God told him to do it

[Fiona]

No. I really don't think I agree. It is possible to be ruthless and self interested and successfully intent on getting your own way, yet still be stupid. In this country Margaret Thatcher was an exemplar. Does the phrase "low animal cunning" mean anything where you are.

I find it hard to believe that playing stupid will win votes. I don't believe there is a "stupid" constituency. To paraphrase a thought I cannot remember well enough to quote, intelligence is the most egalitarian commodity, since everyone is happy with the amount they have.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fiona]No. I really don't think I agree. It is possible to be ruthless and self interested and successfully intent on getting your own way, yet still be stupid. In this country Margaret Thatcher was an exemplar. Does the phrase "low animal cunning" mean anything where you are.[/QUOTE]

If a person manages to gain control of the government of a nation for nearly a decade, amass a personal fortune in the multi-millions, and control the destinies of hundreds of millions of people in the process, is it possible that something other than low animal cunning is involved? That while they may be cunning, they may also possess a high order of organizational skills, complete ruthlessness, and the ability (at least in Bush) to simulate when necessary?

I can't speak to Thatcher, where Bush is concerned, he has repeatedly shown a willingness to adapt his image as needed and lie to achieve whatever goals he seeks. This has been repeatedly documented. (My favorite example is the way Bush portrayed himself in the Republic Primaries of 1999 as the only true conservative candidate, while endlessly saying he was a moderate in the 2000 Election Campaign who always listened to his opponents and sought consensus.) So why is it so difficult to believe that Bush could be using religion cynically, as a cloak for the gain of himself and his party?

[Fiona]

@fable. I don't deny he may be cynical. I just think that self interest and ruthless disregard of the fact that there is any one else out there is not the same thing as intelligence. I am suspicious of the notion that acquiring power and/or wealth is in itself an indication of intelligence

[Chimaera182]

fable: I was just being facetious, intimating that perhaps Bush merely dispersed money with a lavish hand to get the things you mentioned.

As for the American south, does this include Florida? I'll admit I've seen several churches down here in my lifetime, but certainly not endless streams of them with a gaggle of different names (although I do know of the Newlife Assembly of God, which popped up in what used to be a bustling shopping center on a very busy street, but that's the only one I can think of). I know a lot of people tend to count Florida as non-South (Northern Transplants or some such). But I'm as southern as y'all can get.

The acquisition of power/wealth in itself actually can be considered an indication of intelligence; they had to scheme and connive to get it somehow, or else they stumbled into it accidentally.

fable: while I don't doubt in my mind that people can use religion cynically, and it's possible Bush is doing the same, isn't he taking it just a bit too far when he says God's telling him to do stuff?

[Hill-Shatar]

[QUOTE=Fable]How does the rural American, who represents roughly 50% of the populace, differ from the urban American? Studies have shown that overall (however much individuals may vary) they are less educated, less skeptical, make value judgments based on emotional impulse, and religiously evangelical. To drive through the American South is to see evangelical church after evangelical church, with names like Assembly of the Annointed to God the Savior, and Brethren Church of Christ the Redeemer at the End of Time (and no, I'm not exaggerating--we saw these coming back from North Carolina's rural eastern section).[/QUOTE]

Actually, the figures are much closer to around 80% of Americans being urban. However, if Bushg was to target an aea of the population, it probably is best to try and convince this group. Although Urban people tend to be split, these people vote for who they like most.

To say that many Americans in areas of the states in major cities such as New York are not as religious does not make sence. From personal experience, I have noticed that these people have tendecies also towards extreme, in my opinion, religious beliefs.

Those that they can not see to win over, try in another way. There favorite, if I believe, tool to use, is patriotism, since we all know that Americans *do* have a predispotion to a heavy amount of pride in their country, even if I do find it somewhat... misplaced.

[QUOTE=Fiona]I am suspicious of the notion that acquiring power and/or wealth is in itself an indication of intelligence[/QUOTE]

It isn't. Lets look at the newlyweds, shall we? That is a point...

I do believe that the image that Bush is portraying is a great deal of southern sterotypical profiling in his current public persona. No doubt it is to win the viote of the south. It seems that so few people in these days tend to look at the record and the promises other than the images that propagate in the media and in politics that are slowly fed to them.

