Our President

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Our President
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #75
quote:
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?
This was in response to the below more than anything else, but my point was that religious beliefs are not an option that should be involved in any decision making as president in respect to what happens (or doesn't happen) with American policies.

quote:

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.

--------------------------------------------------
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.



--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Erudite*
Member # 3042
Profile #76
About George Bush praying in front of everyone before speeches... It seems to me like he just did it to draw attention to the fact that yes, he is a Christian and that "God supports him". More than anything, he was probably just doing it to gain further support from Christians who support him no matter what simply because he is a Christian. Bush should have prayed when he was alone, so as to keep it between him and God, instead of trying to bring the American population into it.

To those defending Bush's decision to pray in public, have you not read Matthew 6: 5-6?

--------------------
Chance Forums

I was once member #2475, but then my account was deleted because of a bug.
Post count = 406 + whatever it says below.
Posts: 402 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #77
quote:
Originally written by xxo:

About George Bush praying in front of everyone before speeches... It seems to me like he just did it to draw attention to the fact that yes, he is a Christian and that "God supports him". More than anything, he was probably just doing it to gain further support from Christians who support him no matter what simply because he is a Christian. Bush should have prayed when he was alone, so as to keep it between him and God, instead of trying to bring the American population into it.

To those defending Bush's decision to pray in public, have you not read Matthew 6: 5-6?

I don't disagree with you at all here. I'm not defending his decision to pray publicly, I'm defending his right to pray publicly.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #78
And I agree that he should be able to pray publicly, but why does he have to do it when he is conveying messages that are supposed to be coming from our government? Is he saying that our government is Christian?

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #79
I can't say what his motivation is, but I don't particularly care. If you're going to ban him from praying you're also going to have to ban him from complimenting John Howard, because not all Americans will agree with his assessment of the man.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #80
John Howard exists, and Bush would be commenting on another politician. Arguably the whole concept of God may or may not be a mere matter of opinion.

Religion tends to be a sensitive issue for people, and most people don't like being told that what they believe is wrong, or be preached to. I just find it inappropriate when the president repeatedly says like…

"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal. (School) districts ought to be allowed to post the Ten Commandments, no matter what a person's religion is."
-- GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa, Jan. 16, 2000

"Our priorities is our faith."
-- Greensboro, North Carolina, Oct. 10, 2000

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state."
-- Speaking to reporters, Jan. 29, 2001

"All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil."
-- Remarks by President George W. Bush to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism
November 6, 2001

"Americans understand we fight not a religion; ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil."
--President George W. Bush Remarks by the President to Airline Employees O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois September 27, 2001

I guess Bush has the inside tip on what is "evil".

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #81
Ash, I request that you demonstrate that you're not trolling by responding to my earlier post.

[ Thursday, August 04, 2005 18:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #82
Food for thought: to those of you saying that Bush shouldn't have prayed before his speech, what do you actually mean? Simply that it was inappropriate for him to do so and he should have known that, or that it should actually be illegal for him to do so? If the latter, what penalty do you consider appropriate for such an action?

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #83
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

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.

While I didn't reply directly to you, I thought I more or less covered that point in the course of replying to Dolphin.

quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

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.



--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #84
Thuryl, I certainly don't think it should be illegal, but rather added to the list of things that are somewhat inappropriate. An example would that the president is unlikely to comment on whether he finds homosexuality to be morally acceptable or not. He is also unlikely to make comments involving racial or gender stereotypes.

It certainly isn't illegal for him to discuss what he ate for dinner last night, or what color his pajamas are, but for some reason he doesn't feel like mentioning those aspects of his personal life before each State of the Union. Why should his religious beliefs be any different?

