News Our President is delusional, does that bother anyone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kcballer21
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around President George W. Bush's claims of divine guidance in his decision to invade Iraq, as reported by Palestinian ministers. Participants express skepticism about the authenticity of Bush's statements, debating whether he genuinely believes he communicates with God, uses this belief as a political tool, or is delusional. Many criticize the moral implications of claiming divine justification for military actions that resulted in significant civilian casualties, questioning how such actions align with the notion of ending tyranny. The conversation also touches on Bush's shifting stance on the Palestinian statehood issue, suggesting opportunism rather than genuine concern for peace. The dialogue reflects broader frustrations with Bush's presidency, including his handling of the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and highlights a perceived disconnect between his rhetoric and the realities on the ground. Overall, the thread conveys a deep disillusionment with Bush's leadership and the consequences of his policies in the Middle East.
  • #51
Isn't that equivalent to being a Republican?
No. In all fairness to the Republicans (and I have many friends and colleagues who are conservative or Republican or both), Bush does not represent the majority of Republicans. He became president through connections, but I know that many Republicans regret that he is now president.

And we have 3 years, 3 months and 12 days (total 1200 days) left in his presidency.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
So why does the Republican Party systematically choose leaders like him, William Bennett and a host of others like them, then?

Bill Clinton does an extra-marital wiggle that he is uncomfortable about admitting to the general public, and that is supposed to be comparable to the actions and beliefs of a gang that includes many probable, and also, several convicted, criminals?

GOP is rotten to its core.
 
  • #53
Astronuc said:
No. In all fairness to the Republicans (and I have many friends and colleagues who are conservative or Republican or both), Bush does not represent the majority of Republicans. He became president through connections, but I know that many Republicans regret that he is now president.

And we have 3 years, 3 months and 12 days (total 1200 days) left in his presidency.

But who's counting?

Bush is almost an official Lame Duck. Any attack here in the States will show the remaining 40% who support Bush how incompetent that man(and his administration) really is. The uber conservative talking heads are jumping the sinking ship like rats. Bush's brain is doing his absolute best to avoid an indictment(testifying in the 25th hour to a Grand Jury is akin to falling to ones knees and begging to not be indicted). Bush's picks for the SC have been less than the conservative masses had hoped for. "C'mon just trust me (911,911 Bin Laden,Al Quaeda)" has lost its luster. Well, I could go on, but no need right.
 
  • #54
faust9 said:
But who's counting?

Bush is almost an official Lame Duck. Any attack here in the States will show the remaining 40% who support Bush how incompetent that man(and his administration) really is. The uber conservative talking heads are jumping the sinking ship like rats. Bush's brain is doing his absolute best to avoid an indictment(testifying in the 25th hour to a Grand Jury is akin to falling to ones knees and begging to not be indicted). Bush's picks for the SC have been less than the conservative masses had hoped for. "C'mon just trust me (911,911 Bin Laden,Al Quaeda)" has lost its luster. Well, I could go on, but no need right.
In view of everything, I find 40% to be an astronomical percentage. Understand that these people think McCain is too liberal. These folks would still support Bush even if we were attacked again. The one thing that is really disappointing this faction is that Bush didn't pick a known fundamentalist for the SC. Amazing.
 
  • #55
So why does the Republican Party systematically choose leaders like him, William Bennett and a host of others like them, then?
Well some of those leaders are members of the Republican Party. Bennet and a few others have been side-lined. Politics in the US can be very confusing. :biggrin: More so at the moment.

Bill Clinton does an extra-marital wiggle that he is uncomfortable about admitting to the general public, and that is supposed to be comparable to the actions and beliefs of a gang that includes many probable, and also, several convicted, criminals?
And he handed the Republicans an opportunity. The Republican-controlled Congress went after him. It was pay back for defeating Bush senior in 1992. They should have been focused on al-Qaida.

