Mr Bush has not associated the workings of providence with America or himself. The best evidence is his frequent assertion that “the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity.” To many Europeans, this formulation seems unnecessary. They argue that liberty is good in itself, not because it is God's gift. But to Americans the association is almost axiomatic, since it is rooted in the declaration of independence (“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”). In some ways, Mr Bush is actually rejecting the “exceptionalist” claim that America is a unique nation singled out by its liberty.

Mr Bush's followers have been less prudent. They talk as if he has the mandate of heaven. “The Lord has just blessed him,” said Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network. “I think President Bush is God's man at this hour,” said Tim Goeglein, of the White House Office of Public Liaison, soon after the September 11th attacks. But when Mr Gerson said the same thing (“Mr President, when I saw you on television, I thought God wanted you there”), Mr Bush retorted: “He wants us all here, Gerson.”

Lastly, while Mr Bush goes on about the importance of faith, he never talks about policy—even issues with a moral component—in terms of doctrine or revelation. Evangelicals, for example, want to ban gay marriage because (they say) it is against God's will. Mr Bush never says this. He opposes it on the grounds that marriage is an institution so fundamental to society that it should not be changed. That is also why he has been so cautious in arguing for his faith-based policies.

That said, to speak frequently and directly about religion in a divided America can itself be divisive. Some Americans think religion should be purely private. The Texas Republican Party's 2004 platform “affirms that the United States of America is a Christian Nation”. The Supreme Court discusses the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. When he talks about religion, Mr Bush rarely strays far from the mainstream. But America is a country in which the place of religion in the public sphere has never been fixed, and probably never will be.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3502861

I think this is a good article for people to read, especially the ones who spam about George Bush's 'religious extremism'.

Good post, Kwangi.

I have no problem with Bush being religious, it is his wish (and that of many of his followers) to madate parts of his religious beliefs as law that bothers me.

I have no problem with Bush being religious, it is his wish (and that of many of his followers) to madate parts of his religious beliefs as law that bothers me.

Why does that bother you? I think yours is a valid concern, but I'm curious as the reasoning behind it.

Yes, he is. Just as Osama Bin Laden is.

Why does that bother you? I think yours is a valid concern, but I'm curious as the reasoning behind it.

I believe very strongly that people have to find their own spiritual pathway. I hope and pray that everyone finds the right pathway - but they *must* find it for themselves. Being born into, indoctrinated into, or otherwise forced into a specific path does not lead to true faith (or lack thereof) in anything. I accept that many people will find a different path than the one I have found - and I accept that they might be right and I might be wrong, as this is really the only truthful way to look at an unprovable situation.

On top of that, I believe very strongly in the rights laid out in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment makes it very clear that the government should not establish any particular religion and that all should be allowed to practice freely.

When Bush (or any politician) tries to take any tenet of their particular version of their particular faith and place it into law as the "correct" path, it infringes upon both of the above.

I believe very strongly that people have to find their own spiritual pathway. I hope and pray that everyone finds the right pathway - but they *must* find it for themselves. Being born into, indoctrinated into, or otherwise forced into a specific path does not lead to true faith (or lack thereof) in anything. I accept that many people will find a different path than the one I have found - and I accept that they might be right and I might be wrong, as this is really the only truthful way to look at an unprovable situation.

On top of that, I believe very strongly in the rights laid out in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment makes it very clear that the government should not establish any particular religion and that all should be allowed to practice freely.

When Bush (or any politician) tries to take any tenet of their particular version of their particular faith and place it into law as the "correct" path, it infringes upon both of the above.
Good post. I am in agreement.

Just to add to the above:

I *do* think that any politician elected to represent a populace should make an attempt to represent that *entire* populace. While Bush has made one or two comments here or there that people can pull out of obscurity, the vast majority of his actions and comments have pointed to the fact that he only feels the need to represent those who agree with him.

