George Bush - Religious Fanatic?

[adios]

I've read in so many places that George W. Bush is a religious fanatic and the support of Christian religious fanatics got him elected. I'll say that IMO Gay Marriage in the United States is not supported by 50% of the voters and those that oppose Gay Marriage are not all religious fanatics. IMO Christian religious fanatics don't even come close to being 50% of the electorate so I don't believe the opposition to Gay Marriage comes from mostly religious fanatics. I suppose there ought to be an operative definition of a religious fanatic since what I view religious fanaticism to be and what others view religious fanaticism to be could be very different. So what is a good operative definition of a religious fanatic? I think it indicates an extremelist of some sort who believes in imposing their religious beliefs on all, who expects people to adhere to the precepts of their religion, use that religions precepts to guide their actions, and place those precepts above any law created by man. A clumsy definition perhaps (feel free to clear the definition up) but if that's the operative definition why do you believe George Bush is a religious fanatic?

[MMMMMM]

Good post and question. I think the answer to why some view Bush that way is simply their inability or unwillingness to discern the finer pooints or differences of degree. I will also note that I have noticed these traits (in a more general sense) quite a bit lately!

[nicky g]

"Religious fanatic" is basically just an insult and isn't really definable IMO. The point at which I have a problem comes when people start pushing what I think should be personal beliefs and values very publicly and politically, and talking as if everyone shares or should shares those beliefs. When beliefs in far out things like prophecies etc start to affecct actual policy (as many believe they do in relation to Israel and the second coming for example) you are in serious trouble.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read in so many places that George W. Bush is a religious fanatic and the support of Christian religious fanatics got him elected. I'll say that IMO Gay Marriage in the United States is not supported by 50% of the voters and those that oppose Gay Marriage are not all religious fanatics. IMO Christian religious fanatics don't even come close to being 50% of the electorate so I don't believe the opposition to Gay Marriage comes from mostly religious fanatics. I suppose there ought to be an operative definition of a religious fanatic since what I view religious fanaticism to be and what others view religious fanaticism to be could be very different. So what is a good operative definition of a religious fanatic? I think it indicates an extremelist of some sort who believes in imposing their religious beliefs on all, who expects people to adhere to the precepts of their religion, use that religions precepts to guide their actions, and place those precepts above any law created by man. A clumsy definition perhaps (feel free to clear the definition up) but if that's the operative definition why do you believe George Bush is a religious fanatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good definition. Here is why I believe Bush at least is very close to being a fanatic.

1 - stem cell research. Why would someone put a ban to scientific research that improves life for many people. I can never except when ideology is more important than suffering.
2 - Abortion ban. Why would you dictate that a woman who has been raped should have the child? Again: So much suffering.
3 - Gay questions. Who is he to say what is right and what is wrong? Why would he care if they marry?

And these are jsut a few... I just don't think these questions are for the state to decide.

[adios]

Thanks for your thoughts but just to clear something up. I take it then when people refer to George Bush as a religious fanatic then you feel that he's being insulted.

[W00lygimp]

Of course its the states responsiblity to define them.
If not the government then who else? Microsoft? Jimmy Dean?
Michael Moore?
Give me a break...

[Bill Smith]

The standard of truth for Bush tends to be his feelings. If it feels good, if you feel good “down in your soul” about something, then it must be true and right. He talks often about how God talks to him or leads him. Granted, some people believe this is a tenet of faith, but is it really a good way to lead a country?

This is where I think Bush comes across as a religious fanatic. His religious views shape his policies on gay marriage, abortion and foreign policy and he attempts to impose them on the country.

“It is an odd thing... that each man wages war believing that God is on his side. I wager that he is on neither.” - Oliver Cromwell

But since you only brought up gay marriage, let's discuss that for a minute. Would somebody please explain to me what, outside of religious beliefs, makes gay marriage / civil unions, much less the act of homosexuality, a crime? Heck, with sex change operations and transvestites out there, gender is a blurry thing to begin with.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course its the states responsiblity to define them.
If not the government then who else? Microsoft? Jimmy Dean?
Michael Moore?
Give me a break...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware we are talking about religion here? What does Microsoft and James Dean have to do with this question?

[nicky g]

I think they mean it as an insult, yes.