Gore and Kerry both failed to provide a compelling reason to vote for them. They turned off as many people as Bush did. Almost a third of elligible voters did not want Gore or Kerry, or Bush.

GOP is rotten to its core.
I wouldn't go that far, but parts of it certainly are. And so are parts of the Democratic party. Too few people are chasing too much money in either case.

We need a strong third alternative, until they start chasing the money. :rolleyes:
 
  • #56
You need more than a third alternative.
 
  • #57
arildno said:
So why does the Republican Party systematically choose leaders like him, William Bennett and a host of others like them, then?
You should look at the primary results from 2000. I don't think the party chose him, or the electorate, ever.

McCain was ahead. Then Rove started slinging mud at McCain and there are anomalies among counties in the South Carolina primary correlated with voting equipment used.

And after that Bush eventually got the nomination.

When McCain received a blow-out victory in the New Hampshire primary and proceeded to rack-up victories in several other New England states and the open primary in Michigan, he seemed well on his way to the nomination. When the South Carolina primary came, however, he was soundly defeated by Bush. Many credited this to the fact that it was the first primary in which only registered Republicans could vote, which negated McCain's strong advantage among Independents. Others, including the vast majority of McCain's supporters, blamed it on a campaign of push polls, smear tactics, and numerous other dirty tricks perpetrated against him by his political enemies. Although no evidence was ever found linking these activities to Bush or any member of his campaign, most members of the press and the general public seemed to believe that they were work of Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager and a man with a history of such "indiscretions."

Whatever the real reason for it, McCain's loss in South Carolina stopped his momentum cold. Although McCain won a few additional primaries, Bush took the majority and, with the support of the party's superdelegates, handily won the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

No, of course it isn't proof of vote fraud. I think it is an indication of sorts, however, that Bush wasn't "picked" by the republican party. or if he was, it was by only a handful within the party.

Of course, I don't trust the man and come into any of these discussions with a bias of "he stole it, it seems obvious."
 
  • #58
Gokul43201 said:
From USAToday, April 2003 : http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm



Slate article by Stephen Waldman,editor in chief of beliefnet.com , Sept 2004 : http://slate.msn.com/id/2106590
I'll end with a slightly, though often, misquoted statement attributed to Professor of Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz.

When you talk to God, you’re praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
–Thomas Szasz, M.D.


Yes president Bush is a Christian. This is hard to follow after 8 years of Clinton/Gore, people have trouble seeing a president who actually belongs to a Christian church doing what comes naturally, praying and being a Christian.

Perhaps people assumed the president should be an adulterous, lying, crooked scam artist? Clintons affairs were his personal business, any adultery? we forgive him, that's between him and his wife. Lying? hey its okay to tell lies, if you need to. Lying under oath to a grand jury? Its really ones first amendment right to free speech. Being a scam artist? Hey all politicians are crooks.

But wait, I am confused, people on the left seem ...upset? that Bush is a "liar" and not your average scam artist, but the mastermind for overthrowing other nations against their will, illegally. Unless there is a double standard, democrats should be endorsing president Bush.

Its okay for a Christian to perceive that God wants them to do this/that. But in context, Christians do not have the ability to say "God spoke to me and said (name), you tell the people I said to... " then rattle off some long sacerdotal instruction. That kind of message from God ONLY came to the writers of Scripture and to select historical figures, all such messages stopped about 2000 years ago. If any new messages like that came along? We would be required to add them to the Bible. but read what it says about adding anything? Its probably in your bible in the last page of Revelation.

You might hear a "self proclaimed prophet" claim to hear from God. But they have a problem with authenticity. There are NO Apostles of Christ walking the Earth in 2005, those Apostles were personally appointed by Christ and had to have seen the physically resurrected Christ on Earth 2000 years ago. There is no official office of "prophet" in the Christian church. What is there to add? Hebrews 4 makes the bold assertion that Scripture is Gods living word, saying its not writing in a book, but the Scripture is active and alive and sharper than any 2 edged sword, able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. Okay, so no prophets in 2005 as of yesterday;

Who ever claims "prophecy" ? Hopefully has good intentions, but many of those are cultists who have to deny that its all written, its all done. They have to claim to get new words from God, put the bible down, its obsolete, just listen to me as the supreme ruler, etc and the cult organizes around the claim.

President Bush CAN claim that God put him as president. Its a declaration God made in Old Testament times, God puts ALL world leaders into power and can cause them to fall. Notice also, Bush said he believed God "wanted" him to be president. He didnt say: "thus and lo verily thine words of my stock broker in the sky, the Lord, hath fallen upon thy servant whilst he was shaving near the dawn and watching thine financial show CNBC, yea the Lord spoketh unto me, audibly in the time of commercial break, saying..."

So nothing our Christian president has said or done in this context is in any way shape or form out of the ordinary. Those who pursue it relentlessly, do so likewise to pursue an Aquatic Fowl.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Brad_1234 - Many politicians are religious, as are many Americans who oppose Bush, because he crossed the line in his beliefs, and misuses religion to his end. He has dismissed fact and endangered our nation because he believes God guides him, and worse he has used powerful, emotional religious beliefs to manipulate voters. If you are a believer, you are familiar with the scriptures regarding false prophets. He will talk with God--on judgment day.
 
  • #60
Brad_1234 said:
Yes president Bush is a Christian. This is hard to follow after 8 years of Clinton/Gore, people have trouble seeing a president who actually belongs to a Christian church doing what comes naturally, praying and being a Christian.
Like I said before, it's one thing to pray to a God and an entirely different thing to claim that you are the chosen vehicle through which God liberates or punishes man.
 
  • #61
Brad_1234 said:
Yes president Bush is a Christian. This is hard to follow after 8 years of Clinton/Gore, people have trouble seeing a president who actually belongs to a Christian church doing what comes naturally, praying and being a Christian.
Brad1234:
Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with your morality, although you and many Christians have the utterly disgusting and immoral habit of insinuating just that.

Advice to you:
Get rid of your "holier than thou" attitude, and become a moral person.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
arildno said:
Brad1234:
Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with your morality, although you and many other Christians have the utterly disgusting and immoral habit of insinuating just that.

Advice to you:
Get rid of your "holier than thou" attitude, and become a moral person.

back to the fundamentals: define morality?
 
  • #63
deckart said:
back to the fundamentals: define morality?
To contribute to your own and other humans' happiness.
 
  • #64
kcballer21 said:
Sounds very familiar to me! I think I heard the same thing before. :rolleyes:
(I'm doing my best not to laugh) I donn't know why his God didn't tell any of us that he's asked him to invade Iraq.
You know it always happens: whenever people aren't satisfied with a politician's performance , s/he usually brings up this one "God told me to do that. It's what religion says...". And that's why there's always a close relation btw politics and religion! If you study the history of slavery, you would find more examples "The bible want us to have slaves".
Anyway if that was God who told Bush to invade Iraq, I wouldn't believe in that God anymore.
 
  • #65
Brad_1234 said:
Yes president Bush is a Christian.
Perhaps in name, but not in deed. Therefore I would not consider him to be a Christian, because he does not follow the teachings of Christ.
 
  • #66
That Bush is a religious man is not groundbreaking, even in comparison to recent presidents (Jimmy Carter taught Sunday School, etc.). The questions to ask are:

1) Does he cross the line between separation of church and state? (One clue - Have you heard of his faith-based initiatives?)

2) Is he a president of all Americans? He speaks about religion more often, and more openly than most of his predecessors. To speak frequently and directly about religion in a divided America can itself be divisive. As an agnostic, how can I feel he represents me? Worse, he has catered to special interests.

