Our President is delusional, does that bother anyone?

[Hurkyl]

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 religious intolerance.

 

[arildno]

It does command it. Period. Stop lying about that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ummm, let's get back to the President and his delusions, wot ?

 

[Hurkyl]

(taken to private message)

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . 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

 

[Evo]

This has gone really off topic, let's get back to the subject. Thanks Astronuc, good reply.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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".

 

[Skyhunter]

(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?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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.

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.

 

[Evo]

No more discusion on this...PERIOD. This is off topic. If this thread doesn't get back on topic, it will be locked. (this was written prior to EHI's post) EHI, your post is acceptable, nit-picking over how to take a single commandment is not.

 

[Astronuc]

I am most troubled by what Bush believes, because as president he can command the military - and at the moment this means a lot of people are being killed - and many more are suffering.

It is not clear that Bush has a clear grasp on reality, or perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.

I bothers me that he, Cheney, and Rumsfeldt seem to be able to casually accept the death and suffering of so many, when they themselves would never put themselves at risk.

As far as I can tell, the militant actions of the Bush administration indicated a callous disregard for human life, and that seems in sharp contradiction (even antithetical) to a doctrine of peace and love.

 

[pattylou]

perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.

I think that's true.

There is a consistency in his behavior, as far back as the eye can see. This is one reason he appeals to a certain segment of the population (he is a "straight shooter").

Further, since his actions are consistent, it seems his view of the world must be consistent, and in that sense it is his reality that differs from the reality some of us hold to be "real.".

Reality is a difficult subject in any event. People define reality differently - we agree (mostly) that there is an objective world more or less separate from us... I can't seem to get a handle on driving this last point home. Maybe I'll edit this last paragraph later. It has to do with confused definitions from one person to the next, across the board.

 

[arildno]

It is not difficult to seem consistent to the dumbest sections of society if you have, and express, simplistic thoughts.

Anyone with a more nuanced and reflective personality will seem inconsistent in their behaviour to the same section of society.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Yes, his reality is more fundamentally different than a WHOLE-WHOLE BUNCH of millions of people within our country and whether or not he's consistent is irrellavent. If he weren't, the spin would say he's a "dynamic leader unafraid to make a change or think outside of the box." What we have here is a total difference in social classes and the way those in the more priveledged arenas think. What I hear is "let them eat cake...because we tell them to, and why shouldn't they? We are the elite and the masses want to be like us because we are powerful and no one controls us so they'll do what we tell them and if they don't like it we'll just say that all evildoers hate cake and it will make Amerika strong".

Boom-Pow-Surprise! Hoooooooooooooo!

 

[pattylou]

It is not difficult to seem consistent to the dumbest sections of society if you have, and express, simplistic thoughts.

His actions are consistent as well - everything about him is consistent - how he has landed about every position he's bee in, how he responds to adversity, his rhetoric, it's all consistent.

By your argument dummies are more likely to win an election simply because they don't confuse the uneducated in the population. But I don't think that history shows this.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that I don't think he is delusional in the men-with-white-coats sense. I think he sees the world radically differently than others. Who knows - maybe during his upbringing (as a son of GHWB) the cold war mentality really affected him so profoundly that he is incapable of thinking in any other way than aggressive and unprovoked defense ... along the lines of "if we wait for proof it will be too late."

This mentality is completely opposed to the alternative I hold: "If we don't wait for proof we are screwing ourselves royally."

But it doesn't make his mindset clinically loony - just paranoid.

 

[Skyhunter]

It would appear that Eisenhower would have agreed that Bush is delusional.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are:Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
November 8, 1954

Bush did predict in 1978 that the Social Security system would crash in 10 years. He wasn't one of the Texas oil millionaires that Eisenhower was referring to, but I can't help but think that he was/is influenced by them.

 

[arildno]

By your argument dummies are more likely to win an election simply because they don't confuse the uneducated in the population. But I don't think that history shows this.

No; because "dummies" as you call them, lack the capacity for rhetoric, powerbroking and lots of other qualities necessary to be successful.
This is quite different from espousing simplistic, political ideas.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that I don't think he is delusional in the men-with-white-coats sense.

Neither do I.

I think he sees the world radically differently than others. Who knows - maybe during his upbringing (as a son of GHWB) the cold war mentality really affected him so profoundly that he is incapable of thinking in any other way than aggressive and unprovoked defense ... along the lines of "if we wait for proof it will be too late."

This mentality is completely opposed to the alternative I hold: "If we don't wait for proof we are screwing ourselves royally."

But it doesn't make his mindset clinically loony - just paranoid.

Agreed; he's in the grip of hysteria, the main reason for which is, IMO, that he seriously believes that dividing humans into good guys vs. bad guys is an intelligent attitude, through which we may "understand" the world.
You won't, that line of distinction is simply too dumb to be useful as an analytical tool.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush did not get where he is on his own talents (or lack thereof). Without Rove and the party machine, he'd been hanging out in Texas or sitting on some corporate board somewhere.

Certainly his family has connections, and he has used them well.

The problem is that too many voter voted for him, and too many didn't vote.

 

[pattylou]

The problem is that too many voter voted for him, and too many didn't vote.

And ... that we use machines to count (80% of?) our votes, machines made by companies run by staunch conesrvatives, and that don't always have a paper trail. When there was an outcry about this, Blackwell and others like him opposed any investigatio into the issue as strongly as they could.

I don't think it is the voters' fault, Astronuc, or turnout (2004 saw the best turnout in history.) If I choose to not vote in upcoming elections - it will be because I am convinced that the voter matters less than the machine.

I don't think Bush won. Like you said, he isn't qualified.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the problem in the last election was the lack of choice. Too often people vote for the least of two dislikes. That is no way to have a democracy, but unfortunately that is the system that professional politicians like, and which Bush and other wish to export to the rest of the world.

When neither choice is acceptable to a majority, democracy fails in fulfilling its potential.

 

[loseyourname]

It would appear that Eisenhower would have agreed that Bush is delusional.

How so? Eisenhower said that anyone who tried to abolish social security was stupid. 1) "Stupid" does not mean "delusional." 2) Bush tried to privatize social security, not abolish it.

 

[Skyhunter]

How so? Eisenhower said that anyone who tried to abolish social security was stupid. 1) "Stupid" does not mean "delusional." 2) Bush tried to privatize social security, not abolish it.

Eisenhower said this in a letter to his brother. And I admit it is a stretch from stupid to delusional. When someone adheres to a belief despite evidence to the contrary, that is by definition delusional.

Even though the Social Security system did not crash in 1988 as Bush predicted, he has clung to the notion that unless it is privatized it will crash. The evidence just does not support this conclusion. Therefore he is delusional. More accurately he wants to force the events to conform to his narrow view of reality.

 

[EL]

I think the problem in the last election was the lack of choice. Too often people vote for the least of two dislikes. That is no way to have a democracy, but unfortunately that is the system that professional politicians like, and which Bush and other wish to export to the rest of the world.

When neither choice is acceptable to a majority, democracy fails in fulfilling its potential.

I have allways wondered about this. How does it come there are always just two candidates (at least in practice), who both have about the same opinions? How come there have never been any strong third, or fourth, or fifth candidates? (Or have there been?)
Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

 

[pattylou]

I have allways wondered about this. How does it come there are always just two candidates (at least in practice), who both have about the same opinions? How come there have never been any strong third, or fourth, or fifth candidates? (Or have there been?)
Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

Perot - only 13 years ago.

He got 23 percent of the popular vote. People *wanted* him.

Clinton and Bush senior split the rest of the vote; I don't think either of them got a majority of the popular vote.

As far as why - Perot was independently wealthy and sunk an incredible amount of money into his campaign - and did well as a third candidate. Most people don't have the means to do this.

 

[Astronuc]

Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

Unfortuantely too many people believe that, but is simply not true. One simply has to roll up one's sleeves, stand tall, speak honestly and people will listen.

 

[EL]

Perot - only 13 years ago.

He got 23 percent of the popular vote. People *wanted* him.

Clinton and Bush senior split the rest of the vote; I don't think either of them got a majority of the popular vote.

As far as why - Perot was independently wealthy and sunk an incredible amount of money into his campaign - and did well as a third candidate. Most people don't have the means to do this.

Yeah, I remember him now (although I was quite young at that time). Anyone who has managed to get a significant amount of votes without "buying" them?

 

[EL]

Unfortuantely too many people believe that, but is simply not true. One simply has to roll up one's sleeves, stand tall, speak honestly and people will listen.

...Example?

 

[Astronuc]

Well Jesse Ventura (who became governor of Minnesota) started talking, people listened . . .

In the end however, I think he may have collect campaign contributions, but I am not sure.

Let me see if I can find other examples.

 

[ron damon]

hmm... when you speak with someone you try to find common ground, ways to relate to them, so when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.

That being said, it is clear that Bush haters have a mind already formed, and any such snippets will only feed their mania.

Why don't you try to be a little fair sometime, just to see how it feels?