I believe very strongly that people have to find their own spiritual pathway. I hope and pray that everyone finds the right pathway - but they *must* find it for themselves. Being born into, indoctrinated into, or otherwise forced into a specific path does not lead to true faith (or lack thereof) in anything. I accept that many people will find a different path than the one I have found - and I accept that they might be right and I might be wrong, as this is really the only truthful way to look at an unprovable situation.

I have to agree with you there.

On top of that, I believe very strongly in the rights laid out in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment makes it very clear that the government should not establish any particular religion and that all should be allowed to practice freely.

Even if part of practicing freely means performing human sacrifices? You see, if we prohibit people from performing the human sacrifice, we violate their freedom of religion based on our moral values, values that they may not share. Is is it wrong for us to do so, and impose our morals on others?

Even if part of practicing freely means performing human sacrifices? You see, if we prohibit people from performing the human sacrifice, we violate their freedom of religion based on our moral values, values that they may not share. Is is it wrong for us to do so, and impose our morals on others?

There is another portion to the equation, however.

One person's rights end where another's begin. If someone's religious ceremony involves, for instance, cutting off pieces of their own skin - they should be allowed to do so. However, one cannot be allowed to infringe upon the rights of another (as human sacrifice would be).

There is another portion to the equation, however.

One person's rights end where another's begin. If someone's religious ceremony involves, for instance, cutting off pieces of their own skin - they should be allowed to do so. However, one cannot be allowed to infringe upon the rights of another (as human sacrifice would be).

That's still imposing your morals on those who don't necessarily share them.

For a counterpoint, the New York Times ran a piece on October 28 about Bush's adherence to Scottish Protestant minister Oswald Wright. Bush begins his day with a reading from Wright's homilies, even though Wright himself felt that after WWI, his outlook was no longer compatible with the world. I'm not going to quote the article in full, cause I think that's illegal, but Nexis it or get a free NYT account. It's a good piece.

Also, anyone remember how often the word "crusade" popped up in Bush's early war speeches? Remember how it stopped? His handlers and speechwriters backed off on that lingo. It isn't that Bush ain't scary religious, it's that his groomers had enough sense to get it off his sleeve.

That's still imposing your morals on those who don't necessarily share them.

And they would be extinguishing the life of another human being who probably doesn't share *their* morals. Which do you think is more of a problem?

And they would be extinguishing the life of another human being who probably doesn't share *their* morals. Which do you think is more of a problem?

So you agree that they are both problems. Excellent. My work is done here.

I'll politely refrain from answering your question for the time being.

Even if part of practicing freely means performing human sacrifices? You see, if we prohibit people from performing the human sacrifice, we violate their freedom of religion based on our moral values, values that they may not share. Is is it wrong for us to do so, and impose our morals on others?
That isn't morality, it's self defense. That isn't a legislation of religious values, it's a tenet of social well-being. Human sacrifice does actual, direct physical harm to human beings, and as such is unacceptable in an organized society.

So you agree that they are both problems. Excellent. My work is done here.


Everything in life requires trade-offs.

Just to add to the above:

I *do* think that any politician elected to represent a populace should make an attempt to represent that *entire* populace. While Bush has made one or two comments here or there that people can pull out of obscurity, the vast majority of his actions and comments have pointed to the fact that he only feels the need to represent those who agree with him.

You definitely needed to add this.

Our government is made up of all of its people, not just the majority. That means it must respect the views of all people. That also means where there is any issue where two individuals may have conflicting views, the government must remain neutral, if at all possible.

I also know that there are situations where the conflict of views cannot be avoided, but religion is not one of those. There is no conflict that the government can have a hand in where the only possible is resolution is a religious one.

I dont care if the man is religious, goes to church on sundays, but when you start to take the seperation away from Church and State, problems get started.

That isn't morality, it's self defense. That isn't a legislation of religious values, it's a tenet of social well-being. Human sacrifice does actual, direct physical harm to human beings, and as such is unacceptable in an organized society.

