Our President
Pages
| Author | Topic: Our President |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 22:42
Profile
Perhaps, but what tangible evidence is there of the existence of God? Surely one can prove that God is at least as real as the earth. Edit: fix [ Thursday, August 04, 2005 22:44: Message edited by: Zaiu ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 22:58
Profile
Homepage
Sure you can. There's no proof of either. Thus they are just as real as each other. :P EDIT: For clarification. If you're seeking to prove the existence of God, there's no point looking for tangibile evidence unless you can first prove that tangibility itself exists - otherwise you're doing nothing different than those who say "Of course God exists - the Bible says so!". Naturally it's not human nature to refuse to believe something until we have absolute proof - but that's not what you were asking. :D [ Thursday, August 04, 2005 23:28: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, August 4 2005 23:00
Profile
Homepage
Ash, at this point, you're clearly just fouling up the conversation, so I don't think there's any point in my answering your arguments. -------------------- 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 Thursday, August 4 2005 23:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Huh? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 00:34
Profile
Homepage
I think the debate (if you do want to call it that) is spiralling into irrelevant arguments and a quick dialogue of short responses that lead nowhere. God's existence is a matter of philosophy and maybe theology, but neither a matter of politics nor religion (religion just assumes God exists and does not need to back that up). When arguing for Bush's right/obligation/decision to show his religion, we need to distinguish two things. His policies, and his prayers. 1. Praying in public is a non-political issue. Some people have idiosyncrasies - I need to walk around while making a presentation, for instance. It is an indication of someone's character (it tells I am nervous about speaking in public). But it does not harm anyone. However, it is perfectly justified to vote accordingly. You can draw conclusions from his behavior, and use it to judge what kind of leader he would make if elected. (Personally, I'm ready to go with this. If he wants to pray in public, he's fine, but in my opinion he's showing off his faith, which is a character fault). 2. His Policies, and his official statements. quote:(The actual quote by Bush refers to "strict constructionists", which has another meaning, but has been used by Bush to refer to religious conservatives.) There is a difference between praying (which is his right) and using his political sway to promote his religion. By appointing conservative judges, he does this. -------------------- 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. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 02:50
Profile
I'm not sure why, and its very surprising, but no one here seems to fully grasp the idea of Separation of Church and State. Although Freedom of Religion is a principle deeply rooted in U.S. History and Culture, it has very little to do with the aforementioned democratic ideal. When Bush speaks to the people of the United States, he is the representative of that nation's government. As such, he CANNOT endorse a religion, not because it may alienate some of his constituents, but because religion, in its developed form, is naturally undemocratic. By praying while on the job, Bush suggests the U.S. government is one of God's peons. This is not only wrong, but an insult to demcoracy in its entirety. A democratic government serves neither God nor Devil. It is a direct construct of the people and so, only serves the people. The moment religion is directly integrated, to a level of any effect, in a government, the government can no longer, in principle, be called democratic. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 03:06
Profile
Homepage
Kelandon, there's no need to repeatedly reply to tell us all why you're not replying. If you can't say anything nice... quote:Not that it's a view that I personally endorse, but there are plenty of people who'd say that too much democracy can be just as bad as too little; that it's neither necessary nor desirable for a government to be completely democratic. [ Friday, August 05, 2005 03:09: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 03:14
Profile
That's why we elect parties to govern as they see best, while we have our say only in very important issues. -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 03:26
Profile
quote:What do you mean by completely democratic? As in mobrule? Although I would contend that is more of an expansive oligarchy, I can see where this viewpoint comes from. I don't, however, get what this has to do with my post. Please explain. Actually, now that I think of it, I can't seem to think of any examples of a nation in a state of "complete democracy" (unless you are referring to direct democracy, which is another matter alltogether) that is not in essence an autocracy. Take, for example, the well-known French Revolution. It began as a democratic endeavour, but rapidly turned into an authoritarian fiasco. Is this what you mean by completely democratic, or am I just not understanding? Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 03:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, it's not what I mean; it's a view that I've commonly seen among Republicans. Essentially, the argument is that the American government is not and never was meant to represent the views of the people -- that elections are simply a way of making sure that bad governments are removed from power, and the fact that they favour governments that promise to do what the people want them to do is merely an unfortunate side effect. These are the kind of people who say "America is a republic, not a democracy, and it's a good thing that's the case". Some basically regard "democracy" and "mob rule" as synonymous. I'd probably better leave it to someone who actually supports this argument to explain it, because I don't think I'm doing a very good job of it. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 04:14
Profile
quote:I would guess that this view has something to do with the specifics of the electoral college. Since that representatives can vote any way they please, in conformance with or in violation of the popular vote, it can be argued that they are more informed of the needs of the union than the common man. Even if the founding fathers intended this, it seems rather archaic. quote:This, I don't get. quote:Well the first part of this sentence, if I'm not mistaken, would deal with mainly with the amount of participation in the U.S., and furthermore how well informed the common man is. Whether the productivity of the union should be held over the individual is another matter entirely. quote:Really? I don't think I've even heard of this argument before now. You wouldn't happen to know of any places where I could read up on this particular outlook, would you? Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 04:18
Profile
Homepage
1) Why can't a president's religious views shape his policy decisions? Everyone has formed opinions based on their beliefs (religious and not), and each is as valid as the other. This is one reason that there are checks and balances and debates where each side presents their rationale. Most issues will leave one side feeling shafted. 2) Dolphin, I'm also confused by your objections to Bush stating that we're "not fighting Islam, we're fighting evil." -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 04:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:Read a few Republican or libertarian blogs and you'll come across it soon enough. Actually, just googling the phrase "a republic, not a democracy" produces a fair number of interesting results along the appropriate lines. Some of them seem really weird, but that's kind of the point. Note that by no means do I claim that such views are predominant among Republicans (they hardly could be, since most people who vote for mainstream political parties haven't thought about the issues deeply enough to encounter such ideas). However, they do represent a significant conservative viewpoint. [ Friday, August 05, 2005 05:03: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 09:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's really a trap statement. The way he says "Evil" (as in "Axis of Evil") is too binary to be of any worth. The Evil he speaks of has a meaning in fantasy settings, but not in reality. If he said the opposite however, he'd be bummed as much or worse. Not that that isn't his fault of course. He should just stop using that idiotic E-word. It is currently overused in US politics anyway. If he spoke neither of Islam nor Evil, but - as would be more accurate - "people perverting and falsifying the Islamic faith to promote their own agenda", people would be less riled up. But then again, if he said that he might draw too much attention to the question whether he is not doing the exact same thing to the Christian faith. :rolleyes: [ Friday, August 05, 2005 09:14: Message edited by: Aranfoolcaytar ] -------------------- 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. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 10:15
Profile
quote::nods: This is exactly why I object to him using the term "evil" so often. When he calls something "evil" he means "not with God". Evil does not exist outside of religious ideology or moral objection. Yes, these days it's used in somewhat more general terms, but it stems from religious doctrine. Evil is a myth, and the same kind of people that are thought of as "evil" may very well just be mentally ill. It is another example of Bush being unable to separate is religious views from his job as president. This seems to be the way America is going, but it goes against the ideals this country was founded on. [ Friday, August 05, 2005 10:19: Message edited by: Zaiu ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 10:26
Profile
Homepage
I think perhaps what I was saying before was unclear. If he prays during the State of the Union, this is a problem. If he prays beforehand, off-camera or at least on only a few CNN and C-SPAN cameras, then I don't care. Drakey, with regard to 1: if he can't justify it without religion, then it's useless. (It also probably means that he's not being inventive enough — virtually anything that can be phrased in religious terms can also be phrased in terms of "defending the public health" or "protecting the integrity of national security." If anything, what annoys me is the conscious effort to phrase things in terms of "God" and "moral values" that really don't need to be phrased that way.) Religious opinions are different from other opinions, because they are inherently without conclusive evidence. Saying, "I think this tax plan will economically benefit more people than that tax plan" is fundamentally different from saying "I think that this law will make this country more obedient to God than that law." The latter can be tested and verified. The former cannot. I don't mind if a person comes to a conclusion based on religion, but I do mind if that person argues it on the basis of religion. -------------------- 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 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 11:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:So what word would you use to describe people who measure their success by number of women and children they kill? Bush said exactly what you wanted him to say: "we are not fighting Islam [we have nothing aganst Muslims in general], we are fighting evil ["people perverting and falsifying the Islamic faith to promote their own agenda" and measuring their success in number of civilians they murder]" Which part of that statement do you find objectionable? -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 12:46
