response 1 of 79:

Jul 31 13:05 UTC 2003

Me first...

Why do people fight about a religious monument on public property, but 
don't bat an eye when the president spouts religion, quoting the bible 
and in essence calls gays sinners?

response 3 of 79:

Jul 31 13:48 UTC 2003

In theory, I think the president has two voices.  One where he speaks as the
mouthpiece of the nation, and one where he speaks his personal opinions.  I
certainly have no problem with the president saying religious things in his
personal voice.  He's allowed to be as religious as the next man, to worship
the God of his own choice.  He's allowed to talk about his faith in public,
and the role it has in the choices he makes.

But religion should not be a factor when speaking as the mouthpiece of the
nation.

That really is a hard line to draw though.  Even when the president
understands it, the media and the nation often don't.  Once Bush Sr remarked
that he didn't like broccoli.  There was a huge uproar from the broccoli
lobby.  He had to issue an apology and broccoli was prominent on the white
house menu for a while.  This is silly.  The man is allowed to not like
broccoli, without it becoming a matter of national debate.

However, a lot of our current political leaders, including our president, blur
the line pretty fiercely.  God is in almost all of his speeches.  He invokes
religion in support of particular policies.  There are still limits.  He
doesn't say "we should attack Iraq because God said we should".  But his
penchant for invoking God at every opportunity is certainly one of the many
things I don't like about him.

Why does America tolerate it?  The fact remains that Americans are still
mostly Christian.  We do fairly well at tolerating other faiths, but I think
for most Americans tolerating Christianity in Government isn't really a matter
of toleration at all.  They hardly notice it, and take it for granted. 
Talking this way still gains Baby Bush more votes than it costs him.

The people opposing religious monuments in parks are a vocal minority, opposed
by another vocal minority.  Most people don't care one way or the other.

Because of the complexity introduced by Bush's right to be religious as a
person, if not as the representative of the nation, attacking his right to
say such things would be a great deal harder than attacking a monument in
the park.  I have a great deal more respect for politicians who do not use
their faith as a cheap trick to win voters.  But I'd be very reluctant to
try to formally restrict their right to do so.

response 5 of 79:

Jul 31 14:19 UTC 2003

Why does it have to be a cheap trick? If the man truly believes, which is my
impression, why does his mention of God and his beliefs have to be anything
but his own need to speak about it? (After all, one of our, ah,
responsibilities as Christians is to bear witness to our faith. A lot of
people forget that, but it's still a part of Christianity.) 

Speaking as someone who sometimes wonders just what's WRONG with being a
Christian... 

response 7 of 79:

Jul 31 14:49 UTC 2003

There is a fine distinction, and it is even a question as to whether it 
still exists in the political arena, between the expression of personal 
religious beliefs, and playing to an audience of people who relate to 
those beliefs.

If it is the latter, then it is a device (I wouldn't use the phrase cheap 
trick in this context) being used for political gain and the result IS 
the cheapening of religious belief.  There is a proper "place" for even 
public testimony of belief in the context of a diverse society, and many 
would legitimately argue that the official activities of the President 
are not it, if only because even the appearance of official expression of 
a particular (and exclusive) religious belief denies a measure of public 
legitimacy to all others.

response 9 of 79:

Jul 31 15:08 UTC 2003

In the last para, I meant gong to "church". Sorry.

response 11 of 79:

Jul 31 15:11 UTC 2003

Only thing wrong with it is that it is the majority religion in this country,
so even when it tries to tiptoe, it tends to shake the earth

Yesterday I was sitting driving home from the grocery store, listening ot NPR.
While announcing the headlines they said "Bush speaks out about [I forget],
[something else I forgot], and gay marriage".  So I wondered, "what could he
possibly have said about gay marriage?"  He can't be for it, because half the
nation would have heart attacks, and he can't really say much against it
without sounding like a homophobe.  I'd have thought he'd do his best to say
as little as possible on the subject.

Turns out he was responding to a question in a press conference, so he
couldn't entirely dodge it.  He opposed it, but used the phrase "we are all
sinners".  This is quite adroit.  It supplies a reason to not approve gay
marriage (homosexuality is a sin and marriage is a sacrament and the two don't
mix) without exactly stating it.  At the same time, it invokes the Christian
principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner" to dodge the homophobia question.
So he pushes the anti-gay business off on the Church ("It's not my fault that
God hates gays") and comes out smelling rosy.  (Never mind that lots of
Christian denominations do not regard homosexuality as a sin and even have
openly gay ministers, so what he is invoking here is less Christianity than
an oversimplified characture of Christianity.)

I think that if you want to oppose the government allowing gay marriage,
then you should have a secular reason for doing it.  It's a secular government
after all.  If you want to oppose having your church perform gay marriages,
then religious reasons are totally appropriate.  Bush didn't state any
secular reasons, and only implied religious reasons.

To me this feels like less of a profession of faith, than a use of religion
for a political end.  A person who didn't believe at all might be pleased to
seize on such a rhetorical dodge to get himself out of a tight place.  I'd
be more willing to believe that he was making professions of faith and not
just using faith as a card trick, if he ever professed faith when it was not
politically expedient.

Still, as I said, the line is very hard to define.  I think it is frequently
crossed by members of both parties.  I won't call on Mr Bush to stop talking
about God, and I don't even think it would make my list of the top twenty
reasons not to vote for the man.

response 13 of 79:

Jul 31 15:27 UTC 2003

(about six responses slipped in)

I'd caution anyone against assuming anything about Twila's politics.  Just
because people who believe A usually believe B, doesn't mean Twila can't
believe A and not B.  She has many strong beliefs, among the strongest of
which seems to be not imposing her beliefs on others.  Stock right-wing
stereotypes do not apply.

response 15 of 79:

Jul 31 15:35 UTC 2003

Re #12:  I don't quite agree.  Presidents are always on duty (see the Bush
Broccoli incident).  And for some people faith really is part of everything
they think (though I'm more inclined to believe that of Carter than of Bush
or Clinton).  To ask such a person to completely excise religion from his
public persona would be unreasonable.  I'd just be content if he didn't
give religious reasons for policies, and assume that a whole nation composed
of people of many different faiths will just buy it.  He needs to be invoking
more fundamental American values than "homosexuality is a sin".