Just curious if anyone thought it was a little uncomfortable that the preacher who gave the prayer said that we pray in the name of "the father, the only Son of God, Jesus Christ...." I mean, it's his choice, but it would seem a little uncomfortable even for Jewish people that might be in the crowd or watching on TV. Obviously, they aren't going to chant or meditate, but I would've thought a generic prayer (Dear God...Amen, that sort of thing) might have been more inclusive. That is supposed to be the theme of Bush's presidency. Any thoughts? ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
All that crap Bush said in his campaign- forget about it. He is going to instill an ultra-conservative right wing ultra-christian administration, despite all his promises. It is going to be four years of total hell. Just get used to it. ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death."
I think that in America, with so many different religions, nothing like that should be mentioned. It can be very offensive. ------------------ "Kenny, The Basketball scientist, Whoo Hoo." Charley B, on TNT
Jeff there is obviously not a right wing bone in your body.That is not being disrespectful at all,I just read some of these thread titles and before I can even read the author I say to myself,that one's Jeff's.Keep on keepin' it real First my thoughts George W. wants the name Jesus Christ in his Innagural Prayer it's his right as an American to have it there.When a Jewish,Buddhist or Islamic president is elected they can have the prayer the way they would want it....and don't think for a second they wouldn't scream prejudice the second someone told them they shouldn't.Bush is a Christian and it is his right to pray to his God as much as it is anyone elses to pray to theirs.It boggles my mind how easily offended people are by other's beliefs.Did anyone you forced to pray to anyone?No.It saddens me that the thing people might find offensive is someone asking for blessings from their God and not things like the burning of an American Flag.I recall a television anchor"person" once said about religion "Which one is not important so long as it helps you to lead a good and moral life" I believe that. ZRB I think you are wrong about Bush installing an ultra right wing administration,middle of the road beliefs are the future of American politics today.The less opinionated either party can be on the sensitive topics the better.Since when did beliefs and opinions become such a terrible thing? ------------------ No reply necessary
"I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image." "And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws." "And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side." "This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm." Did anyone else notice these little religious quips in the inaugural speech? Make no mistake! They were there and the christian right heard them loud and clear. I couldn't help but think, "does anyone from other religions feel a little slighted?" Or for that matter, those that don't believe in God (or should I say a christian god) feel a little scared. I know, I know..."those people don't matter, anyway what they believe is wrong". Huh? Right! ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.' [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited January 23, 2001).]
Summer: I wasn't offended by it at all just curious what others thought. I didn't watch and could care less what he said. I didn't watch Clinton's innauguration either or Bush Sr. or Reagan, etc. But, as for his right to pray how he likes, isn't he the President of the people? He said he was there to do the people's business. Doesn't that include ALL the people? If he wants to avoid alienating people, shouldn't it begin with that? Also, I got the wording wrong, the preacher called Jesus the "one true son of God" which really goes even further. He essentially said, "Believe anything other than this and you are wrong." I just found it ironic that the "uniter" didn't even make it past his innauguration prayer before being exclusive. A far more extreme example of this was a debate I attended during the arena campaign when the minister who gave the opening invocation and prayer talked about the "greediness of athletes," "rights for the unborn" and the fact that Jesus was the "only way to enter the kingdom of heaven" during his prayer while the Jewish Rabbi who would give the closing prayer sat right beside him and many in the audience were Islamic, Jewish and, well, in my case, "other." Now, THAT was a devisive prayer!!! As for the innaugural prayer, I just saw it on the Daily Show and found it rather funny. Jon Stewart remarked that, as a Jewish man, he was glad that someone finally told him the truth. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I heard it, and although I wasn't offended by it, it did make me uncomfortable. Remember folks, this is the same man who as Governor of Texas, proclaimed "Jesus Day" in the state so everyone would take time to reflect on what Jesus means in their daily lives. Junior calls himself a compassionate conservative. Ashcroft as AG nominee? No federal funds to groups that provide abortion counseling overseas? (Yeah, Dubya, African women whose children starve to death need bibles more than abortion counseling. Huh? Riiight!) I highly doubt ol' Dubya can even spell the word compassionate, let alone know what it means. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited January 23, 2001).]
