cricket

That is my point.

It's not their place for them to respond. Do you lambast people who say stupid insensitive things to you at your family funerals? I don't. The astronauts' families may love Bush's words! for all I know, but I doubt it. I can only tell you how I felt in a similar situation.

It would be in poor taste if the astronauts' families criticized others' messages of sympathy. I doubt if any family members do it, and I don't think they should. To do so would be almost as bad as Bush making his comments. I seriously doubt they will lower themselves to his level. I wouldn't if I were them, no matter how much it bothered me.

Dividend4

Dividend4

The Hebrew word ( shamayim ) which was translated into the English " heaven " has/had no such meaning as a " paradise in the sky " which is attributed to that word by " christians. There is not a single line anywhere in the Bible that states anything about man ever living anywhere but on the earth. You would be hard-pressed to find a christian or even a christian clergyman/woman who actually has a comprehensive understanding of his own " holy book ". And the Hebrew word " nephesh " which is translated into the English " soul "--- The word nephesh simply means " creature ". Adam became a chayah nephesh, i.e. , a living creature. The holy book of the christians does not teach inherent immortality. The theme of the entire " New Testament "is a promise of immortality. If you do not know Hebrew, I suggest the purchase of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. There have been many interpolations added to the Bible from the beginning. The passages about " Jesus " ascending to heaven are undoubtedly interpolations.The Bible knowledge of most christians is learned by hearsay not by actually going to the horse's mouth.

The Naked Mage

ybnormal

Originally posted by emur:
Quite frankly, I think Bush is so despised on this board that he is going to get little slack from most here.

American Citizens everywhere, and "on this board" are being forced against their will and against their Constitutional Rights to consume Christianity.

The Chief Christian Spokesman, and the most visible Christian Preacher, and the premiere pusher of Christianity is currently The President of the United States, who is ALSO the Chief Spokesman for the American Citizens "on this board" who are being forced against their will and against their Constitutional Rights to consume Christianity by that Chief Christian Spokesman.

Do you care to suggest a more visible, more powerful and more influential Christian or Christian Spokesman alive in The United States today, than The President of those United States?


Don't worry, America is not going to become a theocracy anytime soon. Other than some fundies, the American people would not tolerate it.

You, yourself, just now suggested that, what I consider to be the xian campaign for said theocracy, be given some slack. Then you make a concrete statement that it will never happen, adding that it would not be tolerated.

You just asked for that tolerance.

You have just provided more evidence that it can indeed happen, so I ask for whatever evidence you have that allows you to make the concrete statement that it is not going to happen.


I'm more concerned about losing my freedom to big government types who will take them away "for the peoples own good" than I am about a Christian prez inflicting his religion on us all.

With all due respect, you be so confused... there is only ONE organized, majority group of people in the US who claim that most everything they do is for peoples own good.

Open your eyes and ears my friend. The two sides you mention there are one and the same.

Mageth

Personally, I think Bush's comments were quite religiously generic, and were generic enough to not be insulting to any Judeo-Christian belief, including Islam. He didn't even specifically mention heaven or Jeebus, for Chrissake.

I doubt if many Hindus would find it particularly insulting, either. Hinduism is a particularly inclusive religion, after all.

That only leaves us non-believers. The only part about it that bothers me is the "we" part; as always, Bush tends to exclude non-believers in his religious comments. At most he could have modified his comments along the lines of "For those of us with faith in a creator, it's comforting to know that the astronauts are now at home".

But honestly, if one or more of the astronauts was an atheist (which we can only speculate on at this time), I sincerely doubt if the astronaut's family would take offense in what were, after all, his well-intended and heartfelt comments. Give the man a break.

I agree with VP that the prez has a right to inject religious thoughts into such speeches. In doing such, he is in no way violating the First Amendment; indeed, his speech is protected under the First Amendment, IMO. I'm much more concerned about programs or objectives of his that are serious church/state separation issues such as faith-based initiatives, the banning of human cloning research on primarily religious moral grounds, and the attack on abortion on the same grounds.

emur

Cricket,

Mageth has described my thoughts quite well, so I will let it go at that.

