Bush: "I don't believe religious people kill innocent people."

[sabra]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221975,00.html

<snip>

O'REILLY: But in the back of your mind, there must be some Muslims want Sharia. They don't democracy.

BUSH: Yes.

O'REILLY: They want to be in a theocracy. They want to be told what to do.

BUSH: Some do, but it's a small number compared to the vast majority of people who just want a peaceful way. They want to be able to practice their religion.

See, this is not a struggle of religion, in my judgment. This isn't Christianity versus Islam. People in the Muslim world need to look at the United States. We welcome Muslim-Americans. They're free to worship the way they so choose.

This is a struggle between people who have subverted a great religion to meet their own ambitions and kill. I don't believe religious people kill innocent people. I don't believe that.

I believe these are totalitarians who want to impose their vision on others. And they use murder as a weapon to achieve it. And the fundamental question facing all civilized world and facing nations in the Middle East is can we have systems in place that end up marginalizing radicals and extremists. It's really the call of this generation, Bill.

[Solly Mack]

1. The magnitude of his delusional state to believe that

is staggering.

[Tellurian]

Adding 'convoluted' to your statement...

My impression is Bush has no rational conception of the meaning of words.
There is no philosophical justification for any of his so called concepts.

mind-boggling- even worse for O'Reilly not questioning his rationale.

[varkam]

2. !

:rofl: Wow. He really doesn't read newspapers often, does he?

[sarge43]

11. Or he got his history degree out of a Cracker Jack box

Yale has to be so proud.

[varkam]

15. Apparently, these days an ivy league degree

and three dollars will get you a cup of coffee - and not much else.

[Salviati]

52. From bush's statements, it may be an Ivy league degree and $10

As all that degree does is mark you as a rube who's just waiting to be suckered.

[npincus]

28. LOL- it was a 'Legacy Special'

[Cha]

95. poppy bought it for

him.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. An ignoramous chatting with an idiot

I would dearly love to see "fair and balanced" :puke: Faux News have a similarly civil conversation with, say, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. I ain't holding my breath, though.

[bdamomma]

60. these RW radio hosts are just doing what they are being told

to do, having the Bush Crime Family on just catapulting their propaganda and reaching out to their disappearing base.

Bush used those "so-called Christian groups" just for political reasons, he doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself and his cabal.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. Ergo, Bush isn't religious

DO YOU HEAR THIS, FUNDIES?

[glitch]

33. Sometimes he tells the truth.

So much babble it has to happen sometimes, if only by accident.

[trotsky]

5. Oh but of course.

A "true" believer could never be bad - it's got to be people who really don't believe (i.e., atheists) who are responsible for the bad stuff. How disturbing that this very same sentiment can be found on DU.

[varkam]

8. Shhh!

Don't let on to the evil atheist conspiracy!

[bryant69]

9. Where can it be found? Please cite some examples

I defend Christianity as much as anybody but I can't say I recall seeing people saying that only atheists are responsible for the bad stuff.

Bryant

[trotsky]

35. Very well.

Most classic example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4365017#4365080

But is also regularly appears in the sentiment of "Bush & the Republicans aren't TRUE Christians" that even you would certainly acknowledge comes up a lot.

[bryant69]

43. I'm having a hard time understanding this

If I say that I think that Bush and his cabal aren't true christians I am saying they must be atheists? Is that the argument?

By my standards Bush is a self described Christian, but he doesn't seem to live up to the standards of my faith. He lies, he starts unnecessary wars, he condones and argues in favor of torture and so on and so forth. So I would say he's not a good Christian or, if you prefer, he's not a true Christian. Is that a bigoted statement? I don't think so because not being a True Christian doesn't make you an atheists. There are people all over the world, including probably myself, who aren't True Christians, who also aren't atheists.

I mean isn't there a lot of ground between what we might call a true Christian and an atheist?

I also have to say that while Displaced Texans used bad terminology - and should have corrected him or herself, his meaning was pretty clearly not "these peopel must be atheists" but "these people must not be christians."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[trotsky]

45. Sorry you can't see this from a non-believer's perspective.

"Bad terminology"? Good grief - the EXACT WORDS were "These people obviously do not believe in God." What kind of crazy spin is needed to blow that off as "bad terminology"?

And yes, the implication is clearly there that Bushco aren't only not "true" Christians but not religious believers at all. Feel free to see it from your believer's perspective, though, and assume that us non-believers have it all wrong.

[bryant69]

48. Hmmmmmm

Do you want to discuss this, or would you rather not?

I'm perfectly willing to try to see your side of it, assuming I can - but I have to say at this point it doesn't make sense to me.

I see the religiuos plane - I'm having ahard time coming up with terminology here, so please be patient with me - as containing all sorts of religious beliefs - not in a line, but in sort of an amorphous blob. Over here we might have the point indicating "true christian" and over here we might have the point marking athiest. In between you have dozens of other locations - like Deist or Hypocrite and so on and so forth. All the sorts of beliefs and relations to those beliefs that might exist. So for me to say that Bush isn't a real Christian, does not put him in the atheist camp. Rather, in my mind, it puts him in the hypocritical Christian camp.

I think that for you, and please correct me if I am wrong, the religious plane consists of two seperated spheres. On one side is the Christians, and on the other side is everybody else, but mostly the Atheists. If I say that Bush isn't a real Christian I am shoving him out of the Christianty Sphere and into the Atheist sphere. Is that how you look at it?

Let me ask you aother question, setting it outside of our particular area for a moment - does it offend you when a Muslim says that Al-Qaeda are clearly not real Muslims and shouldn't be taken as an example of Islam?

Bryant

[trotsky]

49. First off,

I think the distinction between "good" adherents of a religion and "bad" ones is inherently pointless. The "good" ones over here are called "bad" ones by the "bad" ones over there. In every religion. Believers in a religion are believers in a religion, good, bad, or lazy. The Inquisitors were Christians. The witch burners were Christians. The Crusaders were Christians. MLK was a Christian. John Kerry and Al Gore and Bill Clinton are Christians.

I fully understand the distinction you're trying to make, and I agree that simply calling someone not a "true" believer doesn't necessarily mean they aren't a believer at all, but I'm saying that many posts on DU do go that step further, stating Bushco et al aren't just "bad" Christians - they're not believers at all, but just USING religion as a tool to maintain power. But you're telling me you've never seen this?

With the conservative opinions you sometimes voice, people have outright stated they not only don't believe you are a Democrat, but that you're actually a Freeper. I'd think you would be able to identify with this issue, then.

[bryant69]

53. Hitting me where it hurts, eh?

Yes a lot of people do think I'm a freeper - my attitude about my secret freeper status changes (sometimes it really hurts my feelings) but today it's "Fuck that noise." If people think I'm a freeper because I don't share their opinions than fuck 'em. Any and all of them. Present company included of course.

Taking your paragraphs in revers order, of course I've seen people saying that - hell i've made that insinuation myself. The economic supporters or President Bush got their tax cuts almost immediately - the religious supporters of President Bush got a symbolic office in the white house, a half assed Stem Cell Ban and rhetorical gestures - which constituency matters to Bush? I don't think that implies that he's an atheist, necessarily, but that he's a hypocrite. But I think to take the next step and assume that I or anybody else assumes that Bush must be an atheist because only non-believers are assholes I think that's a leap.

A little charity towards your fellow DUers might not be out of line, frankly. Other than secret freepers like myself, it's safe to assume that most people here are good hearted and aren't purposefully trying to attack atheists - if they say something stupid obviously they should be corrected, but I don't think it's safe to assume malice was intended.

I'll also note parenthetically that attacks going the other way are far more common and unambiguous for every body who implies that Bush must be an atheist because he can't be a Christian, you can find four or five posts that imply that Christians are gullible morons.

Your first paragraph is a convienent dodge for an outsider to take - but since you are going to spend your whole life in a Christian dominated society (assuming you are American) I think that it's a little too facile to take. Individuals are going to have an idea about what a Good Christian is - one of the points to religion is that it gives you a standard to measure your life against. So I should think it would matter a good deal if an individual thought that the Inquisition were an example of "Good" Christians vs. Martin Luther King as an example of "Good" Christians.

Bryant

[trotsky]

56. I'd like to hope that malice isn't intended most times.

But the fact that so many can just blithely say it and not even REALIZE how offensive it is to non-believers tells me there is a problem. And I'm guessing it's primarily due to the fact that as you note, this is a Christian-dominated society. Most Christians probably don't even personally know an atheist, or if they do, that person's atheism is not known to them. Almost every liberal will now try to be careful not to insult minority groups - except atheists. A lot do it without even thinking.

The people who say the worst things about Christians are generally jumped on - and if you check out the Religion/Theology forum, you'll see that those doing the jumping are usually the atheists.

