Bush's positive qualities

Posted by: wfaulk

Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 13:57

Ummm....

Feel free to list them when you can think of one....
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:11

Not afraid to defend the country.
Is not a socialist.
Is not an environmental extremist.
Supports the 2nd amendment (despite the AW ban)
Will hopefully appoint judges that don't believe in the liberal ideology.
Doesn't believe in the economic policies of the left. (raising taxes is supposed increase prosperity?!)
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:16

He's not Michael Moore.

-Zeke
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:31

The lack of a negative is not a positive.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:33

Precisely. It was as close as I could get.

-Zeke
Posted by: davec

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:36

He's from TEXAS!

I tried, that's all I could come up with, besides the fact his offspring sure can party...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:42

I don’t have time to really properly address this question right now (perhaps later) because I can’t simply list of a bunch of things I like about Bush. The reason? A lot of the things I count as positive you’d absolutely view as negatives and then we’d be thrust into a discussion of values and how they relate to politics.

What I’d ideally like in a President is someone coming from a similar moral framework as myself who’d make decisions consistent with my belief system. Bush is a lot closer in that regard than most other candidates, though he’s done a lot of things I didn’t like and (more importantly) in ways I thought weren’t good. However, on value issues that are very close to my heart he’s going to land a lot closer to me than just about any Democrat. And those values are what I’d list as positives.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 14:53

So are these moral/ethical leanings or political leanings that you tend to concur with?

It's not an illegitimate reason. The only positive thing I could come up with about Gore/Lieberman was that their method of governance more closely resembled my own. Otherwise, their platform could easily have been a Republican platform. Oh, that and that Gore wasn't an idiot.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:05

So are these moral/ethical leanings or political leanings that you tend to concur with?
Yes, exactly. In a perfect world I'd like to have both, especially since I worry that a lot of the "moral/ethical" leanings (which I think are so important) are fabricated for image more than driving forces in a leader's life. But it’d be near impossible for me to feel good about voting for someone who believes XYZ when I think XYZ is so wrong that it hurts.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:14

I was actually asking you to choose one, the other, or both.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:18

Oops . I misread your statement. "Moral/Ethical".
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:19

Bitt, you should put this on your empeg.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:23

Wow. What a freak he is.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 15:29

If Dean loses the presidency, he has a good future in wrestling I'd say.
Posted by: loren

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 16:02

I don't even like Dean all that much, but if you call passion "freaky", i'd take a freak in office anyday over just about anything else.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 16:17

It's not the passion, it's the ... appetite?

Otherwise, I disagree. I'm sure Paul Wolfowitz is passionate in his hatred for the Arabs and I don't want to see that in office. I'm sure Ashcroft is passionate in his crusade to remove all our civil rights. I'm sure Bush is passionate in his disinterest.
Posted by: loren

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 17:18

True... i thought about that side after i posted. Maybe "appropriate empassioned anger"? haha.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 20/01/2004 20:12

Gore wasn't an idiot.


Come on now. ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about creating the internet. But wanting to ban internal combustion engines?


Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 08:16

I have to ask, and this is in response to FerretBoy's post in the other Bitt thread: what has he done?
I’m going to respond to DiGNAN’s post here, just to try and keep things focused (though clearly both threads are exploring the same waters).
I would like to hear what Bush has done in his term in this regard to warrant your faith in him.
Just for the record, I’ve been trying very hard not to open this particular can of worms, but I fear that it is inevitable so here goes:

Bush is an Evangelical Christian, and I have very little doubt about this. So much so that he was invited to speak at Second Baptist Church in Houston, TX while he was campaigning for presidency (I was a member there at the time). 2nd Baptist is a huge, VERY evangelical church, which is not normally in the habit of bringing just anyone in to speak in the pulpit. I’ll admit I was quite disappointed in what Bush had to say because it was very political, but even at that there was no doubt he shared my core, most important beliefs.

So why would I want an Evangelical Christian in office? Because I can trust his sense of right & wrong are derived from the same source as mine. We might not always come to the same conclusions, but I also don’t have to fear that he’s going to support something I find wildly off base. It is because I trust the source of Bush’s moral compass that I still don’t believe he invaded Iraq to gain oil or finish some vendetta. I also can’t fathom him knowing about 911 and not stopping it if he had the power. Those notions simply don’t jive with what I know of Bush and what drives him.

It seems to me that Bush has made some mistakes. That isn’t surprising. He’s human and in a position of great power, meaning his mistakes carry large consequences. In fact, I think he’s behaved badly, especially about being clear about his reasons for going to war. Because of these things, I’d prefer to put someone else in office. BUT, what I do appreciate about him is that no matter what mistakes he’s made, I believe they come out of an earnest desire to meet the same values that I hold. And I suppose I’d rather be stuck with someone who might make mistakes following what I consider the right path than someone who might do very good following the wrong one.

And truth be told, I could be wrong about Bush. He may just lip service the faith and be using it for political gain. If that’s the case then I really do need to open my eyes. But from what I’ve seen and experienced of the man I feel that I can trust his motives.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 09:25

Because I can trust his sense of right & wrong are derived from the same source as mine.


This is why I feel strongly that religion in general is very dangerous, then to go dragging it into the whitehouse is simply not acceptable. People crucified Clinton over a stupid moment of weakness that really affected no one but himself and his family, rupublicans spent millions of taxpayer money to prove it. Clinton did a decent job, but because of that stupid Lewinski incident he got labled a piece of trash. Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in america, he's lied, he's basically been in my honest opinion the worst president we've ever had, but because his screwups are non sexual people don't care or are unwilling to try and do anything about it. But hey, he's Christian right? He can't be too bad? Right? Better then a Democrat right?
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 09:31

I also can’t fathom him knowing about 911 and not stopping it if he had the power.

His own administration admitted to knowing something was going to happen, for them to say they couldn't imagine using planes as bombs is absolutely retarded. So either the administration is utterly retarded or looking for an excuse to fuel the war in Iraq (as noted before was on the agenda before he entered office). No I'm not saying the administration let it happen to fuel the war. I'm saying it was either that or utter stupidity, either way a clear example of someone that shouldn't have been given the office.
Posted by: trs24

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 09:36

And his niece is a model!



- trs
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 09:38

I would, respectfully, have to say that you're a sucker.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 09:53

This is why I feel strongly that religion in general is very dangerous
Of course you must know I disagree. I think that religion can be dangerous, but only if misused. Since I think that faith is the ultimate reality, however, a lack of religion is as bad to me as religion misused. Not really something we can debate though, since we just have different starting points.
then to go dragging it into the whitehouse is simply not acceptable.
Well, every politician EVER has dragged something of their moral compass into their position. How else would they be able to make decisions with moral implications? And those decisions will come, because laws necessarily are derived from our sense of right and wrong. Whether a politician’s moral compass comes from religion or some other source, how can it be unacceptable to use it?
Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in America
To what “clear cut” criminal negligence are you referring? Perhaps I’ve just not been convinced enough of how evil Bush is. In my mind he’s made some bad choices. He lied and has been a bit dishonest about his true motives for invading Iraq. His dealings with other countries have been pretty crummy and have made the US look bad. Those things are a far cry from this “evil republican” portrait I’m getting from you.
But hey, he's Christian right? He can't be too bad? Right? Better then a Democrat right?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Checking of a box that says "Christian" does not ensure receiving my vote. I heard Bush talk about his faith and was convinced that he was coming from a similar place as myself. I'm still convinced of this.

However, If I were truly convinced that Bush was this evil person you claim I wouldn’t vote for him. In that case I’d probably stay home from the polls because I can’t see myself voting for any of the Democrat options either, but I wouldn’t vote for someone just because he or she was a Christian.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 10:57

Clinton did a decent job, but because of that stupid Lewinski incident he got labled a piece of trash. Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in america, he's lied,

Although you're of the opinion that Bush has lied I'm assuming of WMD (but you don't say) that is yet to be proven. Bush was acting on the intelligence he was supplied. Clinton, on the other hand lied to the Supreme Court and was disbarred. If he lied about something so trivial what else has he lied about? Don't get me wrong, I do believe a lot of money was wasted on the probe but why didn't Clinton just admit it instead of letting the investigation cost the taxpayers so much money?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:04

One, the investigation was not instigated by that. It was an investigation into the Whitewater scandal, which revealed nothing. The only thing Ken Starr could find was that he got a hummer in the White House. Personally, I could care less. At the same time, that does make him a piece of trash, personally. It, however, does not affect his ability to do his job. But the money was already spent. That was just the only thing that all that spent money revealed.

Honestly, I think the fact that you label it as trivial is disingenuous. It wouldn't be trivial if it was you or your spouse who cheated. I think it's human nature to avoid admitting that. I understand where you're coming from with the ``what else has he lied about'' argument, but I don't think lying about your personal life in order to avoid embarrassment and lying for personal gain have much connection.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:05

His own administration admitted to knowing something was going to happen, for them to say they couldn't imagine using planes as bombs is absolutely retarded.


So, let me get this straight. You actually believe that Bush should have believed the intelligence he was given in regard to 911 although they had not clue whatsoever what was going to happen just "something was going to happen". BUT when his intelligence tells him that Sadam has WMD and intends on using them then he should not do a thing?

So how is the president supposed to know what to believe and what not to believe?

I'd have to agree with the Presidents actions.



Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:07

No, we think that he manipulates the intelligence into whatever he wants to hear.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:08

I think you're a dumbass. (respectfully, of course)
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:14

Also, being presented with ``it's possible to hijack a plane and use it as a bomb'' is obviously a statement of pure fact, whereas ``Iraq has WMDs'' is conjecture masquerading as fact, regardless of whether it is true or not.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:24

It is because I trust the source of Bush’s moral compass that I still don’t believe he invaded Iraq to gain oil or finish some vendetta.
Can't someone share the same "moral compass" as you and not be nearly as good at following that compass? Or, to be more specific, how can you blindly trust Bush's motivation for the war if you don't know how good he is at sticking to those morals when it comes time to make decisions? Aren't some Christians better at adhering to their faith than others?
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:33

Also, being presented with ``it's possible to hijack a plane and use it as a bomb'' is obviously a statement of pure fact, whereas ``Iraq has WMDs'' is conjecture masquerading as fact, regardless of whether it is true or not.


Interesting article on the WMD

And... anything is "possible".

"it's possible to hijack a plane and use it as a bomb" and "it's possible that Saddam had WMD". I'm not sure of the point. Nevermind, is it the "conspiracy theory" again? Bush manipulating the truth for his own personal gain?

My favorite conspiracy theory though is that we never landed on the moon. Some say it's physically impossible.


Posted by: genixia

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:43

He may just lip service the faith and be using it for political gain.

He certainly doesn't lip service the fifth commandment. His smirking 'saddle-up' attitude when it comes to matters of death (Saddam's sons, the death penalty etc) does not exaclty demonstrate any reverence for that commandment.
I expect that leaders have to make tough decisions that result in death. I don't expect them to revel in it.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:43

I think the fact that you label it as trivial is disingenuous

I never said it was trivial, on the contrary, I've been cheated on before and it sucks. I think it's more a matter to settle between him and his wife, not the Republicans and the 9:00 evening news. It pales in comparison to some of the crap Bush has pulled. I do think it got blown way out of proportion and turned into a frickin witch hunt.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:51

BUT when his intelligence tells him that Sadam has WMD and intends on using them then he should not do a thing?

Granted, it is the Mother Jones Report , this article gives a rather informative read about Bush's "Intelligence" gathering.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:51

Can't someone share the same "moral compass" as you and not be nearly as good at following that compass?
Yes, it's only a starting point, and I've been dissapointed in a lot of the choices Bush has made.
Or, to be more specific, how can you blindly trust Bush's motivation for the war if you don't know how good he is at sticking to those morals when it comes time to make decisions?
In fact I really don't know what his motive for the war really was (does anybody), though I think I know what it wasn't.
Aren't some Christians better at adhering to their faith than others?
Again, yes and if there were a better option I'd take it. However, I'll still take the person who starts at the right point and makes mistakes over someone who's starting at the wrong place to begin with.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:52

My point is that the Bush administration claims it was unaware that a hijacked plane could be used as a weapon. Honestly, it's not the sort of thing that would immediately pop to one's mind. But the point is that it was pointed out to the Bush administration and now they're claiming that they'd never heard of any such thing. Not that someone was actively planning to do it, but that the possibility had occurred to them at all.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:53

Even if the person starting from the wrong place is making choices more in line with yours because the person starting from the right place has drifted so far?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 11:59

Again, yes and if there were a better option I'd take it. However, I'll still take the person who starts at the right point and makes mistakes over someone who's starting at the wrong place to begin with.
But what if that person who's "starting at the wrong place" (meaning has a different faith than you do) makes better decisions, and, just coincidentally, makes decisions that fall more in line with your beliefs than the guy who supposedly follows your faith? As a hypothetical exercise, let's say a Jewish Republican candidate emerged, whose political platform, decision-making, etc. matched up with what you think is right. Wouldn't you vote for that guy instead of Bush, whom you acknowledge as falling short on many of his decisions? Or does being Christian give Bush a free pass? If it doesn't completely exonerate him, how much does he have to screw up before you'd consider placing your vote with someone of a different religious background?

