Religious neocon ruling Iran . . . death to liberal or secular education

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Actually my larger point is that Iran's mini-mullah in chief and his theocratic handlers are similar in their goals to Bushistas and radical, right-of-center Christians in America. They want a nation that reflects ONLY their views. In both cases, IMHO, they are misreading their religion.

To top it off this statement above is silly.
The Bushita's want a country based on their beliefs? I think they should give you an honorary political science degree for that bit of wisdom.

Let me guess, you want the country going in a direction that doesnt reflect your views right?

/gasp!

What a concept in a democracy!

How about doing what's right for the country regardless of your personal belief(s)? That's what living in a secular nation is all about, but then you knew that.

That is an interesting theory, now please define what is "right" for the country that encompasses everybody's bias, beliefs, and situations?

Uh, that's precisely why you don't allow personal beliefs to creep into government in the first place. A truly secular nation doesn't take into consideration any one sect, therefore there can be no bias. Get it?

How does one determine what is "right" for the country then? In a democracy the electorate will make a determination what is best for the country based on what they "believe" is "right" for the country.

That is why I said your "theory" is interesting. Get it?

It is worth only what the electorate is worth. Ignorance and fanaticism are an endless threat.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's sad but just replace Muslim, Islam references with Christian . . . and you've got the Bush Regime. Granted, Bushistas aren't nearly that bad.

death to liberal or secular education

Be glad that W isn't that bad, or we might easily lose at least half of the people that post here in P&N! :shocked:

'Course there's some here that might not find that such a bad idea, eh? 😉

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Actually my larger point is that Iran's mini-mullah in chief and his theocratic handlers are similar in their goals to Bushistas and radical, right-of-center Christians in America. They want a nation that reflects ONLY their views. In both cases, IMHO, they are misreading their religion.

To top it off this statement above is silly.
The Bushita's want a country based on their beliefs? I think they should give you an honorary political science degree for that bit of wisdom.

Let me guess, you want the country going in a direction that doesnt reflect your views right?

/gasp!

What a concept in a democracy!

How about doing what's right for the country regardless of your personal belief(s)? That's what living in a secular nation is all about, but then you knew that.

That is an interesting theory, now please define what is "right" for the country that encompasses everybody's bias, beliefs, and situations?

Uh, that's precisely why you don't allow personal beliefs to creep into government in the first place. A truly secular nation doesn't take into consideration any one sect, therefore there can be no bias. Get it?

How does one determine what is "right" for the country then? In a democracy the electorate will make a determination what is best for the country based on what they "believe" is "right" for the country.

That is why I said your "theory" is interesting. Get it?

It is worth only what the electorate is worth. Ignorance and fanaticism are an endless threat.

Ain't that the friggin' truth. Fortunately, it looks like the electorate is ready to send some of our domestic tools packing. It's a shame Iranians don't have a Constitution (and Courts) to protect them from ignorant and arrogant agendas of small minds and weak constitutions.

 

[straightalker]

And this is their great Islamic vision for the whole entire world?

They don't even have the right in my opinion, to own the Nation of Iran. But it's done and we have to be realistic about the fact that since the 6th century these radical religious ideas have permeated everywhere and taken up such deep roots in certain areas that to dislodge them would require a hugely destructive world war.

Containment is the best strategy in my opinion. With plenty of respect for other's rights to believe what they wish. Where it gets really dicey is when Islam siezes places like the land area of Iran and then wants to expand itself further and by doctrine the entire earth.

So contain them. Then if they want trade with the rest of the world, they need to learn about cooperation. They need to learn to respect our right to believe what we choose. If they will not recognize that right then we should have nothing to do with them besides keeping them where they are and safely away from us.

Thj 21st century is just too far along in time to tolerate religious aggression anymore. It could destroy the planet. Or eventually will destroy the planet. A futuristic view that depends on your beliefs in the future, based on the prophecies you believe in.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: straightalker
And this is their great Islamic vision for the whole entire world?

They don't even have the right in my opinion, to own the Nation of Iran. But it's done and we have to be realistic about the fact that since the 6th century these radical religious ideas have permeated everywhere and taken up such deep roots in certain areas that to dislodge them would require a hugely destructive world war.

Containment is the best strategy in my opinion. With plenty of respect for other's rights to believe what they wish. Where it gets really dicey is when Islam siezes places like the land area of Iran and then wants to expand itself further and by doctrine the entire earth.

So contain them. Then if they want trade with the rest of the world, they need to learn about cooperation. They need to learn to respect our right to believe what we choose. If they will not recognize that right then we should have nothing to do with them besides keeping them where they are and safely away from us.

Thj 21st century is just too far along in time to tolerate religious aggression anymore. It could destroy the planet. Or eventually will destroy the planet. A futuristic view that depends on your beliefs in the future, based on the prophecies you believe in.

I doubt that a policy of containment would do any good for you and your extreme views any more than it would for your Islamic counterparts. The problem is that like them, you are convinced you are right. You have not participated in the growth of personal wisdom, self examination, and tolerant and humble, and therefore are at a loss as to how to proceed, in my opinion. What is required, in my opinion, is a dialog with Iran that reaches the hearing of the people. Iranians, in my opinion, do not want their leaders isolating them from western culture. That, however, is the exact intention of the Iranian leadership and you play right into their hands.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one determine what is "right" for the country then? In a democracy the electorate will make a determination what is best for the country based on what they "believe" is "right" for the country.

That is why I said your "theory" is interesting. Get it?

So without religion, you cannot tell right from wrong? I don't think so. Determining what is right for the country has more to do with intellect and reason than with religious beliefs of one sort or another. It's what makes us different from, and better than, Iran.

 

[ProfJohn]

I do not understand why there is so much fear and down right hatred of Bush for his religious believes. Quote-?It's sad but just replace Muslim, Islam references with Christian . . . and you've got the Bush Regime?

Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

How about this Clinton quote, said before religious leaders during the Monica affair ?But I believe that to be forgiven, more than sorrow is required -- at least two more things. First, genuine repentance -- a determination to change and to repair breaches of my own making. I have repented. Second, what my Bible calls a "broken spirit"; an understanding that I must have God's help to be the person that I want to be; a willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek; a renunciation of the pride and the anger which cloud judgment, lead people to excuse and compare and to blame and complain.?

Clinton talking about the bible and asking for Gods help, who would have thought. How is that any different than what Bush has said?

How about Clinton seeking out Jesse Jackson for ?spiritual guidance?? Or how about Clinton campaigning for the presidency in black churches?

How about Jimmy Carter who was a Sunday School teacher and who like Bush said that Jesus Christ was the driving force in his life.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

Now that I've stopped laughing uncontrollably, let me address this piece of misinformation. Two quick examples to discredit your ridiculous statement:

1.) Using the only veto of his presidency to stop a stem-cell research funding bill that had passed Congress (completely ideologically driven).

2.) Bush appeared in a New Orleans church just a week ago! (Link/pix)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

Now that I've stopped laughing uncontrollably, let me address this piece of misinformation. Two quick examples to discredit your ridiculous statement:

1.) Using the only veto of his presidency to stop a stem-cell research funding bill that had passed Congress (completely ideologically driven).

2.) Bush appeared in a New Orleans church just a week ago! (Link/pix)

But you have to give the Prof some credit for pointing out that when Democrats do this there isn't any huge alarm. I think in Carter's case everybody knew he was a real Christian and in the case of Clinton nobody believed he was serious. Bush, I think, evokes panic, I think, because he's a nut case Christian.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

Now that I've stopped laughing uncontrollably, let me address this piece of misinformation. Two quick examples to discredit your ridiculous statement:

1.) Using the only veto of his presidency to stop a stem-cell research funding bill that had passed Congress (completely ideologically driven).

2.) Bush appeared in a New Orleans church just a week ago! (Link/pix)

But you have to give the Prof some credit for pointing out that when Democrats do this there isn't any huge alarm. I think in Carter's case everybody knew he was a real Christian and in the case of Clinton nobody believed he was serious. Bush, I think, evokes panic, I think, because he's a nut case Christian.

It's OK to let everyone know you're a <insert religious persuasion here>, however it's not OK when your religion starts guiding the decisions you are making for the country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

Now that I've stopped laughing uncontrollably, let me address this piece of misinformation. Two quick examples to discredit your ridiculous statement:

1.) Using the only veto of his presidency to stop a stem-cell research funding bill that had passed Congress (completely ideologically driven).

2.) Bush appeared in a New Orleans church just a week ago! (Link/pix)

But you have to give the Prof some credit for pointing out that when Democrats do this there isn't any huge alarm. I think in Carter's case everybody knew he was a real Christian and in the case of Clinton nobody believed he was serious. Bush, I think, evokes panic, I think, because he's a nut case Christian.

It's OK to let everyone know you're a <insert religious persuasion here>, however it's not OK when your religion starts guiding the decisions you are making for the country.

You mean stuff like take care of people in need, defend the weak, protect families, care for the aged, and fight for truth justice and the American way? The problem you have, I think, is that you want people to use reason and logic to arrive at values and that's exactly how religious values came about, no? They had to come from somewhere and their persuasive power and centuries long endurance has to come from somewhere. Or maybe they are the word of God and that's where they get their power.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Outside of answering a few questions regarding his beliefes Bush has kept his religion out of public view. Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush does not make a show out of going to church.

Now that I've stopped laughing uncontrollably, let me address this piece of misinformation. Two quick examples to discredit your ridiculous statement:

1.) Using the only veto of his presidency to stop a stem-cell research funding bill that had passed Congress (completely ideologically driven).

2.) Bush appeared in a New Orleans church just a week ago! (Link/pix)

So vetoing the stem cell bill makes Bush comparable to the Iranian president?

That was part of my point. The OP is implying that the "Bush Regime" is comparable to the Iranian leaders: Quote-?It's sad but just replace Muslim, Islam references with Christian . . . and you've got the Bush Regime? Yes Bush has a strong Christian faith, and he let's that faith guide him in life.

However, Bush does not call for the destruction of another country because the people there are of a different religion.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But you have to give the Prof some credit for pointing out that when Democrats do this there isn't any huge alarm. I think in Carter's case everybody knew he was a real Christian and in the case of Clinton nobody believed he was serious. Bush, I think, evokes panic, I think, because he's a nut case Christian.

Moonbeam... how is Bush a "nut case Christian" what has he done or said that would make him a nut case when it comes to religious views?

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's OK to let everyone know you're a <insert religious persuasion here>, however it's not OK when your religion starts guiding the decisions you are making for the country.

Mr Monkey, all of the decisions we make in life are based on a belief system we have established for ourselves. For some people that belief system comes from the teachings of their parents, for others it is through religion. Bush's belief system is based on his Christian faith. I do not see how his making decisions based upon these beliefs makes the decisions inherently bad.

You may not agree with his decision to veto stem cell research, but that disagreement should be based on political reasons, not "Bush veto'd the bill cause of religion"

If Bush followed some extreme religious belief then there might be a problem, but he is rather mainstream in his beliefs. Please name for me one religious based decision that Bush has made that a clear majority of the country would object too.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

When Jimmy Carter was elected, I don't think he said it was God's will. Granted, I might have missed it while playing in the mud somewhere. I'm reasonably sure Bush43 thinks he has God's endorsement. His stooge (Rove) certainly claims it.

When Jimmy Carter sent arms to Indonesia so Sudharto could continue the oppression of Javans and Timorese, I don't think he said Jesus said so. Bush is still bragging about attacking Iraq . . . with no provocation.

Jimmy Carter made an agreement with Baby Doc Duvalier NOT to accept asylum claims of Haitian refugees. Under the Bush Regime, the US denies asylum to everyone except Cubans . . . hmm.

The distinction is that Jimmy Carter didn't wallow in Christianity as if it he was anointed and divinely guided. It's not like Ronald Reagan was a beacon of Christian morality.

To the contrary, Bush's behavior as such (and operation of his propaganda machine) is the primary reason he was re-elected.