It's not like he was addressing congress, he was in a church talking to fellow believers. You of course are entitled to your opinion, but "bigotry or eccentricities" seems a little harsh for Christian belief.
Never worked either place.
Boykins affair threatens Bush reelection
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
It's not like he was addressing congress, he was in a church talking to fellow believers. You of course are entitled to your opinion, but "bigotry or eccentricities" seems a little harsh for Christian belief.
Never worked either place.
Why can't he just say ," We're not at war with Islam." He sounds like an idiot. Every major conflict involves radical muslims trying to either take power, kill nonbelievers or force their religion on others. Some religion of peace.
If he was addressing a gay pro abortion white witch convention talking to fellow believers of the values of Wicken religion, would you have just as much support for him as you do now?
If the devil "came to steal, kill, and destroy" as quoted from the scripture then Islamic terrorists are "from hell". The non-terrorists are hardly "from hell" in my book, lots of Bible readers seem to classify way too many people as "from hell" or on the way to hell for my tastes, experience, and understanding.
Just my 2 cents, I know this may be a touchy subject with a lot of people. I do, BTW, love seeing my stuff up in pixels. If you disagree with anything at all, please pm me and we can then have an ensuing public feud of course.
Just my 2 cents, I know this may be a touchy subject with a lot of people. I do, BTW, love seeing my stuff up in pixels. If you disagree with anything at all, please pm me and we can then have an ensuing public feud of course.
AAA you never answered my question about whether or not you ever worked in the Department of Defense.
Now days, there are laws prohibiting this kind of talk when you work for the federal government. Calling another man's god an idol is bigotry. No ifs or buts about it. Do it at work and you are in trouble.
I don't know what kind of church he goes to. Perhaps its ok to talk that way where he attends. Last night on the news, they had a story about that homosexual young man who was beaten to death in Wyoming (I think). A christian group wanted to erect a monument on the town square stating that the man went directly to hell the day he was murdered.
All these people have an exaggerated sense of self importance. They claim to know the mind of God. Their ideas are born out of bigotry and hate. Not from the teaching of Jesus.
When I went to college, I took a required course entitled, "The Teachings Of Jesus". Bigotry wasn't a part of the curriculum.
Best Regards
Now days, there are laws prohibiting this kind of talk when you work for the federal government. Calling another man's god an idol is bigotry. No ifs or buts about it. Do it at work and you are in trouble.
I don't know what kind of church he goes to. Perhaps its ok to talk that way where he attends. Last night on the news, they had a story about that homosexual young man who was beaten to death in Wyoming (I think). A christian group wanted to erect a monument on the town square stating that the man went directly to hell the day he was murdered.
All these people have an exaggerated sense of self importance. They claim to know the mind of God. Their ideas are born out of bigotry and hate. Not from the teaching of Jesus.
When I went to college, I took a required course entitled, "The Teachings Of Jesus". Bigotry wasn't a part of the curriculum.
Best Regards
Of course not. But my points are that what he said is not all that different from what Bush said, ie terrorists are evil, and that if Bush allows them to hang this guy out to dry, he risks alienating a very important constituency.
Does anyone really think Bush can win without strong turnout from the religious right? If we're talking just 3 or 4 % of the electorate, he probably loses without them.
I answered your question. Never worked there.
You pose an interesting idea that a Christian can be fired from the federal government for expressing a religious viewpoint, for example that certain behavior is sinful or that a religion is false. Frankly I'm not sure where the line is between protected expression and so-called discrimination. I'm reasonably sure that Christians, even those who wrk for the federal governemtn are still allowed to attend church and give voice to their faith, as odious as many people seem to find that notion. Perhaps the next Democrat administration can close that loophole.
Anyway, he is under the gun not for employment discrimination but for somehow offending the Islamic terrorists he is supposed to be hunting down and their co-religionists who maintain that we are attacking Islam by killing Islamic terrorists. Wonder how they characterize 9/11?
He is under the gun, because it is very difficult for most people to leave their religious beliefs at the door when they go to work.
The same would be true if a police chief were found to be attending a KKK meetings, and at the same time were in charge of dealing with gang members in the inner city.
Bush has to be very careful not to make this a religious war, as that is not what our country was founded on.
It is one thing to denounce religious extremists of any religion, it is quite another to denounce an entire religion. Religious extremists are on the fringe of every religion and often act out in a violent manner to support their political agenda. There are people practicing Islam peacefully around the world, with no agenda to commit acts of terrorism.
In response to the problem, that are a growing number of people in this country who are convinced the Islamic religion is the cause of terrorism, and that is nonsense. Looking for a scapegoat is typical during times of stress and fear. Books don't cause terrorism, especially books that are hundreds of years old or more, whose authors are no longer among us.
Anyone can find nearly any phrase in most scriptures of all religions and twist it to support their hateful agenda. Nearly every scripture is subject to interpretation. It has happened for millenniums.
As a country, founded on the principles of freedom of religion, it is the duty of elected officials, and appointed officials of their respective administrations to act in a manner that is in support of that aspect of our Constitution and history that protects religious freedom.
So your position would be that being a committed Christian and a General in the Army fighting Islamic terrorists are incompatible? Or just if one actually gives voice to their beliefs? I think maybe I misunderstood the "Don't ask-don't tell" policy.
It's perfectly obvious that we are not attacking Islam in some sort of CrusadesII religious war. We don't need to prove our good faith, as we have consistently accomodated Muslims. We went to war to establish an Islamic state in Kosovo, we apparently are quite content for the Iraqi constitution to identify it as an Islamic state and , unlike virtually every Islamic regime, we allow Islam and any other religion to be practiced openly here. We allow Saudi Arabia to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into radical Islamist mosques and schools in our own country, even as we forbid servicemen in war areas to receive Bibles or wear religious symbols, for fear of offending Muslims.
We did not attack Muslims on religious grounds. They attacked us. That's an important distinction that keeps getting lost in this PC fog. We have bent over backward to cater to the Saudis and a bunch of carping Muslim pressure groups and I, for one, am sick of it.