It seems to me that it's possible that someone can start off with a "moral compass" and religious persuasion completely different from yours, but arrive at many of the same political decisions.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:00

Damn it, now you made me look like a fool for taking two paragraphs to say the exact same thing you said in one sentence.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:01

He certainly doesn't lip service the fifth commandment.
To be completly accurate, the fifth commandment is "Do Not Murder", not "Do Not Kill". As you say, sometimes decisions have to be made that result in death that would not be considered murder. However,
His smirking 'saddle-up' attitude when it comes to matters of death (Saddam's sons, the death penalty etc) does not exaclty demonstrate any reverence for that commandment.
is a really good point. In fact, I have been dissapointed with a lot of Christian's reactions to death as far as Saddam and his sons are concerned. It is completly valid to rejoice that a threat has been dealt with and victory achived, but we have not limited our celebrations to this alone. I heard someone I respect exclaim with glee "hang him high!" with regards to Saddam, and I just feel this isn't right. Not that the death penality shouldn't be invoked, but it isn't something we should take pleasure in.

So yes, that is a very valid criticism of Bush, and many Christians in general actually. Which only illustrates that we make mistakes and are in need of grace just like anyone else. However, the stakes are much higher when you are the President.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:09

But what if that person who's "starting at the wrong place" (meaning has a different faith than you do) makes better decisions, and, just coincidentally, makes decisions that fall more in line with your beliefs than the guy who supposedly follows your faith?
Well, let me clarify a bit. "starting at the right place" doesn't mean to me "an Evangelical Christian," though that does help. In fact I could easily vote for an atheist if his or her moral compass seemed to align with mine. So far, from what I've seen, none of the Democratic players’ do.
As a hypothetical exercise, let's say a Jewish Republican candidate emerged, whose political platform, decision-making, etc. matched up with what you think is right. Wouldn't you vote for that guy instead of Bush, whom you acknowledge as falling short on many of his decisions?
Absolutely. Even if the guy was a Democrat, actually.

In case you can’t tell, I’m not a huge Bush supporter (though I was at one time). I just happen to think that he’s more likely to govern the country the way I’d want than any of the other choices available. I think this because of his religious persuasion and the fact that what I’ve read of the other’s indicates they’d support things to which I’m firmly opposed.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:12

If he lied about something so trivial what else has he lied about?

I found it hard to believe that it got that far, but I can't say I blame him for lying about something like that. I don't condone it, but under the circumstances? A guy is standing before the supreme court over a hummer? The whole scenario was rediculous, and as far as disgracing the office by doing something like that in the whitehouse? At least he was there and not on vacation.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:17

I grew up in a Christian family. I went to church every Sunday and most Wednesdays until I was about 17 years old. So I'm not talking without knowledge or personal experience.

The extreme hypocrisy with which seemingly most, but probably just many so-called Christians live their lives has soured me on the whole thing forever. I never had any experience to lead me to believe that this life is any more than what we can see, but that's not the point. Christanity has a pretty good philosophy, at least except for Paul's extremes. But so many Christians have basically no interest in that.

My wife watched the movie Blast from the Past the other day. One of the characters said ``He said, good manners are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them. See, I didn't know that, I thought it was just a way of acting all superior.'' To me, that's what Christianity has become. A way for people to feel morally superior. (I'm not placing this fault on you, specifically.) And I believe that's the extent of GWB's religion.

There are other people I know (personally if not well) who are, apparently, highly regarded in the evangelical community who I believe exhibit the exact same lack of Christianness. There's this creepy narcissistic quality to them that stands out beyond all else for me.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:22

In case you can’t tell, I’m not a huge Bush supporter (though I was at one time). I just happen to think that he’s more likely to govern the country the way I’d want than any of the other choices available. I think this because of his religious persuasion and the fact that what I’ve read of the other’s indicates they’d support things to which I’m firmly opposed.
Okay, I totally respect that. It just seems that there are a lot of people who would vote for him just on the basis of his faith, without regard for what he actually does. I can understand your concept (at least in an ideal sense) that if you don't know anything else about a guy, you can start off with religion being a good indication of what he might do if elected. Not sure it holds up in all cases, but it's better than some other methods.

This phenomenon doesn't just exist with religion, either, as a lot of voters pick one or two issues and vote for those, without even looking at anything else (gun control, abortion rights, whatever.) I think doing that is more irresponsible than not voting at all.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:28

To me, that's what Christianity has become. A way for people to feel morally superior.
History has well documented that this is the case, in part anyway. It makes me very sad, and I completely understand how unattractive this is. It is so easy to abuse people through religion, and Christians have been (and continue to be) very visible in this endeavor.

The only thing I can say is that I know of many Christians who do not pursue faith as a means of acting superior and controlling others. However, these are usually not the ones who get all of the press. And often when Christians do simply try to point out their viewpoints they are reject out of hand as being self-righteous because that is all anybody knows.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:36

I grew up in a Christian family. I went to church every Sunday and most Wednesdays until I was about 17 years old. So I'm not talking without knowledge or personal experience.

The extreme hypocrisy with which seemingly most, but probably just many so-called Christians live their lives has soured me on the whole thing forever. I never had any experience to lead me to believe that this life is any more than what we can see, but that's not the point. Christanity has a pretty good philosophy, at least except for Paul's extremes. But so many Christians have basically no interest in that.

Thats pretty much my background as well, I personally don't like the judgement aspect of the "holy rollers". I'm not married, I live with my fiance and have a child with her, I believe myself to be a good father and partner (at some point we'll get married, it just hasn't been an issue for either of us). If I hear from one more "Christian" about how I'm living in sin and most likely going to burn in hell I think I'm going to explode....
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:38

And often when Christians do simply try to point out their viewpoints they are reject out of hand as being self-righteous because that is all anybody knows.
In defense of Jeff's position, take any other hot-button political or moral issue out there and substitute it in for "religion" and "christianity" in his posts, and you still have a valid conclusion. The most visible people of any persuasion or belief seem to be the idiots, whereas the ones who quietly go on practicing and advancing their cause are generally pretty reasonable and tolerable, even if you don't agree with their cause.

