English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-24 01:27:39 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

Amazing, now he is forcing religion. Take a break you little parrot.

2006-12-24 01:29:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

With the great majority of our country being religious to some extent, it doesn't really matter if Bush forced religion on us, since we are still (contrary to what the media says) a Christian Nation like we were when our nation was founded.

How can you force religion onto people who are already religious?

Furthermore, it is impossible to be the President of a country, especially a democratic one, and not make decisions that have some impact on religion and religious freedom.

Your question is merely liberal propaganda to make Bush seem like a dictator when he was elected twice by a majority of American citizens.

2006-12-24 15:47:06 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0 0

If you mean onto another country, that I don't know.

But if your talking about into America itself, he has in a way, just not exactly forcefully.

By starting the war in the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims are forced to flee to other countrys away from the Middle East.

Obviously, they could'nt flee to places like Europe, China, Japan, ect.

The safest (in a way) place they could run to at the moment is America itself, despite that its America who has been fighting in the Middle East.

So more Arabs are fleeing from the East and arriving in America which certain area's will become more populated with the Islam culture.

2006-12-24 09:45:48 · answer #3 · answered by Malus 2 · 0 0

There is no evidence to support any claim of "forced" religion. The US is protected by the constitution and upheld by the supreme court, But that is not to say the Christianity has taken a beating from the ACLU and other groups who, of course are the ones who claiming forced religions.

2006-12-24 09:40:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Transfering part of the social safety net services over to faith based organizations allows recipients to be screened on the basis of religion. On order to receive some services one has to put up with proslytizing or in some cases be rejected outright.

This is in conflict with a separation between church and state and is unconstitutional. Its a hypocritacal way to eliminate programs that help the poor.

2006-12-24 09:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2 1

Freedom of Religion has always existed in this country. The opposite is true. The secular progressives have done everything in their power to dismantle freedom of religion in this country. The ACLU daily finds way to punish the ones that practice their freedom of religion. How does having a manger on public property violate the division of Church and state ?

2006-12-24 09:32:49 · answer #6 · answered by meathead 5 · 1 2

He's put his (or rather, OUR) money where his bias is. His "Faith Based Initiative" has distributed over $2 billion a year to religious groups, without sufficient oversight to prevent them fromproselytizing on our dime. ALL of this money has gone to conservative Christian groups. NONE of it has gone to liberal Christians or to non-Christians. There are even pagan and atheist charitable groups who could use funding for meeting human needs, but fat vhance they have with the Faith Based Initiative.

2006-12-24 09:36:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Only a religion-phobic atheist could ask a question like that.

In what countless ways have atheists forced their theology on the country?

2006-12-24 09:32:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Religion cannot be FORCED upon anyone.

2006-12-24 09:32:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Fear Tactics: Threat levels

2006-12-24 09:34:41 · answer #10 · answered by AD 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers