Well, Bush just cited the book of Isiah..

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-01 10:22pm

By the way, if this were the ONLY thing Bush had ever done to chip away at the wall of separation, I would agree that it's not that big a deal. However, as the latest item in a long list of such actions, it takes on significance as part of a greater trend.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-01 10:31pm

I think it's indicative of Bush that he would choice the Bible when there are far more eloquent (and secular) speeches on the subject. Bush is a churchy (but not a fundy persay) and it's just another questionable remark to add to the list.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 10:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:I'm not seeing why I should care, nor do I see this as a violation of the Constitution. How exactly is the President saying something religious causing a congressional law to spring forth that establishes a state church or such?

I'd love to hear professional execs or even most principals (not in the Bible Belt) ever think of quoting the Bible in their speeches.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 10:52pm

Durran Korr wrote:Some lip service is justified in order to prevent political suicide.

You saying he has to quote the Bible?

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-05-01 10:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Falcon wrote:It isn't like he sits around discussing religion endlessly, letting his other duties go by the wayside.
Pointless exaggeration of the argument. How transparent of you. I suppose that a teacher preaching in the classroom is OK, as long as he doesn't do it "endlessly, letting his other duties go by the wayside?"

If a teacher said something like, 'God bless you all' as the students left class, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I assume by this you object to Clinton's behavior, using a government employee on government time to have oral sex in the oval office.

Of course. That was also unprofessional. So what? If Bush gets the same kind of relentless abuse over his unprofessional behaviour as Clinton got over his, then I would be quite happy.
[/quote]

Not just unprofessional, a direct misuse of government resources. Monica was a paid government employee on government time (so was Clinton). It would be like me stealing office supplies (to put it mildly)

What he does on his own time is his own business. When he's giving public speeches in his professional capacity, that is no longer his own time. It is his job. What part of this are you too dense to understand?
Bush has no 'own time' He is president 24\7, subject to his duties 24\7. Anytime he speakes its as the President.

Now you're just getting desperate. He is the President 24/7, but there are still functions and events at which he is clearly acting in his official capacity, as opposed to being the President out walking his dog.[/quote]

So if he's out walking his dog and some reporters come by and he mentions how great relgion is you wouldn't have a problem with that? He still is on government time, surrounded by secret service, nuclear codes nearby, etc...

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-05-01 10:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:By the way, if this were the ONLY thing Bush had ever done to chip away at the wall of separation, I would agree that it's not that big a deal. However, as the latest item in a long list of such actions, it takes on significance as part of a greater trend.

I'd perfer to stick with the things he has really done that are clearly wrong, not something as subjective as a few words in a speech.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 10:58pm

Falcon wrote:So if he's out walking his dog and some reporters come by and he mentions how great relgion is you wouldn't have a problem with that? He still is on government time, surrounded by secret service, nuclear codes nearby, etc...

You're a moron.

A President going to chruch on his private time is in no way similar to the original point: he has no business quoting Biblical shit in a speech to my military.

And if reporters ask him about his opinion about religion and the country--his answer should be that he believes in secularism and the upholdment of the First Amendment--if it is about his personal opinion, it can be anything he wants.

Get it?

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-05-01 11:01pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Falcon wrote:So if he's out walking his dog and some reporters come by and he mentions how great relgion is you wouldn't have a problem with that? He still is on government time, surrounded by secret service, nuclear codes nearby, etc...
You're a moron.

A President going to chruch on his private time is in no way similar to the original point: he has no business quoting Biblical shit in a speech to my military.

Secret service still have to go with him to church, using government resources, plus the President going to church influences other people.

And if reporters ask him about his opinion about religion and the country--his answer should be that he believes in secularism and the upholdment of the First Amendment--if it is about his personal opinion, it can be anything he wants.

Get it?

I get that we disagree about what the first amendment says...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-01 11:01pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Some lip service is justified in order to prevent political suicide.
You saying he has to quote the Bible?

No, I was just answering Falcon's claim concerning Washington's lip service. Washington did not regularly quote the Bible like Bush does, his lip service was less enthusiastic.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-05-01 11:03pm

So Bush quoted the Bible. Big fucking deal. It's called playing to the masses. 86% of Americans are of Judeo-Christian faith (1989 census), and that includes a lot of voters, even if half are in practice apathetic.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-05-01 11:05pm

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.
Thank you.

JFK Speech before Rice University (Space Race speech)

We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action.
They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I will take it.
In this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come!