And regarding my stance on good/bad Christians, I think it's the only stance an "outsider" CAN take. This group points at that group, calling them "bad" believers. That group points right back with the same claim. They make their case based on the same holy book - and reading it, I can see how EACH side can justify their remarks. It's an utterly pointless exercise.

[bryant69]

63. It depends on what the purpose of the exercise is

If the purpose of the exercise is to determine what Christianity really is, I'd agree that this methodology might not yeild very much - on the other hand if you want to know what sort of person you are talking to it might matter a great deal - obviously a Christian who says George W. Bush is a great Christian and a Christian who says Martin Luther King is a great Christian probably have pretty divergent on what a good Christian is. And are likely to be different sorts of people.

I don't go to the religion theology forum, maybe I'll have to take a gander - but I would be surprised if your assertion were correct. Because certainly that doesn't seem true in General Discussion.

As for your first paragraph - I disagree. In the case of DisplacedTexan - he went to far, clearly, and should have been more sensitive.

But this phrase - "President Bush isn't a Christian" means one thing to you (and perhaps other atheists) and another thing to most people saying it. When you hear it, you hear "President Bush and all his murderous tendancies can explained by his atheism and we all know what jerks atheists are." When I say it, at least, I mean "By my standards of Christianity, Bush isn't a Christian. He's a hypocrite."

Another layer of this you might consider is that there are a bunch of Christians in this country that are passionatily arguing that real Christians torture and unnecessary wars and Bush. Christians who don't support President Bush who don't support torture, who believe in social justice, who believe in not starting wars of aggression and so on so forth are not real Christians. As if the defining traits of christianity to the religious right are oppression, warfare and so on. And, parenthetically, some athesists agree with this assessment - they agree that the Right wing dominionist christians are the "real" christians and that Christians who don't fit that template are not real Christians or are hiding their real desires.

To boil it down - who represents Christianity better, Pat Robertson or Martin Luther King. To a large section of Christianity and a large section of atheism the answer is Pat Robertson (I recognize that you claim not to be able to distinguish which of the two is a real Christian, but many of your fellows seem to have no such compunction).

But obviously Liberal Christians don't like the implication that to be a "real" Christian you have to be a Republican Conservative dillhole. At least I don't, and I think Liberal Christians in general don't.

All this by way of saying that while there is Identity politics on your side of the fence, and I recognize that, and I will try to be more sensitive about it in the future, there are obviosly identity politics mucking up this issue on both sides of the fence.

Bryant

[Union Thug]

70. Pardon me for jumping in..but

I think the question must be reframed. I don't care how Christian MLK is vs. how Christian Bush is. What I care about is the quality of the man or woman.

Religion is ancillary, it's a meaningless tangent to me. I don't believe in any of it, but that's not the point. Christian vs. Christian arguments are ultimately pointless exercises.

[trotsky]

72. Good point.

Even the nicest examples of Christians have their faults. The Kennedys, Bill Clinton, even MLK was rumored to, have a little problem with marital fidelity. Mother Theresa delighted in the suffering of others, believing it brought them "closer to Jesus." And really, any Christian that doesn't sell all their possessions and live a life of preaching isn't doing what Jesus commanded. Every Christian is a "good" Christian in some ways, a "bad" one in others.

[Union Thug]

130. I drop the Xtian identifier and simply leave it at the person.

I don't care what kind of fantasies they entertain. Their actions are the only things that matter to me.

[bryant69]

77. Atheists can't get elected - but who cares, right?

I mean basically being an atheist is a real handicap in getting elected in America, because most people believe that atheism is un-American - but you atheists shouldn't worry about that - because there are plenty of good Christians who believe in pretty much all the same things you believe in and who will push for the programs you like - I'm sure you can think of lots of Christian politicans who are also good people and good representatives, so why should it matter that Atheism is a handicap to running for public office in America?

Because it cuts to the heart of your identity as an America (hence the phrase identity politics). This policy of not electing Atheists positions Atheists as second class citizens, no matter how wonderful the Christians are that get elected in their place. It says that Atheists aren't real Americans, and I can't help but imagining that that's very hurtful and painful (and in my opinion is something that should be done away with).

The problem dissappears, obviously, if you abandon your American Identity, but I don't get the sense that many Atheist Americans want to do that.

By the same token, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and the Dominionists are trying to define what a real Christian is in America, and they are doing a pretty good job. And for different reasons certainly, some Atheists largely agree with that definition of Christianity. If I weren't a Christian there would be no problem, I suppose - it wouldn't bother me. As a Christian it bothers me a quite deal that some want toe define me as a second class or lesser Christian.

