God tells Bush things.

I know most of you will believe what you want to believe....but in the interest of balance....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/051007131357.nstalu7a.html

Forgive my cynicism, but with the White House's batting average lately, the word of Scott McClellen doesn't have the same gravitas as it used to.

How does the evoking God double standard for political parties work again? Is it only ok if everyone knows you don't really believe in God and are just power hungry? I'm unclear. Almost every politican uses God to their advantage when it suits them.

Bush evoking God turns the stomachs of many urban pseudo-intellectual liberals, but then again, that has never been his core audience. What he says resonates with the people who believe in him and share his beliefs, and those are the people he is speaking to. What Bush says speaks to a lot of people in the "heartland", and these are the people who went out in droves to vote for him. I doubt it matters what a bunch of people that would never vote for him anyway think about him and God.

Actually, I belive this. I really doubt that Bush would have said the quote the way it was stated in the first article.

Still, its funny to watch the urban pseudo-intellectual conservatives trying to defend the statement.

Amen, brother! I recently saw a bumper sticker that really made me think:I won't say what it made me think as the US Contitution (New Improved Version) still prohibits the Congress from making a law regarding the establishment of religion or the free excercise thereof, and protects the right of people to peacably assemble, or some such nonsense... I think, maybe, unless you're a terrorist or look like one, or of Colombian descent, or of Middle-Eastern appearance, or have above average melanin production, or an onanist or sumtpin.

Gah! Concept of the day: executive order prosecuting the crime of onanism. 'Twould certainly be a boon for Prison Construction, Inc. (a division of Haliburton®), would help us get police of the streets and into people's homes where they belong. With a special exemption for the Congress and the Executive as that is a part of their job description, of course. Oh and the DHS and TSA too.

Well, the same thing that happened in Columbine - namely, murder - has been happening on a larger scale in Palestine, Israel, and the rest of the so-called Holy Lands for thousands of years. Explain your line of reasoning on that again for me?

That is not what the helpful government pamphlet said.


(Mal, your wit is unparalleled.)

I'd love a bumper sticker that says "We've keep God in the Holy Land for millennia and look what's happened!"

If you don't believe, you suck, if you do believe worship me?

Is that the general idea I'm getting here? That's pretty much in short what this is all telling me.

I think the problem is that most people here seem to think that "God speaking to you" has to be in a literal fashion. What if God speaks through you? It's not possible to prove one way or the other, so it's only a matter of faith. If someone happens to believe that God speaks through you, I could understand why they might say that "God tells them things". Maybe it's your conscience. That's the best I can explain it.

blah blah blah... I believe that's the only appropriate response to a condescending reply. I think I'm just in a grumpy mood lately because of all the "Christian bashing" or whatever. This coming from someone who doesn't even go to church, hopefully should mean a little something.

I bothered, believe me. Let's clarify:
"Although I think it's a really stupid quote, I don't see the relevance.)"

It's as simple as this--I don't see the relevance of a quote that didn't come out of the current president's mouth in the context of criticising him directly, which this thread is doing. Or was doing, anyway.



I wasn't calling you an athiest. That was supposed to be a standalone statement. I realize my first reply here wasn't as thoughtfully put together as usual, as I was too tired to care.

My point was that I think you're misinterpreting things. I've heard religious individuals speak about their beliefs, and I think it's possible to hold the belief that God speaks "to" you in a non-literal sense. Perhaps whether or not this makes sense depends on what your "flavor" of religion is like. Have you ever been introduced to the "God is a part of you" concept?

The old quote comes to mind:
"When a man talks to God, he's praying. When he hears stuff from God, he's schizophrenic."

Christian Bashing?

I AM a Cristian dood...

I just have a problem when someone twists the words of the man who said "Peace be with you" and "turn the other cheek"

into

"kill the darkies" and "with us or against us"

You can be foolish if you want to , and let what our Lord says be used to enslave and kill people, or you can be as outraged as those of us who don't beleive "pro life" means "pro death penalty" and "pro with us or against us"

you are willingly being manipulated, and if you take what I say as condecending, perhaps you should consider that I am trying to wake you up and let you know the Christian religion has been hijacked in the same way the Muslim religion has been hijacked.

If I robbed a 7/11 and raped a woman and killed a witness and said "God told me to do it," would you call anyone who was outraged at my behavior a "Christian basher?"

the irony of Bush's words, when it is pretty obvious to those who actually pay attention to what is going on, is beyond amazing.

Again, I quote Bush, so that you may read and understand that he is inadvertantly describing himself and the actions of his own policy/agenda



Does Bush have endless ambitions of imperial domination?

Yes, "With us or against us and "Spreading Freedom"

Does Bush Want to make everyone powerful accept him and his elite rich?

Yes. Bushes entire history on rich and corporate issues vs. citizen issues. See also the Patriot Act, which had been used overwhelmingly against US citizens.

Does Bush Use Murder to Justify his grand vision?

Yes:



Perhaps you think a person condemned to death should be mocked. There was a lot of that going on while Jesus was on the cross you know (crown of thorns). Perhaps that doesn't suit your agenda so you can forget about that while YOUR president mocked a condemned woman.

Or perhaps you can answer this. Explain this, Christian Bushboy:



Ok, it could have been a mistake, but then again...



I must point out one thing that strikes me as incongruent with the facts. notice this is cited from the OFFICIAL White House website, so again, my citations are at the top of the food chain.

The first plane hitting the building was only captured by 1 camera. If was a handheld videotape, NOT a live video camera.

That means the camera that recorded the first plane hitting the building had to have the video tape ejected, and the tape run down physically in person to a broadcast position.

It is 100% impossible for that tape to have been delivered and broadcast prior to the second plane being broadcast live.

So Bush has at no less then 2 times claimed to have watched the first plane hit prior to walking in that classroom, where he was told on camera about the second plane as he pondered "what it meant for America to be under attack"

For those of us well versed in logic, there are only 2 possible scenarios that would allow Bush to make this statement.

#1) Bush Lied about the series of events of that day.

#2) Bush knew about it prior and watched the impact of the first plane live via special closed circuit feed. A feed no one but the president and his inner circle have every seen. (see also #1)

please, if anyone can tell me an option #3, I would LOVE to hear it

So, explain how mocking a comndemed woman, and lying in some way about his participation of the events of 9/11 make Bush a good Christian?

Or defend him because he uses the word God.

I'm a Christian man, and when Jesus walked into the temple and threw the tables over because faith was being used as way to manipulate the masses, I paid attention. And you should to. Jesus taught us all very well, but you can not pick and choose the message based on your personal ideology.

lemme rephrase this for you in a language you may be able to understand

your either with Him, or against Him.

God talks to me all the time. Somedays I wish he would just take a day off.

God has an opinion on EVERYTHING and feels the needs to share those opinions constantly.

Actually, I think I get what you mean Garoad. God speaking to Bush is basically in the same vien as when Hillary Clinton said that Elanor Roosevelt spoke to her.

I don't hate Bush as a person, I really think he means well, but I abhor many of his decisions. Its like C. S. Lewis said, Don't hate the person, hate the bad actions they do and work to change them.

Mulch, it's hard to do, but you're starting to piss me off. I was talking about the "Christian bashing" going on here in general, I don't recall calling you a Christian basher. In fact, since you are Christian, doesn't it bother you to see the endless jokes and condescension towards not only Christians but religious people in general?

Now..."kill the darkies"? Spreading freedom and Democracy is the same as "imperial domination"? Now I'm a "Christian Bush boy"? (that's a new one for me, especially the Christian bit) Your original statement that I couldn't "think for myself", which you just repeated again, wasn't condescending? (Am I supposed to ignore that?) Equating Bush with terrorists? Is this for real?

Clearly you're new to this forum, as I've been pissed off by stuff Bush has done plenty of times and I've said so. I've never said that the degree to which Bush talks about religion does not bother me--actually, I've said that it does. But often I think he's being targeted unfairly just because of who he is (like in this thread).

I didn't come in here saying the words that you're putting into my mouth, even after I later clarified. I said that the original quotes--not the endless stream of other crap that has been injected into the thread since then--were being misinterpreted.

Not to mention the fact that it's out of context and coming from questionable sources.

If you can find time in between calling me silly names to make an effort to be a little less verbose in your replies (I'd rather not spend the afternoon here today), perhaps I might change my tone. I happen to believe, after (gasp) deciding on my own, that changing the face of the middle east ("flipping the temple's tables" if you prefer) is a worthwhile goal. I'm not always in total agreement with the methodologies being used to do so, but if this makes me "sheep"--whatever. So of course religion is being used inappropriately by politicans, they all do it constantly, just to different degrees.

In other words, Bush's campaign pandered to the lowest common denominator in almost exactly the same way the church has done for millenia? Nothing succeeds like success!

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
-- Henry Mencken

Garoad - I am not a Christian. Though I once had a lot of respect for many Christian people because I felt that their intentions were mostly good. Most that I knew went quietly about their lives, raising their children, caring for their families, attending their churches and trying to make a positive impact on their communities as best they could.

I respect that. I can't buy into the faith, but I can respect what it is supposed to represent.

I begin to take exception when I am being told that the nation I live in is "immoral" and that it no longer has a moral compass and that the people who are going "fix this" are among the following:

ALLEN, A.A. Evangelist, healer Alcoholic. Arrested for drunk driving. Died of alcohol related disease.

ARMSTRONG, GARNER TED Televangelist, radio teacher, pastor, Multiple adulterer. Admitted that by 1972 he had illicit relations with 200 women. The number was much greater by the date of his death in 2003. Claimed his 'calling' to the ministry from the womb exempted him from biblical accountability.

ARMSTRONG, HERBERT W. - Apostle, prophet, pastor, televangelist, radio teacher Incestuous relationship with daughter, alcoholic, false prophet, plagiarist. Never admitted publicly to misconduct.

BAKKER, JIM Televangelist Adultery, convicted of fraud. Has repented and is back in the ministry and on television.

CATHOLIC CHURCH - The "true" church, Allowed hundreds of priests to serve while they sexually abused children and did not report the incidents to the police. "WHY?"

CROUCH, PAUL - Founder and owner of TBN, Trinity Broadcasting Networ, made a settlement regarding a plagiarism suit against his movie, The Omega Code, without admitting to any wrongdoing.

GORTNER, MARJOE Child evangelist, healer Admitted to being a fake. Left the ministry for the secular entertainment industry.

GRANT, W.V. Jr. Evangelist, healer Unbiblical divorce, convicted of tax fraud.

HAGIN, KENNETH Evangelist, healer, prophet, apostle Revealed as a plagiarist.

JENKINS, LEROY Televangelist Convicted for arson and assault, released from prison in 1984 and pardoned by the state of South Carolina in 1993. At 64 years of age, married a 77 year-old millionaire 16 days after the death of her husband. After the family protested and the court declared the woman incompetent, the marriage was annuled.

JONES, BOB Kansas City "prophet" Confessed to sexual misconduct, 1991.

KUHLMAN, KATHRYN Evangelist, healer, pastor Unbiblical divorce, adultery.

LIARDON, ROBERTS Pastor, evangelist, televangelist Confessed to a long-term homosexual relationship with his associate youth pastor. After brief absence, is now back in the ministry and the pulpit.

McCLENDON, CLARENCE Bishop, pastor, evangelist, televangelist Completed an unbiblical divorce after 16 years of marriage. He said, "I have a calling to preach, not to be married." Seven days after the divorce was final, he married Priscilla Delgado.

McPHERSON, AIMEE Evangelist, healer, pastor Unbiblical divorce, faked her own kidnapping, fornicator.

MOSSHOLDER, RAY Marriage counsellor Un-Biblical divorce, wanted supporters to "forgive" him for his unbiblical divorce prior to obtaining the divorce.

PARHAM, CHARLES FOX Teacher Charged with sodomy.

PATTY, SANDI Singer, recording artist. Adultery, unbiblical divorce and remarriage. Has expressed repentance through her church and publicly.