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #85
quote:
Originally written by Zaiu:

It certainly isn't illegal for him to discuss what he ate for dinner last night, or what color his pajamas are, but for some reason he doesn't feel like mentioning those aspects of his personal life before each State of the Union. Why should his religious beliefs be any different?
You and I both know that the answer to your question is that talking about his pyjamas wouldn't win him any votes.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #86
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

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.
No, no, no, not at all. This is a complete misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what I'm saying. He is not allowed to say that which is specifically prohibited. Endorsing a particular religion is specifically prohibited. Other things are specifically prohibited, too; lying comes to mind. But he can voice whatever opinions that he wants, as long as those opinions don't cross the lines set out by the Constitution and the basic interpretations thereof.

EDIT: And I don't think it should be a felony, but dammit, I'd like to be able to slap him with a fine equivalent to a speeding ticket or something. If you can't justify your policies except with religion, your policies have no place in government.

[ Thursday, August 04, 2005 20:06: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
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
Profile Homepage #87
quote:
Originally written by Zaiu:

John Howard exists, and Bush would be commenting on another politician. Arguably the whole concept of God may or may not be a mere matter of opinion.
I love that second sentence - it's almost entirely made of qualifiers. :P

I'm afraid I haven't managed to grab the distinction you're trying to draw here, though. If Bush expresses an opinion about Howard (he's ballsy) and he expresses an opinion about God (he exists), why is the one permissible and not the other?

[quote]Religion tends to be a sensitive issue for people, and most people don't like being told that what they believe is wrong, or be preached to.[/quote]Sure. But how do you ban a politician from doing that and not ban him from expressing other opinions without being inconsistent?

[quote]I just find it inappropriate when the president repeatedly says like…

"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal. (School) districts ought to be allowed to post the Ten Commandments, no matter what a person's religion is."
-- GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa, Jan. 16, 2000

"Our priorities is our faith."
-- Greensboro, North Carolina, Oct. 10, 2000

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state."
-- Speaking to reporters, Jan. 29, 2001

"All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil."
-- Remarks by President George W. Bush to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism
November 6, 2001

"Americans understand we fight not a religion; ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil."
--President George W. Bush Remarks by the President to Airline Employees O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois September 27, 2001

I guess Bush has the inside tip on what is "evil".
[/quote]I dislike it when anyone defends a position I disagree with using stupid arguments (e.g. quote 1 - while that might be an argument for including One Commandment, the same doesn't necessarily hold true for the other nine). I don't think it has anything to do with religion. Regardless, while it would be nice to outlaw being a complete tool, it wouldn't exactly be right.

Without context I'm not really able to comment on 2 and 3.

Don't know what your problem is with 4 and 5... if mass murder of innocent civilians doesn't qualify as "evil", I'm not sure what does.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

No, no, no, not at all. This is a complete misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what I'm saying. He is not allowed to say that which is specifically prohibited. Endorsing a particular religion is specifically prohibited. Other things are specifically prohibited, too; lying comes to mind. But he can voice whatever opinions that he wants, as long as those opinions don't cross the lines set out by the Constitution and the basic interpretations thereof.

EDIT: And I don't think it should be a felony, but dammit, I'd like to be able to slap him with a fine equivalent to a speeding ticket or something. If you can't justify your policies except with religion, your policies have no place in government.

I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?

Do you think it is consistent for endorsing a particular religion to be specifically prohibited (leaving aside whether it actually is, for now) and endorsing a particular colour of pyjamas not to be?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #89
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?
We've covered this ground before.

quote:
Do you think it is consistent for endorsing a particular religion to be specifically prohibited (leaving aside whether it actually is, for now) and endorsing a particular colour of pyjamas not to be?
In a perfect world, I'd also like to be able to slap a fine on him if he mentioned something horribly irrelevant, like PJs.

However, yes, I do think it's consistent, and I think it's obvious why. Is your religion more important to you than the PJs that you wear?