Bryant

[Union Thug]

129. You're right. I hate that too. I've resigned myself to the fact

that people like myself will never have representation in this country. It is for this reason that I don't even think of myself as an american as much as a citizen of the world. So, you've hit the nail right on the head. If being American is equated with a belief in god, then count me out. I won't renounce my citizenship, but I certainly will not actively identify.

Nationalism is an anachronism anyway. If the jargon and jibberish is what makes people feel "American" then this country is in a lot more trouble than any of us could ever imagine.

[trotsky]

73. I fully realize that Pat Robertson & MLK are different TYPES...

of Christian. But they're both Christians, so I resent your statement that somehow I don't see a difference between them.

[bryant69]

74. I apologize for insinuating that - it was unintentional

Although you seem damned determined to take offense. Is there anything I can do to reassure you i'm not an anti-atheist bigot?

[trotsky]

81. Never accused you of being one, oddly enough.

Just pointing out the existence of comments on DU that backed up my statement. That's all.

[bryant69]

82. Only if I buy into your rhetorical pretzel logic which I don't

Saying "President Bush is not a Christian" isn't a slap at atheists, no matter how hard you try to make it one. I'll try to avoid using it, out of politeness, but it's still kind of ridiculous.

[trotsky]

83. I gave you an exact quote, you brushed it off...

as if you had an ability to read the poster's mind and figure out that's not what they meant, despite the very clear meaning of the words they wrote.

I'm sorry that the many other comments clearly equating bad behavior with godlessness don't register with you like they do with me. Give me some time and I can dig up plenty more, if that's what you really want. However, given your tone and your blatant bias that the "true" Christians on DU could never say bad things about atheists, I guessed it would be a pointless exercise at this point.

[bryant69]

85. Go ahed and dig up some more

But as for Displaced Texans comments - I said several times that they were inappropriate; he expressed himself badly and wrongly. I just also think they may not have been intended as a direct slap on atheists. I can certainly see why you would take them that way however - but neither you nor I can read minds (as you point out). You assume malice - his statement was short enough that I don't see malice and anti-atheist bigotry as being the only explanation.

But so far you have one example from over a year ago. And then this phrase ""Bush & the Republicans aren't TRUE Christians"" which you also find offensive, because apparently in your mind it implies that they are Atheists. That's not, in my mind, proof of a solid climate of anti-atheism around here. Certainly I suspect that if I wanted to prove an anti-Christian bias around here (which I won't do so don't ask) I could come up with more substantial proof than that.

Bryant

[trotsky]

86. What the heck is it with your distortions?

"proof of a solid climate of anti-atheism"? I never made such a ridiculous claim, so please take back your pathetic strawman. I noted that the belief that Bush et al aren't Christians because they have done bad things could be found on DU. Go back to my original post and read it. I gave you one specific example, and then said it appears in the sentiment of Republicans not being "real" Christians, hoping that might jog your memory. You latched on to that, looking for the tiny technical loophole of "Well, saying someone isn't a 'real' Christian isn't exactly the same as saying they're an atheist." Which no, of course is not. But clearly the implication is there - that someone who does something bad can't possibly be a "real" Christian, they must be something else. Not specifically anti-atheist bigotry, but certainly pro-Christian bigotry.

Now I'll go plow through the 82 pages of results for "Bush not a Christian" in General Discussion since the 1st of this year for some more specific examples.

[bryant69]

88. I apologize once more

I should not have but in Solid - that was over reaching - it would have been more accurate to say a substantive climate? or meaninful climate? Not the dominent climate, but a significant undercurrent? Something along those lines? or to put it another way, what exactly are you complaining about? Someone said something stupid a year ago and you and Modem Butterfly jumped up and down on him for 50 posts? Or is there a significant amount of anti-Atheist sentiment around her, understated, perhaps subconcious, but real and hurtful to DU Atheists?

As for Pro-Christian Bigotry, I don't know what you mean by that. I'm Pro christian in the sense that I am one and I clearly believe that it's the right answer - I believe that atheists are fundementally wrong (just like atheists believe that I am fundamentally wrong). Just identifying myself as a Christian is a vieled attack on atheism and all non-Christian Religions, because if I thought Atheism or Agnosticism or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Jainism or Hunduism or Shintoism et al were the right answer I'd be one of those. By the same token simply identifying yourself as an Atheist says that you don't believe that reigious people have the right answer. They have the wrong answer.

