Bush has said hes a devout christian and this obviosly links to his inability to level with muslims. His choices to aid Isreal in their removal of pakistanis off the Gaza strip seems like one of the most unchristian things someone can do. Too many candidates use religion to get voters and now Bush is in office because a majority of America's "christians"voted for him.
2007-10-20 03:28:22 · 13 answers · asked by Joe 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
palistinians.....my mistake
2007-10-20 04:30:37 · update #1
This is complicated and not simply a war between Christians and muslims. Devout christians like Bush, Jerry Falwell, Rupert Murdoch and Ann Coulter are fundamentalist/ evangelist christians, not the regular christians(although they apparently believe that christianity is being attacked).
In every religion, there are different arguments within the religion. For instance, many Christians believe judgement should come from God so they are non-judgemental. Far right christians believe it is their duty to judge. Jews are also split. Many in Israel believe that the Arabs don't belong there at all, that Jews are God's chosen people and Arabs need to be gone.
If you disclose religion, you need to disclose fully. Either you don't use religion at all or you disclose and explain your beliefs.. Lieberman has teamed with religious Christian zealots like Tom Delay. Google, I'm not kidding. Also google zionist christians.
The fundamentalist think God wants armaggeddon, the Jews to occupy all of the west bank, the anti-christ will be known because he will be a peacemaker, second coming and then those "good" christians will rapture(be lifted off to heaven)
These people are nuts and they're in charge.
2007-10-20 03:43:30 · answer #1 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religious expression should not be banned in Presidential campaigns. I am not sure of what the Bush_Family_Member would say about this matter, but President Bush and Richard B. Cheney are both Christian and Methodist. And I say that the freedom of religious expression should never be banned from Presidential campaigns.
Max
peacenegotiator
.
2007-10-20 10:44:52 · answer #2 · answered by peacenegotiator 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should check your facts...
President Bush has never tried to remove Arabs from the Gaza strip.
The Israelis have turned over the Gaza strip to the Arabs...
Many Christians (for a variety of misguided reasons) voted against President Bush)
I appreciate any candidate that tells me where he really stands (truth), Christian or not.
If you believe the lie that the constitution separates "Church and State" where do your "Rights" come from. The constitution says your rights come from your creator.
Warm regards,
Douglas
2007-10-20 10:39:16 · answer #3 · answered by prancinglion 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is also against the constitution to use religion in a presidential campaign. The creation of Israel is one of the things that will happen before the rapture according to that christian who made it up, which is the reason i believe Bush supports it.
2007-10-20 10:40:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad call. No matter how you cut it there are "Block Voters" those who vote with the environment they live in. Many religious voters vote in block voting much like atheists do. If you are open minded enough you can see the correlation between the two as identical but mirrored.
2007-10-20 10:39:15 · answer #5 · answered by rance42 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a nation that has freedom of speech so no religious rhetoric should not be banned.
It is sad that all candidates and politicians use religion to go for votes (and ALL of them do this... Republican and Democrat alike) but it should not be banned.
2007-10-20 10:42:43 · answer #6 · answered by cattledog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your favorite type of Kool Aid? It seems you have been drinking a lot lately. Pakistanis on the Gaza strip? wow I didn't know that.
2007-10-20 10:31:47 · answer #7 · answered by El Guapo 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I really want to know the background of the candidate in spiritual terms. I helps me get an idea of what might be behind their decisions and policies.
2007-10-20 10:48:38 · answer #8 · answered by Ursa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What? Do you not realize that people have been trying to expand what "freedom of religion" is, to the point where it has gone full circle - back to condemning and censoring religion. How does anyone think that makes sense?
2007-10-20 10:50:14 · answer #9 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
mr bush has obviously forgotten one of the reasons this country was founded. religious freedom. and it's alright to profess your faith,but it's also alright for faiths other than your own to do the same, i don't have to believe or accept their beliefs,but i shouldn'tbe attacked verbally or otherwise. no, religous expression shouldn't be banned, but should be taken at face value
2007-10-20 14:04:52 · answer #10 · answered by rockfarmer 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