~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

Stephen Harding wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political
humbug and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's
beliefs, nor do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start
making a big public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune
moment, it starts to smell.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses,
Stars of David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend
every waking minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try
and force me to agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public
building/space that I'm constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the
park and tell everyone _who wants to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock
yourself out. But don't do it at the top of your lungs to people who have no interest in
what you're saying, and who can't move out of earshot while still enjoying the location.

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it!

No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they
sponsor one or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded
individiuals to do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens
around here. You want to have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my
guest, and mount it in your yard, home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong
in the Courthouse.

The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever
religion they chose (including no religion) without any effect on their rights (well, in
theory; practice was obviously often different, if you were Catholic, Jewish, etc.), after
the passage of the 1st Amendment

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has.

Sure does, if he's speaking for himself and not for me.

He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing
of it, was a political calculation through and through.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.

And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of
Washington (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he
wanted to use it to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly
don't want my taxes to pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his
denomination needs ministers and he can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they
choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of my pocket.

Guy