That might be the heart of the problem right there; perhaps at a fundemental level it's a mistake to believe that various religions and philosophies can really get along. I hope that's not true.

It does seem like your feelings are the only ones that matter - you might look at my post upwords about identy politics - #77.

Bryant

[trotsky]

90. Further distortions.

Ugh, I wonder what the point is of even trying to continue this.

It's not about self-identifying as a Christian and thus "telling" everyone of a different religious opinion they're wrong. As you note, anyone who takes a position about any theological issue is doing that. Please, put THAT strawman away too.

It's about identifying others who do bad things as definitely NOT a member of your special club, thus directly insinuating that members of the OTHER clubs are the ones who can be bad, not yours.

Do you understand the difference? Do you understand it's not an issue of getting one's "feelings" hurt? Do you understand that it goes deeper than what selfish little trotsky thinks about his feelings?

[bryant69]

93. I apologize

I really am trying to argue this fairly - but it doesn't seem to be going very well. I really apoligize if I have offended or hurt you in any way.

I think the distinction is that Bush self identifies as a Christian and his followers identify him as a Christian. More over he and his followers state very clearly that to be a Christian is to believe like they believe. To be a christian in their minds is to support torture, to support unprovoked aggression aginst Iraq and so on and so forth. I think if you set those comments against that back ground it becomes a bit more understandable.

I think it would be different if we were reading a story along the lines of "Hillside Strangler strangles two more people" and I turned to you and said, "Well that guys clearly not a Christian." In the absense of any knowledge about what he is or isn't, you'd have a solid point, because in that context, it would be obvious what I was saying.

But within the context that Bush defines himself as a Christian, it's a little different. I think it's more about reclaiming Christianity from people like Bush or like Robertson who posit their Christianity as the real one, and posit my Christianity as phoney or feigned. While the implication could still exist, I admit, I don't think it's so clear that one can automatically assume malice. However, I do think that rather than saying "George Bush isn't a Real Christian" it might be better to say "George Bush doesn't live up to the Christianity I believe." Something like that would probably be more clear and less offensive.

I don't know how much more concillatory I can be.

Bryant

[trotsky]

97. A good start would be dispensing with the strawmen.

Now regarding your comment about the Hillside Strangler, how about claiming that the Amish schoolchildren killer clearly wasn't a Christian? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2294217#2294237) And in that particular case, there actually WAS evidence - observations from others - indicating he WAS, but the poster is denying that evidence in order to defend the supposed perfection of their religion.

Or the blanket statement that no one who justifies torture could be a Christian? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2215407) That would seem to be a declaration that anyone who believes in hell can't be a Christian either, but notice no one would really explore that bit of theological gray area with me.

Those are just the first two examples from the early stages of my search. How many more would you like?

[bryant69]

98. I apologize for putting up strawmen

Is Philosoraptor a Christian? At any rate I think his point there was that advocating torture was not in harmony with the teachings of Christ. It's not saying "We Christians are so special that none of us could possibly be pro torture." It's more along the lines of "once you've justified torture, can you really claim to be a Christian (i.e. one who follows the teachings of Christ)?"

As for the Amish shooting example, I see your point. I don't necessarily think the implication is that he must be a non-Christian to have committed such a tragedy - but that a person committing such a tragedy, again doesn't uphold the standards of the Christian faith. It is fundamentally similar to a muslim saying that Al-Qaeda are not real muslims; it might not be entirely accurate but if you are a believer in a position it's sort of understandable. I don't think its intended as a put down on other faiths or beliefs or atheism, but as a defense against being identified with the the unthinkable.

That said perhaps the poster should have considered what he was writing before posting it.

Let me apologize in advance if I have put up any strawmen or distorted your position or done anything else inapprorpriate.

You can give me as many as you like.

Bryant

[Zhade]

100. Once again - atheism is not a religion; it is the LACK of one.

NT!

[Zhade]

99. Atheism isn't even on the religious plane you're discussing.

It's not a religion; it's the lack of one.

(Excepting those atheists who assert that they are certain gods don't exist, which is as unsupported a belief as "gods exist".)

When you say "bad Christian", it's still somewhat flawed - because there is nothing showing that being Christian is, itself, inherently good - but it's far better than "not a true Christian", which is just false.

[bryant69]

104. You're just plain wrong Zhade.

If you are going to talk about the whole realm of religious beliefs - i.e. beliefs about religion, you have to include atheism which is the belief that religion is bullshit. That doesn't make atheism a religion, obviously. It just says that if you are going to discuss the universe of beliefs or opinions about religion, Atheism is one of those positions. I was pretty clear about that in my post.

