I was listening to an NPR rebroadcast of the BBC-World on the radio, and a correspondent made a comment about the sentiment that, from Muslim perspectives, he appears to be a "Christian Fundamentalist" in as much as Bush accuses Bin Laden (their example, not mine) of being a Islamic Fundamentalist.
They evidenced this claim by citing several speeches and addresses in which he spoke of God and prayer to God and doing what is right "in the eyes of God." Again, their example, not mine.
I know that there is a large non-American population in this fine community, so I'm curious: Does the American leadership come off as cultish?
To the American population here, does separation of church and state genuinely exist?
I always knew he was deeply religious and all, and that influenced his decisions in things. But I never really thought of him as "cultish."
Still, the idea that he is holding this war up to be right "in the eyes of god" sounds more than a little odd. I guess I pick option four. I'll watch him closer for this.
As for your question on separation of church and state... it never really existed, in my opinion. It's nice to say, and when the USA was founded we certainly had more separation than many countries (France, at the time, was extremely religious, and had a hand in the development of NY due to this). But the fact is that people at the time were, for the most part, devoutly christian, and many customs and traditions developed then are still in play now.
It's sort of like "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill. It really doesnt carry much religious weight anymore. People who scream about that are, in my opinion, just looking for something to whine about.
Bush has said he believes God chose him to put an end to Islamic Fundamentalist who threaten US citizens.
I have not found a link yet to back it up.
Personally I can't believe we have allowed someone so Extreme to become the President of the United States, the most powerful human on earth.
SkinWalker asks, "To the American population here, does separation of church and state genuinely exist?"
I don't think it does, for example in the state where I live you can pay extra for a special Liscense plate that says Choose LIFE in direct defiance of the law that legalized abortion. This is not something voted for, The Christian Fundamentalist have overt control of policy making in our state goverment.
Bush is religious? I've never noticed that. I thought the occasional talks about God were just rhetorics.
A religious idiot with all that power. :disaprove
Since there can be little doubt that el Prez is a zealotboy, I'll jump right to the second question: Is there really a seperation between the state and the church. I believe that there is. And that's the problem: The church should be subserviant to the state in all respects. The only way to ensure this is by making the church financially dependend on the state, and then demanding that the state has the biggest say in the indoctrinations of the church. Nothing civilizes a priest better than a missing pay-check.
hes religios sure, but not a cultist jeses!
Originally posted by daring dueler
hes religios sure, but not a cultist jeses!
Just to be clear, the definition of cult is: a system of religious observances; extravagant devotion to a religion, person, cause or thing.
In looking at some of his speeches, GB certainly evokes "God" and "prayer" quite frequently in his message. This might satisfy the majority of his constituents who are christian, but it effectively excludes many of the Americans who are of other or no faith. It also sends a message that we see ourselves as correct in our foreign policies because it's God's will.
That may not be the intent, but that seems to be the effect.
I can't understand how you can have that pledge of allegiance in a country supposedly built on freedom.
The Pledge of Allegiance is a hold over from the Civil War, when former rebels were required to say it to be admitted back into the Union. The "Under God" part of it was added during the Cold War, I believe, in response to the atheist tendencys of Russia.
The entire thing is outdated, really... but I dont think it hurts anyone. Nobody is required to say it anymore.
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
The entire thing is outdated, really... but I dont think it hurts anyone. Nobody is required to say it anymore.
I know it's not required to voice the pledge of allegiance, but what if you were viewed as being "un-American" all of a sudden?
http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html)
http://www.freemikehawash.org/)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/15/national1811EST0607.DTL)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1689.htm)
(I couldn't find the article about some politicians who apparently got up and left the room as an atheist recited the Pledge. It was "unbearable"....)
Originally posted by Luc Solar
A religious idiot with all that power. :disaprove
Do you agree with anything at all? at all?
You seem to have a problem with people who helps their community :disaprove
Honestly, I have a problem with super deeply religious people in power too, Hobgoblin. It seems like they would be motivated by beliefs that may not apply to everyone, no matter how "right" they believe them to be.
Also, it seems quite primitive to be saying that "this war is right according to God" and all... it smacks of a holy war, which is a throwback to the crusades. Al Qaeda isnt past that stage in development. We are.
this poll isnt really that good because it seems like europeans think anybody who will say god is a cultist.... democrats included.
The problem is that the U.S. media seems afraid to publish any story that would seem dissenting. They are, after all, controlled by several major corporations.
Here's an article I found today on BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm)
"We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name," Mr Bush told West Point graduates in a speech last year.
