That is the one thing that has me completely dumbfounded in this entire fiasco.
Powel is probably the brightest, most articulate member of Bush’s entourage and yet he appears to simply take it from the Rums, Wolfs, Roves and Cheneys. You almost wonder whether this was simply Bush’s attempt at affirmative action. The same goes for Rice, you wonder for all the input that they dont get why they are even there to start with.
Joe:
I had some of them “Thermonuclear bonds” but lost them all on the Nikkei about 1945. :>, Bwuahahahaha!!! :),
-Robert
LOL… hey, I can’t help it if spell check can’t tell the difference between a bond and a bomb… dad’ gum technology - you can never depend upon it to be telepathic. “What good is it?”, I say.
Besides that, … you could have just as easily (and, recently) have found plenty of Thermonuclear Bonds right in the good old US of A.
Joe Moya
Grammar Police - haul me off - please!
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear on two points;
First; I have no problem with Bush’s religion, I merely question whether it is politically wise to use christian references so frequently given the current international situation.
Second; I used the term “believe” in the statement about separation of church and state for a reason. The true power of the Constitution is often said to lie in its ability as a “living document”. The framers set out a scafffold for us to build a legal system, they had the forethought to leave room for changes in response to changing times. The Constitution was not designed to be a concrete document, susceptible to the ravages of time. It is, rather, like an oak tree growing through time and able to withstand the winds of change while remaining firmly ancored to the soil. The idea of not promoting one religion over another is one of the branches for which the 1st amendment is the root.
Richard
Sorry for the flowery metaphor I need some spring!
The presidents personal beliefs, ethics and morals are not reasons that he is elected in to office. The person elected in to office is there to lead this country domestically and internationally and create policies that make America a better place to live. They are entitled to their beliefs but they are not elected to profess them and certainly not to impose them or use them to guide political policy, and clearly the single biggest issue here would be abortion.
I hate to tell you this, Andrew, but that is EXACTLY why I and millions of others voted for Bush. A man’s morals define him, and when decisions are made by a man of high moral character, who seeks guidance from the Lord in ALL HE DOES, good things will follow.
From Jeremiah 17:
5 This is what the LORD says:
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who depends on flesh for his strength
and whose heart turns away from the LORD .
6 He will be like a bush in the wastelands;
he will not see prosperity when it comes.
He will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.
7 “But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD ,
whose confidence is in him.
8 He will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.”
This Bush is planted firmly by the water.
Dave, I Know why you voted for him. I think I also clearly stated that less than 47% of the population vote and that clearly Bush, Fallwell, and Jones and their ilk are not reprsentative of the majority of the population.
Tim LeHaye has sold in excess of 50 million books, I hope that you are not going to argue that he’s representative of the American people?
I think I also clearly said I dont care what his beliefs, he could be a practicing Jehova’s Witness. What is outrageous is that the above mentioned people are having an impact in shaping policy.
Although, I have to be absolutely honest and say that I find it hysterical that you can say that Bush is a man of high integrity, moral character and one who seeks guidance from the Lord. The first two parts are amusing, the third is simply terrifying given his position.
"The presidents personal beliefs, ethics and morals are not reasons that he is elected in to office. The person elected in to office is there to lead this country domestically and internationally and create policies that make America a better place to live. They are entitled to their beliefs but they are not elected to profess them and certainly not to impose them or use them to guide political policy, and clearly the single biggest issue here would be abortion. "
You must have slept through the 2000 campaign. The lack of ethics and morals in the last administration is what caused their hand-picked successor to lose with a roaring economy, world peace and a budget surplus. A larger percentage of the population (and number of voters) than ever voted for Clinton rejected this “character doesn’t matter” argument and elected a man whose beliefs they trusted.
But, I have to admit that if that darn Lincoln, another Republican, hadn’t tried to impose his beliefs we would have avoided a Civil War. Of course, your favorite politician probably wouldn’t be the third highest ranking official in the US, if you know what I mean.
Well, the parties over now… two things:
When Biblical verse is the primary (if not only) source for justifying a position then all logic is lost.
When the blame (no matter how vaguely related) is relegated to being either Nazi or Jewish as to the “source of…” or the “cause of…” then all logic is lost.
When either of these makes it’s way into a post (and, dominates the opinion or justification), then it’s time to withdraw any and all attempts to make a progression in thought. So, Andrewmc (right or wrong) you’ve now fallen prey to the problem with religion - radical viewpoints are always right, all the time. This is why we have OBLaden’s and Pat Robertson’s (to just name a few).