Of course Bush is careful of what he says in public, but those in the know, know and are not so prudent. They talk as if he has the mandate of heaven. “The Lord has just blessed him,” said Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network. “I think President Bush is God's man at this hour,” said Tim Goeglein, of the White House Office of Public Liaison, soon after the September 11th attacks.

Obviously it helped him to be reelected.

3) Does he act in the best interest of his country, or does his personal beliefs interfere in good judgment? Instead of bringing together experts on the Middle East, he dismissed facts presented to him because God was guiding him. Does anyone believe the invasion of Iraq has been in the best interest of America, and that God would want us to take up arms against a country unless in self defense?

Bush also seems to believe there is some sort of divine plan for the world. I think this includes the End Times, and this may well explain why deficits, the environment, etc. that will affect future generations seem to be of little concern to him.

Does he cross the line? Yes. :bugeye:
 
  • #67
crossed the line

SOS2008 said:
Brad_1234 - Many politicians are religious, as are many Americans who oppose Bush, because he crossed the line in his beliefs, and misuses religion to his end. He has dismissed fact and endangered our nation because he believes God guides him, and worse he has used powerful, emotional religious beliefs to manipulate voters. If you are a believer, you are familiar with the scriptures regarding false prophets. He will talk with God--on judgment day.

How did he cross the line in his beliefs? Is that from calling for a national day of prayer, supporting faith based groups or ?

Dismissed fact and endangered our nation, is that a claim about "ignoring intelligence on wmd"? and going to war illegally? You realize that the UN security council voted 15-0 to demand Saddams Iraq comply with illegal weapons restrictions or face war, and based on the process found Saddam in violation? Democrats have wanted the "war" to fail, so rather than support the US they want to find a different way, and say... AFTER the fact, that there were no WMDs, (when there were), and say Bush is out of control, etc.

So people make those claims but I only wonder how well they live with their own conscience.

If people are not of the Christian faith, why do they seek to demand everyone believe as they do? Why can't Christians believe in their religion? Why should atheists or one religion get to impose their beliefs on everyone?

There are those in the US who say the Christian faith is a form of insanity. Psychiatry categorizes the struggle a person has with their faith as a form of mental illness (DSM-4) but says religion in general has shown clinically to have a positive effect. Even while its a placebo and fake, people believe in their religion and it helps them.

So while people believe in the bible, we (progressives) want new laws saying those weird Christian types must keep their religion to themselves, they cannot be Christian in public, and ASSUREDLY no Christian should ever hold public office or any position of trust. WE want to help them and offer low cost mental health services to help cure them of the delusion of being Christian. We will just raise taxes, regulate businesses, repeal major tenets of capitalism and outlaw public expression of religion, for the good of the masses.

We get this story about president Bush talking to God? (even when its not a true story) and the left is energized in extreme outrage. How DARE he! But when Islamic leaders declare their official orders, saying God delegated the power to them? And the orders are to murder enemies of Islam? enemies being the US government, people, Jews, Israel, etc or whatever their enemy list is. The left? There is no outrage? Hey don't mock Islam, its their religion so let them believe as they want to.

If the concept here was about any figure getting "words from God" and then going to war or committing acts of terror in the name of that religion or God? Such as the DC Beltway Snipers, 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, the 1993 World Trade center bombing or so many others... Then the left should be equally outraged at Muslim leaders, and casting doubt at their claims of hearing from God.

But I've listened to democratic leaders and major statements from the DNC for well over the past 10 years. If you took the conceptual arguments about religion, that are against president Bush now, the left should be outraged at radical Islam. They are not.

Its another double standard
 
  • #68
morals and morality

arildno said:
Brad1234:
Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with your morality, although you and many Christians have the utterly disgusting and immoral habit of insinuating just that.

Advice to you:
Get rid of your "holier than thou" attitude, and become a moral person.

Wait, I haven't insinuated that yet. Many other Christians do. I would even go farther and say many Christians are involved in imposing a form of "Moralism" when there is no biblical mandate to. Christians are not called to impose high moral values, but are called to share the message of salvation.

