Religion <> Politics

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Klaus

Refugee
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
2,432
Location
on a one of these small green spots at that blue p
Is it still a personal opinion or is the deputy secretary of defense for intelligence a religious fanatic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/opinion/26thurs2.html?th
The first reports sounded like an over-the-top satire of the Bush Pentagon: the deputy secretary of defense for intelligence - the ranking general charged with the hunt for Osama bin Laden - was parading in uniform to Christian pulpits, preaching that God had put George Bush in the White House and that Islamic terrorists will only be defeated "if we come at them in the name of Jesus." But now a Pentagon inquiry has concluded that Lt. Gen. William Boykin did indeed preach his grossly offensive gospel at 23 churches, pronouncing Satan the mastermind of the terrorists because "he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."

It was stunning last fall, after the general's lapse into brimstone bigotry became public, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, far from disturbed, praised General Boykin for an "outstanding record" and kept him at the highly sensitive intelligence post during the inquiry. Now it is simply mind-boggling that Pentagon reports suggest the general may survive with only a reprimand for having failed to clear his remarks in advance.
 
Could be the former, could be the latter, but either way it scares me. Everything scares me nowadays.

Nobody should ever be allowed to argue in favour of the Bush presidency on the basis that 'God' put him there or that he is a 'godly' man, or that he has divine rights. Why? Because it is impossible to argue with faith-based politics. Can't be done.
 
Also he is mistaken in so far as it was the Supreme Court that put the president in office. But that was never the point, right?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Old News, it does scare me though, perhaps W's strategy was to Out-Crazy the terrorists.

Well he may be suceeding. The problem is when the leaders try to out-crazy, the loyal subjects tend to follow.
 
Stuff like this really annoys me as a practicing Catholic Christian. God doesn't have earthly armies, and He doesn't put people in office. Elections are strictly earthly affairs and it's what people choose, not God.
 
Or god doesn't exist plain and simple and people get elected to office based on their merit and intellect, that could be the basis for a logical inference of the existence of God, it sure as hell beats Pascals infinite rewards versus infinite punishment argument.
 
A_Wanderer said:
and people get elected to office based on their merit and intellect
it might be easier to proof that god exists than that people get elected based on merrit and intellect
 
Salome said:
it might be easier to proof that god exists than that people get elected based on merrit and intellect

I sincerely believe this, Salome. People get elected mainly because of ambition, I don't care who you're talking about. I'm talking nonpartisan here.
 
I agree with what Kerry said in his acceptance speech at the convention (i'm paraphrasing here) "It's not 'God is on our side', we're trying to be on God's side." I feel that sums things up nicely.
 
I think Kerry was still inspiring on his two biggest speeches - at the DNC and his concession.

As far as the New York Times, I consider them to be Bush-whackers, and it seems as though whoever has the best Bush-wacking article is who ends up on the front page.
 
Well, of course the New York Times is liberal. A zebra doesn't change its stripes. I don't expect them to change their tune, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom