Bush

[mont974x4]

Carter is a tricky issue, I have not yet figured out why He would have allowed such an anti-semite to have such power, but I do trust Him and His will.


EnemyPartyII, that is correct, God is in control and He did place Stalin et al in authority. He even placed you under your boss. He has His reasons.

Read about Saul and how he came to rule. The people demanded a king and God gave them want they wanted, but He chose who the king was.


I would also question the extent of our individual free will. Remember, God does the calling and choosing...look at all the verses about predestination.

 

[mont974x4]

Its Bushes disdain for individual liberties and human rights that so deeply troubles me... his administration seems to have a disdain for the populace thats been pretty much unseen since the age of the Divine right of Kings

Excpet that none of our rights have been violated and no one raised so much ruckus when Clinton did the same things.


However, Bush is too liberal for my tastes on domestic issues and his decison to gain authority over the NG in times of emergencies follwoing Blanco's screwup during Katrina is cause for concern. I can only imagine how that will be used by ungodly men in the future...but then, I also look forward to those days as they are close to Christs return.

 

[Abufihamat]

Could someone please explain to me why so many christians support bush?

It's the same reason why Christians and Moslems support the Party of God in Lebanon -- it listens to problems faced by the countries religious entities and takes these messages to be heard by the nations other politicians for confronting or address.

Why would someone want religion in the government?

I personally would'nt want a religiously led government.

However, the reason being that some people would want a religiously led government for they're own country of origin or practise, lies somewhere behind they're own lack of religious security or acknowledgement. So it's natural for them when, an entity of religious background comes to power, to support it when its risen.

Bush is just but one entity giving the religious a voice in our countries national issues, however, he is not the most powerful.

The whole point of the government is not to have religion in it.

No, you're mistaken. Any government can have someone with a religious background working as they're Prime Minister, Sultan, King, President, Congress, Parliament, etc.

Also, any government can choose to be run by a secular religious law -- it is not unconstitutional. However, it is not practised because of the well deserved fear that a religious entity would stamp out civil rights or laws that protect people of a diverse social, ethnic, intellectual, or sexual background.

To keep the peace and equality, most Democracies would never attempt such a groundbreaking fallacy.

Because most religions would attempt to dictate they're policy in accordance to whatever God's they worshipped, it's just always been the fallback of Democracy to not mind religion in the workplace, but to however be particularly mindful when its in power, (1) or (2) when it attempts to give religions more power.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Excpet that none of our rights have been violated and no one raised so much ruckus when Clinton did the same things.


However, Bush is too liberal for my tastes on domestic issues and his decison to gain authority over the NG in times of emergencies follwoing Blanco's screwup during Katrina is cause for concern. I can only imagine how that will be used by ungodly men in the future...but then, I also look forward to those days as they are close to Christs return.

Well, Sure, when Christ returns, its going to be ll beer and skittles... however, given that we have to keep managing our day to day lives until that time, which may be a long time to wait... I'd appreciate it if my civil liberties weren't so negotiable...

Excpet that none of our rights have been violated

Dr Haneef, Guantanamo Bay, and the Patriot Act would seem to disagree...

 

[mont974x4]

Look at the OT,...clearly God intended for the governemnt to be both a civil and religious leadership. Just as now they are tied together. How the civil leaders lead us, so the nation goes, whether to the cross or to the land of moral relativism. The king sins and ignores God, and the people follow..and vice versa.

 

[mont974x4]

Well, Sure, when Christ returns, its going to be ll beer and skittles... however, given that we have to keep managing our day to day lives until that time, which may be a long time to wait... I'd appreciate it if my civil liberties weren't so negotiable...

Dr Haneef, Guantanamo Bay, and the Patriot Act would seem to disagree...

I have not yet had any of my rights violated, in fact, I don't know of any US citizens that have. Nor has Bush broken any laws.

 

[mont974x4]

Regardless of our personal views of our leaders we are still accountable to God regarding how we act towards them.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I have not yet had any of my rights violated, in fact, I don't know of any US citizens that have. Nor has Bush broken any laws.

Not everyone in the world is a US citizen

 

[jad123]

Dr Haneef, Guantanamo Bay, and the Patriot Act would seem to disagree...

Out of curiosity how have you personally noticed you civil liberties been violated in these things you mention. Not in general but how have you been personally affected by them?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Out of curiosity how have you personally noticed you civil liberties been violated in these things you mention. Not in general but how have you been personally affected by them?

