Get out of our Government God! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2003, 05:32 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Then we can use this logic to say God placed Hitler, Saddam, etc. in power?

I nearly got kicked out of a history class for thinking out loud (not saying I believe it) that God used Hitler to re-establish Israel. i thought the professor was going to rreach across the table and thrash me. I was young, and just throwing an idea out there. We were discussing God's active presence in history.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:34 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 02:52 PM
1st....I do not agree with the General at all!!!!!
2nd I agree with NB the General has the right to his opinion and to express it in a church.
3rd....The general was not expressing it to his troops or preaching it at the pentagon in any form of official capacity.
4th...keep up the good discussion.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:52 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
NB...If you believe the General was incorrect in any of his statements...what would they be?
Here are some statements which I would correct:

Quote:
"I tell you this morning, he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
Boykin has no basis to know why God placed GWB in the White House. Boykin is quoting from Esther, but even Mordecai qualified his statement by saying "And who knows but that you [Esther] have come to royal position for such a time as this?" Esther 4:14


Quote:
terrorists have been attacking us is "because we're a Christian nation."
Terrorists are more likely to attack our nation for supporting a Jewish nation than for being a "Christian nation". So this incorrect on two levels (i) the motivation of the terrorist and (ii) our status as a "Christian nation".

Quote:
the Christian god was on his side
I stated earlier, we can only claim to be followers, seekers of God, or being on God's side. We have no control over God nor does God, who is Sovereign, have to answer to anyone.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:54 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I nearly got kicked out of a history class for thinking out loud (not saying I believe it) that God used Hitler to re-establish Israel. i thought the professor was going to rreach across the table and thrash me. I was young, and just throwing an idea out there. We were discussing God's active presence in history.
To bad you got such heat for adding to the exchange of ideas.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:56 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Does anyone understand the Crusades? Is this the tired knee-jerk comeback against Christians?

Boykins comments have nothing to do with the Crusades. He makes a theological point - one which most would rather not face. Theologically, both Islam and Christianity cannot be true.
I don't think this is strictly theology, either. It involves the politics of the United States, which is not a Christian country, vs. some idiot fanatics who claim to be Moslems. It's not Christians vs. Moslems; it's decent people against terrorism. If it were just theology you could take the politics out and say, OK, I'm a Christian and thus I am not a Moslem, thus.......after all I don't want my priest on my case. In the context of the war on terrorism the politics complicates things. I don't care what people want to say in church. I think it makes a difference when the guy publicly represents the U.S. and it's in the newspapers in places like Iraq and all over the Internet, etc, etc. Prestige and rank carry responsibility.
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 06:06 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 PM
So, there must be self-censorship within the confines of a church? The guy would be tossed from his position if he made the statements in the Pentagon or other government forum. The press went searching for church transcripts (and yes, many churches keep transcripts of their sermons and speakers).
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 06:22 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:52 PM
OK, maybe it is the fault of the news media. There have indeed been investigations of this guy's remarks, presumably by press organizations, of statements he made in churches. I guess my point is that no one would care if he weren't a political official, and politics, in this day and age, is just plain vicious stuff that doesn't respect sanctity or decency.
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 09:48 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
He makes a theological point - one which most would rather not face. Theologically, both Islam and Christianity cannot be true.
That's fine, but Boykin is a deputy undersecretary for intelligence and an Army Lieutenant General, who, "in full dress uniform," made these comments. Since we're talking about running government like a business, do you want to know what a business would do to a man like Boykin? They'd fire his ass for abusing his professional position to push personal beliefs. What happens to policemen who wear their uniform in pornographic magazines? They get fired. What happens to people who use their work e-mail account to send off non-work related and controversial messages? They get fired. Boykin is perfectly free to believe whatever the hell he chooses, but it is not his job to make "a theological point." Leave that to ministers.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 09:53 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I nearly got kicked out of a history class for thinking out loud (not saying I believe it) that God used Hitler to re-establish Israel.
LOL...

A better way to put it, in a less theological context, is that none of the modern world would exist without World War II, because, without WWII, we would not have had the Cold War, and, without the Cold War, we would not have had the incentive to create all the progress that we have today. Indeed, even the Internet is a Cold War relic--a decentralized network intended to withstand nuclear war.