POPOFF, PETER Evangelist, healer Fake, used a radio device operated by his wife to be given information about the diseases of people he claimed to heal.

SWAGGART, JIMMY Televangelist, Adulterer, caught twice (once in a school parking lot). Repented publicly twice.

Not to mention Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Terry Randall.

I'm not bashing here - just pointing out why I'm having a problem, because these people have legislated things, based on "their moral compass" that actually do infringe on how I live my life and what my values are.

Personally, I don't care if the words "under god" are in the flag salute or not, but I do care if people die because they don't have health care. I don't give two hoots if I pass a sculpture of the 10 Commandments in the court house but I do care that people don't make a enough of a living wage to support their family and keep a roof over their heads.

I care that the government has garnered enough power that they can walk into your home at any time without a warrant and search it. That they can take it, under the guise of eminent domain and hand it over to a ball team or the hilton hotel corporation.

Travel around America a bit and look at the people without jobs and health care. There is no safety net and charity is not picking up the tab. As the a greater portion of the population becomes older and can no longer work the crisis will become even worse for the elderly. You can site statistics all day long for unemployment but it dosen't count the people who have given up hope and fallen off the radar.

An honest question: Why do these famous televanglist seem to be so much more concerned with porn than with poverty?

I know you're not bashing. I feel much the same way you do, but you're seeing all the bad (because it's the most visible by far) and missing the good. You're going to find extremists anywhere you look, and the media makes sure they seek out the most outrageous ones possible. Looking at the more common religious individuals that aren't in the news all the time, in my experience I have seen mostly good intentions.

With poverty, and there is exceptions, but I think alot of people don't understand why they should be asked to give handouts to someone who isn't even willing to lift a finger to help themselves. You have to make the effort to help yourself first, only then can someone else begin to give you any assistance. Maybe it's so far beyond most peoples' resources to help people that don't seem to be willing to help themselves that it seems pointless. I don't know if I can answer your question really, maybe someone else can. I think something more than religious belief is factoring in when the question of poverty and distribution of wealth is brought up, is what I'm trying to say.

What do you mean by this though? (The eminent domain thing I know about.) Are you talking about delayed notification searches?

I am sorry I am pissing you off, but frankly, I am PISSED off by this administration constantly using their skewered interpretation of the bible, or, even worse, the Lords name in vain saying that He supports some of this evil that is being perpetrated in His name.

Also, keep in mind topics in polite society in mixed company to be avoided are religion and politics, which we have certainly collided in this thread in one possible firestorm of a topic (and despite strong disagreements, this has not been a thread of troll or baiting, which amazes me considering the delicacy of the subject matter). Getting people pissed off is precisely the reason such topics should be avoided in social situations.

And no, the jokes and and condescension of my beliefs don't bother me at all because I have my faith and no one will be able to effect my faith (in God and Christ that is). I consider myself saved because I accept my Lord, but I can't force my beliefs on anyone else. I can help them reach salvation, but I can't drag them through the gates of Heaven if that is not where they want to be.

If someone said your favorite band sucked ass, would that make you stop listening to that band? Would it annoy you that others don't get it? I can only control myself, sure I can try to influence others and spread His good word, but forcing someone to believe what they don't, especially when it comes to religion, is beyond my ability. All I can do is share the good news to those who are ready to receive Him or rejoice with the choir I sing in tune with.

What DOES bother me is using religion to support war (by default murder and vengeance) and a culture of corporate profit. These are things the New Testament addressed head on and this administration is blatantly manipulating His name to further their own agenda and THAT pisses me off. And this is the same thing that Bush accuses Bin Laden of doing, which makes him a full blooded hypocrite.

Read my Recent Analysis of Bush's Most recent Iraq speech on my blog and in the limited work I put in (a couple hours for research and composing editing) and you will see I have definite problems with the parallels between Bush's methods and Bin Laden's methods and what he claims Bin Laden's goals are compared to his own.

And being pissed off isn't a bad thing, because otherwise we are apathetic; apathy being the biggest danger to a free society based on a democratic model (yes I know we are technically a republic, but its a representational democracy).

If I piss you off, I hope you examine your core beliefs (IE religion and politics) and the teachings of the beliefs and compare what is happening today in our supposed "free society."

Jesus overturning the tables was a direct result of him riling himself because HE was pissed and was determined to right the wrongs. If I piss you off and lead you to a deeper belief and understating in and of His words, and therefore inspire you to action to do as Jesus did, then I consider that MY personal ministry.

I don't really care if you like me personally but if you want to do His work, you must not sit idly by and let Bush and Co. get away with what they are getting away with in our Saviours name (and like me or not, you have been instructed to love your brother as you would yourself, which is me. Dislike me sure, but love me as the brother I am to you).

As far as accusing me personally of Christian bashing, you followed my quote in your post with the words "blah,blah,blah" and then immediately mentioned Christian bashing. Am I wrong to infer you were addressing me when my quote was the only one in that entry?



Yes, they are the same. the Imperial Romans conquered those that were different. "Spreading freedom" is a linguistic trick to make stealing a sovereign nations oil and the nepotism of those who work in the administration getting no bid reconstruction contracts at top dollar is surely the consolidation of power, which is straight up Imperialism. And make no mistake, Bush called it a Crusade already, and if you know your history, the Crusades were ALL about Christians killing Muslims.

And I would guess that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are dark, and considering our nations history regarding slavery, native American treatment, segregation, and the conservative base hating affirmative action more than even abortion, "kill the darkies" is quite a reasonable conclusion based on our preceding history.



Sometimes I may be condescending. I hope that by provoking a reaction I can inspire people to re examine why exactly they believe what Bush says. Bush and company are known liars (or at the very least manipulators of the truth), and I challenge you to look beyond the 30 second blurbs on Fox News to see the levels of the truth employed by this administration.

You did accuse me of being condescending, so I went the whole 9 yards and fulfilled your expectations regarding the "Christian Bush boy" crack.



Yes. I AM saying that precisely. If you haven't been carefully been following US history, I could detail some things. Noam Chomsky's book 9/11 can do a better job explaining in GREAT DETAIL with far more precision and endless citations and accuracy than I can illustrating EXACTLY why we are the ONLY terrorist state in the entire world.

For example, a US army manual defines terrorism as:

"the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

"With us or against us" meets that definition to a T.

If you want to debate the United States as being a terrorist state, do a little more research, and bring it on. But I am not as intelligent, eloquent, logical, wise, experienced or careful in my citations as Mr Chomsky, so read some of his works 1st if you wish to take my arguments head on as I will cite him the majority of times on this subject, as he is far more capable than myself to proving this allegation.

Check our history in Nicaragua in the 1980's for example. When the UN condemned our attacks on the civilian infrastructure, we alone vetoed what would have amounted to a verdict of international state sponsored terrorism against the U.S. We have veto power holding one of the few permanent seats. We were accused and we used our veto power (as a superpower, a bully if you will) to deflect what even Israel (with their own 50+ years of UN declared illegal occupation) considered blatant terrorist actions on our part.

The fact that Nicaragua went to the UN to fight us made us escalate our assault on their infrastructure (and by default their citizens). Same thing with Iraq. Our sanctions didn't hurt ANYONE in the government, but the citizens, innocent civilians suffered our wrath. And isn't attacking Innocent civilians what most reasonable people define as terrorism?

And our very recent history at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, holding people indefinitely without charges (including American Citizens against the constitution) indefinitely, shipping suspects off to areas where torture is legal, the disregard of the Geneva Conventions, and our own torture practices such as water-boarding, sensory deprivation, and the use of attack dogs on "enemy combatants can easily be defined as terrorism.

Or maybe war crimes. Why else would Bush and company make themselves immune to prosecution of war crimes unless they had reason to worry they would charged with that crime?

Maybe my biggest mistake was singling Bush out as the lone terrorists. As the lone superpower, the "bully on the block" as Colin Powell referred to us (and I met him and admired him at one time), we are the #1 terrorist group in the world, collectively, the United States of America.



