Reply With Quote
Nah, I think he's a little delusional about God's plan and his part in it.
My concern is not about if Bush gives a about God, but whether I do.
My concern for Bush was two fold:
1. Does he have the ability to effectively lead this country?
2. Does his administration represent any unreconcilable issues with my personal value system, which is not exclusively religious based as you attempt to suggest.
In the '04 election I had to answer no to the first question, while answering yes to the second question.
I did not vote for Bush because answering yes to the second question trumped answering no to the first question. I voted for Bush because the only alternative was Kerry, in whom I had no confidence that he could perform the job at any higher proficiency level than Bush.
I would have voted independent, but the stranglehold of a two party system is not conducive to the rise of a viable third party or independent candidate that would garnish enough votes to be a serious player in the game.
But just because I did not want to vote for Bush does not mean that I want to abandon the entire Republican party, especially on the local and state levels. I was a Rebublican before Bush was POTUS, and I will be afterwards. Do you think I am happy with my party over the last few years? Do you not think that I have reached out to my elected officials at all levels and demanded better of them?
I know that you don't like to hear that I can be a faith based person, a member of the Republican party and politically active and not have my nose up Dubya's ass, but it is something that you are going to have to accept.
Nah, I think he's a little delusional about God's plan and his part in it.
Wow, like exploitation NEVER happens in the political arena.
Just Google "barak hussein obama" with the quotes and enjoy the bigotry.
Of course it happens, but using religion is the lowest of blows. It's a peek in the window of ones character.
I don't disagree with your statement, but in my opinion you are predispositioned to view faith based matters from a skeptical viewpoint, and as such will always see some level of exploitation, regardless of the person.
When religion and politics are mixed, it's no longer religion. It's a tool used for advantage.
Do you feel this way about Protestant Christianity alone, or do your sentiments extend to Catholicism, Mormonism and Islam as well?
The reason I ask is because religion and society have been interwoven since the beginning of history. Many of the major religions of the world share the same social values, even if they are doctrinally and theologically different. If the majority of individuals in a society belong to religions that share common social values, then "religion" has shaped society, and in effect the government over that society because elected officials come from that society.
It is near impossible to remove the religious influence in government unless you remove the religious influence from society. You can't have an ammoral society, because society dictates what are acceptable morals and society has been historically influenced by religions.
This might come as a shock to you, but people can be moral (and spiritual)without being religious.
It might come as a shock to you, but you won't find anywhere in my comments where I contended that morals were the exclusive domain of religion. I know many people who are extremely ethical and have high moral standards, but do not adhere to a particular religion.
That argument does not negate the historical facts that religion has been influencing society for thousands of years and will continue to do so. Nor does it negate the fact that even if a person arrives at a particular morality level without the aid of religion, they may in fact share a morality level with one or many religions.
But I wonder where they found the basis for their Morals. Just came out
of a sense of humanity? I don't think so.
It comes from knowledge and personal decency. Distinguishing right from wrong, just from unjust, kindness from cruelty.
This is like the chicken and the egg though. Which came first, religion (spirituality) or morals? No one is going to be able to answer this question. Religious people believe that moral values were developed because religion told them what their moral values should be and non religious people believe that morals and a sense of decency is what created religion.
This argument will not be settled on Spurstalk.com.
Not to mention that this argument doesn't convey the point that Sandman was trying to make (of which I thought he did a pretty good job), but I guess one has to speak to the lowest common denominator.
What argument? My values weren't hatched from organized cult behavior.
How do we learn about what is right or wrong? What is just or unjust?
Are we inherently born with this sense of value, or is it ingrained through our spheres of influence such as family and society?
At what point in a person's life do they decide to have personal decency? What are the triggers? Their sphere of influence once again?
I am not arguing that every decent person in the world is that way because of religion. Lord knows (no pun intended) that some very evil people have used religion of one kind or another over the centuries to commit heineous atrocities. But I challenge you to find any example of an enlightened society in it's day that did not have an influence from the religion of its day.
While you as a specific individual can say that your personal value system is not specifically tied to religion, it is tied to the society in which you were raised, and that society was inevitably influenced by religion.
The argument regarding where values come from.
Don't you think your values were shaped by your upbringing and family?
Neither were mine. That is the difference between faith and religion. Religion is just used as the familiar catch word of anything dealing with faith. Let me apologize for my continued misuse of the word religion when attempting to make my points regarding my faith.
Faith is individual responsibility of the believer to God.
Religion is the trappings of tradition and legalism used by lemmings and sheeples who are unwilling to take the personal responsibility.
I grew up in Belfast with a ringside seat. I am qualified to make certain assertions about the chemical mixture of religion and politics through simple observations and inclusions. Religion is a tool in this mix. Its used to explain away ones behavior and actions as being somehow noble in its results. Where chaos and mayhem are pretended to be borne from "good intention". In reality it is what men of power "agreed to believe".
That's pretty well said.
Personally, I'm on the fence regarding this entire discussion.
Having said all that, I'm more conservative then I am liberal, and I like this Obama fella.
In the specific example provided for Northern Ireland, your assertion that religion is a tool in the mix is spot on.
Do you think that your personal experience in Belfast provides you with a slanted view of religion in a society? I noticed that you used the term religion and politics, but there is no official church or even one dominant denomination in America that drives any political behavior. IMO, in America the "religion" is more of a social aspect than a political aspect. That being said, politicians come from within the society and therefore some religion is in politics, but I don't think that religion and politics are as tightly interwoven as in some other countries that have nationalistic churches or nationalistic religions. Curious to know how you see that from your viewpoint.
They're all tools used to influence and control the weak who long for a path to peace and justice.
May you never find yourself in this conflict, because the reality of this is to capture and claim the largest piece of pie. That is the only goal.
I failed to answer you. My view is not slanted. I've seen the bottom line of greed created from this collusive partnership.
I was wondering if you see that same type of collusive partnership between religion and politics in America, where there is not a history of social upheaval between rival religious/political groups as seen in Northern Ireland.
btw, I hope that this conversation has not trivialized what you have experienced in Belfast. That was certainly not my intention. I was just looking for your perspective on how America stacks up to Northern Ireland in this respect.
I see similar reactions. Too early to submit a conclusion. It's up to the collective to decide. Just beware of the houses of power. Their directions will always lead to their own pot of gold. Pawns have to recognize their place as pawns.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions