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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[goldcowboy]

Right on!

[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.

[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...