What are moral values? If we had a conference and tried to draft up some conclusion, what would we agree to? Do we agree that the 10 commandments are, in themselves, "good" moral guidelines?

Or the golden rule? do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

(They removed that one from public school)

How about this, I know non religious people who are kind, moral and upstanding.

In my personal experience, Christians are the MOST DISHONEST when it comes to business and money. They use their religion to get authorized access to cash or services, steal the money or refuse to pay for services and then leave.

Its not that way in all cases, but in my personal dealings time after time that's been the result most of the time.

Next concept, some say hey you cannot use the bible for a moral reference because (maybe or certainly) all life evolved from molecules, so there cannot be anyone moral guidepost, total relativism. This way, a person can excape responsibility to laws because to "them" they evolved where bank robbery is normal. Hey, we could re-evaluate everyone in jails/prisons and ask them, are the illegal crimes you committed normal for you? be honest...
 
  • #69
Brad_1234 said:
You realize that the UN security council voted 15-0 to demand Saddams Iraq comply with illegal weapons restrictions or face war, and based on the process found Saddam in violation?
Yes, except the part about war--source? And you realize invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country, which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter. Which do you think was worse? :rolleyes:
Brad_1234 said:
Democrats have wanted the "war" to fail, so rather than support the US they want to find a different way, and say... AFTER the fact, that there were no WMDs, (when there were), and say Bush is out of control, etc.
The Democrats want the war to fail, and make false claims that WMD don't exist, but according to you they did? Source please.
Brad_1234 said:
So people make those claims but I only wonder how well they live with their own conscience.

If people are not of the Christian faith, why do they seek to demand everyone believe as they do? Why can't Christians believe in their religion? Why should atheists or one religion get to impose their beliefs on everyone? ...etc., etc. [weird psychology tangent] etc., [irrelevant comparison to Islamic faith/leaders] etc., etc...
You have it turned around. It is the Christian extremists who want to force their belief on everyone else.

In regard to "the public square" are you able to practice the religion of your choice, and practice your beliefs fully? Are you able to pray in public if you like, for example blessing the food at lunchtime in a school cafeteria or employee lounge? Are you able to proselyte door-to-door or preach from a soapbox on a street corner? The list goes on and on, and I fail to see how you are so repressed.

Let's please drop the religious tirades and return to the topic of this thread, which is about Bush and how he has misused religion to pursue his political goals, and/or whether he is delusional. I believe he is out-of-touch with mainstream America and the world for that matter, and I think he is an egotistical, self-centered idiot -- but not delusional.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Brad_1234 said:
Do we agree that the 10 commandments are, in themselves, "good" moral guidelines?
No, they are not.
 
  • #71
unprovoked attack

SOS2008 said:
Yes, except the part about war--source? And you realize invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country, which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter. Which do you think was worse? :rolleyes:
The Democrats want the war to fail, and make false claims that WMD don't exist, but according to you they did? Source please.
You have it turned around. It is the Christian extremists who want to force their belief on everyone else.

In regard to "the public square" are you able to practice the religion of your choice, and practice your beliefs fully? Are you able to pray in public if you like, for example blessing the food at lunchtime in a school cafeteria or employee lounge? Are you able to proselyte door-to-door or preach from a soapbox on a street corner? The list goes on and on, and I fail to see how you are so repressed.

Let's please drop the religious tirades and return to the topic of this thread, which is about Bush and how he has misused religion to pursue his political goals, and/or whether he is delusional. I believe he is out-of-touch with mainstream America and the world for that matter, and I think he is an egotistical, self-centered idiot -- but not delusional.


Invading Iraq?

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


This means the use of force, or to put it into military speak, war.