IMO, how moronic must you be (no off. to you bush supporters) to believe whatever this guy and his PR team sprouts out there arses?

@ Chim: Ever driven through central and the north eastern American states? Every five mintures you nail another town with a church at its center and a few houses, then you move onto the next town, same thing... for quite a while. Larger cities dont have as many, as they are more cleverly hidden. However, they are there.

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]@ Chim: Ever driven through central and the north eastern American states? Every five mintures you nail another town with a church at its center and a few houses, then you move onto the next town, same thing... for quite a while. Larger cities dont have as many, as they are more cleverly hidden. However, they are there.[/QUOTE]
We're talking about the south, hill. And no, I can't say that I have driven through the northeastern states; I didn't get my driver's license until I was 18, and since then I haven't exactly gone very far. But the northeast was the original English colonies, and back then, the church was the center of town. Things may have changed a lot in the last 200 years, but the original layout of towns was like that, and in 200 years, the new towns that sprouted didn't feel the need to conform to that plan.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]Actually, the figures are much closer to around 80% of Americans being urban.[/quote]

I should have explained that when I say rural, I mean a culture whose economic base is predominantly agricultural in Western terms (planting or herding). So this would include areas of industrial/commercial development which were outgrowths of needs within that population base--often defined as part of "urban sprawl," but culturally not urban in the slightest.

To say that many Americans in areas of the states in major cities such as New York are not as religious does not make sence.

Is this in reference to my remarks? Because I didn't say that. I wrote that demographics have shown rural populations to be more religiously evangelical than their urban counterparts. That's all one can say: look at who exactly belongs to what church. But if you ask whether Group A is more religious than Group B, you have to define what constitutes "religious," and there lies many a thorny hurdle.

Those that they can not see to win over, try in another way. There favorite, if I believe, tool to use, is patriotism, since we all know that Americans *do* have a predispotion to a heavy amount of pride in their country, even if I do find it somewhat... misplaced.

Hell, as James Branch Cabell remarked in his wonderful novel, Jurgen, was a democracy, whose religion was Patriotism. I am not in the least bit surprised to note that the theme of patriotism has been preached from endless evangelical pulpits since Civil War times.

[Hill-Shatar]

It is extremely close to the design of the current system in the southern states like Texas and southern Caloifornia, along with Arizona. I remember driving through those areas and being surprised by how many random cities I encountered. Some looked fairlky modern, even, but all had the church at the center of the community.

I have also driven all over New York and those areas... its pretty much the same. The pattern may now have some modern convieniences, and they may be larger towns, but you can always find one of the tallest buildings, the church, by looking up.

As I can see, old French settlers, among the newer settlers and immigrants, all made cities pretty much the same way that the French did. All the new cities popping up incoorporate this building pattern. From what I have seen in my extensive travels of that area, anyways... my work takes me many places.

I should have explained that when I say rural, I mean a culture whose economic base is predominantly agricultural in Western terms (planting or herding). So this would include areas of industrial/commercial development which were outgrowths of needs within that population base--often defined as part of "urban sprawl," but culturally not urban in the slightest.

Oh, I was not including the hugfe amounts of suburbia included in some cities, as you were. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

As for who is more religious... niether of us are qualified to decide that. ALthough I hear references mor in the country about god, I find that those in the center of cities to be somewhat more religious, while those in areas of industrial and suburnab growth to be somewhat less religious. My own findings, at least. I am not qualified in the least.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]fable: I was just being facetious, intimating that perhaps Bush merely dispersed money with a lavish hand to get the things you mentioned.[/quote]

I see. Not money, but you're on the right scent: Bush as governor or president has dispensed the usual political coin, favors. Them that's on top, hath the most to dispense.

As for the American south, does this include Florida? I'll admit I've seen several churches down here in my lifetime, but certainly not endless streams of them with a gaggle of different names (although I do know of the Newlife Assembly of God, which popped up in what used to be a bustling shopping center on a very busy street, but that's the only one I can think of). I know a lot of people tend to count Florida as non-South (Northern Transplants or some such). But I'm as southern as y'all can get.

A qualified no to your question. The panhandle region is still part of the South, but the rest of it is pretty much split between Northerners and around Miami way, Hispanics. I'm sure you know this, of course.

fable: while I don't doubt in my mind that people can use religion cynically, and it's possible Bush is doing the same, isn't he taking it just a bit too far when he says God's telling him to do stuff?

Not at all: he personally has nothing to lose. He isn't going to run for office again. He has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care what international leaders think: he sees the presidency as an extension of local politics. Instead, he's showing the Religious Far-Right that the Republican Party's elected leader is a Believer. This won't hurt those Republicans who live in urban constituencies, since they can always point to votes they've cast and run on that. But in far-right areas, the Republican candidate can point to Bush, quote this kind of remark and say, "I belong to the party that elected such a leader. He thinks like you, he's one of you. So am I." And win elections. It's very, very sad, but it works, and has since Andrew Jackson became the first democratically elected US president.

[Denethorn]

[QUOTE=fable]
A shrub is a small, innocuous bush. Bush is a much lessened version of his father; hence, Shrub.[/QUOTE]

I gathered the shrub bush connection Just wondered about a deeper meaning. The father son thing explains it

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=fable]I see. Not money, but you're on the right scent: Bush as governor or president has dispensed the usual political coin, favors. Them that's on top, hath the most to dispense.

As for the American south, does this include Florida? I'll admit I've seen several churches down here in my lifetime, but certainly not endless streams of them with a gaggle of different names (although I do know of the Newlife Assembly of God, which popped up in what used to be a bustling shopping center on a very busy street, but that's the only one I can think of). I know a lot of people tend to count Florida as non-South (Northern Transplants or some such). But I'm as southern as y'all can get.

A qualified no to your question. The panhandle region is still part of the South, but the rest of it is pretty much split between Northerners and around Miami way, Hispanics. I'm sure you know this, of course.

fable: while I don't doubt in my mind that people can use religion cynically, and it's possible Bush is doing the same, isn't he taking it just a bit too far when he says God's telling him to do stuff?

Not at all: he personally has nothing to lose. He isn't going to run for office again. He has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care what international leaders think: he sees the presidency as an extension of local politics. Instead, he's showing the Religious Far-Right that the Republican Party's elected leader is a Believer. This won't hurt those Republicans who live in urban constituencies, since they can always point to votes they've cast and run on that. But in far-right areas, the Republican candidate can point to Bush, quote this kind of remark and say, "I belong to the party that elected such a leader. He thinks like you, he's one of you. So am I." And win elections. It's very, very sad, but it works, and has since Andrew Jackson became the first democratically elected US president.[/QUOTE]
Well, when I said "they pay for it," I didn't necessarily mean with money, did I?

Oh, yeah, you can't swing a dead cat in south Florida without hitting ten people of hispanic origin. And I'm over an hour north of Miami. I'm re-learning Spanish this semester, but my Spanish is still quite bad now. I work with a girl who was from Venezuela (so was my ex), and the asssistant manager where I work knows Spanish, which was a good thing; we got a pair of customers on Wednesday who only spoke Spanish, and I got flustered, so the ast. manager had to handle it. Thankfully, I knew enough Spanish to tell them the price when they paid. It was still awkward, though. You really have to know Spanish in order to get by down here.

[Chanak]

The hispanic population in the US is traditionally religious and "conservative" in politics, as election results in Florida and other states with large hispanic populations (such as here in Texas) demonstrate. In addition to wooing the anglo religious power bloc, Bush and the neo-cons also appeal to the hispanic bloc by playing the religion card, with a good deal of success. Over time, many in the hispanic community have drifted from the Roman Catholicism of their mother cultures into a unique brand of hispanic Protestant Evangelicalism here in the US, as is evidenced by the plethora of hispanic evangelical churches sprouting up throughout the South and Southwest. Many in this slice of the hispanic ethnic group enjoy a great deal of material and financial success - a far cry from humble beginnings in the 60s and the 70s.

Traditionally, the black religious bloc in the US has leaned more to the left, as opposed to the anglo and hispanic religious bloc leanings towards the right. I often wonder if this has changed in recent years, however. One does not hear advocates from this power group speaking out these days, which concerns me. Somehow their voices have been silenced, which could partially explain the sweeping victory the neo-cons and Shrub were able to engineer in the past decade.

Shrub's claims that "god told him to do it" is but a step on the path to tyranny that the neo-cons are taking America on. I argue that tyranny is what we already experience in America now. As Shrub nears the end of his time in the White House, he is emboldened by the grip the neo-cons have on American institutions. I'm not sure what to make of some of the recent court activity against neo-cons in the US as of late, such as the charges against Shrub crony Tom DeLay. Thanks to Shrub and DeLay, Texas was rigged to produce a neo-con stronghold. Perhaps a backlash against the neo-cons is gathering steam. One can only hope.

I can testify that Shrub's popular image in the media is a carefully constructed one. He is not as dumb as he appears in public, as those in Texas who experienced his tenure as governor as state employees will attest. I've had a few discussions with higher-ranking state bureaucrats who told me that Shrub was a shrewd power-broker. My curiosity in this regard was sparked while I was looking over some older files containing various documents from the Shrub governorship. All I did was ask the right people, and I heard an ear-full.

[Faust]

To clarify, you're referring mainly to denominational bodies that are part of the Holiness or Pentecostal movement. These churches are, thus, part of a large worldwide religious movement that transcends urban and rural locales. In fact, some of their greatest bastions of strength have, historically, been urban areas such as LA. The largest church groups in the South remain the Methodists and the Southern Baptists.

Likewise, you cannot simply divide people who take conservative variants of religion seriously between agrarian and urban areas. Certainly, religion has been a largely influential force in most cities in the United States from post-Revolutionary times to the present. Whether it be the Black Churches of Detroit, the Lutheran Churches of Minneapolis, the Catholic Churches of NYC, the Baptist Churches of Louisville, or the Mormon Churches in Salt Lake City, conservative varieties of religion remains a very big deal in cities.

Now with that said, urban locales - by and large - are more inclined to vote Democratic in recent elections. Though, quite frankly, there has been no evidence to support final conclusions as to why that is. I highly doubt it is education based, as we find that those who live in the suburbs by and large vote Republican in recent election.

As a Southerner myself, I take some offense at the inference that those who are in “agrarian” states are not as thoughtful as Northern city dwellers (which is what I read into your statement, from your definition of rural). Quite frankly, that's just not true. And, certainly, no polling or research has shown that people who live in more agrarian "are.... less skeptical, make value judgments based on emotional impulse, and religiously evangelical." The wording alone is extremely biased and nothing that could be possibly be tested (though, I will concede that a larger percentage are actively involved in conservative religion; though certainly, my previous point about religion elsewhere, stands). You can't really poll on whether someone is "more emotional" with any hope of accuracy. With that said, deeply religious people figure their religious values strongly into their politics. This does not mean they are, necessarily, easily manipulated or lacking in thoughtfulness. From my experience, dealing with rural southerners, this is far from the truth. It does mean, however, that moral considerations drawn from their religious values (in recent days, particularly a candidate's stance on abortion - at least) figure heavily into their politics in a way it might not for others.

believe[/i].

But, yes, Bush should not be mistaken as a dumb man. While he was a very weak student (and, certainly, money and his family’s influence secured his education and credentials), he was exposed to a very good education, he has served in public office a number of years, and comes from an extremely privileged and political family. He's no stranger to the political game, and he's been groomed for office his entire life.

Still, part of Bush's appeal is a fallback to the "log-cabin" presidencies that dominated the 19th century. While I am not convinced his character is totally fabricated (I simply don't think he's a gifted public speaker or a particularly brilliant man), he was appealing as a candidate because he could invoke the common man sentiment. Much like William Henry Harrison, it is a bit of an irony that he does, considering that there is nothing "blue-collar" or "common" about his origins. Still, Americans are attracted to candidates who do not seem erudite, arrogant, or over-educated. They want a leader who they can relate to. Bush’s falling back on his spirituality is one facet of that. Moreover, since Regan, the Republic party has effectively wooed the radical religious right, by inviting them to the table and representing many of their platforms. Though, quite frankly, if it became widely believed that Bush actually heard the voice of God in explicit terms, most evangelicals would look at him as a bit crazy, as well.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Faust]To clarify, you're referring mainly to denominational bodies that are part of the Holiness or Pentecostal movement. These churches are, thus, part of a large worldwide religious movement that transcends urban and rural locales. In fact, some of their greatest bastions of strength have, historically, been urban areas such as LA. The largest church groups in the South remain the Methodists and the Southern Baptists. [/quote]

To clarify further, I didn't simply mean just Pentecostal or Holiness churches, but some Protestant churches, as well, including the Southern Baptists, Primitive Methodists, etc. Many of these are also evangelical. I should have phrased it better, and you should have asked, instead of assumed.

