Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


The Faith-based Presidency

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 locally pwned

locally pwned

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:03:57 PM

Posted 06 April 2006 - 06:27 AM

From the "dolphin" thread:

W. and Saddam both used religion to justify their actions. Regardless of who was right or wrong, the idea of using the religious beliefs of citizens to justify political action is wrong, in my opinion. No matter who does it.

There is no evidence that Bush uses his relgious beliefs to justify his actions. Contrary to the left wing blogs, he does not talk to and get instructions from God. When speaking on social/cultural issues, Bush speaks from his personal feelings on the matter which are Christian based.

I'd like to share an article
that describes in detail some of the points I was trying to make.

The problem is not just that Bush uses religion to make decisions; it's that facts and critical analysis are not used in his decision-making process.

IMO: this is why, for example, if an advisor speaks against a pre-drawn plan, instead of changing the plan, they find and advisor to fit that plan. It's also the reason why they won't under any circumstance admit mistakes, large or small.

The article analyzes that decision making process, and his behavior along his rise to power. For those who still support him, it's not a Bush-bash; just an analysis.

In all of the utter multitude of ways that I disagree with the actions and behaviors of the administration, this may be the root.

The article was written before Bush's second term; but it illustrates much of what I was getting at.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:07:57 PM

Posted 06 April 2006 - 11:01 AM

There are going to be many arguments in this topic concerning statements like "Without his faith, a man is nothing", or "All faithless people are ignorant morons" (believe me, i've heard that one before...).

The main problem i see with bush relying on his faith so much is that not everyone in this country is the same faith as him. He's making multiple faith-based decisions that cater to christianity's views and opinions on certain topics, without taking into account the facts of the matter or the objective views present on the subject. Gay marriage and abortion are 2 of the "hottest topics" regarding this.

Then comes the argument that "the majority of americans are christian" or "we knew what we were getting into when we voted". I've always wondered that, if we can cater to the majority of religion in this country, why don't we cater to the majority of race in this country? And we definately don't seem to be catering to the majority of monetary groups... :thumbsup:

#3 yano


    I can see what you post!

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:57 PM

Posted 08 May 2006 - 11:29 PM

I really don't see a problem in it. I just think that religion (regardless of whatever religion it is) should not be forced upon everything single thing.

Sometimes I wonder if people would argue the religious country debate if we had a Jewish, or Muslim president in our current times?

In addition, I don't think religion should be exploited to the extent to justify any actions regardless of the degree they are.

Edited by yano, 08 May 2006 - 11:30 PM.

#4 jgweed


  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:06:57 PM

Posted 09 May 2006 - 09:19 AM

One could make a distinction between a "faith-based" presidency, and a "faith-directed" presidency. In the former, one would assume that the character of the man was formed and strengthened by his faith (whether in God or in himself or in the institution of democracy); in the latter, that the man made decisions based on religious beliefs, and intended to implement a "new Jerusalem" (for example) through government actions.
History is replete with examples of the latter, all of which have resulted in the misery of the commonwealth, enslavement of men's minds, and persecution of any dissenting opinion that dared sound its voice. History also shows, from Sokrates to Ghandi to Washington and Lincoln, the former.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users