Bush's religion and separation of church and state

[240Z]

Recently, I have heard much about how President Bush publicly makes it know that his religious faith guides his policys that he has implemented while in office. I even heard on a news/talk show last night that Bush wished to bring democracy to Iraq because it was "God's gift to the world." What is your opinion on this leadership strategy relating to the separation of church and state, which is one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded?

 

[Sage]

From an atheist perspective, the only religion-influenced thing that has bothered me was when he tried to make sure that marriage could only be between heterosexual partners. Otherwise, I haven't really seen religion driving many of his decisions – and even if it does, so far they (other than the gay issue) have been mostly fine with me, and so in those cases, it doesn't entirely matter where the "inspiration" came from. If someone wants to lower taxes, I don't care if God, Allah, or their own mind told them... the act is still the same.

 

[240Z]

I agree, but still, the potential seems rather worrying.

 

[toler]

just take a look at the first link in my signature and you know what i think about MR. BUSH
god bless his a r s e !!!!

 

[Sage]

He didn't ask you what you thought of Bush, he asked you "What is your opinion on this leadership strategy relating to the separation of church and state, which is one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded?"

 

[toler]

sorry. church and state are two seperate things and they have to be kept like that. it does NOT go together.

 

[Solid Fro]

From another atheist perspective, I have no problems with Bush's faith. The gay marriage thing is a little twitchy, but other than that, it's fine.

Toler just wanted to find another reason to attack Bush.

 

[the_cobbinator]

People make too big a deal of the separation of church and state. For example, the line: One nation, under God was blown way out of proportion. I absolutely positive the US is going to go on a crusade to force evryone to be Catholic because of that line

 

[HareTurtle]

Presidents are free to have the religion of their choice, and to be inspired by it, and to publicly discuss it. One policy area in which I think Bush is close to the line is his Faith-Based initiative. This involves providing direct Federal financial support to religeous organizations which are providing various community services. If the services are provided with a large dose of proseletyzing, I have a problem with it.

 

[ShobThaBob]

On a starting note, I think bush is a moron. That being said, I dont care what religion he is, or how it influences his decision. Thats all part of what we take with us when we do our jobs, same with him. As long as any policies that are made aren't obviously religious in content or execution, I'm fine with it (religious wise).

 

[87chevy]

Presidents are free to have the religion of their choice, and to be inspired by it, and to publicly discuss it. One policy area in which I think Bush is close to the line is his Faith-Based initiative. This involves providing direct Federal financial support to religeous organizations which are providing various community services. If the services are provided with a large dose of proseletyzing, I have a problem with it.

PBS did a show on this with their "Frontline" show. It was so damn obvious to me that it was a violation right there. No, when you take office of POTUS, I believe when speaking to the public you should keep your personal religion in check. Because when you say that you are doing something because it was "God's gift" then you are alienating those that don't share your beliefs. What you should say as POTUS is "I did it because it was the righ thing to do" or "because no human being should be denied his/her rights". That's what a Publicly elected official should say.

The only place of Government in religion is to ensure that no person is denied their right to practice whatever they want (as long as their practises don't enfringe on someone elses basic rights) Also, Frontline stated that after the Faith Based Iniative thing was passed, not one Non-Christian organization had recieved money from the program. Yet Bush says he did this while consulting with leaders of Non-Christian organizations. Why would non-Christian leaders confer with him, and give it a thumbs up, and not apply for the money???????? I smell fish.

 

[Seito4Counter]

Religion, Sex, etc. is and should be a private matter, which is how it was set up in the U.S. in the first place. Practice what you will behind closed doors, but don't impose it on others. Bush lets his beliefs be known, and it is most obvious that he acts because of his beliefs in his religion (he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ, now this could be because he doesn't know of any other philosophers, but I think it was probably because of his religion) also, one of his advisors is a religious cleric, who they have kept behind the scenes lately, but I remember seeing him on CNN (Communist News Network!) in 01 or 02.
Now, I'm confident his friends don't act because of their beliefs but out of a really large lust for money and maybe some power. It just seems like a great way to get the president to do what you want him to do.