Likewise, you cannot simply divide people who take conservative variants of religion seriously between agrarian and urban areas. Certainly, religion has been a largely influential force in most cities in the United States from post-Revolutionary times to the present. Whether it be the Black Churches of Detroit, the Lutheran Churches of Minneapolis, the Catholic Churches of NYC, the Baptist Churches of Louisville, or the Mormon Churches in Salt Lake City, conservative varieties of religion remains a very big deal in cities.

In many rural communities, conservatives churches are the only religious establishments, whereas in cities such as NYC and Minneapolis, a much larger and more diverse series of religious sub-cultures are provided for. Arguably, in the absence of any other religious institutions, an extremely conservative one exercises a far higher influence over an entire community. That would seem, to me, to be a matter of common sense.

Now with that said, urban locales - by and large - are more inclined to vote Democratic in recent elections. Though, quite frankly, there has been no evidence to support final conclusions as to why that is. I highly doubt it is education based, as we find that those who live in the suburbs by and large vote Republican in recent election.

Suburban sprawl around farming and ranching sub-cultures has tended to vote Republican; the industrial sub-culture, more typical of the north and portions of the west coast, have tended to Democrat. The entire Northeast has been on occasion defined as a mega-city; and differences in education are noted as present between urban and rural areas. Leaving aside the specifics of it and going to the general level, haven't you heard of the "brain drain" from smaller, rural communities to larger, urban ones, that has been noted for some time? I don't want to get anecdotal, but consider the way those with aspirations in the arts and sciences move from some hometowns to big cities. Wouldn't you agree this is a common trend? If so, wouldn't this is reflected in the education levels of rural and urban communities?

As a Southerner myself, I take some offense at the inference that those who are in “agrarian” states are not as thoughtful as Northern city dwellers (which is what I read into your statement, from your definition of rural).

You might want to re-read my remarks, since no meaning of the word "thoughtful" was encompassed in them; to which I added, in any case, "however much individuals may vary." Nor did I write about "agrarian states," but about agrarian regions within the midwest, southern and western states that were targeted over the last two decades by Republican Party strategists for their votes, based on research they'd conducted, that could win those specific states. I would add that I've spent more than half my lifetime in the South, and don't consider myself a Northerner.

Quite frankly, that's just not true. And, certainly, no polling or research has shown that people who live in more agrarian "are.... less skeptical, make value judgments based on emotional impulse, and religiously evangelical." The wording alone is extremely biased...

I was recalling what I'd read, and admit frankly to shortening the material, and leaving out the weasel words. Nonetheless, the material gathered seemed pretty conclusive, and was used by the Republicans in dictating their vote-acquiring methods. It appears to have worked, though of course, whether it worked as a result of the conclusions noted, or for other reasons, must be left to the individual to determine for themselves.

[Hill-Shatar]

This is going to be short, as this is beginning to shift to something called regionalsim, something that Canada can tolerate, yet for some reasons the states can not.

I grew up around Agriculture, Faust, and personally I saw nothing degrating or overly (if not somewhat) stereotypical or profiling in his responce. Personally I did not exactly grow up in an overly religious area, yet almost everyone (I was one of those not people) went to church regularily. I can really say that in the city, I know more people who do not go, then go, and personally I rather like it that way (being not really religious myself).

I grew up in Huron county, and we were considered soft religious. The people in Kent county were intolerable with religion, everyday hearing praise the lord when antything even semi lucky or totally ordianry happened. I think that if Paul Martin decided to say God told him to be nice, the entire community may pop up behind them.

Although not all areas are like this, I noticed that Saskatchewan also had many people who believed in the lord, that he made everything, by His skillful hand, ect. These peoplemay be more swayed by a religious man then others.

Since it is happening in Canada, I would not venture to say it is happening there as well. I really didnt notice it until I started reading all those debates years ago on religion. Perhaps you just tone things out, as I learned to, thats all.

