GW Bush a cultist?

[ShockV1.89]

Wow. Thats the greatest misspelling of my name I've ever seen.

 

Okie dokie, new fact to me. Good to know, thanks!

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

I think insane sith is in an anti religion cult.

yep thats it.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

fanatic?! He is a christan and believes in his faith. Yet that doesn't mean all he talks about is christananity.

 

There's something called definitions in a language.

 

And the difinition of 'fanatic' is:

 

A person affected by excessive enthusiasm, particularly on religious subjects; one who indulges wild and extravagant notions of religion.

 

Amongst several other like difinitions, that you can check for yourself on http://www.dictionary.com

 

El Prez fulfills all of the above criteria. He is a fanatic. q.e.d.

 

One thing that pisses me off is people with a weak case trying to get more understanding by bending the language. It's sick, almost Orwellian.

 

And some people here should be embarassed that they come off short to a couple of teenagers from Denmark regarding mastery of the English language...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Please note that I have nothing against the states. I do, however, believe I have the right to communicate dislike of American issues as much as an American citizen.

 

USA: Nation with a de facto state religion.

 

Either have a state religion (like Scandinavia), have a system of several state religions treated equally (several to-be diverse leftist nations are attempting this, mainly to make them more attractive to immigrant), or refrain from letting the government have anything to do with religion at all.

 

Bush is DEFINETLY not upholding the principles of Separation between Church and State. In a multi-ethnic society like America, that is bad.

 

A government which creates laws which imposes religion upon others (like the law that males can't marry males, no matter if they're fundamental christians or not) is even worse. And the fact that this takes place in a country "without" a state religion is worse.

 

For crying out loud, the leader of the Christian Party in Norway is less religious than the "non-religious" American parties. Bush used the term "crusade" on the war in Iraq for my god's sake (Crusade: Christian counterpart of Jihad. Almost, at least). The fact that the majority of Iraq is Muslim just adds to that.

 

Look, you can't be in-between. Either have seperation between church and state or don't.

 

Since there can be little doubt that el Prez is a zealotboy, I'll jump right to the second question: Is there really a seperation between the state and the church. I believe that there is. And that's the problem: The church should be subserviant to the state in all respects. The only way to ensure this is by making the church financially dependend on the state, and then demanding that the state has the biggest say in the indoctrinations of the church. Nothing civilizes a priest better than a missing pay-check.

Why? Because otherwise it might come up with new ideas, such as legalized marriage of male couples (or femal couples)?

 

We've got freedom of religion here, friend. And when you say the church should be subserviant: That'd have to mean every religion is subserviant. Why would Christians have their freedoms regulated by the state when Islam doesn't?

 

Technically: If the administration of a church wants to allow Free Marriage in that church (as in girl-girl), shouldn't it be allowed to, although, according to fundamentalists, it'll condemn you to Hell?

 

By making a church/temple/synagogue/sect's hole in the ground dependant on the state, most likely you will sacrifice the freedoms of the followers of the religion. If churches were totally independent (except from freedom to break laws, such as by carrying out religious circumsission), there'd be full religious freedom.

[Jedi_Monk]

The Pope tried to convince Bush not to attack Iraq; as did the head of the Episcopal Church; as did the head of the United Methodist Church (of which Bush claims to be a member); as did numerous other prominant Christian Church leaders. Bush, half of his administration and Tony Blair have all been forbidden to enter into the Church of the Nativity by an Orthodox leader... Bush has been denounced time and again by organized Christian Religions across the world.

 

Christian Fundamentalists have embraced Bush, however. It seems that Bush is the practitioner of a belief system that thinks that by fulfilling those things mentioned in Revelation, they can force God's hand and bring about the end of the world. From the ridiculous (such as Texan Ranchers trying to breed a red calf in Isreal) to the horrendous (like trying to force an all-out war between Jews and Islam). They're putting God to the test in a very real, very dangerous way.

 

Generally, a cult is defined by the level of danger it presents to its followers and others. I'd say it's cultish in that this idealogy, indeed, presents a danger to us all.

[SkinWalker]

Thanks, Monk. That's a very interesting viewpoint and I hadn't looked at it from quite that angle. I didn't know about the "Texan Ranchers trying to breed a red calf in Isreal" thing, I'll have to check that out.

 

I, too, find the many references that Bush makes to religion and the self-centered posture he takes to be disturbing. On one occasion, he mentioned in a press conference that he felt, as the President, that his decisions weren't to be second guessed. I believe he attempted to have that come across as tounge-in-cheek, but that sentiment has stuck with me. I don't remember the exact press conference that was, but I do remember several comments that struck me as very condescending toward the American public.

 

Most of all, I'm aware of his rhetoric appearing to be as fundamentally religious as the rhetoric of the "other" (in recent cases, Bin Laden and Hussein) that the Bush administration continually employs as a unifying reason to enact measures such as the patriot act, police raids on other countries, etc.