ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
Firstly, George Bush's Jesus "obsession" is entirely main line in America, as 80% of Americans belive Jesus to be the Son of God, and 50% of all Americans belive themselves to be born agains....
True, 80% of Americans see themselves as Christians, nearly 50% go to church and almost 50% consider themselves evengelical.
That said, a lot of evengelicals might not support Bush. Just because you are evengelical doesn't necessarily mean you support Bush's platform.
I see little that is especially Christian about going to war in Iraq on false pretenses, mining for oil in Alaska instead of improving gas mileage on SUVs, Tax cuts to the wealthy of the country more than the middle class and poor.
Also not all Christians are Evengelicals.
But the problem I have with this is that as a President you are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. The Constitution says some interesting things about the seperation of Church and State.
Now the Bush administration has, by executive order and not by Congressional decree, opened up the possibility of giving funding to faith based initiatives. Legislation is supposed to come from Congress, not the President. Ok, so the President does get to play with Executive Orders, but if you viewed the special, there is an interesting finding. None of the applications for funding that were to go to non-Christian faith based initiatives were funded. Zip. If the state is to support religions (already a potential danger of violating the seperation of church and state) than it should do so without bias.
That hasn't happened.
Now being a poor Catholic, I find it a bit annoying that a president is allowing a federal program to support some religions and not others. After all, if you don't support the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Shikhs now, what's next- the Mormons, then the Catholics....
Uselessly offensive and insulting to 80% of the American populace. Me-and the majority of Americans- consider themselves to be Christians, thus applying the word "freak" to someone outside of the World Church of the Creator is offensive to all of them.
....
No I don't think so. I think most of us can distinguish a "religious freak"/whacko/ Jesus freak/ christian nut from a person who is Christian (of whatever denomination).
I would say line comes down to rationality. A person who replaces dogma over rationality would, for me, qualify as "religious nut." Of course that's a pretty liberal definition.
What's wrong with this? I mean, it does seem kind of odd that he supposedly lost the popular vote and won the election. I see no problem in beliveing that some kind of divine will was involved.
Again, the question is fiduciary relationships. The President is supposed to work for all the people, not just some of the people, and not for the majority of the people. He is supposed to protect the Constitution from threats foreign and domestic. How can you do that when you are personally biased?