--------------------
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
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #90
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

I love that second sentence - it's almost entirely made of qualifiers. :P
^________^

quote:
I'm afraid I haven't managed to grab the distinction you're trying to draw here, though. If Bush expresses an opinion about Howard (he's ballsy) and he expresses an opinion about God (he exists), why is the one permissible and not the other?
Commenting on another person is a bit different than commenting on something that he is speculating on its existence. Unless he can prove there is a God he is telling inane stories before each speech.
(Note this has nothing to do with my beliefs either way.)

quote:
Sure. But how do you ban a politician from doing that and not ban him from expressing other opinions without being inconsistent?
Some opinions are relevant to his job, and others are not.

------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?
It is an example that he is unable to separate the two thought processes.

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #91
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

If you can't justify your policies except with religion, your policies have no place in government.
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

We've covered this ground before.
:confused:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

In a perfect world, I'd also like to be able to slap a fine on him if he mentioned something horribly irrelevant, like PJs.

However, yes, I do think it's consistent, and I think it's obvious why. Is your religion more important to you than the PJs that you wear?

Fair enough. But he can't mention evolution or the Holocaust.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #92
Ash, in what way does the Holocaust or evolution constitute religion? I've only said that he cannot endorse religion from his position as a political leader.

Do you want to discuss the reasoning behind this position or clarify the outcome of the reasoning (i.e. what he can and can't talk about)? I was under the impression that it was the latter. If we're talking about the former, say so.

EDIT: And if the former, ask yourself first if you really need to try to clarify either why separation of church and state is a good thing in its own right or why a political figure acting in his position as leader endorsing a particular religion violates separation of church and state.

[ Thursday, August 04, 2005 20:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
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
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #93
Separation of church and state arose as an issue for colonists because the head of the anglican church was also the king of the country. It allowed the king to punish people who didn't follow or support his policies with various tools of religion to enforce his secular views. The handful of men that put together the declaration of independence did not think it was just that their souls be in danger because of their political views.

Excommunication from the church was a very real fear for a rebellous colonist, and it was well within the power of the king to make that happen. The question here, about Prez Junior, is one of propriety. The US may be predominantly christian, but it also has adherents to many other religions. Each of those religions is equal in the eye of the law (umm maybe not the IRS though) and adherents to each faith have the right to expect that their president does not espouse one particular religion over another. It is fine for Georgie Bush to pray, hell he can pray, whirl like a Dervish, or make a pilgrimage to Mecca for all I care.

The point is, that when a person is representing something larger than oneself, it is imperative to act that role. Our little monkey-man is not respecting the office of the presidency, the supreme court, or the american people when he utters words of faith in conjunction with words of government policy.

This is exactly the same as the ruling against prayer in public schools. No prayer as it may exclude people of other religions.

I wonder what people would be thinking if a Moslem sat in the Oval Office. Would it be okay for him to drop to the rug at sundown in the middle of a news conference? I suspect that the Moslem would have the dignity to schedule events accordingly, and that the American people would demand that of him/her.

*this message funded by the salem match company*
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Ash, in what way does the Holocaust or evolution constitute religion? I've only said that he cannot endorse religion from his position as a political leader.
Well, I could make a case about the latter. However, that would be missing the point.

quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

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.
God = Important to those who believe in him, an annoying popular myth to those who don't.

Holocaust = Important to those who believe in it, an annoying popular myth to those who don't.

If Bush has to be sensitive to those who don't believe in God, does he have to be sensitive to those who don't believe in the Holocaust?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #95
quote:
Originally written by Zaiu:

Commenting on another person is a bit different than commenting on something that he is speculating on its existence. Unless he can prove there is a God he is telling inane stories before each speech.
(Note this has nothing to do with my beliefs either way.)

Does he have to prove that the world exists and isn't just an illusion created in his mind by the Matrix before he comments on Iraq? If not, why not?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #96
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Does he have to prove that the world exists and isn't just an illusion created in his mind by the Matrix before he comments on Iraq? If not, why not?
The world (Earth and the creatures that dwell on it) is tangible, God is not.

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #97
That doesn't prove it exists.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #98
It does for most people :P

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #99
Well, in America, most people are also satisfied that God exists. :P

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00

Pages