Why Iraq? Because they used illegal oil revenues to fund terrorist strikes in Israel and to assist other terror groups. Iraq also sponsored research in chemical and bio weapons in Northern Africa. At the recent 911 commission hearings a year ago or so, Clintons defense Secy William Cohen (R) admitted the 1998 strike on the "Aspirin factory" was a dual use chemical weapons facility that was visited and interacted with known al Queda operatives linked to bin Laden. The day before Clinton had to testify on perjury, he orders a military strike and explained it was Saddam violating UN sanctions and working with WMD. Not everyone saw this point, it was on Foxnews and some radio shows.

WMD in Iraq? Let's define our words, if there was even a trace amount of wmd, there would "BE" some quantity greater than zero. To say an item exists doesn't imply its quantity. The stockpiles of anthrax and other wmd were not found, but materials that qualify as wmd were found. The left scoffed in the news media saying "well they look like old weapons". Publicly we never located the infamous stockpiles, inspectors did find some small amounts of the term "wmd".

However that wasnt even needed, Saddam had USED wmd on civilians, yet the left does not complain about that fact. Rewind to the first gulf war? There were wmd stockpiles found then, according to reports, and they were systematically destroyed. Democrat apologists say:"oh, see? they destroyed them all, what else do you want?" If they were all destroyed then Saddam would not object to inspectors making sure, and if inspectors certified NO weapons programs? Iraq could sell oil and earn billions per year extra. Saddam refused and blocked inspectors, they were withdrawn in 1998.

Other middle eastern nations said they knew from Iraqi internal sources there were wmd programs.

The bottom line here is that after 911, who was cheering? Who was chanting death to the USA?? Some intelligence groups studied the issue and found Iraq to be not only using illegal OIL sales to pay terror groups, they used the UN oil for food scandal money to fund terror also. Even with what we knew, and with the 15 member UNSC in agreement, Saddam had to stop illegal wmd research and prove he didnt have wmd, let inspectors in, and not block them.

They blocked inspectors, found long range illegal missles and the full disclosure delivered Dec 2002? was full of papers from 1991 and notes from the first time they had to disclose, Iraq was officially in violation of UNR1441 and the US should have invaded then.

Bushes staff tried to show the world how Iraq was in violation, and by the rules make the case for harsher sanctions or war. During the 3 month delay? We saw peace protesters saying No war! and Stop bothering Iraq! Oil for $ and blood $ for oil or whatever. Where was the outrage over Saddams brutalities? The left should have demanded the US invade and topple Saddams regime.

Why were France, Germany and Russia so adamantly opposed to war in Iraq? We were not sure then, we are now. They all sold military materiel and armament to Saddam, illegally; There is still an investigation on the UN oil for food scandal. But all 3 nations opposed the war and tried to claim they loved freedom and individual rights?

We saw protests organized by... who? Moveon.org, Pacifica radio, Hamas, the PLO, the World workers communist party and ? The rallys would start by saying how wonderful Islam is, now everyone repeat this: and the announcer would rattle off some sentence of indoctrination to Islam, saying thank you everyone, you are now all Muslims. Now the Bush administration lied! They are invading Iraq illegally...

Why should a freedom rally begin by forcing everyone take the oath to change their religion to Muslim?

The tirade over losing Christian rights can be in another topic, like why schools must teach Intelligent Design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
unprovoked attack

The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
 
  • #73
Brad_1234 said:
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
Consider, for example, the first&second ones.
What is so great about religious INTOLERANCE?
 
  • #74
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?

The 10 commandments were provided to teach human beings what universal rightaction is, and that prior to doing any particular action, rightaction is no action at all, no particular word at all.

Hence, "Thou shalt not..."

The problems/chaos began when individuals breached that line of trust, and did a particular action, then decided to do it again, and again, and again. They went outside the guaranteed 'safe-zone' and went straight to H**L.

Diversification was favoured prior to unification. Rightorder is unification prior to diversification.

So, what particular word, what particular action, do you favour above universal rightaction?

o:)
 
  • #75
If at all, there's only any sense in (5), 6, (7), 8 and 9...at least, to me.
 