The problem with faith is simple… some are blinded by faith and others are blinded by the lack of faith in others to think for themselves. Which ever the case may be, I prefer to stay fully focused (eyes wide open) on moderation at it’s utmost. Perhaps then, this makes me a Radical Moderate.
FWIW Joe Moya
Ah, Joe, Joe, Joe…
I find it amusing when the old pseudo-intellectual “logic and faith can’t coexist” cliche gets thrown into a discussion. THAT is when the progression in thought ends. The person making that statement doesn’t want to admit that, yes, a person of great faith can also be very logical and intellectual (I’m certainly not including myself in with the second group). It’s so much easier to hide behind a wall of cynicism and snicker at all the fools who are “blinded by faith” and “can’t think for themselves”. Why bother reading the Bible in earnest to see if, in fact, it makes “sense”? “Nah, I don’t need it. I know what’s going on, I don’t need some book or some “spirit” to tell me what to do. Anyone who does is weak!” Well, since I’m not smart enough to answer those statements myself, allow me to defer to someone more intelligent: “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” - 1 Corinthians 1:25
(and here are another couple of verses for you, since you enjoy them so much!)
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. -Proverbs 1:7
**For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” - **1 Corinthians 3:19
I pray that one day, Joe, you will open your eyes to the Truth and fully focus on the free gift of salvation you have already been given.
I think you just summed it up beautifully.
That does not diminish my conern at who GW meets with regularly.
I am certainly no theologian (though I play one on the internet!), but I believe the word “fear” in this context is more akin to “respect” than “being afraid”. In fact, I just did a quick check of the dictionary and the third definition of “fear” is “to have a reverential awe of” and it uses “fear God” as the example.
Dave I dont think anyone said that logical thought and faith cant co-exist but I bet this is where we, and I might mistakenly include Joe in this, disagree.
I dont consider, Fallwell, Jones, Hudson, Graham logical. They have faith, they just dont appear to think to much.
On the other hand, the pope, Rabbai Lionel Blue, the Dali Lama, Gahndi all appear/ed to allow faith and logic to co-exist “most” of the time.
The problem here Dave is not that fairth and logic cant co-exist, no one said that, it’s that logic and extremism can not co-exist.
You are correct, there are many people that truly are afraid of the Lord in the sense that they try to do the right thing out of fear of punishment for not doing the right thing. Again, I am really not a theologian, but I would suggest that these people are focusing more on the Law as opposed to the Gospel. The Law, as is fairly obvious, is the code or rules that we are to live by, i.e. the Ten Commandments, Do Unto Others…, etc. The Gospel, on the other hand, is simply the message that we are forgiven of our sins by Jesus’ death and resurrection. We don’t have to worry about what bad things we have done in our past as long as we confess our sin to God and accept Christ’s gift of forgiveness and salvation. I would venture to say that most, if not all, Christians go through phases where we worry about the things we do (or don’t do) and how sinful we are and how we could be doing so much more to please God. But the good news (or Good News) is that THOSE THINGS DON’T MATTER ANYMORE. Jesus already paid the price and we can rejoice in the blessing of eternal life! I would hope that those who truly “fear” God remember this.
Hmmm… I looked at what I wrote and perhaps what I said could be interpreted to mean that logic and faith can not co-exist… but, that is not what I said. That is what you said (or interpreted from my writings). …Sorry for the confusion.
I think Francois wrote it much more eloquently than I could have… so, I bow to his fear, faith and logic explanation. And, Andrewmc said it before I could get to my reply… It’s not that faith and logic can not co-exist… it’s is more that extremism and logic are difficult to comprehend as a common element. Extremism is what ends logic… not logic and faith. Unfortunately, religion (usually interpreted by churches) has a way of creating roadblocks to rational thought (but not always).
Hopefully, my moderate position (or at least, what I precieve as a moderate) can now be better understood.
So, I don’t need to be “saved (or, “open my eyes to the truth”)” and I don’t need to “burn a flag”. I just don’t want to confuse my strong feelings for the strength of my aurgument. I prefer to measure my life by what I do Monday through Saturday and not just by what I do on Sunday. If that means I find some value in all opinions, then so be it. If I choose to find fault with extreme viewpoints, then so be it as well.
Unfortunately, the problem with being a part of the radical middle is that both the left and right want to pull. They both want to make a wish to prove there point. Ouch!
Let’s see,…now, I’ve got a 4000 yd. swim work out go do in a few minute …but for now, I’m going to catch a “King of the Hill” re-run. Is that clean living or what?
FWIW Joe Moya
.
Obviously forgot to take his medication today because now just discussing religion, not saying anything the least bit offensive merits that response.
You either did not take it or you need to up the dose.
You figure out how to post a photo yet?