All propositions about what human behavior should be are moral propositions. One could quibble and say that some are ethical propositions, but since morals and ethics are functionally equivalent, that's not a useful distinction. But I digress...

All propositions about what human behavior should be are moral propositions. One could quibble and say that some are ethical propositions, but since morals and ethics are functionally equivalent, that's not a useful distinction. But I digress...
No, it's not a moral proposition, it's not a proposition about ideal human behavior. It's not about saying I have the divine stance while yours lies in evil intent. It's about saying I don't want other people to hurt me, and other people don't want me to hurt them, so let's set up a system so that anyone that hurts someone will be hurt themselves. It's about fear and self-preservation, not some tyrranical ethical mandate.

You definitely needed to add this.

Our government is made up of all of its people, not just the majority. That means it must respect the views of all people. That also means where there is any issue where two individuals may have conflicting views, the government must remain neutral, if at all possible.

I also know that there are situations where the conflict of views cannot be avoided, but religion is not one of those. There is no conflict that the government can have a hand in where the only possible is resolution is a religious one.
What would you, or Demipublicents, say about something like the America in early WW2? Before Pearl Harbor, public opinion was staunchly against entering the war or aiding the allies, but FDR went ahead and moved against the majority and did the right thing, and helped out the Britain and its Empire. Likewise, interracial marriage was strongly opposed by many people, but it was enforced anyway, to the betterment of society.

Belief in Gaia or "mother Earth" constitutes a religion.
Bad news for the fringe environmentalists.

There are Marxists out there who should probably be considered "devout" as well...

(Myself? I'm a Deist. Like Thomas. Jefferson. We're a religion that doesn't believe in having religion.)

What would you, or Demipublicents, say about something like the America in early WW2? Before Pearl Harbor, public opinion was staunchly against entering the war or aiding the allies, but FDR went ahead and moved against the majority and did the right thing, and helped out the Britain and its Empire. Likewise, interracial marriage was strongly opposed by many people, but it was enforced anyway, to the betterment of society.
I strongly doubt that interracial marraige was upheld by the religious morality of the time. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.

I strongly doubt that interracial marraige was upheld by the religious morality of the time. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.
Whether or not interracial marriage was upheld by the majority or not is irrelevant. I know the majority didn't support it in the 50's, but I'm not sure how it changed a decade later. The point is, if all a government did was represent its citizens with mindless populism, many important things which did happen in the US's history never would have.

What would you, or Demipublicents, say about something like the America in early WW2? Before Pearl Harbor, public opinion was staunchly against entering the war or aiding the allies, but FDR went ahead and moved against the majority and did the right thing, and helped out the Britain and its Empire. Likewise, interracial marriage was strongly opposed by many people, but it was enforced anyway, to the betterment of society.

I would say that this would be representing *all* of the constituents - not just the majority.

Yes, many people were opposed to involvement in the war, but generally because they had no concept of what was going on. FDR knew that the war was going to come to us eventually, one way or another.

Yes, the majority of people were opposed to interracial marriage. However, the majority were imposing religious beliefs with no backing in anything objective on other citizens. If the law had sided with them, it would have been ignoring a portion of it's citizens, and would have been denying them equal protection under the law. By allowing equal protection, all citizens are represented and protected. Those who are opposed to interracial marriage are not asked to participate in it.

The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity.
This is what freaks us Europeans out (well, one of many things) - Bush thinks that American foreign policy is guided by, or at least has a mandate from God. Remember
God wants this war.

This is what freaks us Europeans out (well, one of many things) - Bush thinks that American foreign policy is guided by, or at least has a mandate from God. Remember

Sounds like the same stuff Wilson said back in 1918. Except he didn't/doesn't get criticized for it.

Sounds like the same stuff Wilson said back in 1918. Except he didn't/doesn't get criticized for it.
it sounds like ANY president during ANY war that we had. Every president has used "god wants this war" to gain support. It's just a way to convince people that the war is necessary.