Even the most terrible things have unintended, but "positive" results.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:20 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 02:52 PM
I have been waiting for you to appear in this thread!!!!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:30 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
That's fine, but Boykin is a deputy undersecretary for intelligence and an Army Lieutenant General, who, "in full dress uniform," made these comments. Since we're talking about running government like a business, do you want to know what a business would do to a man like Boykin? They'd fire his ass for abusing his professional position to push personal beliefs. What happens to policemen who wear their uniform in pornographic magazines? They get fired. What happens to people who use their work e-mail account to send off non-work related and controversial messages? They get fired. Boykin is perfectly free to believe whatever the hell he chooses, but it is not his job to make "a theological point." Leave that to ministers.

Melon
Along this line of thinking, I should be fired since I, as a non-minister, make theological points each week when I teach. Shall we examine all the statements made by non-ministers inside a church?

My guess is he was invited to speak at these churches, not abusing his position to push his personal beliefs.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:37 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Along this line of thinking, I should be fired since I, as a non-minister, make theological points each week when I teach. Shall we examine all the statements made by non-ministers inside a church?

My guess is he was invited to speak at these churches, not abusing his position to push his personal beliefs.
To use the precedent set by the business world dealing with people in uniform, you can do and believe what you want, as long as you do not represent yourself, according to your profession. A policewoman, for instance, can pose nude in Playboy, as long as she does not wear her uniform. In other words, no one would know that she is a police officer. Boykin more than crossed that line, not only wearing his uniform, but using his position to imply that this is, indeed, a holy war. He did not go into this as Boykin "the Christian civilian"; he went in as Boykin "the Christian general." Whether or not he was "invited" makes no difference; he abused his position and he should be reprimanded for it.

As for what you do "each week when [you] teach," I do not know your job. If it is within your job description to make overt theological points like Boykin, that is your perogative.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:41 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 02:52 PM
This was my initial reaction with the wearing the uniform to the church. Why was he wearing it? It troubled me. By wearing it it seemed to me he was implying some sort of official nature to wearing it.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:57 PM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
So, there must be self-censorship within the confines of a church?
If you mean, not twisting the facts to appeal to your agenda as self-censorship, then absolutely. How is his twisting this war into a holy war any different than the other side doing the same?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 04:45 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
To use the precedent set by the business world dealing with people in uniform, you can do and believe what you want, as long as you do not represent yourself, according to your profession.
So using this logic, that a person shouldn't "represent [themselves] according to [their] profession" you would have to argue that nobody is allowed to make a comment like "I've learned from my job that..." Would you say if, for instance, a police officer were to speak at church that he shouldn't be allowed to share insights he's learned from his job because that would involve him representing himself as a police officer?

I could understand all the uproar over Boykin's comments if he'd made them at a speech to Pentagon employees or in some other official capacity, but he was speaking at a church!

Quote:
From the original article
When guys like Bush, Boykin and Attorney General John Ashcroft use religion to determine policy decisions, the constitutional-based wall that has separated church and state since this country's inception starts to crumble.
I want to know what the author is implying by "using religion to determine policy decisions." If he's saying that public officials shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that will be advantageous to people who share their religion and detrimental to those who don't then I agree. If he means that President Bush should avoid ever talking about his faith, or shouldn't pray about the decisions he makes then it's ridiculous! Does the author count praying about policy decisions as allowing religion to influence decisions? I guess we'd better pass a law forbidding public officials to pray then! Not so sure how we'd enforce that one...

Seriously, I can't believe the conclusions the author of that article has drawn from remarks made by one member of the Bush administration. It reminds me of when it was front page news in this country because apparently the Prime Minister had considered (and decided against) ending a speech with the words "God bless you" - you would have thought Britain had turned into a theocracy overnight to hear some of the press responses.

I'm really just rambling aimlessly on this subject now, lol.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 06:14 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Would you say if, for instance, a police officer were to speak at church that he shouldn't be allowed to share insights he's learned from his job because that would involve him representing himself as a police officer?
He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 05:11 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!

Melon
Absolutely. That's my concern as well. This is all over the Internet and all over newspapers in the Middle East. It's embarrassing.
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 05:58 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!
The muslims have been trying to portray the war against terrorism as a war on Islam (learning from the great American passtime of victimization). Boykin's comments, now that they have been published, certainly give Bin Laden & Co. more ammunition for this claim.

All the same, I wonder what prompted the press to dig up chuch transcripts.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 06:03 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
All the same, I wonder what prompted the press to dig up chuch transcripts.
Selling newspapers.
__________________

verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×