Wonder how the religion bashing left would like to say about these “true” facts…
[quote]Is George Bush too religious? Here is a closer look at what a much-misquoted president actually says and how it compares with his predecessors.
Bush’s ties to the Christian Coalition and other fanatic right-wing Christians aren’t as deep as some claim, but he definitely has tried to promote religion as a means of strengthening communities. He has given tax breaks to religious organizations and in 2003 gave $1.1 billion in grants to religious organizations.
pluralism.org/news/index.php … adline6306
Since religions tend to breed intolerance (particularly the fundamentalist kind) his strategies are poorly thought out. Bush’s revelation that he was ‘born again’ was also an egregious attempt to get Bible-thumpers onto his bandwagon.
[quote=“sbmoor262004”]- [Bush] has given tax breaks to religious organizations.
- Bush’s revelation that he was ‘born again’ was also an egregious attempt to get Bible-thumpers onto his bandwagon.[/quote]
Wow, and all this time I thought that churches were tax-exempt. 
Wow, and all this time I thought that churches were tax-exempt. [/quote]
… and MoPoSquid gets the candycane :candycane:
Bush has actively been trying to persecute secular-based social service organizations in an effort to boost faith-based social drives. Bush’s attacks on Head Start have been noted as well as his moves against HIV-education programs. A third of Bush’s anti-AIDS program is going to religious groups promoting abstinence. :loco: Yeah, that’s going to get kids to stop having sex. His fundamentalist mindset led him to cut funding to school programs teaching usage of more acceptable means of stopping HIV like contraception. Bush should be praised, however, for the fact that condom availability via the Agency for International Development has doubled. It’s a strange irony, but money spent on stopping HIV in any way isn’t misspent.
Persecute?
By whom? You? What do you know about Head Start? How much money is being spent on it? What results has it delivered? What are its goals? Does it even have a specific action plan? Would you also like to talk about DARE, a proram to fight drugs which does not even have a mission statement in its budget request because it does not know what it is supposed to do or how to measure its success?
News to me. I doubt very much that bush is “against” HIV education programs, but he may think that rather than distributing condoms to 10 years olds with a shrug shrug “The little slumsters are just going to fuck each other anyway cuz that’s what they are like don’t you know” may think that encouraging them to develop a little self respect and refrain from becoming sexually active so early might be a better way to approach the problem and not just in terms of AIDS but also teenage pregnancy etc.
Well, obviously “secular” programs that “understand” that 10 year old children are “naturally” going to have sex have not exactly been a glaring success. You have had 40 years to promote these kinds of programs. How have they been doing? Think the time might have come to assume that “if it feels good do it” may not be the best way to raise or educate our children. That is after all so 60s.
Yes, how outrageous that he might not agree to fund programs that teach 10 to 12 year olds how to use condoms and would rather focus on self-esteem issues that would encourage them NOT to have sex at such an early age. How ridiculous! What a fundamentalist! Do you even know what the f*** you are talking about? I worked in a central-city public school. Wanna talk about success and funds and how they are NOT linked in the inner cities?
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about but then I seriously question whether you even know what it is you are talking about. Wanna talk about education. This is a field I have a great deal of experience in from the administration side. I am just itching for you to open your foolish trap more on this subject. Wanna play?
In this one rare instance, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred, though not for any reasons that will bring him joy.
I don’t think Bush is born-again Christian. I don’t even think he reads the Bible, unless it’s in front of the TV cameras. He panders to the religious right with his fake anti-abortion anti-gay stance. He couldn’t give a rat’s ass if a fetus is aborted or not. If his own daughters get knocked-up, he’ll send them to Canada for an abortion.
I have some missionary friends here in Taiwan, and they are Christian fundamentalists to the very bottom of their souls. They adore Bush. They think he is God’s messenger. They are completely taken in by his phony born-again soundbites.
I’m not religious, but I’m fascinated by the Book of Revelation. If anyone fits the model of the anti-Christ, it would have to be George Bush.
I expect to be flamed to a crisp for this. But as the anti-Christ said, “Bring it on.”
happy holidays to all,
DB
You don’t have to look far to see differences of opinion about George W. Bush. Opinions range from:
GeorgeW. Bush is the Antichrist.
to
He is the Lord.
Since fred smith posted the article without positing any opinion of his own, it is up to me to determine what he feels is interesting about it.
It seems like the main point is that just by hearing his one quote doesn’t mean George W. Bush wants to change the government from a republic (a country in which the head is appointed by the people, not by God) to a theocracy.
It is apparent to me that George W. Bush has done work that is in the direction of promoting theocracy (a nation subject to religious authority). Off the top of my head, I’d assume this could include appointing religious people to office. I don’t have any proof that George W. would not appoint a pro-choice candidate to the Supreme Court, but it’s my gut feeling that any appointments he makes are going to be appointments that shift the nations authority away from a centrist position toward one in which the religious half of the country has the most authority over the nonreligious.
Evidence, please? Or were you channeling the Ghost of Clintons Past?
I mean, personally, I don’t give a rodent’s anus either way, but he seems sincere enough in his convictions to me, and your presentation of your emotional response to his faith seems pretty silly to me.
[quote=“sbmoor262004”]
Since religions tend to breed intolerance (particularly the fundamentalist kind) his strategies are poorly thought out. [/quote]
so much hate for religion. seems to me you’re not very tolerant of religions. 
Twocs:
Why is it that religious people cannot be appointed to high office? Are you saying the government should discriminate against those who are religious in favor of those whose “religions” are secular humanism?
[quote=“twocs”]
It is apparent to me that George W. Bush has done work that is in the direction of promoting theocracy (a nation subject to religious authority). Off the top of my head, I’d assume this could include appointing religious people to office. I don’t have any proof that George W. would not appoint a pro-choice candidate to the Supreme Court, but it’s my gut feeling that any appointments he makes are going to be appointments that shift the nations authority away from a centrist position toward one in which the religious half of the country has the most authority over the nonreligious.[/quote]
you ever read the declaration of independence, twocs? 
[quote=“fred smith”]Twocs:
Why is it that religious people cannot be appointed to high office? Are you saying the government should discriminate against those who are religious in favor of those whose “religions” are secular humanism?[/quote]
I’m not sure if that’s what Twocs is saying, but excluding religious people from decision making would certainly reduce the pool of eligible government officials to a tiny minority.
I think part of the disconnect that we see in conversations like this stems from self-segration in terms of political and religious views. Sbmoor, for example, seems to find it hard to believe that someone could be genuine when he tells people that he was “born again”. Apologies, sbmoor, if I misunderstood your post – but it really did seem like your default position was that deep religious conviction was, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, some kind of hoax or scam.
We also have Twocs’s statement that “…it’s my gut feeling that any appointments he makes are going to be appointments that shift the nations authority away from a centrist position toward one in which the religious half of the country has the most authority over the nonreligious.”
Maybe saying “half the country” was just a casual figure of speech, and what he meant was
touche, hobbes. i had just looked up the exit poll figures myself, but wanted to keep my own post direct and to the point.
[quote=“fred smith”]Twocs:
Why is it that religious people cannot be appointed to high office? Are you saying the government should discriminate against those who are religious in favor of those whose “religions” are secular humanism?[/quote]
My point was that pro-choice people cannot be appointed to high office.
According to the The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 (No. 79), based on a random digit-dialed telephone survey of 50,281 American residential households in the continental U.S.A (48 states) only about 77% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian. 4% have a religion that is not Christianity. About 14% say they don’t have a religion. The rest of the people refused to say.
Beliefs about the role of religion:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a poll conducted during 2001-NOV that showed: Of those surveyed, 78% felt that the influence of religion in the United States was growing. This is a major increase over a similar Pew poll in 2001-MAR, when only 37% of those questioned had felt that way.
Isn’t it true that the role of religion is growing in the United States government? I feel that is contrary to the original posts’ inference that George W. Bush has nothing to do with a shift in policy that is in essence a shift toward a theocracy.
twocs, do you realize the document which gave birth to this country was a document chock full of christian references? religion is less influential in us politics today than at any time in us history.
your laughable paranoia of an oncoming theocracy just highlights your ignorance of the role of religion throughout us history.
once again, have you even READ the declaration of independence?
Sigh, you guys have problems. Discussing, if the church is tax-exempted. In Germany, they even GET taxes from the tax payers :s
The mass media has actually had very little to say about the original topic of this thread. I finally found an article about it, dated from last October:
tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=vKO1twm … i2qoWQfW==
cheers,
DB
Good topic and good thread, fred smith et al.