FDR First Inaugural

Yet as long as others will challenge America's security and test the clearness of our beliefs with fire and steel, then we must stand or see the promise of two centuries tremble. I believe tonight that you do not want me to try that risk. And from that belief your President summons his strength for the trials that lie ahead in the days to come.
The work must be our work now. Scarred by the weaknesses of man, with whatever guidance God may offer us, we must nevertheless and alone with our mortality, strive to ennoble the life of man on earth.
Thank you, and goodnight.

LBJ Third State of the Union

But I believe that to be forgiven, more than sorrow is required - at least two more things. First, genuine repentance - a determination to change and to repair breaches of my own making. I have repented. Second, what my bible calls a ''broken spirit''; an understanding that I must have God's help to be the person that I want to be; a willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek; a renunciation of the pride and the anger which cloud judgment, lead people to excuse and compare and to blame and complain.
Now, what does all this mean for me and for us? First, I will instruct my lawyers to mount a vigorous defense, using all available appropriate arguments. But legal language must not obscure the fact that I have done wrong. Second, I will continue on the path of repentance, seeking pastoral support and that of other caring people so that they can hold me accountable for my own commitment.
Third, I will intensify my efforts to lead our country and the world toward peace and freedom, prosperity and harmony, in the hope that with a broken spirit and a still strong heart I can be used for greater good, for we have many blessings and many challenges and so much work to do.

Bill Clinton

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln Gettysburgh address

Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity

Jefferson, First Inaugural

George Bush is not alone, not the first and not the last to inject religion AS PRESIDENT into a speech.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 11:05pm

Falcon wrote:Secret service still have to go with him to church, using government resources, plus the President going to church influences other people.

This is just security practicality--they would have to secure the President doing anything else--this has to do with practical needs of protecting the President in his personal and public life, numbnuts.

Again a bullshit comparison.

Falcon wrote:I get that we disagree about what the first amendment says...

Than you're wrong.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 11:06pm

Stravo wrote:*snip*

Wow.

Meaningless historical precedents.

Furthermore the majority weren't fucking Old "Burn the Heathen Babies" Testament quotations.

And that doesn't make it proper Stravo.

I'm glad you're adopting Crown's debate tactics.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-01 11:07pm

Stravo wrote:George Bush is not alone, not the first and not the last to inject religion AS PRESIDENT into a speech.

No, of course not. But he's attempted to bring religion into public policy which is totally unaccpetable.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 11:08pm

Steve wrote:So Bush quoted the Bible. Big fucking deal. It's called playing to the masses. 86% of Americans are of Judeo-Christian faith (1989 census), and that includes a lot of voters, even if half are in practice apathetic.

Mention of the Vague God would be pandering--over 90% of Americans couldn't tell you who Isiah is. He's wanking to his own born-again faith.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-05-01 11:13pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Steve wrote:So Bush quoted the Bible. Big fucking deal. It's called playing to the masses. 86% of Americans are of Judeo-Christian faith (1989 census), and that includes a lot of voters, even if half are in practice apathetic.
Mention of the Vague God would be pandering--over 90% of Americans couldn't tell you who Isiah is. He's wanking to his own born-again faith.

Again, big fucking deal. If you don't like it, don't vote for him.

I happen to not give a shit because, to me, there are more important things to consider when electing a President, or a Governor, or a Legislative representative (House Rep or Senator) than their religion, like, say, the actual policies they espouse?

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-05-01 11:15pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Falcon wrote:Secret service still have to go with him to church, using government resources, plus the President going to church influences other people.
This is just security practicality--they would have to secure the President doing anything else--this has to do with practical needs of protecting the President in his personal and public life, numbnuts.

Again a bullshit comparison.

Doesn't matter. He is still using the government and its resources to promote religion. The cars take gas to go there, traffic is likely to be diverted or at least impeaded along his route, extra security whenever he leaves the White House, all at government expense.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-05-01 11:16pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Stravo wrote:*snip*
Wow.

Meaningless historical precedents.

Furthermore the majority weren't fucking Old "Burn the Heathen Babies" Testament quotations.

And that doesn't make it proper Stravo. I'm glad you're adopting Crown's debate tactics.

What the Supreme Court says about church and state overrides what you WANT the Consitituion to say but what the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally time and again is correct and proper interpretation. You have two hundred years of presidents injecting religion into their speeches INCLUDING Jefferson whose been consistently held up as a champion of the church and state crowd. What Bush did is not a horrible sin nor a violation of anything.

And as to meaningless historical precedents, the Consititution's interprtetation is based SOLELY on precedent, STARE DECISIS. Thats how nations of LAWS decide matters. Precedent.