  • #76
Could you post what the first&second ones are?
 
  • #77
In effect, they are
"You shall have no other Gods than me" and "You shall not speak your God's name in vain, or make idols".
EDIT:
Oh yes, it seems I mixed up 2&3 here, as for the Christian celebration of religious intolerance, 3&4 should be included in my list.

Note, therefore, that at least 40% of the Christian bed rock principles makes religious intolerance into a moral duty.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
russ_watters said:
Regarding Arafat - it was the general consensus among conservatives, at the very least, that Arafat was an obstruction. The Nobel Peace Prize is a hippie(or the Sweedish equivalent) back-slapping convention with no real meaning, and Arafat and Carter made good bedfellows. Winning the prize has no real meaning, though.

I fully agree Arafat, Rabin and Perez should not have won the peace prize. However, you shouldn't blame the Swedish hippies, but more the Norwegian...
 
  • #79
Calling the august, retired Norwegian politicians in the Nobel comittee for hippies is quite a novel perspective..
 
  • #80
arildno said:
Calling the august, retired Norwegian politicians in the Nobel comittee for hippies is quite a novel perspective..

Was just using Russ' words, I know they're not hippies. I think they are doing quite good choises most of the times, but Arafat, Perez and Rabin was a blunder.
 
  • #81
I know, EL, I just hadn't copied your archeological feat in uncovering russ' original reply. Once made aware of it by your post, I responded to that.
 
  • #82
arildno said:
In effect, they are
"You shall have no other Gods than me"
...
Note, therefore, that at least 40% of the Christian bed rock principles makes religious intolerance into a moral duty.
I didn't realize "You shall have no other Gods than me" was synonymous with "Thou shalt not suffer others to have gods other than me".
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Brad_1234 said:
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
For whom?

As far as I know, people in the US are free to use the 10 commandments as guidelines or not - certainly in the home and at one's 'chosen' place of worship.

The 10 commandments should not be invoked or imposed by any government institution, and the schools are a government service.

Freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.
 
  • #84
Skyhunter said:
Perhaps in name, but not in deed. Therefore I would not consider him to be a Christian, because he does not follow the teachings of Christ.
I think all real Christians should get angry when Bush says "he's a christian". That's really surprising that some people just support him because he pretends to be a Christian. As far as I know, Christianity is the religion of peace and kindness not war and killing!
arildno said:
To contribute to your own and other humans' happiness.
I need more clarification.
 
  • #85
Hurkyl said:
I didn't realize "You shall have no other Gods than me" was synonymous with "Thou shalt not suffer others to have gods other than me".
They were talking moral guidelines. If "You shall have no other Gods than me" is a good moral guideline, then what does that make someone who disobeys it?
 
  • #86
If "You shall have no other Gods than me" is a good moral guideline, then what does that make someone who disobeys it?
Immoral, probably. That is not synonymous with intolerable.
 
  • #87
So Buddests are immoral, or Hindu's are?

Different maybe but immoral?
 
  • #88
I only chimed into refute the allegation that the Ten Commandments command religous intolerance -- since y'all now seem to want to discuss other things, I'll accept my victory and continue lurking.
 
  • #89
Hurkyl said:
Immoral, probably. That is not synonymous with intolerable.
So deeming someone immoral entirely because they believe in another god is NOT religious intolerance..? Then I propose the term may be dispensed with entirely. I see no use for it. I wonder if, by the same token, believing someone to be immoral entirely due to, say, the colour of their skin does not constitute racial intolerance? Are there any other redundant intolerances we can forget about?
 
  • #90
Hurkyl said:
I only chimed into refute the allegation that the Ten Commandments command religous intolerance -- since y'all now seem to want to discuss other things, I'll accept my victory and continue lurking.
It IS intolerant, precisely because it deems others to be immoral merely for believing in another God figure.
Besides, Christians have an obligation to murder those human beings who haoppen to be witches.