At any rate, with some of you it's clear that the only way to really win in this debate is to just give in and become an atheist, as long as I remain a Christian, you're going to see me as an asshole no matter what I say.

You are the same person as Modem Butterfly?

Bryant

[Zhade]

106. Um, no, I'm not, and no I'm not her.

I'm a guy, and I've been here longer than she was before she was wrongfully banned. So let's get that out of the way, first off.

Second, I'm an atheist. I know of what I speak. As you acknowledge, atheism is not a religion. As such, it can't be on the plane of religions you described (if you had said it was a plane of opinion on religion, you'd be correct in including it - you were not as clear in that post as you seem to think). Atheism is NOT "the belief that religion is bullshit", it is simply a lack of belief in any gods. It describes the mindset of a nonbeliever who remains unconvinced that the asserted gods of mankind exist due to the lack of evidence for them. Some may hold that opinion; mine is that religion is unnecessary, based on the fact that one can be a good and happy person without it.

"At any rate, with some of you it's clear that the only way to really win in this debate is to just give in and become an atheist, as long as I remain a Christian, you're going to see me as an asshole no matter what I say."

This is another of your strawmen arguments; I never said you were an asshole, and in fact do not think you one. Likewise, I don't care if you're an atheist or a believer. I only care how you act toward others.

[bryant69]

107. Yeah that last sentance is nonsense BS

All you have to do is jump through these hoops precisely and we'll acknowldege you as a good and decent person. Any deviation from saying things exactly the way we think they should be said, and you must be an anti-atheist bigot.

I've been doing this all day, and it's not a strawman argument it's a simple fact. You and Trotsky are hypersensitive - any deviation from saying things exactly the way you think they should be said and I will get smacked down, and be accused of arguing in bad faith - hell Trotsky even trotted out the "secret Freeper" gambit - although he did it in a subtle way.

I apologize for confusing you with Modem Butterfly - I didn't know she was banned. I liked her, actually, although she expressed much the same opinion as you on this subject.

Bryant

[Zhade]

108. We've hardly even interacted today, aside from a couple of posts.

Methinks the hypersensitivity does NOT reside on my side.

If you cannot understand trotsky's simple argument - that saying someone like b*s* isn't a Christian, which insinuates that Christians cannot by virtue of being Christian do anything bad, is a bullshit argument meant to classify Christians as pure and perfect - I can't help you.

That said, I bear you no ill will, despite your seeming desire to fight.

(And I miss MB too, hence the dancing Hello C'thulu in my sig.)

[bryant69]

110. I don't want to start that up again

I'm just going to see that while I can see that such comments can be seen the way you and Trotsky see htem, they aren't necessarily intended that way. But clearly the only answer that will satisfy you and trotsky is complete capitulation. No need to meet anybody halfway when you can just batter them into submission.

So anybody saying that Bush isn't a Christian clearly intendes that as a slam on all non-Christians and that is the only reason to make such a statement- I hearby concede it and will harshly attack anybody who says that Bush isn't a Christian in the future.

Bryant

[Zhade]

111. Keep making up shit I didn't say and don't believe.

It'll really help me listen to your arguments.

[bryant69]

112. Tell me what you want me to concede and I'll conced it

Make a statement - whatever you want, and I'll concede it - i'll type it word for word.

Bryant

[Zhade]

113. I'm not asking you to concede a thing.

We're done. You can't respond without further making shit up about my arguments, so good-bye. We're finished.

[bryant69]

116. What do you want from me? What would I have to do to be a

decent person in your mind?

Just tell me.

I'll do it.

Bryant

[Zhade]

123. Okay, seriously, your posts are starting to disturb me.

I never said you weren't a decent person. Don't put words in my mouth or mind.

Now we really are done, but not because I'm angry - you need to consider what I've said and realize you're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overreacting. I can't talk to you when you're hysterical like this.

Peace.

[bryant69]

126. I have calmed down a bit and say that you are

sort of paying the bill for that trotsky fellow. Which isn't fair and I apologize.

I honestly feel like i was trying to be fair with him all day, and had my motives question consistantly and annoyingly. Perhaps your perception of that conversation is difffernt - and then he left and you popped up. Nevertheless it isn't fair to present you with the bill for what he did. So I apologize.

Bryant

[Zhade]

127. I accept your apology.

NT!