I support bush and i dont think he is "too" religious. He is allowed to believe what he believes, and his decisions are not based on religion, but based on his morals. For example, he doesnt believe in legal abortion just as he doesnt believe in it to be okay to murder someone.

I would say that this would be representing *all* of the constituents - not just the majority.

Yes, many people were opposed to involvement in the war, but generally because they had no concept of what was going on. FDR knew that the war was going to come to us eventually, one way or another.

I agree, and it was a good thing. However, this is one case in which the government failed to represent the people. If the ultimate job of the government is to represent that *entire* populace., and the populace is overwhelmingly for absolute neutrality, what would you consider FDR's actions?

Yes, the majority of people were opposed to interracial marriage. However, the majority were imposing religious beliefs with no backing in anything objective on other citizens. If the law had sided with them, it would have been ignoring a portion of it's citizens, and would have been denying them equal protection under the law. By allowing equal protection, all citizens are represented and protected. Those who are opposed to interracial marriage are not asked to participate in it.
Right, but is it not ignoring an even larger portion by siding with the minority?

No, it's not a moral proposition, it's not a proposition about ideal human behavior. It's not about saying I have the divine stance while yours lies in evil intent. It's about saying I don't want other people to hurt me, and other people don't want me to hurt them, so let's set up a system so that anyone that hurts someone will be hurt themselves. It's about fear and self-preservation, not some tyrranical ethical mandate.

You are still saying that we (people) should set up or maintain a system (behavior) that protects us from harm. That's a moral proposition.

Whether or not interracial marriage was upheld by the majority or not is irrelevant. I know the majority didn't support it in the 50's, but I'm not sure how it changed a decade later. The point is, if all a government did was represent its citizens with mindless populism, many important things which did happen in the US's history never would have.
See, that's where I was confused. I wasn't aware anyone here had suggested representation based on mindless populism was a great idea. Maybe you should go reread whichever posts lead you to believe they had.

You can't be "too religious" theres no such thing as "fanatical". When you get saved it affects every area of your life in different ways.

I agree, and it was a good thing. However, this is one case in which the government failed to represent the people. If the ultimate job of the government is to , and the populace is overwhelmingly for absolute neutrality, what would you consider FDR's actions?

You mistakenly equate "represent" with "do what they say." We elect leaders to make decisions for us. On some occasions, they have access to info we do not, and must make decisions for that.

When I say a president must represent the entire populace, I mean that he must acknowledge all viewpoints and be very clear on why a certain action is taken. In the case of something subjective, such as religion, a president can and should hold his own viewpoints, but should represent *all* of the people by not institutionalizing them or alienating those other religions.

Right, but is it not ignoring an even larger portion by siding with the minority?

Again, you equate "represent" automatically with "do what they say." Under no circumstances should a majority be allowed to infringe upon the rights of a minority.

Those who were opposed to interracial marriage were *in no way* affected by the decision to recognize it. No one was ingnored, their viewpoint was just (correctly) found to be infringing upon the rights of others, and thus invalid in government.

Had the government chosen to represent only the majority, it would have been ignoring the fact that it is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of *all* citizens, not just the majority.

You are still saying that we (people) should set up or maintain a system (behavior) that protects us from harm. That's a moral proposition.

If you want to set up every action as a "moral proposition," that is fine. However, some such propositions are based in logic and objectivity. Others are not.

I don't care about him being religious, I just don't want him to give other nations the wrong idea about us, and I want to make sure that what he does for policy isn't based on solely religion, but on what the people want him to do tempered with what he feels is right. If he gets those morals from religion, cool. If not, even cooler. He also needs to make sure that the rights of Americans are protected (which is why Guantanamo Bay concerns me, but that's for another thread), and that no part of the government infringes upon those rights. That'll make me happy.

Sounds like the same stuff Wilson said back in 1918. Except he didn't/doesn't get criticized for it.
Wilson was a white supremacist, why do you think I respect him?

If you want to set up every action as a "moral proposition," that is fine.