In the irony of all ironies, one of the two or three Bible passages I can actually remember from my Church-going days taught this exact lesson, at least as I remember it. I don't remember the details (maybe some of you Bible-thumpers out there can help me ) but I remember it as two apostles (or at least disciples) talking about expressing their faith, and one of them wants to shout out to the world about how right they are and spread the word of God, and the other tells them that it's the guy who practices his faith without worrying how it's perceived or who agrees with him who is doing the right thing, and is more likely in tune with the original message of God. I wish I could be more specific than that, but I remember it well, because at the time, I was at a point in my life where I was starting to doubt the veracity of the faith I was born into (Catholicism) and it felt good to hear "from the source" that you can't always believe those who evangelize the loudest, sometimes, you need to come to your own conclusion.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 12:41

It's not even the active superiority that bothers me. Those people were going to find something to be superior about, they just happened to choose that one. It's the people who are more passive about it -- the ones to whom it might not ever occur that they're being superior. The ones who dismiss things solely because they're different. It isn't an active campaign; it's just intentional disinterest. But it's fomented by the culture that I saw that told these people that they were better solely because they ``believe in Jesus''. All cultures should encourage people to expand -- to understand other things, but the culture I saw was very insular and implicitly encouraged dismissal.

My aunt, a basically good person who considers herself to be quite the Christian refuses to say the Apostle's Creed because it contains the phrase ``I believe in ... the holy catholic church'' because she refuses to acknowledge the Catholic church, despite the fact that catholic and Catholic are two quite different things. The other day she told me that Catholics didn't believe in Jesus. I don't even know where that comes from. I don't know if she's that ignorant or if she was confusing Catholicism with Judaism or what. The point is that she's gone to church basically every Sunday of all her years (she's about 70), claims to be a religious person, but doesn't know simple facts outside the tiny realm of her own denomination.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:14

I could say a lot on the subject, but I’ll just note that you and I seem to agree here. There are many churches that seem to promote the idea that Christians are better than others, and people flock to this teaching. This is truly sad, for this attitude is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus himself (that all people have fallen and are in need of grace), and that Christianity would be identified with it is sad irony.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:25

Jeff, just to clarify, I totally respect your faith...

Now your politics? Thats another story
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:36

Now your politics? Thats another story
Ah well, I hate politics anyway

Why I join these discussions (and prolong them) is beyond me.
Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:39

In my experience, those "many churches" could be defined as any church that holds a literal interpretation of the Christ story (Christ was *literally* born of a virgin and Christ *literally* ascended bodily to a place called Heaven, etc.). I have never seen someone believe that literal interpretation who did not also believe that those who did not were damned to an equally literal "Hell". The damned are, in that way at the very least, inferior to the "saved".

Of course, those statements are true of any fundamentalism (which is the same as holding a literal interpretation), and are the basis of the ethnocentric "fanatic" views that are the core of so much of the turmoil in the world. Literal fundamentalism is the problem, whether it is fundamental Islam, or Christianity, and needs to be held in check by more sophisticated views of the world.

I, too, was raised in a Christian family. For a long time, I felt that the whole thing was complete nonsense. Since then, I have significantly altered my opinions. I now believe that Christ (and many others) had particular insight into the human condition that is beyond the ability to express in langugage (a so-called Cosmic Consciousness experience, also known as a direct realization of "nonduality"). Unable to express this so-called "inexpressible", those who have such experiences explain them in metaphor. The metaphors are misunderstood by most people, since the metaphysical insights are rare, and literalized. Then the trouble starts.

I believe that over 99% of religious followers have never been exposed to the idea that the teachings are metaphorical. I have been told by Christian theologians that it is "blasphemy" even to suggest it.

It is a sad irony indeed. The "belief" actually keeps the followers from even *considering* what (in my opinion) is the "real" (metaphorical) teachings. Not only that, people consistenly prove how attached they are to their interpretations by being all too willing to kill for them.

The earlier distinction between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder" is telling: when we kill someone who is not part of our ethnocentric sect, it isn't murder, it is simply killing.

The world has become too small for that kind of thinking, whether it is from Osama bin Ladin or the President of the United States. That is not to say that lethal force is not sometimes justified, or even necessary, only that an ethnocentric view of the world should not be encouraged, regardless of the form.

Jim
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:44

It is a sad irony indeed. The "belief" actually keeps the followers from even *considering* what (in my opinion) is the "real" (metaphorical) teachings. Not only that, people consistenly prove how attached they are to their interpretations by being all too willing to kill for them.
This is spot-on. If the so-called believers took to heart the message of the teachings instead of picking apart each literal word and using it to buttress their own prejudices and desires, life would be a lot less complicated.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:54

Well I have to admit that I do believe in the literal bible and a literal hell. But I also believe that those who are “saved” are not necessarily better than those who are not. That would imply that Christ saved those people who exhibited behavior worthy of being saved, and the scripture is quite clear that salvation is by grace (unmerited favor) alone. So the only thing Christians can say to non-Christians is that they are missing out on the greatest love mankind can know. They cannot say, however, that not having faith makes them worse people than those who do not believe.

As far as your faith journey goes, Jim, it turns out I sort of went the opposite rout from you! At a very early age my parents really gave me a view of faith that was more “metaphorical” in nature. Through my own journey I decided upon the literal views that I hold now.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 13:54

whoaa... thats deep man....
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:08

Through my own journey I decided upon the literal views that I hold now.

So I have to ask, do you believe in dinosaurs?
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:09

But from what I’ve seen and experienced of the man I feel that I can trust his motives.
Speaking as a Christian who's somewhere between you and Bitt in my fervor, I look at what GWB has done, and find it the exact opposite of everything that I understand about Christianity.

God calls us to be a steward of the planet. GWB has raped 200 environmental laws designed to protect the planet.

Thou shalt not kill. Despite your assertion (I think it was you that wrote it), I've never seen that interpreted as "thou shalt not murder," until now. He's sent more people to the chair than any Texan gov. in history, has little regard for the slaughter of life due to the wars.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? Does no one understand why violence is a circle?

Oh, and Christ's admonishment to the rich man to give up his riches if he wanted to enter into heaven? GWB gave tax cuts to the rich.

Remember the sermon on the mount? Take a look at the qualities that Christ espoused, and see how GWB stacks up:
meek? Mr. Bring-em-on? Nope. Merciful? Nada. Pure in heart? Not when actions speak louder than words. Peacemaker? Hardly that -- he's operating two major theatres of war.

Then, there's the little matter of honesty, or, rather, his complete lack of it.

How about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" What do we have from Bush? Retribution. "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself?" Oops, not showing much Christian value, there, either.

I cannot fathom how any Christian can look at that man, and see any shred of Christianity within him. Call a spade a spade. Look beyond his public pro-life, pro-family statements.

All I see is a man on a crusade for personal riches, masquerading it as a battle of righteousness. He is the complete antithesis of the Christian morality that I was brought up to believe in.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:16

So I have to ask, do you believe in dinosaurs?
Yes.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:34

I know several devout Christians that don't, I don't understand that.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:40

I suppose it has to do with “young earth” vs. “old earth” type arguments, involving evolution and such. Most “young earth” Christians I know believe that dinosaurs co-existed with people. I’ve never heard anyone say that dinosaurs never existed, though.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:51

Well I know two that don't believe they existed at all, and several that believe they existed with man. I ask the two that don't believe at all whats with the skeletons at the smithsonian... they say "smoke and mirrors" which I find kind of scary.
Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 14:57

I became a-theist at the age of 10 or 11 when a Christian pastor told me, when asked about dinosaur bones, that "they were placed there by God to test your faith."

It worked.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:04

Nice, that just makes it seem like "santa" or "the easter bunny", to me, thats the worst possible excuse you could give a kid....
(attachment is just my new avatar)
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:08

(attachment is just my new avatar)
Ah, cause I was really wondering about that at first!
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:10

So I have to ask, do you believe in dinosaurs?


I asked the same question in bible class back in high school and was told that they were created because "God wanted a friend". It didn't sound like a good explanation to me but who am I to argue?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:11

How very sad.

You know, that makes me think of the Calvin and Hobbs strip where Calvin asks his dad how they know the weight limit of a bridge.

His dad then explains that they keep driving bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks and then they build it up exactly the way it was before.

At this point him mom looks at his dad and says, “If you don’t know the answer, just say so!”

I’m convinced that if more people read Calvin and Hobbs the world would be a better place!

Note: the point I’m trying to get across is that Christians don’t always have all the answers, nor do we have to. You can keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool or you can open your mouth and prove it. (I know, I prove it often )
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:20

I pity da foo who don't believe in dinosaurs....
(sorry, I had to test out my new avatar)
Posted by: loren

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:26

LMAO.
Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 15:35

Well, I don't know if its sad...

It should be clear from my previous post that I think there is an important psychological/spiritual/moral/metaphysical teaching buried inside of Christianity. It is also clear (to me) that anyone who thinks that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground 6000 years ago by a stern, bearded old-man in the sky is never going to understand those teachings -- let alone be able to teach them. You might say he did me a favor.

I think Alan Watts, himself a former Christian theologian, makes a great comment when he says that "Christ was made irrelevant by being kicked upstairs." Meaning, that this metaphorical message has been made other-worldly and its imperative that each of us realize our true nature (which Paul called the Christ consciousness, and is elsewhere called the Christ in you) is not understood. By literalizing the metaphor, it effectively eliminates the need for personal, direct experience of the "ground", "Godhead" (Meister Eckhart), "nirvana", or whatever else you want to call it. The message to me was: you need to believe that Jesus is the son of God and was saved for you. The message of the Christian mystics (who don't literalize the metaphor) is that we are *all* "son's of God" and can realize our true nature of pure consciousness.

Clearly, I was never going to have that conversation with the guy with the strange ideas about dinosaurs.

Prior to about 6 or 7 years ago, I thought the whole thing was childish nonsense and that the only way to be a Christian was to be that kind of Christian. I don't believe that anymore, but I *do* still believe that any statement about reality must stand up to emperical, rational tests about that statement's validity. For me, that means that any kind of literal interpretation of the Bible, or the Upanishads, or the Koran, or any of the others does not stand up. While I used to leave it at that, I now believe that these authors (in some cases at least) may have been on to something that is almost universally misunderstood.

I think these extremely insightful people come around more often that people think. For instance, I believe that Walt Whitman, in Leaves of Grass, is referring to this Atman which is Brahman when he writes:

"There is that in me--I do not know what it is--but I know it is in me."

I like Calvin and Hobbes, too!

Jim
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 17:17

It wouldn't be trivial if it was (sic)* you or your spouse who cheated.

But that's just the point -- it wasn't him or his spouse -- nor was it any one of 300,000,000 other Americans nor their spouses. That is what does indeed make it trivial in the context of what is good for the country as a whole.

tanstaaafl.

*Element of uncertainty requires the subjunctive case, Bitt.

(and please -- let's not hijack this thread for a grammar debate, as much fun as that is!)
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 17:35

My point is that the Bush administration claims it was unaware that a hijacked plane could be used as a weapon. Honestly, it's not the sort of thing that would immediately pop to one's mind.

(Gee -- this seems to be my "Pick on Bitt" day...)

Here is an excerpt from an Amazon.com review of the Tom Clancy book "Executive Orders", published in October, 1996:



Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
Tom Clancy goes to the White House in this thriller of political terror and global disaster. The American political situation takes a disturbing turn as the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are obliterated when a Japanese terrorist lands a 747 on the Capitol.



Yeah -- whoever could think of such a thing.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 17:48

The only thing I can say is that I know of many Christians who do not pursue faith as a means of acting superior and controlling others.

You, and the fomer Reverend West are very much in the vanguard of that group! (By that group, I mean the group who do not proselytize by trying to appear superior)

Even though we have greatly differing viewpoints, I must express how much I appreciate the well-reasoned and well-stated arguments you and mlwest have placed on this bbs.

tanstaafl.

(edited to clarify group definition)
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 18:17

the point I’m trying to get across is that Christians don’t always have all the answers, nor do we have to.

Yet, Christians usually don't extend that courtesy to non-Christians.

"Where did the Universe come from?"

"Well, we really don't know."

"There -- that proves that God created it, because you can't prove otherwise."

tanstaafl.
Posted by: visuvius

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 19:29

whoa. thats a damn good point.

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 19:52

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.
From the FAQ:

"...Evangelicals hold that the Catholic Church has gone beyond Scripture, adding teachings and practices that detract from or compromise the Gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ. Catholics, in turn, hold that such teaching and practices are grounded in Scripture and belong to the fullness of God’s revelation. Their rejection, Catholics say, results in a truncated and reduced understanding of the Christian reality."

Interesting side-by-side comparison chart on that page, too. Shows you how much I know... I was baptized and communinized as a Catholic, and went to Catholic elementary school for two years, yet I don't know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I'm not sure if I never knew the difference, or just confused the concepts at some point.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 20:28

As I read that FAQ, I couldn't but help reading the 'Denied' entries in the Quake III narrator voice.

Infallibility of the Pope (C):Required belief in matters of religious doctrine and faith. (Prot):Denied.

Sorry. Please go back to your debates. Pay no attention to the Atheist.

-Zeke
Posted by: Heather

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 20:39

I don't know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I'm not sure if I never knew the difference, or just confused the concepts at some point.

Immaculate Conception

Virgin Birth of Jesus

And of course the banner for the "Ave Maria Singles" cracked me up for some reason. Maybe it was the catholic all girls boarding school with 400 nuns for 40 students that made me lose any respect for anything related to the catholic church.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 23:07

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.
I'll put in my understanding here. I hope it helps. But I never seem to be able to write anything in 1 or 2 lines. (If you must have it that short, though, simply read the two bolded phrases).

First of all, it should be noted that Catholics ARE Christians (though Protestants sometimes debate the title). The proper deleniation is between Catholics and Protestants (though technically I think the Anglican church is not considered Protestant since it did not come out of the reformation). The Catholic church is the historical church and grew out of the early Christian movement. The Protestant Churches split off later over two main issues. These two issues remain the main source of contention today:

1. The Authority of Scripture. The Catholic church maintains that only the Church may intepret scripture, and that the traditions of the church are equal in Authority to the Bible. Protestants believe that interpretation is a responsibility of the individual and the Church's authority does not extend to that of the Bible. Thus the reason doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary are such a sticking point. Protestants won't buy it because it isn't in scripture. Catholics MUST buy it because it is an official teaching of the Catholic church.

2.Faith alone. Protestants believe that a person is "saved" (meaning his or her sins are covered and that person may dwell eternally with God) by faith alone. No "good works" are necessary. So living a good life and doing more good than evil will not save a person. Only faith in Christ. The Catholic church teaches a slight deviation from this. I don't totally understand it, but I'll do my best. As near as I can tell, the Catholic church teaches that "good works" save a person, but that to do "good works" they must have faith in Christ. Or at least faith in Christ is one way to produce "good works". Like I said, I'm not totally sure.

This latter point was particularly sticky when the Catholic church was selling "indulgences" so that when a person knew he or she was going to sin he could pay for it in advance with good works (giving money to the Church, I think).

While these two points are still irreconcilable between Protestants and Catholics, changes have been made since the Reformation. The Catholic church no longer sells indulgences and their views on Salvation are (I belive) closer in practice to Protestants. Nonetheless, the issue of "works" in Catholisism is still very prevelant, as is the idea of the supreme authority of the Church. Of course, many Protestant churches also seem to adhere to the "supreme authority of the Church" even if not in name.

One thing is that you will find a lot of variation between Protestant churches. My best friend's church (for example) baptises infants. Mine does not, and both are very clear on their stances. However, while points of concern, none of these are deal breakers. My best friend and I have no problem worshiping at each other's churches and being accepted despite the variations in beliefe. All Protestant churches agree on certain major doctrines (this list is not mean to be inclusive)

Salvation by Faith Alone
Authority of Scriputre
The Return of Christ
The Trinity

Hope that (not short) explination helps.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 21/01/2004 23:17

Yet, Christians usually don't extend that courtesy to non-Christians.
True, but my statment wasn't aimed at non-Christians. I was saying that we lose more credibility with dumb answers than just saying "I don't know."

But you're right, it cuts both ways. Simply sticking "God" in the "I don't knows" doesn't prove much. I do happen to think that God is the best answer we have to the creation of the universe, but then I would think that wouldn't I?
Posted by: peter

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 03:36

Thou shalt not kill. Despite your assertion (I think it was you that wrote it), I've never seen that interpreted as "thou shalt not murder," until now. He's sent more people to the chair than any Texan gov. in history, has little regard for the slaughter of life due to the wars.
The Commandments are in the Old Testament, and whether the ancient word in question is better translated by "murder" or "kill", the Old Testament is stuffed with calls for judicial execution, and indeed with slaughterous wars.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? Does no one understand why violence is a circle?
"Turn the other cheek" is New Testament, and Jesus was IMO very much trying to show the contradiction between the two, to make the point that the harsh desert sensibilities of the Old Testament could be counterproductive in more advanced civilisations.

Peter
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 06:44

Despite your assertion (I think it was you that wrote it), I've never seen that interpreted as "thou shalt not murder," until now.
Oh, hey. I missed that the first time around. I can say without a doubt my translation (NIV) says "murder", and I think most other modern translations do as well. It is the King James version everyone knows that says "kill", and while KJV seems to be the most popular transaltion, it is rife with innacuracies.

As for the particular pasage in question, I'm not an expert on the orgional language used, but I've talked to people who are and have confirmed that the word in question is not simply implying that it is wrong to take a life. I believe the connotation is taking an innocent life, or unjusifiably taking a life. I'll look into it a bit further to make sure though.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 06:48

"Turn the other cheek" is New Testament, and Jesus was IMO very much trying to show the contradiction between the two
Not quite, at least as I understand it. Jesus was not trying to show the contradiction between the old and the new, but the inadquacy of the old as it was being applied- it was being used as a power play for the religious elite. After all, Jesus was responsible for both.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 08:19

it is rife with innacuracies.

Why I couldn't do the literal bible thing when I was still actively Christian. I'm thinking just about any version of the bible is going to be chalked full of innacuracies due to translation. Did you know that a lot of the early sculptures of Moses depicted him with horns due to a translation issues...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 08:24

While it is true that even us evangelicals only believe the original documents were inerrant, the translations we have now are MUCH better than the KJV. Modern translations use much more source material (to weed out inconstancies) and they aren’t written for a king who might behead you if he doesn’t like what your translation ends up saying. It’s sad that so many people are locked into the KJV translation of the bible because there are so many issues with it (not the least of which is that it’s just hard to understand).
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 08:40

it is rife with innacuracies

Although the inspired version is the original greek, hebrew and aramaic, and any translation is going to have its flaws, I think I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the mainline translations (KJV, NASV, NIV, etc...) are EXCELLENT translations and do not differ on a single major doctrine.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 08:48

Perhaps my language is too strong against the KJV, but I always recommend people not use it. While you are correct that the major doctrines are not different, there are significant differences between the KJV and most modern translations. The fact that it seems to be the standard people use by default concerns me a great deal. But "rife with innacuracies" was probably the wrong thing to say. Probably "it's not the most accurate translation available" is more correct.

And it should be stated empatically (as you did) that the places where modern translations differ or are unsure are never places of doctrinal importance. Things like dates of king's reigns and such.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 08:52

(It's important to note that the KJV is the only version in the public domain. Publically publish NIV or something and folks get mad.)
Posted by: peter

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 09:21

It’s sad that so many people are locked into the KJV translation of the bible because there are so many issues with it (not the least of which is that it’s just hard to understand).
Well, true. For actually understanding the bible, I agree that a modern scholarly translation such as NRSV or REB is what you need. But for the bits you already know -- John 1, 1 Corinthians 13 -- nothing can touch KJV. Even though I'm not a believer any more, I still rate KJV as a gigantic human achievement. I can't stand dumbed-down bibles such as (the very popular and expertly-marketed) GNB or (worst of all) the Life Application Bible.

