Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nickle · 02-03-2003, 09:00 PM

From the article:

Quote:

The speechwriters pasted in the verse suggested by Hughes, and met Bush in the Oval Office after he arrived from Camp David. He ordered some changes and marked others on the draft. He liked the ending with its reference to the astronauts at home with their creator -- as much a benediction as a closing.

Aw, he likey.

Arrowman · 02-03-2003, 11:11 PM

Well, I've watched this discussion - my thoughts:

Yes, I think it is quite legitimate for people to express their feelings about Bush's words and strongly at that, without being accused of "over-reacting". They (Bush's words) certainly leapt out at me as being entirely inappropriate, and I wouldn't describe myself as a "militant atheist". It's not as though people are calling for impeachment.

I agree with cricket, who I think has expressed very well the reasons why the words are inappropriate. You don't have to have a mental image of the astronaut's children being literally and directly traumatised by the words, to get what she means - in principle.

The comparison with Reagan is also apt - we are reminded how Reagan just talked about "touching the face of God" compared with Bush's explicit (and presumptuous) Christian message. There was just no need for the words used.

Would it have been more suitable for Bush to prefix his words with "for those of us who are religious, it is a comfort..."? I suppose so - but on the other hand (a) I cannot bend my mind to the vision of Bush making that sort of explicit acknowledgement that his are not the only legitimate beliefs, and (b) the words themselves are just too explicit, and too strong, for a mere qualifying prefix to make them appropriate.

I could handle a simple "in our prayers" sort of remark. What he said was just plain over the top.

Another question which has come up here, if obliquely - if Bush were not known as such an overt religionist (and funder of fundies!) would people here be so quick to condemn him for his words? Is this a case of "not again"? I think that's a legitimate question to ask - we should be judging the words, and not the man (just as he needs to distinguish between his personal and public obligations). On balance - nah, I think the words suck, no matter who said 'em.

SecularFuture · 02-04-2003, 12:32 AM

Ya know� that�s another thing that kind of annoys me; the ole �The astronauts, and their families, will be in our prayers� statement. Wasn�t their god the first to know about the �accident�? What are they praying for? And if this whole thing was apart of their god�s �divine plan�, what difference will their prayers make?

Quote:

� I could handle a simple "in our prayers" sort of remark. What he said was just plain over the top.�

Did you hear his State of the Union speech? WHEW! I wanted to break the damn TV!

"We've come to know truths that we will never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed. ---- Many have discovered again that even in tragedy � especially in tragedy � God is near."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...ipt020129.html

It�s sad � Most people are too weak to face danger, or conceive a solution, without having to resort to a religious concept. We live in a world full of cowards!

Sin of Man · 02-04-2003, 12:33 AM

Hi, I normally post in the apologetics section of Christian Forums.

I started a thread yesterday on the comments of Bush and it was closed down soon after by a moderator there for being in "very poor taste". What a hypocrite.

Click here to see it.

The Naked Mage · 02-04-2003, 01:59 AM

Quote:

I started a thread yesterday on the comments of Bush and it was closed down soon after by a moderator there for being in "very poor taste". What a hypocrite.

So when do we get to have their entire site closed down for being in "very poor taste"?

Fr.Andrew · 02-04-2003, 03:14 AM

Dubya is slated to speak today at a memorial service for the astronauts.
My sanctimony warning system is going berserk.

Feather · 02-04-2003, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
So when do we get to have their entire site closed down for being in "very poor taste"?

No shit. Apparently using the tragedy to promote a particular religion from the position of Most Powerful Man on the Planet isn't in bad taste, but objecting to it is.

SecularFuture · 02-04-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sin of Man
Hi, I normally post in the apologetics section of Christian Forums.

I started a thread yesterday on the comments of Bush and it was closed down soon after by a moderator there for being in "very poor taste". What a hypocrite.

Click here to see it.

The moderators @ Christian Forums are so full of it. I've been banned many times from them, but... ya know... I always keep returning for more.

And your thread there was very articulate and civil, by the way. They fear the articulate and civil opposition! They're afraid that we might outwit them.

Rusting Car Bumper · 02-04-2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
he has the same rights as you and I do to say whatever he wants. That we don't agree with it is irrelevent to that right. I will defend the right of anyone to quote the Bible, the Koran, or anything else.

One of the things that I most dispise in the Christian fundamentalists is that attitude that exposure to non-fundamentalist ideas is such a horrible thing. Shall we adapt the same attitude?

Its not a queston of rights. Its a question of good taste and proper sensitivity.

Stop hoisting straw men.

DC

Fr.Andrew · 02-04-2003, 01:58 PM

As expected, Dubya's handlers worked some reference to religious superstition into today's speech at every opportunity. They were thwarted somewhat by the fact that only two of the astronauts were known to be particularly devout...but that only slowed them down. It didn't shut them--or Dubya--up.
Particularly obnoxious (to me) was the line:
"And in God's own time, we can pray that the day of your reunion will come."
What inane twaddle.

Except for the pious pap, though, I thought it was good. He hit all the right buttons, bit his lip occasionally ala Bubba, and was suitably halt of voice.
Dubya's coming into his own as "mourner-in-chief".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2003, 11:11 PM	#52
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Well, I've watched this discussion - my thoughts: Yes, I think it is quite legitimate for people to express their feelings about Bush's words and strongly at that, without being accused of "over-reacting". They (Bush's words) certainly leapt out at me as being entirely inappropriate, and I wouldn't describe myself as a "militant atheist". It's not as though people are calling for impeachment. I agree with cricket, who I think has expressed very well the reasons why the words are inappropriate. You don't have to have a mental image of the astronaut's children being literally and directly traumatised by the words, to get what she means - in principle. The comparison with Reagan is also apt - we are reminded how Reagan just talked about "touching the face of God" compared with Bush's explicit (and presumptuous) Christian message. There was just no need for the words used. Would it have been more suitable for Bush to prefix his words with "for those of us who are religious, it is a comfort..."? I suppose so - but on the other hand (a) I cannot bend my mind to the vision of Bush making that sort of explicit acknowledgement that his are not the only legitimate beliefs, and (b) the words themselves are just too explicit, and too strong, for a mere qualifying prefix to make them appropriate. I could handle a simple "in our prayers" sort of remark. What he said was just plain over the top. Another question which has come up here, if obliquely - if Bush were not known as such an overt religionist (and funder of fundies!) would people here be so quick to condemn him for his words? Is this a case of "not again"? I think that's a legitimate question to ask - we should be judging the words, and not the man (just as he needs to distinguish between his personal and public obligations). On balance - nah, I think the words suck, no matter who said 'em.

02-04-2003, 12:33 AM	#54
Sin of Man Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 25	Hi, I normally post in the apologetics section of Christian Forums. I started a thread yesterday on the comments of Bush and it was closed down soon after by a moderator there for being in "very poor taste". What a hypocrite. Click here to see it.

02-04-2003, 03:14 AM	#56
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	Dubya is slated to speak today at a memorial service for the astronauts. My sanctimony warning system is going berserk.

02-04-2003, 01:58 PM	#60
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	As expected, Dubya's handlers worked some reference to religious superstition into today's speech at every opportunity. They were thwarted somewhat by the fact that only two of the astronauts were known to be particularly devout...but that only slowed them down. It didn't shut them--or Dubya--up. Particularly obnoxious (to me) was the line: "And in God's own time, we can pray that the day of your reunion will come." What inane twaddle. Except for the pious pap, though, I thought it was good. He hit all the right buttons, bit his lip occasionally ala Bubba, and was suitably halt of voice. Dubya's coming into his own as "mourner-in-chief".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.