To call this celebration of murder, violence and intolerance for a good morality is simply perverse.
 
  • #91
It IS intolerant, precisely because it deems others to be immoral merely for believing in another God figure.
(Assuming again, for the sake of argument, that it does deem others to be immoral)

I don't know about you, but I'm able to tolerate things I find immoral.

Besides, Christians have an obligation to murder those human beings who haoppen to be witches.

To call this celebration of murder, violence and intolerance for a good morality is simply perverse.
Red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with your original point that the ten commandments command religous intolerance.
 
  • #92
It does command it. Period. Stop lying about that.
 
  • #93
Ummm, let's get back to the President and his delusions, wot ?
 
  • #94
(taken to private message)
 
Last edited:
  • #95
. . . . lying . . . .

It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation. However, depending on how one interprets the first commandment, one could behave in an intolerant way.

As often written, the first commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This simply makes the relationship between the individual and the god to whom this refers as an exclusive relationship. It was addressed to a certain group of people.

I see this thread becoming precariously close to a discussion of religion, or interpretation of religious texts.

There are discussions of the 10 Commandments at - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
This has gone really off topic, let's get back to the subject. Thanks Astronuc, good reply.
 
  • #97
Astronuc said:
It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation. However, depending on how one interprets the first commandment, one could behave in an intolerant way.
I merely interpreted these commandments in the same way that the dominant segments of the Church has interpreted them historically.
Who should know better than them?
If someone is eager to stretch their imaginations and find some other type of interpretation of these commandments, I won't argue on that.
 
  • #98
It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation.
Well, since the discussion has stayed on the thing I wanted to say, I will briefly state it.

I have not given the question of whether the ten commandments deems disbelievers immoral any thought. My parenthetical was meant to correct those who thought I agreed that the answer was "yes", and was not meant to suggest that I think the answer is "no".
 
  • #99
Hurkyl said:
(Assuming again, for the sake of argument, that it does deem others to be immoral)

I don't know about you, but I'm able to tolerate things I find immoral.


Red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with your original point that the ten commandments command religous intolerance.
But a commandment is a command right?

How can you interperet any other way without distorting the fundamentals of your religious beliefs?
 
  • #100
Astronuc said:
As often written, the first commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This simply makes the relationship between the individual and the god to whom this refers as an exclusive relationship. It was addressed to a certain group of people.
Well, one person. Nonetheless, if it is exclusive, it does not constitute a good moral guideline, since it is found wanting when applied to a society of diverse religious backgrounds. If it is a good moral guideline, then it assumes non-Christian/Jewish faiths are inherently immoral, and so supports religious intolerance.

Evo said:
This has gone really off topic, let's get back to the subject.
I think the person who brought up the 10 commandments did so to point out that, even if Bush is basing his most important decisions not on policy or intelligence, but on the teachings of the Bible, would this necessarily be a bad thing: i.e. do the testaments provide a good template for imposing moral order? It's a very good question, though I think as Arildno and co have pointed out, ultimately has to be answered in the negative.

A further reason I think this is relevant is that if you can show that Christian faith is unfit for providing guidance in one respect, prudence would suggest it should probably be discarded in matters of government entirely - this is the general idea behind the separation of church and state. If Bush now tells us his most important decisions have not been his own, but that of a God who, if he exists, is essentially unfit for government and, if he doesn't, is a figment of Bush's imagination (or technique of media manipulation), then there is cause for concern without having to analyse the pros and cons of the war in Iraq, since doing the right thing for the wrong reason invariably leads to doing wrong things for the same reason, by which point you can no longer argue the reason at all.

And at the risk of straining the reader's patience, this all feeds into whether someone who may answer to a possibly dubious/possibly non-existent entity over his own people is actually a reasonable candidate for party leader.
 

Similar threads

Replies
56
Views
11K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
85
Views
8K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
75
Views
7K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
158
Views
14K
Back
Top