That was from the article, and I remember this speech. There are others that I've heard the President give in which he envokes God as a justification for invasion.
At the National Prayer Breakfast, Bush said, “I pray for strength, I pray for guidance, I pray for forgiveness,” Bush said. “And I pray to offer my thanks for a kind and generous Almighty God.”
He also said at the end of this speech (
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html) "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.__Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.".... and "In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America. "
In giving a speech in February about Faith Based Initiative in Tennassee, Bush had this to say, "I welcome faith. I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems."
My point is that he seems increasingly less separated from church in his matters of state. There is a danger when a government leader also becomes a religious leader.
In an address to the United States, Bush and Tony Blair, Bin Laden said: 'God Almighty hit the United States at its most vulnerable spot. He destroyed its greatest buildings. Praise be to God.'
Bin Laden thinks God is on his side. Bush thinks God is on America's side.
Iґd call Bush a cultist anyday and the links supplied here only reaffirms my conviction. He has made god his justifying element in the war on terror. I canґt understand any who says heґs not a cultist.
Originally posted by Bonedemon
Iґd call Bush a cultist anyday and the links supplied here only reaffirms my conviction. He has made god his justifying element in the war on terror. I canґt understand any who says heґs not a cultist.
Well learn to understand it. He isn't a cultist. I have to agree with CagedCrado. Europeans jump to conclusions.
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Well learn to understand it. He isn't a cultist. I have to agree with CagedCrado. Europeans jump to conclusions. heh im not a european im live in texas he is a cultist. as mentioned before a cultist is a well basically a fanatic of a religion. just like a zealot ;P
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Well learn to understand it. He isn't a cultist. I have to agree with CagedCrado. Europeans jump to conclusions.
But by saying Europeans are jumping to conclusions, you are jumping to a conclusion yourself ;)
Anyway, Bush belives and says he has God on his side. So did Hitler. So does Saddam. So does Osama bin Laden. And loads upon loads of more.
Beliving God to be on your side has been the reason to countless meaningless conflicts.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
heh im not a european im live in texas he is a cultist. as mentioned before a cultist is a well basically a fanatic of a religion. just like a zealot ;P fanatic?! He is a christan and believes in his faith. Yet that doesn't mean all he talks about is christananity.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Just to be clear, the definition of cult is: a system of religious observances; extravagant devotion to a religion, person, cause or thing.
In looking at some of his speeches, GB certainly evokes "God" and "prayer" quite frequently in his message. This might satisfy the majority of his constituents who are christian, but it effectively excludes many of the Americans who are of other or no faith. It also sends a message that we see ourselves as correct in our foreign policies because it's God's will.
That may not be the intent, but that seems to be the effect. uhmmm..... this will clear it up i hope. he is cultish because he uses god as his reasons to do things. almost like how ed gein said god told him to kill all those people to cleanse the earth.
Just because you are religious does not mean you are in a cult. I think insane sith is in an anti religion cult.
Yes, but if his devotion to religion can be described as extravagent, then, by definition, he is "cultish."
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Just because you are religious does not mean you are in a cult. I think insane sith is in an anti religion cult.
If you mean religious in the sense of thinking "thereґs something bigger than me" then you are right
But if you add yourself to a religious construction then you are in a cult. It has been a very long time since I have heard or read any European official using god in anything except for debattes about the official church of the state.
There is supposed to a seperation between any church and the government.
STOCK V 1.89 WROTE "It's sort of like "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill. It really doesnt carry much religious weight anymore. People who scream about that are, in my opinion, just looking for something to whine about."
The fact is that "IN GOD WE TRUST" was not put on the dollar bill until the 1950's, when Eisenhower was campiainging for re-election and wanted to assure he got all the southern religious votes.
It's pretty clear our leaders and politicians, as well as other historical leaders, use and have used religion for their own manipulation of the masses. It's a tool to them. Whether they really believe it or not, is another story. Bush's father was the head of the CIA. I'm sure he knows a thing or two about what strings are pulled to really make things happen in this world.
(IN RESOPONCE TO BELOW: Lol, sorry SHOCK. For some reason all the names of those who post are jumbled with your titles of sith lord, or bantha fodder, etc...on my computer, I don't know why, but I can hardly see who's who, unless I click on profile.... :(
Wow. Thats the greatest misspelling of my name I've ever seen.
:lol:
Okie dokie, new fact to me. Good to know, thanks! :)
Originally posted by CagedCrado
I think insane sith is in an anti religion cult. yep thats it.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
fanatic?! He is a christan and believes in his faith. Yet that doesn't mean all he talks about is christananity.