Profile
Homepage
No, evil is the wrong word. It implies that they identify themselves as Evil, that they pursue an evil objective. But what these people want is not what makes them wrong. What they do to accomplish it is. It boils down to it that Evil is depicted as an institution, an Entity. Fighting against Evil conjures an image of someone battling with a dark, sinister figure. This figure does not exist. It is similar to "War on Terrorism" ("War on Terror" is just ridiculous) - "Terrorism" is a strategy. A despicable strategy if we want to get into value judgements, but not an institution. You cannot fight Terrorism - you can only prevent people from using it. Hint: Killing the people that use it won't work. Okay, maybe you got me. Perhaps "Evil" is not the word I'm objecting against. "Fighting" is. [ Friday, August 05, 2005 12:49: Message edited by: Aranfoolcaytar ] -------------------- 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. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 14:18
Profile
Homepage
It was a sound bite, you know. You can't really expect it to distill all the complexities of the issue into a single sentence. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 16:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:I agree that it's an irrelevant point. However, it's one that Dolphin brought up as an objection to Bush's actions. Whether or not it's a good argument is beside the point - it's her argument and I was attempting to persuade her to abandon it by exposing the inherent flaws (I could have attempted to demonstrate that it was irrelevant, but I thought it would be easier to attack the logic of the argument itself). [quote]When arguing for Bush's right/obligation/decision to show his religion, we need to distinguish two things. His policies, and his prayers. 1. Praying in public is a non-political issue. Some people have idiosyncrasies - I need to walk around while making a presentation, for instance. It is an indication of someone's character (it tells I am nervous about speaking in public). But it does not harm anyone. However, it is perfectly justified to vote accordingly. You can draw conclusions from his behavior, and use it to judge what kind of leader he would make if elected.[/quote]This is how I regard prayers during/before speeches. [quote](Personally, I'm ready to go with this. If he wants to pray in public, he's fine, but in my opinion he's showing off his faith, which is a character fault).[/quote]Agreed. I've never been comfortable with "horizontal prayer" personally. I think he probably means what he says - but he does it publicly to promote the image of a pious, Godly leader and therefore to get the Christian vote. I'd say there's more to object to from a religious viewpoint than a political one. [quote]2. His Policies, and his official statements. quote:(The actual quote by Bush refers to "strict constructionists", which has another meaning, but has been used by Bush to refer to religious conservatives.) There is a difference between praying (which is his right) and using his political sway to promote his religion. By appointing conservative judges, he does this.[/quote]I'm suspicious of anything that rephrases someone else's words. I'm also somewhat confused here. How are judges picked normally? Is it unusual for Presidents to appoint judges that hold similar views to themselves, or are people objecting because the similar views are religious in this case? PS: Kel, you can't just take a swipe at me and carry on like nothing happened. Could you please either offer some sort of apology or explain why you think I'm fouling up the conversation? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 17:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'd say, however, that terrorism is evil or, if you want, inspired by evil. Apparently all these suicide bombings and such aren't inspired by God. About this praying in public, and the verse in Matthew, it's not good to pray in public just so you can be noticed by everyone else as "more righteous". That's self-worship. So Bush shouldn't pray, like, during his speech in from of the whole nation, but there's nothing against him praying a little before his speech or in the White House because it's a government building. Though one could argue he has a right to pray even during speeches, but then again, that can get annoying for non-Christians. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 18:02
Profile
Homepage
Heck, it could easily get annoying for Christians. It would annoy me if I was an American. But I still think he has a right to do so if he so chooses. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Friday, August 5 2005 18:57
Profile
I don't care if he says a prayer a few minutes before going up and making a speech while in public, and a few nosey reporters happen to see him and put it on TV. I just find it annoying for him pray at the podium with government seals and American flags for all to see, and constantly mentioning his religious beliefs within the speech it self. This insinuates that the government supports his ideals, as he is their representative. As I previously said, I don't think it should be illegal, but I feel he is a tool and a hypocrite for doing so. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 12:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, for the most part, he is. :cool: -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 12:06
Profile
Isn't he more of a figurehead than a representative? Or do I not understand what each of these things mean? -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