I was recalling what I'd read, and admit frankly to shortening the material, and leaving out the weasel words. Nonetheless, the material gathered seemed pretty conclusive, and was used by the Republicans in dictating their vote-acquiring methods. It appears to have worked, though of course, whether it worked as a result of the conclusions noted, or for other reasons, must be left to the individual to determine for themselves.

Agreed. Unfortunately, many readers will interpret things in many different ways. Nor will they all look at the paper in the same way. Some will comein looking skeptical and get what they wanted. Others will come in confident and get what they wanted. Thats really the problem.

However, do you happen to have a link or was this something from long ago?

Anyways, you can not deny that Bush has been using any means nessasary to win over the public, to the bumbling attitude from the texan accent, which, apparently, he doesnt use so pronounced in private. Why should it really be different with this? You have to admit, by the amount of turmoil it has started, it has made quite an uproart. If people didnt believe it, then it wouldn't be constantly argued about over the media, and in about every other level of the population as well.

Ok, I lied, more along the lines of medium sized... not a short responce.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]Agreed. Unfortunately, many readers will interpret things in many different ways. Nor will they all look at the paper in the same way. Some will comein looking skeptical and get what they wanted. Others will come in confident and get what they wanted. Thats really the problem.

However, do you happen to have a link or was this something from long ago?[/quote]

Some time ago. But I will try to find some recent links references that material, or at least some offline books containing quotes from the Republican "masterminds" who engineered the successful league with the religious far-right.

Anyways, you can not deny that Bush has been using any means nessasary to win over the public, to the bumbling attitude from the texan accent, which, apparently, he doesnt use so pronounced in private. Why should it really be different with this? You have to admit, by the amount of turmoil it has started, it has made quite an uproart. If people didnt believe it, then it wouldn't be constantly argued about over the media, and in about every other level of the population as well.

I wouldn't dream of denying it: I've been writing as much, above: "...where Bush is concerned, he has repeatedly shown a willingness to adapt his image as needed and lie to achieve whatever goals he seeks." I think he is a very savvy politician, and has repeatedly said and done whatever was required to get elected at any given moment.

[Hill-Shatar]

Although I failed to find any actual links thus far, here is one about religion in the states in general...http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

Also, some religious snapshots of some of the states, such as Oregon, also located on the same site: http://www.adherents.com/

[Wolfguard]

Considering how people in the past have used religion to guide them in any number of ways both holy and/or horrendous, is it really as bad as it has been or could be? I don`t think so. People talk of present-day tyranny here, yet the fact they are able to continue voicing their opinions from their home computers, as opposed to etching them on a prison wall somewhere, is quite telling of their actual situation. Maybe we`re on the cusp or already engaged in the innitial years of the third world war, or maybe we`re just at a state of human "realignment," but the fact remains that the human race has had to deal with more mass conflict and death in the past, than we`re faced with now. The people back then were able to get through it, much of which was experienced less than 100 years ago; perhaps we can do the same today. Moreover, humanity has also lived under, delt with and survived countless generations at the hands of national leaders, politicians and despots faaaar worse than the likes of Duh-bya. Is he the best leader ever? Hell no. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot.

That`s my 2 cents worth.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Wolfguard]Considering how people in the past have used religion to guide them in any number of ways both holy and/or horrendous, is it really as bad as it has been or could be? I don`t think so. People talk of present-day tyranny here, yet the fact they are able to continue voicing their opinions from their home computers, as opposed to etching them on a prison wall somewhere, is quite telling of their actual situation. Maybe we`re on the cusp or already engaged in the innitial years of the third world war, or maybe we`re just at a state of human "realignment," but the fact remains that the human race has had to deal with more mass conflict and death in the past, than we`re faced with now. The people back then were able to get through it, much of which was experienced less than 100 years ago; perhaps we can do the same today. Moreover, humanity has also lived under, delt with and survived countless generations at the hands of national leaders, politicians and despots faaaar worse than the likes of Duh-bya. Is he the best leader ever? Hell no. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot.

That`s my 2 cents worth.[/QUOTE]

Firstly - what does being able to voice once oppinion have to do with the leader of properly the most powerful country using God to justify himself. Sure - some coutries have no freedom of speech, others limit it and so on - but what relevance does this have? It isn't as a consequence or influenced of Bush's actions that people have this ability, so I fail to see the relevance.

