Our President
Pages
| Author | Topic: Our President |
|---|---|
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 13:26
Profile
quote:That was not my intention. Halabja has been mentioned occasionally, and is of course often mentioned in newspapers. No, it's just that I'm so tired of this type of hunt. Why does it not suffice to hold him responsible for the things he actually did? Fabricating accusations is disgusting and discredits the prosecutor. I came upon a War College report on Halabja by coincidence quite a while ago. I didn't bookmark the link, but can try to find it again. Seems they have known the truth for years. I only saved two passages of a related article: 'While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing agent, with a fatality rate of only 2%, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.' 'Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings: "The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds." Pelletiere's report also said that international relief organisations that examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims. After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq.' -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5566
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 13:51
Profile
quote:Untrue if I got your meaning right I know several people who were given detention or even suspended for praying before their meals So don't say you are not stopped again I apologize if I misunderstood you. Yes I do pray before dinner no other meals and only because my parents do -------------------- Why are you reading this ? Posts: 507 | Registered: Tuesday, March 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 15:18
Profile
Homepage
For a moment there I thought I had landed in the wrong topic. :P -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "Really, Spiderweb is just a big, steaming pool of estrogen." --- Robin Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 15:46
Profile
Homepage
quote:When there are no rules either way for how the President (or any other member of the government) should act with regards to religion, the government is non-religious. When there are rules that say the President should not act in a religious manner, the government is anti-religious. Bush is not America and he is not even the US government. If he prays, it doesn't mean America is praying or that America should pray, any more than if he speaks with a Texan accent it means that America is speaking with a Texan accent or that America should speak with a Texan accent. If he tells a joke, it doesn't mean that America thinks it's funny. I'm not really defending Bush. I doubt he'd be praying before speeches or whatever if it was politically damaging. But I'd be opposed to a rule that could forbid a sincere, religious person from doing what he genuinely felt compelled to do by his religion, irrespective of political consequences. EDIT: Think of it this way. Preventing the President from referring to God because some people don't believe in God would be like preventing him from reffering to evolution because some people don't believe it happened. [ Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:55: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 16:00
Profile
Bush is The US president. So whenever he represents this office, he cannot be regarded as a private person, rather as an institution or the representative of an institution. As such, he has to represent everything this institution stands for, regardless of possibly differing personal convictions. If his private beliefs make this impossible, his motives for becoming president were highly questionable. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 16:55
Profile
quote:I fail to see how the War in Iraq did much to combat terrorism. People decide to attack the U.S. because of sanctions preventing important things like medicine to enter their country and events like the war itself. America's foreign policy has bred terrorists and if we continue in the same way, there will be more instead of less. Also, an out of control military budget is no reason to go around looking for places to "liberate" -------------------- "Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending" Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 18:07
Profile
quote:When there are rules that state that the president is unable to pray to a God of a single religion it means that he must remain impartial and unbiased towards the people he is supposed to be representing. Perhaps he should consider saying a very brief prayer for each and every version of God if his intention is truly and solely to praise the higher power, but it seems to me that he is simply unable to keep his personal beliefs out of matters of official government business. If one leads a nation rooted in his religious beliefs they become part of his policies as well, and with Bush they are. He can go to war in God's name, and put an end to the evils of abortion and the abomination of the bible being absent from even a slight second of our daily lives. Put the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and make the children pray before class; after all the majority is Christian/Catholic, so why not force everyone else to see the light too? quote:When Bush became president he agreed to represent America and its government. He is the face and voice of the American government for the UN, and for American citizens. If he wants to voice his personal beliefs every time he speaks he shouldn't represent the masses. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 18:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm sure what you're trying to say was much less absurd than this. While there are more people at Microsoft than Bill Gates, it's pretty silly to say that when Bill Gates delivers a speech about the next Windows operating system at a software convention, he's not speaking for Microsoft. Ash, I think you've misunderstood (or deliberately misrepresented) the opposing point of view. No one has said that since George W. Bush is president, he shouldn't be religious in his personal life; people have said that while acting in his capacity as president, he shouldn't endorse a particular religion (or religion at all). That doesn't just mean that he can't pass laws saying, "Christianity is the national religion"; it also means that when he delivers the State of the Union, he can't say, "Christianity is the best religion." The idea is that he's a private citizen when he's on vacation in his ranch in Texas, but he's the president when he's delivering a speech to the nation, and he has two different sets of rights and responsibilities in those circumstances. In the same way that a school can have a regulation that says that teachers should not speak obscenities while on the job, but that school can't say that teachers shouldn't speak obscenities at any time, the government has a regulation that says that government officials can't endorse a particular religion while on the job, but they can do whatever they want in their own time. This is very much in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 19:51
Profile
Homepage
It probably won't be long now before there will be far too many people chipping in for me to possibly respond to them all. Still, I'll do what I can. quote:I'm trying to boil this down. Let me know if I've got it wrong. It's okay for Bush to say something that not everyone agrees with, ala the Iraq War, just so long as it's public policy. However, while speaking as President, he is not allowed to say anything at all which is not a view held and endorsed officially by the US government. Would you then object to him saying that the way the Zimbabwe government treats its people is immoral? Or when he praised the Australian Prime Minister, saying that John Howard had "backbone", do you find that objectionable? As far as I am aware, the US government as a whole has no official position on the character of John Howard, or any purpose other than to govern those within its own borders (and thus no interest in Zimbabwe other than as a potential threat or as a trade partner). Or have I misunderstood completely? Because I think it's silly to demand that the President does not voice any of his personal opinions while on the job, especially when it's completely obvious which of the two, say, a prayer to God is. quote:Christian/Catholic? :confused: They aren't necessarily two different things, the latter is just a subset of the former. Why use that term? I have never understood what people mean when they say someone should keep his beliefs seperate from his policies. It makes no damn sense. If I believe that outlawing abortion infringes on a woman's rights, should I ignore that when I'm formulating abortion policy? If I believe that single mothers need help to be able to be effective as both workers and parents, should I ignore that when formulating welfare policy? Religious beliefs aren't really any different to any other type of belief. They're just an opinion on whether or not X is true. I'm not even going to respond to the examples you gave. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 20:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is an American thing; for peculiar historical and cultural reasons, lots of people over there don't really consider Catholics to be Christians. quote:The answer to this depends on whether you consider representative democracy to be an ideal in its own right or merely a useful practical approximation to direct democracy. In the former case, it's reasonable to suppose that provided a validly-elected President makes a bona fide effort to keep his election promises and follows the rules and procedures of his system of government, he can do whatever else he likes. In the latter case, on the other hand, the ideal President is one who holds no opinions at all, and merely attempts to reflect and balance the views of his constituency as accurately and fairly as possible. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 20:44
Profile
One situation is the president using his opinion or judgment to make decisions based on the constitution, democracy, current laws, and future needs of America in order to make this a free and structured environment. The other situation is the president expressing his opinions about his religious views, and what he feels God is or is not. Do you really see those two forms of opinion as the same thing? I'm trying not to be redundant, but the point remains that "freedom of religion" means that one is able to have free expression of their religious views, but they also have the right to not have the views of others forced on them. If someone needs to listen to the president's speech about the progress of the war they are forced to sit through a prayer and listen to numerous references about God throughout the president's speech. If the president is unable to separate his religious viewpoint from his job as a leader of a diverse population he will be inclined to make decisions based on his faith rather that what the people want, or what is in the best interest of the masses; abortion at any stage is baby killing because if it's fertilized it's a baby which has been given life by God, or medicinal marijuana should be illegal because getting stoned is evil even if someone is dying. [ Wednesday, August 03, 2005 20:49: Message edited by: Zaiu ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6068
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 20:55
Profile
Sorry to jump in... 1. I voted for Bush. More than foreign policy, I back him more on moral issues and problems back here. I think that Jack Kemp should be the Eternal Supreme Emperor of the Multiverse, though. 2. I flip-flopped on the war. I was one of the protesters, but now that I look back on it, it was more justified for other reasons people don't mention. I think we're almost done there, though. At the first sign of us pulling out, the Iraqi people will want to get a grip on their own country, which is the ultimate goal for Iraq, whether anyone wants to say it or not. This isn't just about their freedom, but about their independence, "teaching them to fish." -------------------- "Sometimes I get all hungry! And then I catch some flies! They fly into my webs! They are really yummy guys!" -Spider Posts: 209 | Registered: Monday, July 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 21:41
