Presidential Prayer Team

[riptide]

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.co.../jonivideo.php

whoa...subtle

[mrbiggs]

Yes, Bush is the scary kind of right wing.

[riptide]

Granted, but is it common for administrations to sponser prayer groups?

[mrbiggs]

No.

It's....scary. Candidates should at least pretend to be religiously neutral in practice. Otherwise we have problems like "we can't elect a Catholic, they'll take orders from the pope".

[Soldier]

Actually, Bush didn't sponsor this prayer group. And it's been around since he got elected.

What's wrong with a leader asking for some extra guidance in making the right decisions?

[Epee_Pox]

Scary how? I don't get it. What's with the presumption that people with real religious faith are somehow automatically bad?

As for desiring people with sincere religious beliefs to pretend they're religiously neutral, that's essentially a desire for someone who is either a hypocritical liar or someone who really doesn't believe what they say they believe.

Both Bush and Kerry have said they have strong religious beliefs. Bush admits that his faith is part of the principles underlying his decisions. Kerry says that he subordinates his faith to the principles underlying his decisions. Neither approach is necessarily evil, but there is something to be said for someone who bases their decisions on consistent principle.

[Epee_Pox]

And for the record I am not religious or spiritual.

[noodle]

there's no problem, imho, for religion to supplement one's decision.

the problem arises when one's decisions supplement the religion. i.e.: constitutional ammendments which are based on your faith (cough), establishing a national religion or otherwise forcing it upon others from the top, holy wars, even the inquisition is an example.

[mrbiggs]

Scary how? I don't get it. What's with the presumption that people with real religious faith are somehow automatically bad?

As for desiring people with sincere religious beliefs to pretend they're religiously neutral, that's essentially a desire for someone who is either a hypocritical liar or someone who really doesn't believe what they say they believe.

It's scary because I want him to form his opinions based on my beleifs, not his. He represents me and you, and the Bible should not get in the way of that. If our opinions happen to coincide with the Bible, fine. But it shouldn't be relevant to the election.

And I really don't care if a president lies as long as he does so consistantly throughout his term in office.

[Epee_Pox]

It's scary because I want him to form his opinions based on my beleifs, not his. He represents me and you, and the Bible should not get in the way of that. If our opinions happen to coincide with the Bible, fine. But it shouldn't be relevant to the election.

And I really don't care if a president lies as long as he does so consistantly throughout his term in office.

Have to differ with you on that one. We don't elect politicians so that they will pander to our whims. We elect people to represent us by doing what they believe to be right, and we choose the people that we think will best act in our interests when doing so.

And I don't want someone who lies, consistently or not. I'd prefer that they not say anything, rather than that.

[mrbiggs]

Have to differ with you on that one. We don't elect politicians so that they will pander to our whims.

We don't?

I thought that the point of a representative was to pander to our whims. Why would we elect people to do whatever they want? As I said, if the voters' opinion and the Bible happen to coincide, then that's fine. But I don't beleive in a candidate who puts the Bible first in his policy making. Right now, there isn't a conflict between the Bible and the morals of the majority in the U.S. But then again, 4 years ago, people were talking about how the President really doesn't serve a function, so what we really want is a nice guy. And then we had 2 wars. So we shouldn't assume that circumstances will fit the candidate, rather, we should elect a candidate that will fit a variety of circumstances. 4 years ago our economy was booming, it had been 10 years since a war, and the worst-case-scenario for any given day was maybe a school shooting somewhere else. We can't elect a president who isn't willing to change his mind.

[felicote]

The problem is that politicians have to advertise themselves as heavily religious people. A large number of Americans consider religion to be one of their candidate's top characteristics. That is the scary part of religion. Candidates having to portray a religious image in order to win. There should be no religion involved in the government.

[Inquartata]

I am nonreligious myself...but I don't see why politicians, or anyone else, ought to be required to conform to my standard.

Requiring them to meet a nonreligious test is as bad as requiring them to meet a religious test.

[L.O.A.S.]

It's scary because I want him to form his opinions based on my beleifs, not his.

I imagine this is the reason we hope its our candidate that wins the election.

[S. Hunter]

I am nonreligious myself...but I don't see why politicians, or anyone else, ought to be required to conform to my standard.

Requiring them to meet a nonreligious test is as bad as requiring them to meet a religious test.

But attacking religion, and anything related to it, is such a political fad these days. It is funny how people try to impose damaging labels to those they disagree with, rather than actually talking about issues. (E.G. Religous Fanatic, Godless Commies, Extremist Conservative, Flip Flopper)

[mrbiggs]

I am nonreligious myself...but I don't see why politicians, or anyone else, ought to be required to conform to my standard.

Requiring them to meet a nonreligious test is as bad as requiring them to meet a religious test.

I don't care whether or not they are religious as long as it doesn't affect their decisions.

[Inquartata]

I don't care whether or not they are religious as long as it doesn't affect their decisions.

How does one do this? Ignore something integral to one's weltanschaaung and way of thinking and acting---as much unconsciously as consciously?

You said

I want him to form his opinions based on my beleifs, not his. He represents me and you

but what about the beliefs of people who think and believe more like him than you? Why single out YOUR beliefs as mandatory and theirs as to be rejected? And what if theirs outnumber those of people who believe as you do?

[L.O.A.S.]

I don't care whether or not they are religious as long as it doesn't affect their decisions.

A persons decisions can be shaped by many things (e.g. rule of law, emotions, ambition, science, peer pressure, the changing of the tides, a global test etc.) Why is decisions derived from core values that religion teaches bad? This assumes good values like love/respect your fellow man, honor your parents, help out people in need, don't cheat or murder. On the other hand, beliefs that promote blowing up infidels would indeed be bad.

[mrbiggs]

but what about the beliefs of people who think and believe more like him than you? Why single out YOUR beliefs as mandatory and theirs as to be rejected? And what if theirs outnumber those of people who believe as you do?

When I said "myself", I meant America. I meant that he should hold the opinion of the general population above that of the pope or another religious figure.

I don't think that all religious teachings our bad, but when they are put above one's own morals, bad things often happen. That's why I think that a President, although he can be religious, should not make that the core part of his platform.

[Soldier]

At least in the case of Bush, he can't put his religious beliefs above his own morals. Because they define his morals.

And why should a president hold the opinion of the general population above anything else? You forget that you live in a republic, not a democracy. The whim of the public may get him into office, but once there, it's his decisions to make, regardless of what the uninformed masses think.

As a Protestant, I highly doubt that Bush will care one way or another what the Pope thinks about any given issue. As for any other religious figure...the only one I can think he might go by would be Jesus. Who preached love, forgiveness, the obeying of laws, etc.

And let a person use whatever he wants as the core of his platform. If it's religion and he gets elected, then it seems the majority of the population didn't have any problem with that. If the majority of the population does, then he won't get elected.