It has nothing to with actions or behaviors in and of themselves. It has to do with beliefs (which are often stated) about what human behavior should be. If you want to set up straw men and knock them down, that's fine.

However, some such propositions are based in logic and objectivity. Others are not.

Hmmm...would you like to present me with a logical proof that logic is the most appropriate system to use in constructing moral arguments? Would you like to present me with a logical proof that there is such a thing as objectivity in terms of human thought and perception?

It has nothing to with actions or behaviors in and of themselves. It has to do with beliefs (which are often stated) about what human behavior should be. If you want to set up straw men and knock them down, that's fine.

One can study biology and behavior, especially that in social animals, and determine what human behavior *should* be - at least to a point.

Hmmm...would you like to present me with a logical proof that logic is the most appropriate system to use in constructing moral arguments?

Whoever said anything about moral arguments? As with many social animals, allowing one member of the group to significantly harm another reduces the survival potential of the group as a whole.

:headbang: Bush is without a doubt too religous. As an athethist this really concerns me because I feel as if my persident doesn't have my best intrests in mind. America should model their belifs on politics and religon after France. That is that religon is a personal matter and poltics is a public matter. They are a very dangerous mixture. The buck and the cross must stop at the President's desk. It is as simple as that.

One can study biology and behavior, especially that in social animals, and determine what human behavior *should* be - at least to a point.

Science, particularly biology, is a descriptive methodology. It defines what "is", or facts. When one makes the leap from a description of what "is" to a statement of what "should be", one is making a moral proposition. One might have excellent logical justifications for those moral propositions, but they are still moral propositions. When a proposition has the quality of being "logical" that does not exclude it from being "moral".

Whoever said anything about moral arguments? As with many social animals, allowing one member of the group to significantly harm another reduces the survival potential of the group as a whole.

You are still making a moral proposition, specifically to the effect that humans should regulate their behavior such that the survival of the species is insured as much as possible. I happen to agree with that moral proposition.

I think this is a good article for people to read, especially the ones who spam about George Bush's 'religious extremism'.

George isn't to religious, but his policies are. Definitely shouldn't be funding anything "faith based". Violation of the 1st.

When ever I see that many out of context quotes my propaganda sensor goes off, and my automated 'ignore it' response kicks in. :rolleyes: (I seem to be using that smily alot these days).

:headbang: Bush is without a doubt too religous. As an athethist this really concerns me because I feel as if my persident doesn't have my best intrests in mind. America should model their belifs on politics and religon after France. That is that religon is a personal matter and poltics is a public matter. They are a very dangerous mixture. The buck and the cross must stop at the President's desk. It is as simple as that.

I agree with your general sentiment, but Frace goes too far in the opposite direction - as it goes well beyond separation of church and *state* and limits *personal* religious freedoms.

I agree with your general sentiment, but Frace goes too far in the opposite direction - as it goes well beyond separation of church and *state* and limits *personal* religious freedoms.

Wait stop I can't stand it I agree with someone again. :p In fact that is almost exactly what I would have said. Although, I have no problem with religion being public or even public officials claim to be religious. The Gov. just shouldn't have anything to do with it from a legal perspective.

I think Bush is not trully religious..... if he was he would nto declare war

George isn't to religious, but his policies are. Definitely shouldn't be funding anything "faith based". Violation of the 1st.
It isn't a violation of the 1st, and I believe the Supreme Court has found that it isn't.

See, that's where I was confused. I wasn't aware anyone here had suggested representation based on mindless populism was a great idea. Maybe you should go reread whichever posts lead you to believe they had.
When two people said the job of the government is just to represent all of "the people", all the time, this is what I interpreted it as. There are two different interpretations, but when people say stuff like that it seems to me to be like mindless populism. There are two different views, now, and its been clarified.

You mistakenly equate "represent" with "do what they say." We elect leaders to make decisions for us. On some occasions, they have access to info we do not, and must make decisions for that.