Profile
Homepage
How do you arrive at the conclusion that they should or want to fish the way Americans do? -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "Really, Spiderweb is just a big, steaming pool of estrogen." --- Robin Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, August 3 2005 23:03
Profile
They may not even have the same type of fish! I wouldn't wish bass fishing on any other nation. It would cause rioting, encourage terrorism, and cause more television coverage over this vile activity. My view of the man holding the office of president? He can't spell, he can't remember important facts, he damages the reputation of the country, he lies to the world, he invades foriegn countries, he lacks understanding, and he continues to be a hopeless failure in all his endeavours. It's no wonder if the world looks at the USA as a bunch of over-privileged morons. *this message sponsored by McCain/Bradley '08* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:05
Profile
Homepage
Saying that Bush is not allowed to follow his religion is a violation of the First Amendment. Even if it is at a public function. Sure, he's going to do a little acting upon his faith, but you must remember that he was elected into office by a majority. Kerry, who probably was not as religious as Bush, was given equal opportunity to be elected. He's the man we have, and those of you that don't like can look forward to 2008. :P -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:23
Profile
quote:John Kerry is a Catholic. A weekly church goer. I am hoping that most people voted for reasons other than religious ones. *this message wonders how don't ask don't tell policies became so hypocritical* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:26
Profile
Homepage
So you're saying that Kerry would also have prayed before his speeches and implemented Biblical moral values into his agenda? -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:38
Profile
What you seem to regard as faith, Ben, is called fanaticism elsewhere. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, he would have recognized that Church and State are two separate institutions that must not be mingled. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "Really, Spiderweb is just a big, steaming pool of estrogen." --- Robin Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 14:52
Profile
Homepage
Yet another reason to vote for Bush. *runs away, his 1900th post bagged* -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 15:03
Profile
Have you read the discussion so far, Ben? I have commented on what you are saying, but I suppose I reiterate. I can respect that his religion wants him spread the word, and as I have already said I don't have a problem with him praying in public. When he is speaking on behalf of the American government he not an individual, but rather the face of the institution. You seem to assume that president is just like any other person, but he's not. He does have freedom of speech, but there are obviously quite a few things that would be considered inappropriate for him to say. Ben, do you understand that keeping church and state separate is in the constitution, and what he is doing is violating people's liberty? Yes, the majority did vote for him, and yes, the majority is Christian/Catholic; does that mean that the minority has no rights and should be forced to endure the majority's morals because they were out voted? [ Thursday, August 04, 2005 15:05: Message edited by: Zaiu ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 15:07
Profile
Let him be. It's not his love of God that makes him act as he does, it's his deep fear of hell. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 15:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. quote:Surely not this? [quote]I'm trying not to be redundant, but the point remains that "freedom of religion" means that one is able to have free expression of their religious views, but they also have the right to not have the views of others forced on them. If someone needs to listen to the president's speech about the progress of the war they are forced to sit through a prayer and listen to numerous references about God throughout the president's speech.[/quote]And politicians never ever waffle unnecessarily about anything else. [quote]If the president is unable to separate his religious viewpoint from his job as a leader of a diverse population he will be inclined to make decisions based on his faith rather that what the people want, or what is in the best interest of the masses; abortion at any stage is baby killing because if it's fertilized it's a baby which has been given life by God, or medicinal marijuana should be illegal because getting stoned is evil even if someone is dying.[/quote]This is an invalid point, as neither of those points has much to do with Christianity. The Bible does not say that abortion is wrong, or that life begins at conception. It just says "Don't kill" - and you don't need to be a Christian to believe that killing is wrong. And it also has nothing to say about drugs, as far as I'm aware. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 15:14
Profile
The worst part of Bush aren't his religious views and aren't his patriotic statements. The thing which really bothers me most about Bush is his complete lack of business ethics, social policy failures, and awful environmental record. Bush feeds from the public trough like no other president I have ever seen. He holds closed door meetings with giant oil companies, awards massive government contracts to companies which he still has direct contacts with while still in office, creates energy and social policies designed to enrich companies which donated to his campaigns. We are spending more money on private contractors in government than any other time in history. Where are the ethics involved in Enron, Halliburton, ADM and other company which he smiles at and gives away huge handouts to. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 15:16
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote: -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