There's something called definitions in a language.
And the difinition of 'fanatic' is:
A person affected by excessive enthusiasm, particularly on religious subjects; one who indulges wild and extravagant notions of religion.
Amongst several other like difinitions, that you can check for yourself on
www.dictionary.com)
El Prez fulfills all of the above criteria. He is a fanatic. q.e.d.
One thing that pisses me off is people with a weak case trying to get more understanding by bending the language. It's sick, almost Orwellian.
And some people here should be embarassed that they come off short to a couple of teenagers from Denmark regarding mastery of the English language...
Please note that I have nothing against the states. I do, however, believe I have the right to communicate dislike of American issues as much as an American citizen.
USA: Nation with a de facto state religion.
Either have a state religion (like Scandinavia), have a system of several state religions treated equally (several to-be diverse leftist nations are attempting this, mainly to make them more attractive to immigrant), or refrain from letting the government have anything to do with religion at all.
Bush is DEFINETLY not upholding the principles of Separation between Church and State. In a multi-ethnic society like America, that is bad.
A government which creates laws which imposes religion upon others (like the law that males can't marry males, no matter if they're fundamental christians or not) is even worse. And the fact that this takes place in a country "without" a state religion is worse.
For crying out loud, the leader of the Christian Party in Norway is less religious than the "non-religious" American parties. Bush used the term "crusade" on the war in Iraq for my god's sake (Crusade: Christian counterpart of Jihad. Almost, at least). The fact that the majority of Iraq is Muslim just adds to that.
Look, you can't be in-between. Either have seperation between church and state or don't.
Since there can be little doubt that el Prez is a zealotboy, I'll jump right to the second question: Is there really a seperation between the state and the church. I believe that there is. And that's the problem: The church should be subserviant to the state in all respects. The only way to ensure this is by making the church financially dependend on the state, and then demanding that the state has the biggest say in the indoctrinations of the church. Nothing civilizes a priest better than a missing pay-check.
Why? Because otherwise it might come up with new ideas, such as legalized marriage of male couples (or femal couples)?
We've got freedom of religion here, friend. And when you say the church should be subserviant: That'd have to mean every religion is subserviant. Why would Christians have their freedoms regulated by the state when Islam doesn't?
Technically: If the administration of a church wants to allow Free Marriage in that church (as in girl-girl), shouldn't it be allowed to, although, according to fundamentalists, it'll condemn you to Hell?
By making a church/temple/synagogue/sect's hole in the ground dependant on the state, most likely you will sacrifice the freedoms of the followers of the religion. If churches were totally independent (except from freedom to break laws, such as by carrying out religious circumsission), there'd be full religious freedom.
The Pope tried to convince Bush not to attack Iraq; as did the head of the Episcopal Church; as did the head of the United Methodist Church (of which Bush claims to be a member); as did numerous other prominant Christian Church leaders. Bush, half of his administration and Tony Blair have all been forbidden to enter into the Church of the Nativity by an Orthodox leader... Bush has been denounced time and again by organized Christian Religions across the world.
Christian Fundamentalists have embraced Bush, however. It seems that Bush is the practitioner of a belief system that thinks that by fulfilling those things mentioned in Revelation, they can force God's hand and bring about the end of the world. From the ridiculous (such as Texan Ranchers trying to breed a red calf in Isreal) to the horrendous (like trying to force an all-out war between Jews and Islam). They're putting God to the test in a very real, very dangerous way.
Generally, a cult is defined by the level of danger it presents to its followers and others. I'd say it's cultish in that this idealogy, indeed, presents a danger to us all.
Thanks, Monk. That's a very interesting viewpoint and I hadn't looked at it from quite that angle. I didn't know about the "Texan Ranchers trying to breed a red calf in Isreal" thing, I'll have to check that out.
I, too, find the many references that Bush makes to religion and the self-centered posture he takes to be disturbing. On one occasion, he mentioned in a press conference that he felt, as the President, that his decisions weren't to be second guessed. I believe he attempted to have that come across as tounge-in-cheek, but that sentiment has stuck with me. I don't remember the exact press conference that was, but I do remember several comments that struck me as very condescending toward the American public.
Most of all, I'm aware of his rhetoric appearing to be as fundamentally religious as the rhetoric of the "other" (in recent cases, Bin Laden and Hussein) that the Bush administration continually employs as a unifying reason to enact measures such as the patriot act, police raids on other countries, etc.