When I say a president must represent the entire populace, I mean that he must acknowledge all viewpoints and be very clear on why a certain action is taken. In the case of something subjective, such as religion, a president can and should hold his own viewpoints, but should represent *all* of the people by not institutionalizing them or alienating those other religions.
Ok, I get what you're talking about now. You don't want a President making decisions based solely on religion, right?

It isn't a violation of the 1st, and I believe the Supreme Court has found that it isn't.

I don't believe any of the faith-based initiative stuff has actually made it that far.

However, it would only escape the 1st amendment if they could *guarantee* that the organizations were going to be equal opportunity employers and that ***NO*** government money was going to be spent on proselytizing.

Ok, I get what you're talking about now. You don't want a President making decisions based solely on religion, right?

I don't think *any* politician should make a decision based solely on religion. Of course, the point wasn't completely about religion anyways. I don't think any politician should make any decisions without seriously considering all sides of the issue - especially if he/she has constituents that are split on the issue. That is not to say that they should always agree with the majority/minority, but simply that they should be able to demonstrate understanding and respect for all sides of a given issue and give logical and valid reasons for whatever decision they make. (("my personal version of my particular religion says so" and "I thought it would get me reelected" and "My party said so" not being logical and/or valid reasons))

There's no such thing as being too religious, as religion is a highly personal thing, and everyone reserves the right to be as spiritual as they want. I have no problem with Bush mentioning God or his faith in his public, because he has the right to do so. His policies aren't pushing religion at all. As long as he doesn't try to make Christianity the official religion, I'm fine with it. (Even though I'm a christian, I wouldn't want to see this happen.)

And, let's face it; to have an entire seperation of church and state, religion would have to be barred completely, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

I don't believe any of the faith-based initiative stuff has actually made it that far.

However, it would only escape the 1st amendment if they could *guarantee* that the organizations were going to be equal opportunity employers and that ***NO*** government money was going to be spent on proselytizing.
Right maybe it was some other court that decided on it, not the Supreme Court. I just recall some old article from Newsweek breaking down the opinions of the particular court on the matter some time ago. I think it was about faith-based education, and how the government should be helping everyone get the best education, regardless of whether its religious based or not.

Right maybe it was some other court that decided on it, not the Supreme Court. I just recall some old article from Newsweek breaking down the opinions of the particular court on the matter some time ago. I think it was about faith-based education, and how the government should be helping everyone get the best education, regardless of whether its religious based or not.

I do believe that this ruling stipulated that the school could not require students or teachers to be of any particular religion, nor could they force students to go to religious services. I would have to look it up to be sure though.

Did you see the add-on to my post?

There's no such thing as being too religious, as religion is a highly personal thing, and everyone reserves the right to be as spiritual as they want. I have no problem with Bush mentioning God or his faith in his public, because he has the right to do so. His policies aren't pushing religion at all. As long as he doesn't try to make Christianity the official religion, I'm fine with it. (Even though I'm a christian, I wouldn't want to see this happen.)

And, let's face it; to have an entire seperation of church and state, religion would have to be barred completely, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
so your going to wait until he arrests people for not being christian to listen to the fact he is governing by religion?

It isn't a violation of the 1st, and I believe the Supreme Court has found that it isn't.
Ok, I get what you're talking about now. You don't want a President making decisions based solely on religion, right?


Actually, I don't have a problem with politians making decisions based on religious values. Some religious values are very very good. I just don't believe funding or passing laws that are directly intended to promote or fund religious organizations is Constitutional. Even if the Supreme Court were to up hold Bush's "faith based" programs I would consider them to have been in error concerning the law.

Jorge Boosh personally is an atheistic fool, but far worse is his personal submission to the Judaistic leaders and the Jewish religion.

so your going to wait until he arrests people for not being christian to listen to the fact he is governing by religion?

Wake up. Smell the coffee. Get your head out of your ass. Nobody is being arrested, nobody is being persecuted for having their own religious beliefs.