I am only as new to the forums as I am to SL, and I lurk far more than I post. And no I don't match every anonymous forum posters avatar name to their opinions. I apologize if I mischaracterized you as drinking Bush's Kool-Aid, but then again, you accused me of "Christian Bashing"

And who "is" Bush that he gets targeted "unfairly?"



Can I ask you what makes them questionable? And what context are they presented in that makes them incongruent with the ramifications that are alleged about his verbiage and actions?

And please define "crap," as a debate can only be facilitated when a subject is clearly defined.



I am not calling you silly names in this post, but in an effort to more thoroughly explain my position and clarify points I have made per your request, my verbosity has gone into overdrive. These issues are not 30 second soundbites from the world famous "O'Riley Factor Talking Points Memo."

To omit vital facts from an important discussion is a great disservice to the complexity and multiple layers to the truth that are being obscured daily by this administration. They use 30 second soundbites to misrepresent by omission. They cannot be faced with an accurate and complete examination of facts, which is why they do what they know best. It is lucky for them, that like you, most citizens don't have the time, intelligence, or interest to engage an issue beyond 30 seconds.



You may believe that, but no one made us the worlds police. The United Nations (IE the rest of the world) was firmly against us going into Iraq as a matter of fact. You may think you are right, and so may Bush, but what makes your opinion more correct then those who think we should not have gone?

Does are bigger guns make us inherently right?

And no, what we did was not "flipping the temples tables" in Iraq. What we did was murder over 25,000 innocent civilians, take almost 2000 children of United States citizens to their death, from their families, and take over the infrastructure of a soveigrn nation while grabbing their countries most valuable resource. Not only that but we lied about the reasons we went there, we destabilized a country, we assigned blame in Iraq where it was an outright falsehood (Saddam was responsible for 9/11). Now no one can explain in any reasonable terms why we are there.

Except Bush saying "God told him to"

If you killed one and robbed a bank, would you compare yourself to "flipping the tables in the temple?"

It wasn't our country, nor our problem. Iraq did not attack us, did not have plans to attack us, and had no means to attack us. Jesus never "imposed his will" on others, and a so called Christian like Bush doing it in His name is surely going to elicit a strong reaction from those of us who give up part of our leisure time to be informed and involved to the extent we can be in the world, its history, its future, and try to follow our Saviours principles for everlasting peace and love.



Which sums up everything I have said completely. Bush and Bin Laden are cut from EXACTLY the same mold and neither should be allowed to get away with the murders have they perpetrated for "their" particular "God."

Sorry if I offended you, but be careful which side you are on. Actions speak louder than words. If the actions aren't congruent with the words, then you open yourself to scorn or ridicule aligning yourself with murderers and blasphemers.

I wanna marry Mulch.

Garoad - that would be the chip in the old rock of freedom granite that I am refering to. An entire topic for another thread. When you say that, with regard to religious leaders, the media makes sure they seek out the most outrageous, absolutely, I agree.

Knowing that though, keep in mind that they do this on the other end of the spectrum as well and when you see reports in the media about people gaming the welfare system and immigrants receiving entitlements that greatly exceed those of U.S. Citizens, ask yourself, how much of it is truth and how much of it is the media seeking to report the most outrageous?

One last point on people who don't "seem" willing to help themselves. Not even sixty years ago many people thought that people born with epilepsy were possessed by spirits or demons and that if a person prayed enough they would not have this affliction. Those people were cast aside to live in institutions and in the street. Many did not understand that it was an illness. Most people with epilepsy now live normal lives on medication that controls their seizures.

How much do we not know yet about addiction? I'm not trying to make excuses for bad behavior, just pointing out that not all illness that results in perpetual poverty can necessarily be controlled.

Also I guess I would rather take the chance that even though a small percentage of people who "game" the system get something they should probably not have, four or five families get what they need rather than have a system so difficult and merciless that even one family goes hungry because we are trying to stop someone from being a slacker.

I should like to peitition for adoption by Kendra and Mulch (but not in any weirdish way).