Secondly - there might have been worse leaders in the past or present, but in the free world (and I use this term lightly), you can't wash off your own filth using others. With this I mean, that just because other leaders have messed up, doesn't make it right for this one (or any other) to mess up as well.

Thirdly - I hope you give just as much credit to when some of these people Bush fights uses God as a means to justify their actions as well, for instance the terrorists. Using the excat same rethoric as them is just scary in my view- and an example of how dangerous such religious beliefs really are.

Fourthly - in Europe and the US not everybody (even by a long shot) belives in religon in that manner. Thus for a world leader to claim *His* God told him to do stuff and then uses it as a means of justification, that is really scary. We supposedly lives in a free, modern society, and most of these countrys have a segregation of church and state. And this only draws Bush' version of religon into the state once more.

Lastly - 100 years ago, the leaders didn't have the ability to destroy the world. So I'd prefere my world leaders to be sane, and not talk to God.


Anyways - back on this topic, then I've seem to heard from a friend that this statements were taken out of context, however, I've not been able to find any references (okay, I didn't search all that much ), but if this indeed what Bush said (or meant), then he is more dangerous then I thought at first.

[Wolfguard]

Firstly - what does being able to voice once oppinion have to do with the leader of properly the most powerful country using God to justify himself. Sure - some coutries have no freedom of speech, others limit it and so on - but what relevance does this have? It isn't as a consequence or influenced of Bush's actions that people have this ability, so I fail to see the relevance.

My comment was a general response to this statement:

"Shrub's claims that "god told him to do it" is but a step on the path to tyranny that the neo-cons are taking America on. I argue that tyranny is what we already experience in America now."

Oddly enough, I don`t see a similar response from you to that poster.

Secondly - there might have been worse leaders in the past or present, but in the free world (and I use this term lightly), you can't wash off your own filth using others. With this I mean, that just because other leaders have messed up, doesn't make it right for this one (or any other) to mess up as well.

And where did I say it was OK for them to have done what they did?

Thirdly - I hope you give just as much credit to when some of these people Bush fights uses God as a means to justify their actions as well, for instance the terrorists. Using the excat same rethoric as them is just scary in my view- and an example of how dangerous such religious beliefs really are.

Well, sorry to dash your "hopes," but I don`t. We wouldn`t be in this mess if people such as Bin Laden hadn`t chose to drag the US into his own personal holy war. Personally, I think he was pissed that the Saudis asked for our help instead of his when Saddam took Kuwait, but I`m just basing that off a History Channel special that mentioned it. Pretty sure it was something called "Inside the 9/11 Highjacker`s Cell" or somethin` or other.

Fourthly - in Europe and the US not everybody (even by a long shot) belives in religon in that manner. Thus for a world leader to claim *His* God told him to do stuff and then uses it as a means of justification, that is really scary. We supposedly lives in a free, modern society, and most of these countrys have a segregation of church and state.

So does the thought of Gandhi scare you too? I mean, his principals were derrived from Hindu sanskrit. What about Alexander, or Napolean, or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? All these people spoke, ruled, conqured or redefined the peoples and nations they encountered. Sometimes, their religion was involved.

Surprise! The human race is still here.

this only draws Bush' version of religon into the state once more.

How? Give some examples. From where I`m at (the poor side of town,) I see no evidence of his "forcing" his religion on me, or anyone else where I live. I don`t see anyone demanding a conversion from their religious beliefs to fit in line with his, but maybe you have. So what examples can you provide?

Lastly - 100 years ago, the leaders didn't have the ability to destroy the world.

I clearly said "less than 100 years ago," which is true. 60 years ago, the first atom bombs were deployed in warfare. As time continued, more were created by both the US and USSR - still "less than 100 years ago."

So I'd prefere my world leaders to be sane, and not talk to God.

So athiest are all sane? Moreover, this is clearly prejudice on your part that anyone who`s religious and talks to their "God" is less than sane. Disprove the existence of any supernatural entity and we`ll talk some more.

if this indeed what Bush said (or meant), then he is more dangerous then I thought at first.

I think these are some dangerous times, but judging from your response alone, I think you sound as though you are itching for a fight in regards to justifying your hatred for Bush. Personally, I may not like him, but I don`t hate him - that`d just make me blind in regards to judging objectively.