Posted by ybnormal:
I don't see how the words of Christians are forcing anyone to consume Christianity. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but hearing and consuming are two different things.

Several years ago we had some street preachers going up and down the main street of our city screaming their fundamentalist salvation message. I didn't like hearing them, or seeing them for that matter, but I opposed their presence based on their yelling and screaming, not simply on their words. Hearing words does not force any religion on anyone. Passing laws that are uniquely religious based does, and that must be opposed.

I don't see how Bush mentioning the name of God in an attempt to console the families of the Columbia disaster is campaigning for a theocracy.

Concrete evidence?
Not enough theocrats in Congress where the laws are made.
Not enough theocrats on the Supreme Court where laws are interpeted.
Not enough action by Bush as the leader of the Executive Branch to bring it about. (Faith-based initiative isn't a step toward a theocracy. The religious groups involved are diverse and could never have the influence to make it happen. However, I oppose this initiative on other grounds.)
Not enough theocrats in the voting population to elect officials who would bring about a theocracy.

I heard this all before when Reagan was elected. Yet, no theocracy.

I must disagree. While there are certainly Christians who do that, they have not had much success in government in doing so. Abortion is still legal. Gay rights are expanding. Prayer has not been forced back in school...

Yet property taxes are killing us here in New York State. In some cases, environmental laws have become so extreme that a person cannot even dump sand on his own property because it was labeled a wetlands. SUV's are seen by some as a horrible "evil". Others want to totally ban guns. Political speech has been curtailed by McCain-Feingold. These are hardly Christian agendas, and yet it's all done or trying to be done for our own good.

It's not just religionists who are a threat to freedom.

I respect the astronauts who died yesterday with the highest respect. They worked in very dangerous conditions to further the cause of science, which really is for our own good. Their lives and their work will carry on even though they are no longer with us, and their determination is an example for us all.

To me, Bush's mention of God pales in comparison to their efforts to make the world a better place for humankind.

Mel

GaryP

Of course he does have the right to do it. The question is should he do it.

And , to me, if one is concerned about his "faith-based intiative" , vouchers, banning of cloning research, etc. one also needs to object to his continual pushing of religion.

His administration started with references to JC all over the place at his inaugural and it has continued. If citizens do not speak up when we are offeded by his speech, I think he is more likely to see nothing wrong with his more questionable policies.

GaryP

Actually, at least some research has concluded that it is more likely a scientist would be a non-believer and that the better the scientist is, the more likely he/she would be a non-believer.


Unbelief Among Top Scientists Growing
by Tom Flynn
The same authors who reported no decline in religious belief among American scientists since 1916 now announce that, during the same period, faith declined sharply among natural scientists of top rank.

In a letter to Nature (July 23, 1998, p. 313), University of Georgia historian of science Edward J. Larson and Washington Times reporter Larry Witham described a survey of religious beliefs they administered to 517 American scientists who belong to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Larson and Witham's survey closely replicated a survey of 400 "greater" scientists performed in 1914 by psychologist James H. Leuba and repeated by Leuba in 1933. Leuba, an atheist, expected religious belief to decline with increasing education and accomplishment, and it did. Leuba found distinguished scientists significantly less likely to believe in God and immortality than their less-accomplished contemporaries. Further, religious belief among top scientists sagged further during the 19 years between Leuba's two studies.



from;
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...tml#scientists (scrool down)

CALDONIA

If the friends and familys of the Columbia astronauts wish to consider whether or not they are now "home" or in Heaven, call it what you will, it seems inappropriate for Bush to publicly speculate on that question.

Meaning well is not the same as doing well.

The fact that his comments were public means that one must consider what audience he was addressing.