And where was there a"Burn the heathen" quote in Bush's speech? Quite frankly the Bible is chock full of beautiful quotes and imagery just as it has horrible images and messages.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-05-01 11:17pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Stravo wrote:George Bush is not alone, not the first and not the last to inject religion AS PRESIDENT into a speech.
No, of course not. But he's attempted to bring religion into public policy which is totally unaccpetable.

Yes, when he actually attempts to make laws that favor a religion then that is wrong.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-05-01 11:18pm

Stravo wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Stravo wrote:*snip*
Wow.

Meaningless historical precedents.

Furthermore the majority weren't fucking Old "Burn the Heathen Babies" Testament quotations.

And that doesn't make it proper Stravo. I'm glad you're adopting Crown's debate tactics.
What the Supreme Court says about church and state overrides what you WANT the Consitituion to say but what the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally time and again is correct and proper interpretation. You have two hundred years of presidents injecting religion into their speeches INCLUDING Jefferson whose been consistently held up as a champion of the church and state crowd. What Bush did is not a horrible sin nor a violation of anything.

And as to meaningless historical precedents, the Consititution's interprtetation is based SOLELY on precedent, STARE DECISIS. Thats how nations of LAWS decide matters. Precedent.

And where was there a"Burn the heathen" quote in Bush's speech? Quite frankly the Bible is chock full of beautiful quotes and imagery just as it has horrible images and messages.

A voice of reason. I am pleased.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-01 11:22pm

Falcon wrote:If a teacher said something like, 'God bless you all' as the students left class, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Of course you wouldn't. I suppose you would also have no problem with the teacher saying "may glorious Satan watch over you all", right?

Not just unprofessional, a direct misuse of government resources. Monica was a paid government employee on government time (so was Clinton). It would be like me stealing office supplies (to put it mildly).

She was also a minor government asset to abuse, whereas a televised presidential speech is a major event.

So if he's out walking his dog and some reporters come by and he mentions how great relgion is you wouldn't have a problem with that? He still is on government time, surrounded by secret service, nuclear codes nearby, etc...

That would be fine, since they asked him a direct question and he is, after all, out walking his dog. Not at all like getting up to a podium and giving a prepared speech in which unsolicited religious input is made.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-01 11:27pm

Stravo wrote:What the Supreme Court says about church and state overrides what you WANT the Consitituion to say but what the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally time and again is correct and proper interpretation. You have two hundred years of presidents injecting religion into their speeches INCLUDING Jefferson whose been consistently held up as a champion of the church and state crowd. What Bush did is not a horrible sin nor a violation of anything.

Jefferson referred to Nature's deistic God, which is quite a bit less specific than a Biblical reference. And I reiterate that if this were the ONLY thing Bush has EVER done in this regard, I would probably overlook it. But given his long list of attacks on the wall of separation, you know perfectly well that it's just more evidence on a large pile.

And as to meaningless historical precedents, the Consititution's interprtetation is based SOLELY on precedent, STARE DECISIS. Thats how nations of LAWS decide matters. Precedent.

Yes, it's a serious problem with the nature of law. Law is one of the few fields in which the appeal to authority is not considered a fallacy.

And where was there a"Burn the heathen" quote in Bush's speech? Quite frankly the Bible is chock full of beautiful quotes and imagery just as it has horrible images and messages.

What does subjective valuation of the passage have to do with the fact that he's a habitual abuser of his position for promotion of religion?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-01 11:27pm

Steve wrote:A voice of reason. I am pleased.

Hey look! A lame "me too" post!

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 11:29pm

Steve wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Steve wrote:So Bush quoted the Bible. Big fucking deal. It's called playing to the masses. 86% of Americans are of Judeo-Christian faith (1989 census), and that includes a lot of voters, even if half are in practice apathetic.
Mention of the Vague God would be pandering--over 90% of Americans couldn't tell you who Isiah is. He's wanking to his own born-again faith.
Again, big fucking deal. If you don't like it, don't vote for him.

So your fucking point was bullshit.

Steve wrote:I happen to not give a shit because, to me, there are more important things to consider when electing a President, or a Governor, or a Legislative representative (House Rep or Senator) than their religion, like, say, the actual policies they espouse?

I love those "you just took the wind out of my arguments so I'm going to denigrate your position as being beneath my dignity" horseshit.

Cut the condescending bullshit.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-05-01 11:32pm

Stravo wrote:*snip*

Whatever. More excuses for why its cute for Bush to cite the Old fucking Testament when giving national speeches. How do the Muslim or Hindu soldiers feel?

And why are you ignoring that your precedents did not involve a President telling soliders that their calling comes from ancient sources than cited the Old Testament?

Or Mike's comment that this is no isolated incident, but just another drop in the barrel in Bush's history of religious influence on profession government statements?