Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Bush is the messiah

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    [b]Dowd's column from yesterday's Times on Bush and his "calling". Scary...[/b]


    First Dick Cheney said that supporting John Kerry could lead to another terrorist attack.

    Then Dennis Hastert said Al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency than under President Bush.

    Now the Catholic bishops have upped the ante, indicating that voting for a candidate with Mr. Kerry's policies could lead to eternal damnation.

    Conservative bishops and conservative Republicans are working hard to spread the gospel that anyone who supports the Catholic candidate and onetime Boston altar boy who carries a rosary and a Bible with him on the trail is aligned with the forces of evil.

    In an interview with The Times's David Kirkpatrick, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said a knowing vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that would have to be confessed before receiving communion. "If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" the archbishop asked. "Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."

    As Mr. Kirkpatrick and Laurie Goodstein wrote, Catholics make up about a quarter of the electorate, many concentrated in swing states. These bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are organizing voter registration and blanketing churches with voter guides that often ignore traditional Catholic concerns about the death penalty and war - the pope opposed the invasion of Iraq - while calling abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate "nonnegotiable."

    "Never before have so many bishops so explicitly warned Catholics so close to an election that to vote a certain way was to commit a sin," the Times article said.

    Once upon a time, with Al Smith and John Kennedy, the church was proud to see Catholics run for president. The church was as unobtrusive in 1960, trying to help J.F.K., as it is obtrusive now, trying to hurt J.F.K. II.

    The conservative bishops, salivating to overturn Roe v. Wade, prefer an evangelical antiabortion president to one of their own who said in Wednesday's debate: "What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice ... is between a woman, God and her doctor."

    Like Mr. Bush, these patriarchal bishops want to turn back the clock to the 50's. They don't want separation of church and state - except in Iraq.

    Some of the bishops - the shepherds of a church whose hierarchy bungled the molestation and rape of so many young boys by tolerating it, covering it up, enabling it, excusing it and paying hush money - are still debating whether John Kerry should be allowed to receive communion.

    These bishops are embryo-centric; they are not as concerned with the 1,080 kids killed in a war that the Bush administration launched with lies, or about the lives that could be lost thanks to the president's letting the assault weapons ban lapse, or about all the lives that could be saved and improved with stem cell research.

    Mr. Bush derives his immutability from his faith. "I believe that God wants everybody to be free," he said in the last debate, adding that this was "part of my foreign policy."

    In today's Times Magazine, Ron Suskind writes that Mr. Bush has created a "faith-based presidency" that has riven the Republican Party.

    Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official for the first President Bush, told Mr. Suskind that some people now look at Mr. Bush and see "this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do." He continued: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them."

    The president's certitude - the idea that he can see into people's souls and that God tells him what is right, then W. tells us if he feels like it - is disturbing. It equates disagreeing with him to disagreeing with Him.

    The conservative bishops' certitude - the idea that you can't be a good Catholic if you diverge from certain church-decreed mandates or if you want to keep your religion and politics separate - is also disturbing.

    America is awash in selective piety, situational moralists and cherry-picking absolutists.

  2. #2
    If Organized Religion wants to get involved in politics, fine. But say Good-bye to your Tax-Exempt status. There is absolutely no way an organized religion can be permitted to campaign like this and remain tax-free. Just my opinion.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 10:09 AM
    [b] If Organized Religion wants to get involved in politics, fine. But say Good-bye to your Tax-Exempt status. There is absolutely no way an organized religion can be permitted to campaign like this and remain tax-free. Just my opinion. [/b][/quote]
    So pointing out that a candidate's position is contrary to Catholic teaching is campaigning?

    If they wanted to campaign they would say that somebody voting for Kerry was going to Hell, not that they should go to confession.

    This article is right up your alley, saying essentially that because the church hierarchy bungled years of molestation, priests have no right to comment on the morality of public policies or practice.

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Piper+Oct 18 2004, 09:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Piper @ Oct 18 2004, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 10:09 AM
    [b] If Organized Religion wants to get involved in politics, fine. But say Good-bye to your Tax-Exempt status. There is absolutely no way an organized religion can be permitted to campaign like this and remain tax-free. Just my opinion. [/b][/quote]
    So pointing out that a candidate&#39;s position is contrary to Catholic teaching is campaigning?

    If they wanted to campaign they would say that somebody voting for Kerry was going to Hell, not that they should go to confession.

    This article is right up your alley, saying essentially that because the church hierarchy bungled years of molestation, priests have no right to comment on the morality of public policies or practice. [/b][/quote]
    You are missing my position entirely. Tax-Free organized religion should have NO activity releated to politics, as I see it. That would include promoting one candidate over the other for any reason. That kind of activity moves the Religion in question beyond the scope of why they have been granted tax-free status, and places them into the realm of a political special interest group with political motivations. Such a group should not be given tax-free status in my opinion.

    You are welcome to disagree.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    I urge everyone to read this piece from the New York Times Sunday Magazine. I got chills just thinking that some or all of this might be true. What a dark day in American History if he is allowed a second term...I&#39;m truly scared...

    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1098111646-VZXuJToO7MQVFGIOwEGQGg]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...O7MQVFGIOwEGQGg[/url]

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    And you claim the Republicans use scare tactics&#33;

    This has about as much validity as Kerry&#39;s claims that Bush is planning on instituting a draft. Or when republicans claimed that JFK would look to the Pope for guidance if he was elected. Pure fantasy.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Piper[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 10:17 AM
    [b] And you claim the Republicans use scare tactics&#33;

    This has about as much validity as Kerry&#39;s claims that Bush is planning on instituting a draft. Or when republicans claimed that JFK would look to the Pope for guidance if he was elected. Pure fantasy. [/b][/quote]
    forgot you were the expert...