[MMMMMM]

Funny too how they use "cowboy" as an insult. Cowbows were brave and hardy men.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course its the states responsiblity to define them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that isn't George Bush's position (at least with respect to gay marriage)

[elwoodblues]

I have no problem with Bush's policies being based on his personal beliefs. It is silly to believe that they could/would/should be based otherwise. However, the public policies should have solid justification beyond the religious tenor. In my opinion, Bush does a very poor job of explaining why people who disagree with his religious beliefs should still agree with his policies (not a very "uniting" quality.) His rhetoric is so tied with his religious beliefs that his policies often appear illogical/irrational when someone who focuses less of his public time on his faith would be able to make a better case for support. Because so much of his rhetoric has religious overtones, his administration's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" ideas/language (again, not a very uniting way of looking at the world) carry some very scary religious overtones that can very easily inflame those of other religious beliefs who might otherwise support his policies.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny too how they use "cowboy" as an insult. Cowbows were brave and hardy men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a very common term coming from lazy leftist Europeans commentators. But these people are simply anti-american at heart. There are others of us who love the US and what it stands for (I'm tempted to say "used to stand for") who simply don't like the fact that his policies are religiously based. Separate politics and religion. Don't become like the enemy you are fighting.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
1 - stem cell research. Why would someone put a ban to scientific research that improves life for many people. I can never except when ideology is more important than suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no ban on stem cell research, and GWB does not support such a ban.

[ QUOTE ]
2 - Abortion ban. Why would you dictate that a woman who has been raped should have the child? Again: So much suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB is opposed to abortion, except when in cases of rape and incest.

[ QUOTE ]
3 - Gay questions. Who is he to say what is right and what is wrong? Why would he care if they marry?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is as much an economic stand as a moral stand.

cheers!

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course that isn't George Bush's position (at least with respect to gay marriage)

[/ QUOTE ]

this is where GWB is wrong. Federal power over states is rarely a good thing.

my guess is that he took this position of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as purely a political move to fire up the religious conservatives. no different than John Kerry claiming to be pro choice, when he clearly is not.

the simple fact is that these men have a profession that sometimes requires them to take political stands that run contrary to their personal beliefs.

cheers!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
this is as much an economic stand as a moral stand.


[/ QUOTE ]

It might have economic impact, but the stand is not an economic one, don't kid yourself.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is a good operative definition of a religious fanatic? I think it indicates an extremelist of some sort who believes in imposing their religious beliefs on all, who expects people to adhere to the precepts of their religion, use that religions precepts to guide their actions, and place those precepts above any law created by man. A clumsy definition perhaps (feel free to clear the definition up) but if that's the operative definition why do you believe George Bush is a religious fanatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that defnition applies to Bush pretty well.

The two most important reasons why I consider him a fanatic:

1) He seems to really believe that God has sent him on a mission to lead America and remake the world in a way pleasing to Him.

2) I think faith plays a very big role in his decision-making process. He has basically admitted as much, talking about how he doesn't need to be bothered with heaps of facts when he has his instincts to guide him.

By the way, I don't think position on gay marriage is a good proxy for religious fanaticism at all. Many people are against it who are not that religious but have been trained by our society and culture to be very uncomfortable aat the notion.

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gay questions. Who is he to say what is right and what is wrong? Why would he care if they marry?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is as much an economic stand as a moral stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the %&#! is this an economic stand?! It is discrimination, pure and simple. How would a gay couple's marriage do any harm to *anyone*, economic or otherwise? The purpose of laws is to prevent harm and promote the greater good. A ban on gay marriage does neither, and actually does harm to 10% of the population.

If the government can ban gay marriage, they can ban Jewish marriages, black marriages... What gives George Bush or anyone else the right to say "Your love is not worthy of official recognition by the law"?

As for whether Bush is a religious fanatic... I think it's funny that the description the original poster stated is perfectly fit by Bush. Not that I think Bush actually is a fanatic... but I do think he tries to push his beliefs on the American people... and as an Atheist with two very close gay relatives, I really resent that.

-Nate

[Jedi Flopper]

I find it ironic that an atheist would get bent out of shape by a Christian promoting his beliefs in the political arena while at the same time demanding that government should be godless /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[adios]

There is an economic aspect to heterosexual marriages is there not? I'm not saying that there isn't a moral aspect to Gay Marriage but there is an economic aspect to them as well.

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an economic aspect to heterosexual marriages is there not? I'm not saying that there isn't a moral aspect to Gay Marriage but there is an economic aspect to them as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What - filing jointly? Are you serious? For everyone who supports civil unions, that's not even a difference, because you'd still get to file jointly. So umm... where's the economic difference?

-Nate

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it ironic that an atheist would get bent out of shape by a Christian promoting his beliefs in the political arena while at the same time demanding that government should be godless /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You are allowed to state and promote your personal beliefs all you want... outside of the government. You are not allowed to pass LAWS enforcing your spiritual beliefs on people who do not agree with them.

I don't want the government to be godless, I want it to be god-neutral. Tolerant of all religions, but sponsoring none. Why? Because we're not all $%&*ing Catholic, dammit. And the government is supposed to represent *everyone*, not just the Catholics.

-Nate

[Cashcow]

Ditto

[Jedi Flopper]

You are allowed to state and promote your personal beliefs all you want... outside of the government. You are not allowed to pass LAWS enforcing your spiritual beliefs on people who do not agree with them.

I don't want the government to be godless, I want it to be god-neutral. Tolerant of all religions, but sponsoring none. Why? Because we're not all $%&*ing Catholic, dammit. And the government is supposed to represent *everyone*, not just the Catholics.

-Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not really thought about what you are saying. To be completely honest, you have to say you do not want any religious ideas that YOU do not agree with to be promoted by government. Most of our laws are based on some concept that was first promoted in the religious field. To deny this is to deny reality.

You only raise an objection when a specific religious doctrine disagrees with your own personal belief. At least be honest with yourself and admit to your double standard.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What - filing jointly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Community property, wills, spousal health coverage, credit ratings to name a few besides filing jointly.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone who supports civil unions, that's not even a difference, because you'd still get to file jointly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably civil unions would encompass the aspects I mentioned above.

[ QUOTE ]
So umm... where's the economic difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't any that I know of. Did I say there was any difference?

Didn't the court in Massachusettes basically rule that civil unions for gays and marriage for heterosexuals was unconstitutional because it represented a doctrine of separate but equal?

[texaspimp]

What laws has Bush passed that enforce his spiritual beliefs?

Why did this turn anti-Catholic? Bush isn't Catholic. Kerry is the Catholic.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]

You have not really thought about what you are saying. To be completely honest, you have to say you do not want any religious ideas that YOU do not agree with to be promoted by government. Most of our laws are based on some concept that was first promoted in the religious field. To deny this is to deny reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is skewed logic. A religious man promoting a law does not make this law a religious law. The content determines that, not who gave birth to it. And most laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion, thank God ;-) With God's help it stays that way...

[ QUOTE ]

You only raise an objection when a specific religious doctrine disagrees with your own personal belief. At least be honest with yourself and admit to your double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion based on what he said?

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What - filing jointly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Community property, wills, spousal health coverage, credit ratings to name a few besides filing jointly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this was so, why should two of the same sex not enjoy the same rights that two of opposite sex enjoy.

[arabie]

No one said all his supporters were of faith, but the majority of faith supporters that exist voted for bush because of his correlated policies to the evangelical church which has 80 million voters in the u.s. 1/4 ohio voters are bornagains, voting 3-1 for bush. A good share of of vointg America does believe in the three major religions, which all promoted the vote for prolife or you could just say Bush. It was a moral obligation to do so... CNN presents coverd an intersting story regarding your questions, and other CNN stories have addressed this issue. Browse cnn.com and look for the impact of faith in an election vs. a faithful and politically secular.

[Men the Master]

George Bush is a religious pragmatist.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this was so, why should two of the same sex not enjoy the same rights that two of opposite sex enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they shouldn't? If I implied such I certainly didn't mean to do that and apologies if I did. The post I responed to stated that there were minimal economic aspects to marriage and ask for examples to refute that. I provided these as a refutation of his point about the economic aspects of marriage.

[Jedi Flopper]

That is skewed logic. A religious man promoting a law does not make this law a religious law. The content determines that, not who gave birth to it. And most laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion, thank God ;-) With God's help it stays that way...

Walk with me my young padawan as I enlighten you in the ways of reality...

First of all, lets dispense with the word religion. It is too nebulous to define and we would not agree on a definition anyway. Instead we will discuss morality.

Now, morality comes in two different flavors. Subjective and Objective. Subjective morality changes as opinions and cultures change. It is impossible to argue subjective morality because opinions are like anuses, everyone has one and they all pretty much work the same. It would be stupid for us to have an argument over which flavor of ice cream is best. The answer is subjective and your opinion is as valid as mine is.

