Author Topic: George Bush's Statement of Faith (Read 1425 times)

Seagoon · « **on:** November 03, 2005, 11:42:55 AM »

Hi Guys,

By now you've all read the statements from a couple of leaders in the Palestinian Authority asserting that George Bush told them that God had personally instructed him to attack Al Qaeda and Iraq. If one is to believe this, then George Bush would have to be a wildly Charismatic or Pentecostal Evangelical.

This however clashes with his own statement of faith, which shows him to be a fairly run-of-the-mill moderate evangelical, who is still a member of a moderate to liberal denomination, the United Methodist Church. In D.C. he attends a liberal Episcopal Church ( St. John's ) an experience that would drive someone very theologically conservative, (let alone pentecostal) round the bend.

In any event, this isn't new, but I thought it might be worth posting. I just get tired of hearing about how the President is a wild-eyed Charismatic evangelical, when all the evidence is he's a fairly traditional 1950's style American Christian.

George Bush's Statement of Faith

- SEAGOON

oboe · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2005, 12:14:01 PM »

Thanks for posting Seagoon. I read the whole thing.

In my mind it is very hard to reconcile his statement of faith with his behavior - his mocking of death row inmate Carla Faye Tucker's plea for life before executing her, his vulgar antics before cameras which he apparently thought were not recording, his economic policies which harm the poor and reward the rich, and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion these are not the actions of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2005, 12:45:43 PM »

It's unwise to apply godlike standards of perfection to beings as imperfect as humans, to do so will immediately remove 99% of adherents to all faiths.

Just because someone chooses not to love their neighbor, for example, does not disqualify them from being christian, the concept of moral redemption and improvement is a core part of the faith.

john9001 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2005, 12:56:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
his support for the torture of prisoners of war (where is his avowed respect for Life?).
.

thats a very boad statement, you need to define "torture" also captured terrorists that deliberately kill women and children are not POW's.

if you want to be protected by the rules of war you better fight by the rules of war.

Sandman · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2005, 01:14:47 PM »

I'm curious about this part:

Quote

By Anonymous

Yeager · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2005, 01:45:57 PM »

and most incredibly, his support for the torture of prisoners of war
====
We just had a high level AQ guy walk off base. Sounds pretty tortuous to me. Considering to horrific dog leash tortures, the unhumane nekkid triangle tortures....the disrespectful cute babes dirty underwear rapped around your head tortures....the barking dogs make you pee your pants tortures.......yes, the United States is truly a horrific and inhumane member of the geneva convention....you know, the same geneva convention with AQ as a member, the same AQ that slices off peoples heads while those people have their hands tied behind their back and are fully alive and absolutely terrorized as they are being murdered, slowly and with the apparant pleasure of there murderers. The same AQ that uses suicide murderers to kill innocents with intention and without remorse. Flying 767s full of innocents into high rise buildings full of innocents.

Im surprised some of you arent fighting for AQ, wait...........

oboe · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2005, 01:59:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
thats a very boad statement, you need to define "torture" also captured terrorists that deliberately kill women and children are not POW's.

if you want to be protected by the rules of war you better fight by the rules of war.

I'm purposefully being broad here - technicalities and hair-splitting definitions which serve to separate POWs from enemy combatants from detainees is part of the problem, I think.

The McCain amendment simply directs US captors to follow interrogation standards set forth in the Army Field Manual and bars "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. Bush has threatened to veto the bill because this amendment is attached.

How twisted and perverse are our morals becoming? In any other age wouldn't this be a slam-dunk amendment? Or are we now stooping down toward the terrorist's level?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:06:37 PM »

What is more moraly wrong.

Torturing a terrorist and getting info tha saves hundred or thousands of lives (maybe more if we take into account a nuke could be used at some point)

Or not torturing him and then watching hundreds or thousands of Americans die?

What will those families think after their loved ones die because we had to be nice to dirt bag terrorsit?

I am not saying would should, just asking. It is an interesting issue, I also dont consider putting someone under mental distress or doing things that "take away their dignity" a problem.

I have had my dignity taken by a local police officer when he pulled me out of my car and read me the riot act on a very busy street in my neighborhood. I lived.

oboe · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:15:10 PM »

Yeager, I accept that my statement was provocative, maybe to the point of being unfair. "Torture" was probably not the best word to use there.

The incidents you described I would characterize as degrading treatment, but not torture.

The AQ operative 'walking off' base indicates a different kind of problem - simple competence in keeping a prisoner in captured status. Not sure it is related in any way to McCain's amendment.

I realize how abhorrent and monstrous the actions of the terrorists were (are). But I think it would be a real tragedy if we can't restrain ourselves from being no better then them. We're Americans, dammit. We are supposed to be the good guys.

PS for GTORA2:

I think there may be a misunderstanding about what is in the Army Field Manual regarding interrogation and treatment of prisoners. I wouldn't be surprised if it describes accepted interrogation techniques for putting prisoners under mental duress. I am pretty sure its not all about being nice to prisoners and treating them as VIPs.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:16:59 PM »

Shouldn't the good guys put saving the lives of our people above all else?

straffo · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:17:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What is more moraly wrong.

Torturing a terrorist and getting info tha saves hundred or thousands of lives (maybe more if we take into account a nuke could be used at some point)

What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:20:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
What if it create thousand of future terrorists ?

Now that is the question.

If it does then we are not doing it secrectly enough.

They allready hate us, isn't just about anything we do going to cause more?

indy007 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:20:07 PM »

It depends if you view morals as black & white or shades of grey (moral relativism).

If you follow black & white (absolute) morality, then the very simple golden rule applies. Do unto others.

If you follow moral relativism, then you can apply an equivelent to fuzzy logic to it. Examples.. the golden rule would be moral (1.0), while the actions at Abu Ghraib would be slightly immoral (0.7), and the actions of terrorists chopping off heads would be very immoral (0.1).

The inherrent problem with moral relativism, which it seems some of us are very keen to use, is that it literally is relative. Other people are fighting for what they firmly believe is right and a very different culture which doesn't apply christian standards.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:24:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
It depends if you view morals as black & white or shades of grey (moral relativism).

If you follow black & white (absolute) morality, then the very simple golden rule applies. Do unto others.

If you follow moral relativism, then you can apply an equivelent to fuzzy logic to it. Examples.. the golden rule would be moral (1.0), while the actions at Abu Ghraib would be slightly immoral (0.7), and the actions of terrorists chopping off heads would be very immoral (0.1).

The inherrent problem with moral relativism, which it seems some of us are very keen to use, is that it literally is relative. Other people are fighting for what they firmly believe is right and a very different culture which doesn't apply christian standards.

Good point, but the other side already does not play by the rules, so in a sense if we torture a few of them, we are doing to them what they do to others.

Terrorists don't play by the rules, the geneva conventions mean nothing to them. Fighting an enemy who does not follow the rules of war, while you try seems like trying to play one armed baseball agaist a team that that has both arms and still cheats.

They do not respect us for playing nice.

Seagoon · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2005, 02:40:30 PM »

Hi Sandy,

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm curious about this part:

Thats a formatting error on the part of the website. They generally carry articles by Ministers that follow a format of Title, Author at the top of the page and then By Author at the Bottom. Don't know why, but you can check the other pages. If there is no Author line at the top of an article then I believe the default for their template is "Anonymous".

The excerpt itself is actually from Bush's book "A Charge to Keep" - verification, including, chapter and page info can be found here:

Truth or Fiction Confirmation Link

- SEAGOON