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".

response 17 of 79:

Jul 31 15:45 UTC 2003

re:14.4, 16:  in Spanish (at least, the Spanish I was taught in school), the
word *is* United-Statesian:  'estadounidense'.

According to the authors of my high school Spanish texts, people in other
Western Hemisphere countries do get somewhat offended that 'American' usually
refers to residents of the United States.  IMHO, though, there are other words
which refer to residents of the two continents, whereas as Jan noted there
really aren't other words for US-ers.

response 19 of 79:

Jul 31 16:04 UTC 2003

Re #14:  You've already gotten answers on some of these, so...

2:  It depends on the high school, and the individual.  I went to a small
    private school, where Prom wasn't as big a deal as it is for a lot of
    people.  For some, though, it's the most important event in their lives
    until their wedding, or it's an opportunity to show off how much they
    can afford to spend to look cool.  Anyone who still thinks their Prom
    was a big deal ten years after the fact, though, either had a really
    unusual Prom or needs to get a life.

3:  I assume you're comparing us to India, though, given the tone of your
    posts elsewhere,  so I'll address why the two countries are different.
    Bad marriages, including abusive ones, happen everywhere.  In the US,
    however, the partners have the option of getting out of them *relatively* 
    easily (this is not to say it's necessarily easy, just easier) and with 
    minimal or no social stigma.  In India, an abused wife essentially has
    to put up with it until she dies, her husband dies, or it gets to the
    point where either or both families are willing to step in.

    I've heard Indians claim that their lower divorce rate proves that
    arranged marriages are better.  I don't buy that argument, because I
    don't personally believe that an abusive marriage is an improvement
    over a divorce.  Indian couples are more likely to stay married
    because there's tremendously strong social pressure to do so,
    remarriage can be difficult, and divorce is seen as an honor issue
    (especially within the Muslim community).  Here, a spouse can get out
    of an abusive marriage.  There, they can't.

response 21 of 79:

Jul 31 16:28 UTC 2003

Re 19> I would have to agree on the reason for a lower divorce rate in 
India. I've seen many marriages, that may not be abusive, but are not 
what I would call marriages. The husband and wife live separately, 
citing work, the kids are raised by the mom, and everyone puts up a 
happy front at public occasions. I wouldn't term these marriages 
abusive by any sense, all parties are quite happy with the situation, 
but these aren't really marriages in my opinion. Much better to get a 
divorce and move on,

response 27 of 79:

Jul 31 17:43 UTC 2003

Re: #2: If the president is a bigot based on the remarks he made, then please
add me to the rolls of that bigotry.  In fact, add the overwhelming number
of US citizens to that roll while you're at it.