President Bush on Christianity

Yes, I know and it was totally irrelevant.

Anyone who's read my posts knows already that I disagree strongly with homosexuality and and greatly saddened for those who must face the consequences of that lifestyle.

That having been said, just because I disagree with them does not mean that they should be treated as any less American citizens than the rest of us.

Yes, which makes it a little confusing why you would bring that gays running for high office.

You're absolutely right. If you don't like gays, then don't vote for them or hire them. That's your perogative. On the other hand, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean that they are any less entitled to the right to take part in their government as you and I are.

 

You bring up a good point. Criticism is abundant. However, objective criticism, tempered with objective praise, is rare. Many folks do everything possible to avoid having to objectively praise a candidate whom they don't support, yet will bend over backwards to not objectively criticize a person whom they support.

 

You'd be wrong, however. He's made public statements professing his faith in Christ as his savior. He may be faulty, according to many, in his Christian walk, or his actions, or his theology, or his whatever, but him being a Christian seems to be a nonissue. If faultiness in those areas voids a person's Christianity, then we're all in trouble....

 

Yes, I know and it was totally irrelevant.

Anyone who's read my posts knows already that I disagree strongly with homosexuality and and greatly saddened for those who must face the consequences of that lifestyle.

That having been said, just because I disagree with them does not mean that they should be treated as any less American citizens than the rest of us.

Yes, which makes it a little confusing why you would bring that gays running for high office.

You're absolutely right. If you don't like gays, then don't vote for them or hire them. That's your perogative. On the other hand, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean that they are any less entitled to the right to take part in their government as you and I are. </font>[/QUOTE]So you don't consider moral character to be relevant to holding high office?

 

First of all, again, this has nothing to do with running for high office and you've already admitted as much so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up when you have already admitted that that's not what's at issue here.

 

Ducking the issue. Please read carefully:

Bush has made high level appointments of openly unrepentant homosexuals (activists?) to high level positions. I think that moral character should be a primary consideration for such posts and that this type of person does not have high moral character.

Do you agree, or do you stand by your previous contention that as long as they are citizens, they have a "right" to be appointed?

 

When have I ever said that anyone has a "right" to be appointed?

 

Mike and I agree on something. I don't think it's terrible to appoint homosexuals to high office, either.

Homosexuals, after all, are citizens like the rest of us, and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Nice call, Mike.

 

There has been only one perfect man, only one without sin.

Everyone else has faults, sins. Furthermore, "moral character", does not mean the same to all. Evidently, homosexuality trumps all other sins to some people. For others it is adultery, still others abhor lying, self-serving and thievery, yet, from dictionary.com - "Among the Spartans, thievery was a practice morally good and honest" --South.

We really do have to pick and choose which particular sins are relevant to which office. For instance, politicians with a history of bribe soliciting should not be in charge of contracts. A sadist should not be in charge of prisons (or people), but might be fine administering contracts. Frankly, I don't see homosexuality as prohibinting administering an AIDS program.

Jimmy Carter is one of the finest, most moral men in recent presidential history, yet he was largely ineffectual in office whereas Clinton is deeply flawed as a moral man, yet a very good president.

 

I have no way of knowing what I'll say until I see the sources.

If they're valid, then I'll admit such.

If they're as biased and shallow as the sources you've already posted, then I'll stand by my opinion that you should offer non-biased sources to back up your claims. </font>[/QUOTE]The first one of course is a quote from President Bush from the New York Times

Here are some of the other sources for what was posted:

“Denouncing The President Bush’s Shinto Shrine Worship”, Christian Council of Korea, Korea Evangelical Fellowship, Christian Ethics Movement of Korea, http://www.worldevangelical.org/news_japan_22feb02.html, also http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20020219a4.htm

“Bush: Christians, Muslims Worship the Same God,” Maranatha Christian Journal, 11-21-03, http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20031121a.shtml

“Bush Honors Islam Holy Month”, U.S. Dept. of State website, Nov.19, 2001, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01111919.htm

M. Kilian, “Bush Approves 15 Percent Budget Increase for NEA,” Monterey Herald, Jan.29, 2004, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/7829557.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the information. It looks as if Bush can't be trusted.

The Republicans need to be taught a lesson. I think I'll vote for Kerry. If enough Republicans cross over maybe it will send a message they can understand.

 

Bush is a member of an United Methodist Church. What were you expecting? A fundamentalist?

Andy

 

The National Council of Churches and the United Methodist Church have been requesting of our government an outright ban on the ownership of firearms. The NCC was one of the primary sponsors of The Million Mom March on Washington, May 14, 2000.

The National Council of Churches also payed for Elian Gonzales father, Juan Miguel’s lawyer Graig Craig in 2000. They have been supporting Castro since the beginning and serve as a sort of American amen corner for the bloody handed dictator. Their positions have been consistently pro Communist and anti American.

I would encourage everyone to examine the past and ideological underpinnings of the The National Council of Churches.