Bush and religion

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:52 pm

I was wondering, how many of those who support bush are not religious? I am pretty liberal and I am not relgious at all, and I just don't see how someone who isn't religious could support bush. I am just really sick of this idea that conservatives are somehow morally superior to liberals because they are religious. Morals have nothing to do with religion.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:26 am

I support the president and I am not in the least religious. His morals are not the only reason to support him. Though being sound in his beliefs religious and non religious is a good thing in my assessment of him.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:43 am

Morals have nothing to do with religion.

Your kidding right, can you expain that to me??

I just think the right took it to far and America said enough already...

Abortion is legal now you want partial birth abortion.

We took God out of schools no you want it out of the pledge and courthouses.

It is accetable to be gay now you want to make same sex marriages legal.

I think many more people who aren't "religious supported Bush. Both parties have work to do. The left must find some morals and the right must learn how to appeal to minorities

I'll stop there. I don't want to get into a big debate it's just my opinion. I repect yours.

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:26 am

dehog, i think perhaps what patrick meant was that you don't need to be religious to be a morally upstanding person. i don't think he was saying that morals are not a large part of religion.

in addition, i don't think anyone can claim that their morals are 'right' and others are 'wrong'. so to claim that the morals of democrats are wrong simply because you don't share them, or worse, to claim that they have no morals, is incorrect.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:30 am

joebagadonuts wrote:in addition, i don't think anyone can claim that their morals are 'right' and others are 'wrong'. so to claim that the morals of democrats are wrong simply because you don't share them, or worse, to claim that they have no morals, is incorrect.

I agree with the second part of that statement, joebagadonuts, and I think I see what you're trying to say with the first part but I disagree.

If my "morals" are not to kill someone, not to cheat on my wife, and not to say racist things, I think that I can legitimately call those "right" and call "wrong" those that have opposite views. Not all morals are simply "different."

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:33 am

How does religion have anything to do with morals? I have never been to church in my life, yet I know what is right and what is wrong. How many priests have molested little boys over the years? Are those some of the morals that are taught by the church? Honestly, I think that I have a stronger sense of what is right and what is wrong simply because I am not religious. I believe in individual rights, the church believes in restricting individual rights, not to mention that the church sanctions hatred of homosexuals. Let me put it this way. If the fear of spending eternity in hell is what is required to get people to treat others well, then something is seriously wrong.

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:43 am

FanfromAnnapolis, I agree with you that certain beliefs are right. But everyone agrees that murder, and rape, and other activities that hurt people are wrong. I think that issues come about for things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, etc. But for some reason, the religious right thinks that if you disagree with them on these issues that you must be evil.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:14 am

Patrick,
I'm not a religious person, but I think you are confusing the religious institutions (churches, denominations, etc.) with religious faith. Religious institutions have doctrines that are outside the confines of the religious literature, and also can be currupt as organizations in their recruiting practices and in their handling of immoral acts.

Saying that being non-religious makes you more morally correct because some people who claim to be religious act immorally would be the same thing as a religious person calling you less moral because most serial killers are non-religious and so are you.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:40 am

I'm a Bush supporter, and I'm not religious. Next question.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:46 am

patrickg68 wrote:...the church believes in restricting individual rights, not to mention that the church sanctions hatred of homosexuals. Let me put it this way. If the fear of spending eternity in hell is what is required to get people to treat others well, then something is seriously wrong.

Why is this in "The Lounge"? This is complete Hog Wash.

Your argument lost all credibility when you wrote:I have never been to church in my life..

More than likely, you haven't read scripture, on which faith is based (not on a building or religious group), either. How can you pass judgment on something of which you, admittedly, don't have a clue?

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:57 pm

I can pass judgement because bush and the religious right wing conservatives do. They think that they are morally superior to everyone else. Bush called homosexuals sinners. Now, no matter what his religious beliefs are, as president, he represents ALL Americans, not just christians. If an aetheist was somehow elected president, what would the public reaction be if he tried to pass legislation restricting or banning religion? A president has to protect a persons individual rights whether or not he agrees with them.

Redeemedskin, what about that paragraph is untrue?

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:10 pm

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:If my "morals" are not to kill someone, not to cheat on my wife, and not to say racist things, I think that I can legitimately call those "right" and call "wrong" those that have opposite views. Not all morals are simply "different."

i'll buy that. there does seem to be a general moral 'code' if you will, that covers the larger bases. redeemedskin might disagree, but when you get down to the fine points of some moral arguments, that's where i see gray areas where there is no clear right or wrong.

since people who follow a particular faith usually have a written and specific code of conduct, it's easier for them to claim that their morals guidelines are the correct ones. for them, it's right there, in black and white.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:06 am

patrickg68 wrote:I was wondering, how many of those who support bush are not religious? I am pretty liberal and I am not relgious at all, and I just don't see how someone who isn't religious could support bush. I am just really sick of this idea that conservatives are somehow morally superior to liberals because they are religious. Morals have nothing to do with religion.

Are you serious, Morals have nothing to do with religon. This is someone who is not religous and says morals have nothing to do with religon. Yeah they do, that is what Gob is about. Like thou shall not steal, kill, if you knew about religon you would realize how dum this statement really is.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:30 am

I think his point is that morals aren't the exclusive domain of the religious.

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:26 am

Morals and religion are completely separate for this simple reason. There are non religious people who are moral and there are religious people who are immoral, and vice versa. If what you are saying is correct, then without religion, everyone would be a violent, murdering, thieving criminal. I'm pretty sure that had religion never come along that killing and stealing would still be against the norms of society.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bush and religion

Bush and religion

Re: Bush and religion