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by 4th&Long[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 10:14 AM
    [b] I urge everyone to read this piece from the New York Times Sunday Magazine. I got chills just thinking that some or all of this might be true. What a dark day in American History if he is allowed a second term...I&#39;m truly scared...

    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1098111646-VZXuJToO7MQVFGIOwEGQGg]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...O7MQVFGIOwEGQGg[/url] [/b][/quote]
    A little dramatic, aren&#39;t we 4th?

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    574
    I dont think so. That piece in the Times really freaked me out. It goes against everything that a President should be in my opinion. Praying instead of analyzing. Surrounding yourself with yes men. People are afraid to speak in your presence. Very bizarre...But if you want 4 more years of religious kookdom go for it. I am done for today. This is really disturbing.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Religious kookdom? Yes Men? This, from a liberal who gets his news from the New York Times?

    Dude, read National Review, The Conservative Chronicle, or the Wall Street Journal for half a year. Balance your sources out. There are other writers besides Maureen Down, who, incidentally, was fired from a bunch of newspapers for her deliberate mis-quoting of Bush a few years ago. She&#39;s a crack-pot that serious people don&#39;t pay attention to. She&#39;s Ann Coulter, only liberalized.

    No offense, but your allegiance to Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd and the NYT is a serious mark against your credibility. You don&#39;t see me posting Ann Coulter columns and saying, "Dude, this is scary stuff she&#39;s saying about Kerry..."

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    45,076
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 11:02 AM
    [b]You are missing my position entirely. Tax-Free organized religion should have NO activity releated to politics, as I see it. That would include promoting one candidate over the other for any reason. That kind of activity moves the Religion in question beyond the scope of why they have been granted tax-free status, and places them into the realm of a political special interest group with political motivations. Such a group should not be given tax-free status in my opinion.

    You are welcome to disagree.[/b][/quote]
    Hey we agree Fish&#33;&#33; Would you agree that all those Black Churches
    should have their Tax exempt status removed because they always
    have Dem&#39;s like Gore using them for Political gain?? And while we are
    at it any exemptions for the Rev&#39;s Jackson and Sharpton should be
    gone..Where exactly are their Churches anyway??? <_<

  12. #12
    [quote][i]Originally posted by 4th&Long[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 11:19 AM
    [b] I dont think so. That piece in the Times really freaked me out. It goes against everything that a President should be in my opinion. Praying instead of analyzing. Surrounding yourself with yes men. People are afraid to speak in your presence. Very bizarre...But if you want 4 more years of religious kookdom go for it. I am done for today. This is really disturbing. [/b][/quote]
    So are you going to move to another country if Bush wins? After all you don&#39;t want to take the chance of being "forced" to believing in God do you?

  13. #13
    [quote][i]Originally posted by savage69+Oct 18 2004, 06:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (savage69 @ Oct 18 2004, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 11:02 AM
    [b]You are missing my position entirely. Tax-Free organized religion should have NO activity releated to politics, as I see it. That would include promoting one candidate over the other for any reason. That kind of activity moves the Religion in question beyond the scope of why they have been granted tax-free status, and places them into the realm of a political special interest group with political motivations. Such a group should not be given tax-free status in my opinion.

    You are welcome to disagree.[/b][/quote]
    Hey we agree Fish&#33;&#33; Would you agree that all those Black Churches
    should have their Tax exempt status removed because they always
    have Dem&#39;s like Gore using them for Political gain?? And while we are
    at it any exemptions for the Rev&#39;s Jackson and Sharpton should be
    gone..Where exactly are their Churches anyway??? <_< [/b][/quote]
    1000% Agreed my friend. Absolutely those "churches" should lose tax-exempt status if they get involved in, or promote, a political agenda. There are rules in place in the current tax code that call for exactly that, however, it seems they are simply not enforced at all.

  14. #14
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [img]http://www.cicentre.com/Graphics/spies/Susan_Lindauer2.jpg[/img]

  15. #15
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Oct 18 2004, 11:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ Oct 18 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by Piper@Oct 18 2004, 09:44 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Oct 18 2004, 10:09 AM
    [b] If Organized Religion wants to get involved in politics, fine. But say Good-bye to your Tax-Exempt status. There is absolutely no way an organized religion can be permitted to campaign like this and remain tax-free. Just my opinion. [/b][/quote]
    So pointing out that a candidate&#39;s position is contrary to Catholic teaching is campaigning?

    If they wanted to campaign they would say that somebody voting for Kerry was going to Hell, not that they should go to confession.

    This article is right up your alley, saying essentially that because the church hierarchy bungled years of molestation, priests have no right to comment on the morality of public policies or practice. [/b][/quote]
    You are missing my position entirely. Tax-Free organized religion should have NO activity releated to politics, as I see it. That would include promoting one candidate over the other for any reason. That kind of activity moves the Religion in question beyond the scope of why they have been granted tax-free status, and places them into the realm of a political special interest group with political motivations. Such a group should not be given tax-free status in my opinion.

    You are welcome to disagree. [/b][/quote]
    My polling place is at a church. Should they not open their doors to the democratic process?

    I can understand what you are saying to a point. I don&#39;t think a candidate should be allowed to campain during Sunday morning worship, and I don&#39;t believe churches should endorse candidates from the pulpit, but I think churches should encourage their members to vote, and open their doors to town meetings and candidate forums to encourage voter awareness.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us