The problem with Bush acting because of his religion and fulfilling his religion is that its unconstitutional, a minor problem. If he acts of faith, then he only acts to fulfill the needs of those who share the same faith, so there we go.



Side Comment: (It's funny how Islamic persons are embarressed about the fanatic terrorists who fight the u.s. and try to dissassosciate themselves from them, while in here in the U.S. we have a bunch of fanatic christian freaks and the normal ones trying to differentiate from them (I say that as a catholic).


(sorry if my grammar here needs work, ive been switching from croat and german for the last month)

 

[Danoff]

Side Comment: (It's funny how Islamic persons are embarressed about the fanatic terrorists who fight the u.s. and try to dissassosciate themselves from them, while in here in the U.S. we have a bunch of fanatic christian freaks and the normal ones trying to differentiate from them (I say that as a catholic).

It's not really fair to call them fanatics now is it? I mean, are they blowing themselves and women and children up to initial a conflict? Are they capturing innocent people and chopping off their heads on video??

What about dragging their remains through the streets and hanging them from a bridge?

The problem with Bush acting because of his religion and fulfilling his religion is that its unconstitutional, a minor problem. If he acts of faith, then he only acts to fulfill the needs of those who share the same faith, so there we go.

You don't understand the separation of church and state. It does not mean that we cannot have a religious president (it would be hard to find one that wasn't). It also does not mean that our president cannot be influenced by his beliefs (again, almost impossible to find one that wouldn't be). It also does not mean that the president's faith cannot be publicly known.

 

[Seito4Counter]

It means the state cannot go out and practice the will of a religion. Looks like GW did this to me.

 

[Danoff]

It means the state cannot go out and practice the will of a religion.

It's not that simple. Plenty of elected officials are practicing the will of their respective religions (because they are religious and that's what religious people do). That's not only impossible to avoid, it's also not a problem.

It's when the legislation gets faith specific, when a particular religion controls the state, or when religion is mandated by the government that lines get crossed.

None of those things is going on.

 

[Duke]

It means the state cannot go out and practice the will of a religion. Looks like GW did this to me.

Can you please explain exactly how he did this?

 

[the_cobbinator]

(he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ, now this could be because he doesn't know of any other philosophers, but I think it was probably because of his religion)

Or becasue Jesus made some fairly profound statements. I could be wrong, though.

 

[87chevy]

As I said earlier, it's fine that he has a religion. He can practice it too. But! When it comes to making policy decisions, I believe they should be made based on "It's the right right thing to do" not, "because i believe in Jesus". The President is the Government (not in total obviously) so when or if he says he made a policy decision based on religious beliefs, that means The United States Government just issued policy based on a religion. That is not right, IMO.

 

[Danoff]

so when or if he says he made a policy decision based on religious beliefs, that means The United States Government just issued policy based on a religion. That is not right, IMO.

Give me an example.

 

[Duke]

Can you please give me an example? Thanks.

 

[the_cobbinator]

so when or if he says he made a policy decision based on religious beliefs, that means The United States Government just issued policy based on a religion. That is not right, IMO.

But if the policy benifits you, I don't think we'll hear any complaining on your behalf. Besides, right and wrong means nothing. What is right to me might be wrong to you. Since right and wrong are based on morals, there will never be a "right" action or decision.

 

[Duke]

Actually, that's not really true. There is a fundamental right and wrong in many cases, in which it can be used to make a logical decision on what should be allowable and what shouldn't.

However, you are right, there are plenty of laws based on subjective morality (such as allowing homosexual marriage) where there is no right and wrong. These laws should be based on the loosest concept of morality possible that does not allow violations of individual rights.

