Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac,
Respectfully I have to say that you continue to miss the point. Please read this and recognize I never desired a debate, just illumination of Adam's viewpoint.
Also, I think you missed where I more or less said I am a Republican, I agree with most everything Bush stands for in principle. With all that said, you still seem to want to debate me as if I were a liberal on specific points. You can't debate those things that I see pretty much the same as you. That would be pointless.
What I was trying to do, and you continue to miss the point of, was show that Adam's comments have merit and should not be dismissed as the babble of someone who can't be reasoned with (as was somewhat stated above).
So please, let me try ONCE more:
In Adam's opinion, Bush epitomizes anti-separation of church and state, for reasons he didn’t say. I can only assume the reasons include the passing of tax funding to faith-based organizations as well as the presidents open dialog on his religious beliefs including statements that “God told him to go to war!†(paraphrasing). You can dismiss those examples if you want, but to those looking for examples, there are many. Yes, you can debate if the 1st amendment actually calls for separation, and then you can debate whether or not the program singled out any one religion. But if you are to assume there is this "so-called" separation intent by the 1st amendment which is hard to deny because so many people believe it to exist and so many justices agree, then it isn't hard to see how tax funding for faith-based programs is one of those "political third rails"...something that is shocking, you touch it, and you are dead...or at the very least, you get polarized.
That's exactly what Bush did when furthering the faith-based tax programs, and when making his viewpoints on religion and abortion enter into the political arena...he polarized himself and pushed himself further to the right. I don't see how that can be debated.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, and nothing to be ashamed of. He is a man of conviction and that we all should admire.
But as a man of conviction and beliefs that are not universal, are not necessarily politically safe/correct, and are not pandering, he gives through accurate assessment of himself and his actions by others credible, real ammunition for his pundits. Adam spoke such ammunition and rather than accept it for what it is, some here challenged it as baseless and without merit. It is who the man is.
God Bless,
TJR
Respectfully I have to say that you continue to miss the point. Please read this and recognize I never desired a debate, just illumination of Adam's viewpoint.
Also, I think you missed where I more or less said I am a Republican, I agree with most everything Bush stands for in principle. With all that said, you still seem to want to debate me as if I were a liberal on specific points. You can't debate those things that I see pretty much the same as you. That would be pointless.
What I was trying to do, and you continue to miss the point of, was show that Adam's comments have merit and should not be dismissed as the babble of someone who can't be reasoned with (as was somewhat stated above).
So please, let me try ONCE more:
In Adam's opinion, Bush epitomizes anti-separation of church and state, for reasons he didn’t say. I can only assume the reasons include the passing of tax funding to faith-based organizations as well as the presidents open dialog on his religious beliefs including statements that “God told him to go to war!†(paraphrasing). You can dismiss those examples if you want, but to those looking for examples, there are many. Yes, you can debate if the 1st amendment actually calls for separation, and then you can debate whether or not the program singled out any one religion. But if you are to assume there is this "so-called" separation intent by the 1st amendment which is hard to deny because so many people believe it to exist and so many justices agree, then it isn't hard to see how tax funding for faith-based programs is one of those "political third rails"...something that is shocking, you touch it, and you are dead...or at the very least, you get polarized.
That's exactly what Bush did when furthering the faith-based tax programs, and when making his viewpoints on religion and abortion enter into the political arena...he polarized himself and pushed himself further to the right. I don't see how that can be debated.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, and nothing to be ashamed of. He is a man of conviction and that we all should admire.
But as a man of conviction and beliefs that are not universal, are not necessarily politically safe/correct, and are not pandering, he gives through accurate assessment of himself and his actions by others credible, real ammunition for his pundits. Adam spoke such ammunition and rather than accept it for what it is, some here challenged it as baseless and without merit. It is who the man is.
God Bless,
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