Since when is the word compassionate associated with the word abortion? Maybe you need to look the word up since you can spell it. Killing innocient babies for any reason isn't compassionate. *Maybe* they will starve, so you think we should kill them now before we see - just to make sure? Is the solution to the problem (in that situation - starvation) killing? Me - I'm looking forward to the next 4 years. ------------------
Is having a "Jesus Day" (which incidentally was signed as a proclamation by governors of other states as well) really that bad? Most religions acknowledge the historical fact that Jesus did exist although they may not believe he is the son of God. Even if you don't believe he is the son of God, history shows he was a good man that professed good things. There have been days for the Rolling Stones and other rock bands proclaimed by governors when a big tour hits their state. From Bill Clinton's inauguration speech in 1993: 'The scripture says, "And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not." From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our way, and with God's help, we must answer the call. Thank you and God bless you all.' It is not uncommon for politician's to quote scripture passages (or refer to them) or invoke the name of God in their speeches. ------------------
Bobrek...I don't have a problem with a statewide "Jesus Day", as long as there is also a statewide "Mohammed Day", "Buddha Day", "Shinto Day", and "God Day". Shouldn't all religions be recognized rather than just the Christian faith? Art...enjoy the next four years. I will as well. The nightly news will be scary, but Saturday Night Live will be hilarious! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited January 23, 2001).]
Jeff, did you happen to watch The Daily Show last night? If not, it's really weird cause you posted this right after Jon Stewart talked about it.
I didn't realize being a president of the people meant losing identity as an individual. No one, and I mean NO ONE, enters the office of president without convictions of some kind. Never has that alone kept them from being a president of the people. I think the whole "Let's look for something to disagree with" approach to Bush is growing old quickly. Another thing: Keep things in CONTEXT, please. That part about "an honored place in our plans and in our laws" seems to me to have been stated in connection with people's "needs and hurts." I don't think that was "code language" for "We're going to do away with abortion." Taking it at face value, it seems to me to be saying that it's recognized that God's will is not to turn a one's back on those in need. In other words, "When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side." Anyone who got that idea either can't understand language in context (which means they can't understand language very well at all) or they were just looking for any straw to grasp at in order to be critical. It would seem to me that people of the liberal persuasion would welcome that. Or are we to the point where the message must also be said in a manner which we personally approve? "Never mind the fact that they're talking about helping people in need. Forget all of that because they didn't say it right." ------------------ [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited January 23, 2001).]
Rocketman Tex The intent of Jesus Day is based on the idea that in heaven, no one goes hungry, no child is fatherless, no one suffers alone and the streets are filled with singing. Jesus Day activities included feeding the hungry, serving the homeless, touching AIDS patients and befriending the fatherless. --------- I would think if organizers came up with a "Buddha Day" that touched these same sorts of ideals, that governors should proclaim that as well. If not, then I think folks have a complaint. It is a shame that only 10 governors signed this proclamation for such a worthwhile cause. It would have been interesting to see if the organizers called it "Be good to one another day" to see how many would have signed on. ------------------
Traj, Lets put the shoe on the other foot about convictions. Suppose I'm running for president and I make some kind of statement of conviction that I don't believe in god and I don't think he has any place in the affairs of government. You think I'm going to be elected? Also Your statement... "I think the whole "Let's look for something to disagree with" approach to Bush is growing old quickly." Get used to it! The republicans hounded and stalked Clinton for 8 years. You think just because a repub is now in office that all of that is going to be forgotten and go away? Payback is a b**** ain't it? "I don't think that was "code language" for "We're going to do away with abortion." " Haven't you seen the news? On is first full work day in office, on the day of the anniversary of Roe vs Wade, he cuts funding for international abortion counseling. What a slap in the face is that!!!! Yeah, this man is going to be a great uniter. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
It's kinda funny that Bush, the governor who's presided over the most executions ever, named a day "Jesus Day", after a person who was a victim of capital punishment himself. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com, coming January 20th, the top 10 films of 2000! and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
Are we saying that someone who was put to death for political reasons and people who are put to death because they've taken the life of another person are somehow comparable? Why reserve it for "victims" of capital punishment? Why not anyone who's life was taken by others. Why not have a day for murderers as well as men like MLK, who gave his life for a good cause? My point mc mark is that you can't read pro-life stances into every statement about God being taken into consideration in plans and laws--not when the context of discussion would DEMAND it be referring to something else generally recognized as important to God. I think anyone who believes in God can agree that it's important to deal with people's "needs and hurts"--can't they? It's one thing to disagree with Bush's ideas; it's something entirely different to go "fishing" (my apologies to those whom believe that's a cruel pasttime. ) for something to criticize. Did the same thing happen to Clinton? You bet. He deserved criticism sometimes; other times it was uncalled for. Here's my question: Is the best approach to things, "They were petty, so I'll be petty as well. It's my turn"? I should hope not. Experience tells me, however, that there is enough pettiness to go around. But how rare the person who realizes they're being petty. Most often, they're just stating the facts that no right-thinking individual could possibly disagree with--at least that's what they usually think about themselves. That's the scary part to me. By the way, where is stated that intolerance is unacceptable--unless you're being intolerant of intolerance? I find it interesting that people who talk the most about being tolerant of other people's ideas and opinions are very often some of the most intolerant people around. Anything is fine with them as long as it fits within certain parameters--parameters, conveniantly enough, defined by them. Remarkable! ------------------
Timing, There have been many events in history where there has been a problem "swearing someone in" while using "so help you god." that last part is no longer required for any sworn statements. they will be accepted if you only want to swear, and not to god due to religious reasons. ------------------ EZLN
Ok, let me comment on a few things. Art: I'm not sure what abortion has to do with this thread, but you gotta post what ya feel. RM95: Yeah, that's where I got this from. Jon Stewart = hilarious. Traj: I agree that people are individuals and I don't believe for a moment that the country is going to go into some sort of Puritanistic craziness with Bush in office. bobrek: Let's be completely honest here. Do you honestly believe that anyone would even propose the idea of Buddha day, let alone have states adopt it? How quickly do you think the religious right would be all over shutting that idea down? Jesus was a great, highly-recognized person but recognizing Jesus Day has implications that supercede his greatness as a man. It places his importance as a religious figure in front of Buddha, Shiva, Mohammed, etc. I like what they did as part of Jesus Day, but, if you want to make it so that everyone feels included, why not just call it "Good Samaritan Day." That has Biblical implications but not the overt one's that Jesus Day has. Timing: First off, the founding fathers were not predominantly Christians. Most of them were Diests. They believed in God but quite a different God from the Christian one and they did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Now, obviously, some were Christian but not the majority. Second, I am not nitpicking because I didn't like the outcome of the election. I found this situation a bit on the ironic side. Third, out tax dollars were going to family planning because the rest of the world is creating horrible overpopulation and disease problems for the rest of us. AIDS came as the result of horrible conditions in other countries. Population explosions around the world are creating places where terrible diseases are born and spread, some even into the US. The counseling given was family planning. Most women can't afford abortions and, if they get them, it is done in a back alley with a coat hangar because of the lack of healthcare. Most family planning counseling done in other countries was based on contraception and education about what to do when you have a child. In many countries, children are simply left where they are born in fields. Some are killed by the parents. In some Middle Eastern coutries, female children are killed at birth or sold into slavery around the age of 5. These problems DO effect us and education is the only way to stop them. Yes, some women do choose abortion but family planning is FAR from simply telling women how and when to get an abortion. Of course that is assuming abortion services are safe and available which they aren't in most third world countries. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
American tax payer dollars should be spent on American issues first. Until we solve our own problems, of which there are many, the rest of the world should take care of itself. I'd rather not tell the poor kids of America that your school lunch funding doesn't exist because some lady in Cambodia needs counseling. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
In principal, I agree, however most of what is spent in America is horrilby out of proportion. You mentioned school lunches which is part of education funding. There is more spent on the military EVERY 15 MINUTES than there is for an entire year of education funding in America. That's sad. The other problem is that family planning in other countries IS OUR PROBLEM. Until we realize that we are a global community and that what happens in Cambodia or Russia or China or South America does effect our lives here, we will continue to see real increases in diseases, poverty and hunger. The ironic part is that we are almost always concerned about the spread of communism because of its perceived impact on the US but very rarely concerned with the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa or hunger in Central America. Those issues have a much greater impact on our lives in Houston and the rest of the US. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