Personally... I find security at airports excessively intrusive (and useless windowdressing to boot), new laws limiting freedom of the press limits public dissent, new security laws are used by law enforcement and government to curtail free association and congregation rights... not to mention the sanctimonious way in which the "war on terror" is used to justify all manner of censorship and racial.religious biases

 

[jad123]

Personally... I find security at airports excessively intrusive (and useless windowdressing to boot), new laws limiting freedom of the press limits public dissent, new security laws are used by law enforcement and government to curtail free association and congregation rights... not to mention the sanctimonious way in which the "war on terror" is used to justify all manner of censorship and racial.religious biases

How do you find airport security excessively intrusive? Some things are ridiculous but intrusive? I do not understand that. Is taking off your shoes that much of an inconvenience?

The First Amendment unfortunately has been abused. From its inception there have always been some level of restrictions on Freedom of Speech, Press, etc. News laws have been put in place for national security reasons not to limit public dissent. Just turn on any of the news channels and Rosie's mouth will be yapping away or someone like her. Not exactly squashing dissent. I for one believe the military should have some level of secrecy. 100 years ago the press was riding in jeeps with the army in the middle of the battle ground. Many of the same "press" rules in place today were in place in 1990 as well.

Not sure where you are going with the curtail of free association and congregation rights. Care to explain?

 

[mont974x4]

Not everyone in the world is a US citizen

True, some are the enemy and some are just people from other nations.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How do you find airport security excessively intrusive? Some things are ridiculous but intrusive? I do not understand that. Is taking off your shoes that much of an inconvenience?

And what you can and can't carry onto planes, and, the whole raft... yes, I find it intrusive. AND, heres the real kicker... it serves NO PURPOSE... the authorities know as well as the terrorists, that the best way to get a hijacker or bomb aboard an aircraft is to infiltrate the groundcrew or air crew, instead of mucking about with the self loading cargo... the entire airport security thing is a show so that the authorities appear to be doing something...

Not sure where you are going with the curtail of free association and congregation rights. Care to explain?

As previously stated, I am DEEPLY conservative... however even I am so troubled by recent events that I intend to attend the APEC conference later this year as a protester... knowing full well that I will be subject to intrusive security searches and even forcible relocation under the guise of security... its the plight of doctor Haneef... facing a 20 year sentence for giving his cousin a mobile phone SIM card that I see as the final straw

 

[EnemyPartyII]

True, some are the enemy and some are just people from other nations.

Your allies appreciate your heartfelt and unprompted recognition

 

[jad123]

And what you can and can't carry onto planes, and, the whole raft... yes, I find it intrusive. AND, heres the real kicker... it serves NO PURPOSE... the authorities know as well as the terrorists, that the best way to get a hijacker or bomb aboard an aircraft is to infiltrate the groundcrew or air crew, instead of mucking about with the self loading cargo... the entire airport security thing is a show so that the authorities appear to be doing something... As previously stated, I am DEEPLY conservative... however even I am so troubled by recent events that I intend to attend the APEC conference later this year as a protester... knowing full well that I will be subject to intrusive security searches and even forcible relocation under the guise of security... its the plight of doctor Haneef... facing a 20 year sentence for giving his cousin a mobile phone SIM card that I see as the final straw

I disagree that it serves no purpose. Just b/c there is a better way does not mean you leave the gates wide open on the lesser way. That would be a grave mistake. I do agree that there are other ways and those ways need to be tightened. As for the intrusive I still disagree and maybe it is just wording. I find it a pain and somewhat irritating with the restrictions on things like water bottles, lighters, etc. etc. but not intrusive. Intrusive would be if they stripped search us all w/o our permission. And when you go to APEC yes you will subject to extensive security as you should be at an event such as that. Where is the problem with that? As for Dr. Haneef, he provided a sim card to a terrorist and is personally connected to one of them. I will reserve judgement until the end.

 

[ulu]

AND, heres the real kicker... it serves NO PURPOSE... the authorities know as well as the terrorists, that the best way to get a hijacker or bomb aboard an aircraft is to infiltrate the groundcrew or air crew, instead of mucking about with the self loading cargo... the entire airport security thing is a show so that the authorities appear to be doing something...security...

Exactly. A joke. Politicians answering to other politicians having to show they've taken some action towards a problem, whether the action taken is useful or not.

As to the original question, if you're a person who's life aim is to do God's will, and you're the chief policymaker for a country, of course that country's policies are going to be affected by what your personal beliefs are. If you think God's will is different from what the policymaker thinks it is, it can really be a nightmare.

Feel free to bless me!