That is where we are in America today. Subjective morality and situation ethics has people on polar extremes yelling that their "morality" is truth when it is literally impossible for both of them to be right.

The solution to this problem is to use an objective standard to determine what is right or wrong. What could that standard be?

If I believed that Jesus of NAzereth was Divine and the his teachings as outlined in the New Testement were divine truth, might I not be able to use those teachings as a basis of law? To do so would at least move the argument from the purely subjective into the realm of the semi objective. (Differing interpretations would bring some subjectivity into the picture)

Now, I have said all of that to say this. Most of the "moral" laws in our nation have as their root the teachings of Jesus. You might say this is preposterous, that our moral laws are based on our perception of right and wrong. This view is not based on fact and utterly ignores human history. Human nature is self serving self preserving and self aggrandizing. Jesus teaches that true meaning in life comes through service and sacrifice. He was not the first to propose this idea, but his followers were more successful in propogating the teaching.

I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

I await your flames and responses to my challanges.

[goldcowboy]

Right on!

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What - filing jointly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Community property, wills, spousal health coverage, credit ratings to name a few besides filing jointly.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry... perhaps you misunderstood. The original poster said that there were economic reasons as well as moral reasons not to allow gays to marry. So I was pointing out that allowing gays to marry in no way affects the general economics of the country as a whole.

Yes, I agree that those are some very good incentives to get married. It is not, however, a reason to ban gay marriage.

-Nate

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Thou shall not steal" - coming from Jesus before anyone else? Hardly. Hammurabi had no system in place to deal with stealing?

Also, the bricks of our democracy and juricial system came from the Greeks, before Jesus. The whole judicial system is more or less based on the thoughts of Socrates (the strength of the argument wins, etc.). In fact most of our values came from the Greeks. Christianity is an added, important, layer - not the whole foundation.

[adios]

Do those economic factors I mentioned drive up the cost for others? For instance would spousal health coverage in gay marriages drive up the cost of health coverage overall for employers? I have no idea if they would or not (I suspect not very much if any) but higher health care coverage costs to employers would be less incentive for employers to hire new workers. Would gay marriages place more burdens on the courts in resolving community property disputes (again I doubt that it would but don't know for sure) and thus ultimately increase taxes to alleviate the extra burden on the courts.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if this was so, why should two of the same sex not enjoy the same rights that two of opposite sex enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they shouldn't? If I implied such I certainly didn't mean to do that and apologies if I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to. Simply exchanging arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
The post I responed to stated that there were minimal economic aspects to marriage and ask for examples to refute that. I provided these as a refutation of his point about the economic aspects of marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, perhaps this was directed more to the original poaster who seemed to imply that marriage is primarily about economy.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is a good operative definition of a religious fanatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

a fanatic of anything is one who's extreme zeal goes beyond what is considered reasonable. sure, Bush is a proclaimed Christian. so is Kerry. fanatic? not even close. people in general overuse the term "fanatic" way too often when confronted with a simple difference of opinion.

cheers!

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is a religious pragmatist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought four years ago. Had I been a US citizen I would have voted for him then. Now it seems obvious to me that he is driven by his own faith, not that of others.

[adios]

There are economic aspects to marriage no matter how inclusive marriage might be. Nate alluded to this, there are some very positive economic aspects of being married. I wasn't trying to delineate between positive and negative, just that they existed. FWIW I would think the positive economic aspects of Gay Marriage-Civil Unions would outweigh the negative. BTW didn't Bush say something positive about civil unions right before the election even though the Republican party platform opposed them? At least those are the facts as I remember them.

[Jedi Flopper]

Jesus never said, "Thou shalt not steal" Neither did Hamurabi /images/graemlins/smile.gif You remind me of my grandmother during the political season. Every time she opened her mouth she was channeling James Carville. Who are you channeling? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Thou shall not steal" - coming from Jesus before anyone else? Hardly. Hammurabi had no system in place to deal with stealing?

Also, the bricks of our democracy and juricial system came from the Greeks, before Jesus. The whole judicial system is more or less based on the thoughts of Socrates (the strength of the argument wins, etc.). In fact most of our values came from the Greeks. Christianity is an added, important, layer - not the whole foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plato created the blueprint for Christianity. Check out his book 'Republic.' It's all there in book (chapter) X. He wrote it 100-200 (I can't recall) years b.c.