 

[the_cobbinator]

Well, yeah, I was just trying to make a point. But you do have a point, there are situations where it's cut and dry. Seeing a homeless man on the streets and running up to kick him is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Seeing a homeless man on the streets and running up to kick him is fundamentally wrong.

Same thing goes for a rich man.

 

[HareTurtle]

As I said earlier, it's fine that he has a religion. He can practice it too. But! When it comes to making policy decisions, I believe they should be made based on "It's the right right thing to do" not, "because i believe in Jesus". The President is the Government (not in total obviously) so when or if he says he made a policy decision based on religious beliefs, that means The United States Government just issued policy based on a religion. That is not right, IMO.

Can you please give me an example? Thanks.

I think the most obvious example, for the current Bush administration, is the issue of stem cell research. I don't recall that Bush has ever explicitly stated that his position is based on religion, and I suppose a totally secular argument could be made against it, but the vast majority of oponents are religiously motivated. But even if Bush came out and stated that it was based on his religious beliefs, I don't really think it would be a violation of the "establishment" clause. The constitutional test would have to be based on the effect of a policy, not it's motivation. How would the courts ever distinguish between a policy adopted based on conviction and one based on pandering for votes?

An example where I feel the establishment clause is violated, though it doesn't involve Bush, would be the attempt to mandate the teaching of "creationism" or other religiously based pseudo-science in public schools.

 

[Danoff]

How would the courts ever distinguish between a policy adopted based on...

...based on anything.

Thank you Hare! That's what I'm talking about. There is no way to distinguish this nor is it an issue.

 

[87chevy]

first off, hey cobb you don't know me from adams house cat! i don't appreciate you blatantly calling me a hipocrit! did i mention any particular policy that i thought was based on religion that didn't benefit me? i don't think so. So how bout not attacking my personal character in your next rebuttal? that's all i ask.

sorry duke but i dont' know how that wasn't an attack on my personal charactrer.

anyways... I didn't say i thought it was unconstitutional, did I? I just said i don't think any elected rep. (esp. POTUS) should say they support or are against any policy based on their personal religious beliefs. They (elected officials) represent people of many backgrounds and religions, therefore, i think they should leave their personal religion out of sight when it comes to passing bills. okay?

[EDIT] okay, i worded my other post a little funny. I meant, "it appears as if the US Govt. issued policy based on religion." that is what i meant by my previous statement. sorry. [/EDIT]

 

[the_cobbinator]

first off, hey cobb you don't know me from adams house cat! i don't appreciate you blatantly calling me a hipocrit! did i mention any particular policy that i thought was based on religion that didn't benefit me? i don't think so. So how bout not attacking my personal character in your next rebuttal? that's all i ask.

Sorry if it sounded like I was calling you a hypocrite - I seriously didn't mean it. By saying 'you', I mean 'you' in general, not you, 87chevy. I think what I was trying to say in my previous post is that, while there are certain cut and dry right and wrong scenarios, the government certainly isn't one of them.

 

[Pako]

I agree, but still, the potential seems rather worrying.

Is seems as though you are making a fuss about this because of the fear of what might happen? I think killing is certianly NOT loving your brother. What would Jesus do?

On the stand point of religion, I don't know how a man can vow to be Christian in one breath and order the killing of another human being in another breath. It would be a very, very, difficult position to hold.

 

[ledhed]

You can seperate church from state but you cant seperate a man from his religion. When you vote for a person to be president you take his religion into the equation. Who would vote for someone who would'nt acknowlage his religion ? The day may come when an athiest can become president but that day isn't close to being here. The supreme court and congress can backstop anyone who lets his religion intrude on the laws of the state. The voters will decide also if a man is out of line in office . i really do not see what the big deal is with this particular president. J F K was a catholic and had a hard time of it because of his religion, mostly because of predudice. Jimmy Carter went around the world PREACHING ! no one complaned too much about him..he just got thrown out of office.