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 10:49

Certainly no other translation tried to be poetic in the way that the KJV did.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 10:52

Of course, the whole Bible, in any modern form, has been greatly altered from the original intent and meaning by the Council of Nicaea and several times thereafter, and many of the gospels thrown away and changed. How anyone can place their faith in the Bible as God's word when it is so blantantly the work of man is beyond me.

And I won't even get into the other recent revelations, like the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls heavily imply that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, which was covered up by the male dominated Catholic Church.
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 11:37

Which translation offers a legitimate size for the ark?
Posted by: peter

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 11:51

Which translation offers a legitimate size for the ark?
Is that story an important doctrinal matter, then?

Peter
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 11:57

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 11:59

I figured that anyone who took the book literally would wonder how that worked. My roommate used to be very religious, right up to freshman year of college when he was going to church twice a week and a couple bible meetings a week as well. Then he became a religion major, exposed himself to other religions of the world, and read the bible in more detail. He couldn't stand when people took the bible literally, given all the discrepancies.

And the size of the ark thing was something my college bio teacher once used to try to open one of his student's mind to at least considering the possibility of evolution.
Posted by: peter

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:00

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?
Must be something to do with the separation of church and state

Peter
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:09

I didn't mean to help!

I just wanted to say that little bit. Don't mind me, I wasn't a good enough student of my church to know enough about this stuff.

Hell, I don't even know what the difference between my church (Methodist), and the other protestant religions is.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:14

Oh, I wasn't directing my post specifically at you. Just musing out loud.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:30

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?
1. Because I can't keep quiet.

2. Because any discussion of politics necessarily involves moral viewpoints, which for many (read: me) are derived from religion.

I really tried hard not to bring religion up this time, though. Honest.
Posted by: djc

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:37

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?
Good question. I blame FerretBoy.

Seriously, and at the risk on bringing this thread dangerously back on-topic, I'm curious about your statement here, Jeff:
What I’d ideally like in a President is someone coming from a similar moral framework as myself who’d make decisions consistent with my belief system. Bush is a lot closer in that regard than most other candidates [...] (O)n value issues that are very close to my heart he’s going to land a lot closer to me than just about any Democrat.
What are the moral issues you feel guide your choice of candidate toward a Republican, and away from a Democrat? I can guess that abortion rights might be a large one, but I'm interested in your thoughts here.

--Dan.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 12:38

Okay, so so far the list of Bush's positive qualities is:
  • Espouses (if not follows) moral guidelines comparable to that of some other people
Not a big list, and the one item on it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Any more?
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 14:16

Generally espouses not getting the government involved or reducing government involvement in many spheres.

for example:
- most of his evironmental programs are setup to encourage responsibility, not force compliance. (And the record shows, at least in Texas, that there are positive results.)
- He endorses allowing citizens to invest some of their social security themselves.
- He endorses keeping Healthcare private, rather than making it into yet another huge inefficient government behemoth.
- He endorses letting faith-based ministries take over some of the responsibility for welfare, rather than boosting government spending on welfare.

I'm generally in favor of a smaller government that fulfils the roles set for it in the constitution, like military protection, advancement of commerce, providing a common currency, advancing science and art through copyrights and patents, etc... Other than his moral views lining up with mine, that is at least one thing politically I agree with him on.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 14:26

I'm curious, don't you think that the government should have some responsibility in keeping its citizens healthy? Wouldn't it be positive for the government to be a (notice: not `the') health-care provider. (I know I'm using the wrong term there, but I can't think of the right one.)
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 14:32

Personally, I do not.

I think there are positive aspects to the FDA, although it could certainly use some overhaul.

I think that the CDC is definitely performing important functions.

But I don't think the government should be highly involved in personal health care.

I would be more inclined to support having government sponsor private research for things like an AIDS vaccine or cancer prevention, where the researchers have financial incentive in producing results.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 14:41

So those folks who can't afford private health care should be left to die?
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 15:07

Of course not. Ideally, charities and faith-based groups will support those that cannot afford health care.

Note: I'm not idealist enough to think that this would cover all those in need. I would be more open to government funding of those charities and faith-based groups have have the desire and motivation to help those in need, than to have the health care run completely has a government agency.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 15:18

For my part, I view mercy as being a function of the church (or other, non-governmental organizations), not the government.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 15:25

That certainly doesn't happen now. How would you expect that it occur?

Your implication is that the government would provide moneys for these organizations. How, exactly, is inserting a middleman with probable ulterior motives going to work better?
Posted by: DLF

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 15:31

In reply to:

I would be more inclined to support having government sponsor private research ... where the researchers have financial incentive in producing results.


And on page 11, the thread comes back to one of my own favorite topics: avarice as the sole, successful motivator of human beings.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:10

But I don't think the government should be highly involved in personal health care.

I disagree. I think that the health sector needs a bigger dose of regulation, especially in all areas related to money. The system is sick - needlessly over-complicated and ethically questionable.

BTW, do you think that taxpayers should provide free medical services to inmates?
If so, how do you justify not providing said services to the ~12% of US children who are currently uninsured?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:11

What are the moral issues you feel guide your choice of candidate toward a Republican, and away from a Democrat? I can guess that abortion rights might be a large one, but I'm interested in your thoughts here.
Good question. I started looking for a good "Republicans vs. Democrats" kind of list which would give a good refrence point for a discussion, but came up with very little (though I honestly didn't look that far). So I'll just have to note a few issues of the top of my head:

Family Values
Abortion
Role of Government
Government Spending
National Defense

To expound upon the "Role of Government" bit:

My perception of the Democratic party is that they want to get very involved in people's lives. The programs Democrats propose seem to be largly about taking away from taxpayers to try and "fix" those who are in "need". While I believe in mercy, I don't believe it is the responsibility of the Government. The Government seems to bloat everything it does and be very ineffective, thus I don't feel I can trust where my taxes are going. I'd rather take the responsibilty of helping out others on my own, without relying on the government to do it. That's the reason I give money to my church and its outreach programs for less fortunate people.

On top of this, there are a lot of "needs" that I just don't agree with. Minorities should not get preferential treatment when applying to colleges (they should get equal treatment in every way). Children who fail in schools should be held back; otherwise any kind of evaluation is a joke. Criminals are put in jail to remove a threat of society and punish for wrongdoing, not rehabilitation. Not that rehabilitiation shouldn't be persued, but it should never be mistaken for the primary purpose. Of course these aren't the whole issues (probably aren't even current), but they do illustrate where I think Democratic thinking has gone wrong in the past.

Republicans, on the other hand, promote people taking responsibility for themselves. While government is a necessary evil, it should infringe on people's lives as little as possible. Ok, so admittedly the Republicans have not really produced on this one in some cases, but it is a goal I support. As much as we can reduce our government and determine ourselves where our money should go, the better.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:37

How, exactly, is inserting a middleman with probable ulterior motives going to work better?

Granted, there is no perfect system, and there would almost certainly be abuse (in any system). However, I think that organizations that are already doing the work because of religious or humanitarian convictions will do a far superior job at providing better care in a more efficient manner because they were motivated to do so whether they have the funding or not.

I also don't view it as adding a middle man. Giving to external organizational structures negates the need for the government to duplicate those organizational structures internally. The internal government structures tend to be on the inefficient side.

To take another area of government as an example, I work with educational administration software for a living. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, the average expenditure for public school students is around $8,000/yr. For private schools, it's a little more than half that. Yet, private school students consistently outperform their public school peers in standardized testing. That and dozens of other areas where I've seen government inefficiency in effect lead to my views on goverment involvement.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:41

You mean that it's cheaper to teach those students who want to be taught and/or whose parents encourage their educations? Never!
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:46

Bah...I went to private schools my entire life...the students there don't want to be taught any more than their public counterparts. I concede, however, that their parents are more concerned or involved. Still, one would think that throwing twice as much money at the situation would even the playing field some...
Posted by: DLF

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:48

... because they were motivated to do so whether they have the funding or not.
So you're saying they do a better job because they are *not* motivated by greed, but drug researchers do better if they *are* motivated by greed? I see.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:48

The problem remains, however, that even in your instance, there is no mandate to take care of every person. If it's left up to private organizations, unless they're rigorously regulated by the government, there will always be those left behind. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single charitable organization serving the needs of the poor in the US that is not Christian affiliated. Much more often that not, their first goal, or at least a primary goal, is to convert people. I don't think that becoming a Christian should be a prerequisite to regaining health. Nor do I think that that sword should be hanging over one's head if they choose to ``ignore'' the conversion principle.

I would have no problem if the government established a private organization whose sole goal is to provide health care to everyone regardless of creed without ulterior motive. But that's not what exists now, and it offends me.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:49

I went to private schools my entire life
Then on what do you base your comparison?
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:51

So you're saying they do a better job because they are *not* motivated by greed, but drug researchers do better if they *are* motivated by greed? I see.
Yup. I have little faith in the positive motivations of my common man outside true religious conviction

And, taking a look at the average newspaper, I'm not altogether uncomfortable with that.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 16:55

Then on what do you base your comparison?
On what do you base your assertion? Let's be honest...there's mostly BS flowing here

EDIT: I'm outta here for the evening...it's been fun.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 19:13

Can't someone share the same "moral compass" as you and not be nearly as good at following that compass?


Well, if he's hogging the moral compass, it's no wonder Bush has trouble following it: he never gets a look!
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 19:27

The point is that she's gone to church basically every Sunday of all her years (she's about 70), claims to be a religious person, but doesn't know simple facts outside the tiny realm of her own denomination.


I'll easily admit to not being strong in the Catholic faith into which I was raised. However one thing I will say is the (all male) Catholic high school I went to did offer (require, actually) a comparative religions class so that each student got at least some level of understanding of religions and of major Christian denominations. I think they did a good job of it.

It was a good enough school that we had a good number of non-Catholics; At least one person in my year and one in the year before me were practicing Jews, and the one in the year before me rode my bus, so we got to see how many religious holidays he missed On the other hand, I didn't know any practicing Muslims while I was there.

Despite becoming considerbly more liberal than I was in those days, I'd probably consider sending my sons there, if I planned to have any. It was a balanced education, even the hot buttons: we talked about evolution in biology, and health class included sexual education which included but was not biased to abstinence as a means of birth control. I wouldn't go so far as to say college was of no use, but given what I'm doing with my life, the undergraduate degree I got will never be of much use to me, and the non-major coursework didn't really help either.

Oh, and high school was fun, whereas college crushed my soul. But now, instead of being "merely" off topic for the thread I am considerably off topic. Sorry.
Posted by: Daria

bait - 22/01/2004 19:36

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?


So religion is a lower order of discussion, eh?
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 19:39

Ideally, charities and faith-based groups will support those that cannot afford health care.


Do they get to discriminate? If it's a conservative religious organization can they discriminate against someone who got AIDS through homosexual activity? Of course, it gets better than that: can they ask about homosexual activity, if they don't know?
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 19:54

I went to private schools my entire life...the students there don't want to be taught any more than their public counterparts.


So did I (However, my school district's gifted student program was held in several public schools over the years I participated). My wife attended public schools in 2 adjoining school systems over her career. One of my SOs when I was in high school went to the public high school in my district. My impression, which I base only on interaction with other students inside and outside class settings and on discussions I had after I got to college, was that the education you got was what you made of it. Going to a "better" school was neither necessary nor sufficient to learn more. It also wasn't necessarily indicative of the level of support being offered at home.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 22/01/2004 23:10

- most of his evironmental programs are setup to encourage responsibility,
I see the exact opposite of his environmental programs. By weakening the programs, he's encouraging lack of responsibility. The role of a business is to make money, and it's easier to make money if one doesn't have any regard for the environment. No need to install any of those things like air filters. Take a look at the state of some of the towns in Texas that are nearby petro-chemical plants. Bush weakened the environmental laws there, and what happened? The environment got worse, not better, and corporations just blithely ignore the fact that they're destroying people's lives. His environmental programs are set up to return favours to the companies that help bankroll his campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

- He endorses keeping Healthcare private
Having dealt with both private, and public health care, let me assure you, this is not such a good thing. In the two years I've been here, I've spent the last 8 months battling a huge, inefficient, and incompetent insurance nightmare.

- He endorses letting faith-based ministries take over some of the responsibility for welfare
The only way I can support the endorsement of allowing faith-based ministries take over parts of welfare is if all religions are included. Do you think GWB will be letting Muslim charities have a slice of that pie? Wiccans? Not bloody likely. What he's endorsing are Christian based ministries. Regardless, people in need should not have to be subject to proselytization to have their need fulfilled.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 23/01/2004 08:49

In the two years I've been here, I've spent the last 8 months battling a huge, inefficient, and incompetent insurance nightmare.
What makes you think they're inefficient and incompetent? They've successfully not paid you so far. That sounds pretty efficient to me.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush's positive qualities - 23/01/2004 19:10

What makes you think they're inefficient and incompetent? They've successfully not paid you so far. That sounds pretty efficient to me.
Actually, I refused to pay the bill, because it was supposed to be covered by insurance. I knew that if I paid the bill out of pocket, I'd never see my $1400 again. It got sent to a debt collector. There's a thread about it somewhere on here. It was eventually paid by insurance.