[texaspimp]

Dude, if your grandma was channeling Carville, she has serious issues. You may want to consider drugs or therapy. On second thought, go straight to an exorcist!

She must be saved!!!!!

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus never said, "Thou shalt not steal" Neither did Hamurabi /images/graemlins/smile.gif You remind me of my grandmother during the political season. Every time she opened her mouth she was channeling James Carville. Who are you channeling? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you want get to the core here, you should start channeling in to the argument I made instead wandering away from it. I think you know that I did not mean he <b>said</b> those actual words but he preached about it. You asked if I could mention a moral law that did not come from Jesus. And I did. My point about Hammurabi was that his code of laws included stealing as a crime - and that was two thousand years before Jesus lived on this Earth. Not everything is built on Christianity. Does that come as a shock to you?

[Jedi Flopper]

Reading comprehension is not a strong point of your is it? Go back CAREFULLY read my post again and tell me how this response has any bearing on what I said. You might want to use your finger to guide you along the sentences so you do not skip any important words.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Thou shall not steal" - coming from Jesus before anyone else? Hardly. Hammurabi had no system in place to deal with stealing?

Also, the bricks of our democracy and juricial system came from the Greeks, before Jesus. The whole judicial system is more or less based on the thoughts of Socrates (the strength of the argument wins, etc.). In fact most of our values came from the Greeks. Christianity is an added, important, layer - not the whole foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plato created the blueprint for Christianity. Check out his book 'Republic.' It's all there in book (chapter) X. He wrote it 100-200 (I can't recall) years b.c.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read it but Nietzsche did mention Plato being the inspiration for Christianity. Thanks for pointing me to the source. Do you remember the specific parts?
Must have been around 400-500 BC btw. If I remember correctly Plato is the next generation from Socrates and he lived around that time.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading comprehension is not a strong point of your is it? Go back CAREFULLY read my post again and tell me how this response has any bearing on what I said. You might want to use your finger to guide you along the sentences so you do not skip any important words.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been your attitude all along. You prefer condenscending statements like the above rather than to get to the core of the discussion.
Follow your own advice and tell me how your response to Nate has anything to do with Ned's post. You wrote:
"You only raise an objection when a specific religious doctrine disagrees with your own personal belief. At least be honest with yourself and admit to your double standard."

You must know Nate personally to be making this kind of remark. Otherwise how would you know that he did not bring up these issues for the sake of the argument. But I suspect you don't know him. So here is my advice to you: Never open your mouth till you know the score.

OK, I'm done with you.

[BadBoyBenny]

I like the cheers ending to all your posts. Whenever I'm drinking and browsing the forums and read one of your posts I can't help but smile and take a swig aat the end.

Whether I agree with what you just said or not.

[Jedi Flopper]

I am only condesending to the truly deserving. Let me hold your hand and use small words while explainging it to you.

First, I specifically said in my post that "Jesus was not the first to say these things, but his followers had the most success in propogating the teaching." To bring Hamurabi or Plato into the discussion as rebuttal is laughable, you are only agreeing with what I said.

Second my initial response was right on point. Nate was indignant about a specific doctrine relating to the legitamacy of homosexual relationships and he said leave religious view out of the lawbooks. My point was that a significant percentage of our laws have as their basis a belief in a supreme being. To deny this is to deny the declaration of independence.

I apologize for my condescension. It is how I typically respond to people on high horses. You are right, it was rude of me. I am done with this thread as well and I hope you accept my apology.

[goofball]

he's a religous fool (yes i know it's redundant)

[tolbiny]

Wooly,
did you mean James dean the actor, or Jimmy Dean the sausage king?
I just need to know ....

[tolbiny]

"For instance would spousal health coverage in gay marriages drive up the cost of health coverage overall for employers?"

Actually Adios more health coverage in our current systems drops the cost for all those involved.
Why? Because preventative care is is far far cheaper that actual care and hospitals are required to patients in an emergency situation weather they can pay or not. The number of such cases drives up the cost of health care for all as these cases are often very expensive and hospitals have to drive up their prices to cover them. There are other more subtle reasons such as the expectation of drug prices decreasing with increased use by the population ect. If you are interested i will talk to my sister inlaw this weekend who knows of some good sources i believe.