[liberal N proud]

6. Sounds like he is talking about himself here...

"people who have subverted a great religion to meet their own ambitions and kill"

[Binka]

14. All Narcissists Project It Is A Hallmark Of The Disorder!

Bush is a classic malignant narcissistic FUCKWITTAGE!

[bryant69]

7. That could spark an interesting philosophical debate

but more likely it will just spark a discussion of how evil religious people are (well Christians mostly). The question is who represents Christianity more accurately; the guy who blows away abortion doctors because abortion is a crime, or the guy who lives peacefully and doesn't hurt anybody.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[acmavm]

10. F**k! Has this ignorant bastard never heard of the Crusades?

About the Reformation? About Cromwell? About the Salem Witch Trials? About The Spanish Inquisition? About the fires at Smithfield?

Is everyone really certain that this pointy-earred asshole really did attend college? Ivy League schools no less? How can someone be so ignorant and have had the best education money can buy? Didn't he pick up any bits of intelligence.

I won't even ask about decency or humanity. That would be stupid.

[bdamomma]

58. his Daddy got him in

all Bushie did was party and cheerlead, abuse drugs and alcohol. He makes me sick.

[mikeytherat]

12. Uh, guys - read what he said: "...don't kill INNOCENT people."

ergo: the people these religious folks are killing are guilty of something. So sayeth the Chimp. Otherwise he would have said, "I don't believe religious people kill people. I don't believe that."

mikey_the_rat

[Nikki Stone 1]

66. Correct. The conclusion is that people killed by the religious are GUILTY

Even the Catholic Church acknowledged that they might be killing some innocent people in the crusades, hence the callous remark of one medieval pope who said "Let God sort them out".

[patrick t. cakes]

69. the only "innocent"....

...in his twisted logic are the so called "elites".
the rest of us are cattle. were all guilty.:eyes: :eyes:

can we have a revolution alread? :mad:

[grytpype]

13. Every time he opens his mouth he proves himself to be an idiot.

[gatorboy]

16. Maybe someone should sit him down to watch "Kingdom of Heaven"

Here's a great quote from the film:

“I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those that can not help themselves. And Godness…what God desires…is here (pointing to the head) and here (pointing to the heart) and what you decide to do every day to be a good man…or not.”

[Tellurian]

39. Great film.. well done..

Have watched it several times.

The engagement of both leaders of high intelligence with dissimilar philosophies striking a deal for humanity sake.

At least we know Bin Laden is intelligent.

[sarge43]

40. A ten minute brief on the history of Ireland might be enlightening or

Thirty Years War

St Bartholomew's Day massacre of the Huguenots

The persecution of Mormans in this country

The persecution of Jews throughout most of European history

What's truly frightening is he no doubt believes what he is saying.

[ChicagoRonin]

17. So if the WH supposedly calls Christians "nuts" behind their backs . . .

What do you think they are really saying about Muslims behind close doors?

[no_hypocrisy]

18. No, they kill "blasphemers" within their narrow definition. n/t

[rodeodance]

19. this statement is why h/his admin. believe they are not killing innocent

people.

[npincus]

20. Idiot-boy is ignoring the sectarian nature of the violence

and conflating the 'terrorists' role in the Iraqi mayhem. If he is not a flat-out liar, then he is mentally ill (delusional).

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Jeez. That's one scary guy.

[Hugin]

22. "people who have subverted a great religion to meet their own ambitions"

Pot... Meet kettle.

:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

23. Here's probably the sickest and spookiest statement in the

bunch:

"We welcome Muslim-Americans. They're free to worship the way they so choose." "Muslim-Americans" are just as much a part of that "we" as are "Christian-Americans", so who is it "welcoming" whom? It is that little statement that says everything you need to know about this administration and the bulk of the US population - "we" welcome "them"...

:puke:

[npincus]

24. yeah- the asshole doesn't speak for ME

that's fer darn tootin' sure.

[Hugin]

25. True... Where's the 'us'?

Typical compartmentalization.

It's a feudal mentality straight out of the middle ages... Just like the 'torture law'.

[bdamomma]

59. he sounds so condescending and arrogant, he has a thing

about putting himself on a pedestal and everyone else is just below him, that goes for us too he treats us the same way.

[derby378]

26. DEE-DEE-DEEEEEEEEEE!!

"I love monkeys! I love monkeys! I look like monkeys, Bill!"

[Hugin]

29. .

I have no idea what you're saying here... But, it's funny!

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. LOL

Good one Derby!

[JohnnyLib2]

27. I used to worry about our hyperbole re: Bush.

Not any more. There must not be ANY people of intellectual substance around him who can tutor him. And Condi came via Stanford U.?? How embarrassing for that institution.

[EFerrari]

30. The sooner we marginalize these radicals, the better. nt

[Lasher]

31. I tried to read the article but had to shut it down halfway through.

I think I'm gonna hurl. :puke:

The Decider and bin Reilly together. I hope I don't have nightmares over this. I'll read about it at Media Matters. They watch Faux Snooze so we don't have to.

[Neshanic]

32. A white church on a quiet Iraq street, a 1950's kinda scene.

"I don't believe religious people kill innocent people."

Well Monkey Boy, that's quite an acting job all those dead innocent people in Iraq are doing from your own little "my pappy's gonna finally love me for this" war.

[ToeBot]

36. Maybe he's talking in code again?

Either that or he Really is one stupid son-of-a-bitch.

[mmonk]

37. Does this mean he isn't religious?

[michaelpush]

38. "Innocent people"? I don't think the christian GOD specified..

EX: Thou shalt not kill! Didn't say you could kill ANYONE...in fact, Jesus said to "love your enemies", HOW DO CHRISTIANS DO THAT? kill them? every time I hear or see Bush I have an urge to::puke:

[treestar]

41. Projecting, I guess, or he wants to be the dictator

But then it's as if he thinks the American people want to be told what to do, so he'll just be the dictator.

Also I question whether the terrorists expect to impose Islam on the rest of us. That is the right wing drumbeat, but it is possible the terrorists want the west to leave them alone - and that's the extremists, the terrorists, not the average person.

[kurth]

42. What An Ignorant Idiot

Please educate us some more, Presidente El Diablo.

[Union Thug]

44. Guess he overlooked that whole inquisition thingy...

I guess if they were more busy relgioning they wouldn't have time for all that killin' n'stuff.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. And don't forget the Thirty Years War

in which 1/3 of the population of the German states eventually was wiped out because the Protestants and Catholics had a little disagreement...

[PreacherCasey]

46. Apparently he hasn't seen the photos nor

heard the reports of Afghani and Iraqi children blown open by errant US bombs. Perhaps his perspective would change if it were his children who were killed.

I'm so tired of people's marginalization of the both victim's deaths and the subsequent despair of family members as "collateral damage". Do these people (governments/media/regular folks throughout the world included) all lack the capacity to empathize with other humans?

Everyone knows two wrongs don't make a right. It just seems that we can't get past our basic impulse toward vengeance when faced with the loss of one of our "own". So the cycle continues...

[michaelpush]

50. Its easier to ignore when the corpses are not on your..

front porch....

[WinkyDink]

47. Complete and total PROJECTION:

This is a struggle between people who have subverted a great religion to meet their own ambitions and kill.....
I believe these are totalitarians who want to impose their vision on others. And they use murder as a weapon to achieve it. And the fundamental question facing all civilized world and facing nations in the Middle East is can we have systems in place that end up marginalizing radicals and extremists. It's really the call of this generation, Bill.

He's right about that last point, for sure. And on November 7 we WILL answer!

[malaise]

51. 655,000 dead Iraqis

This fugger is sick. No wonder they call him El Diablo.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. bush is right...

religious people kill people they THINK are GUILTY...

sP

[Dora]

55. EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS A CONFESSION OF GUILT

:nuke:

[bdamomma]

57. bush is such a sick sick delusional man, he just does not

want to deal with reality, and he is such a hypocrite. oh bush makes me want to :puke:

[Rocknrule]

61. What about 9/11?

You know, that tragedy that he uses to justify every atrocious action of his. I think that was done by "religious" people.

[Nikki Stone 1]

64. Exactly!

It was my first thought when looking at that comment.

[Jack Rabbit]

62. I guess Bush is saying that he's not religious

. . . and neither was Torquemada.

[sinkingfeeling]

65. Bush sure is good at describing himself and just said he's not a religious

person. "....totalitarians who want to impose their vision on others. And they use murder as a weapon to achieve it." Isn't that what you are trying to do, Chimpy? Impose your vision of a 'new Middle East' on others and using murder to achieve it?

"I don't believe religious people kill innocent people." Then how can you claim to be a religious person since you've killed tens of thousands of innocent people?

[sarge43]

68. Ah, but you see 'they' are never innocent

Even the children were somehow guilty. He intuits this; that's why we don't need habis corpus anymore.

And yes, I am being sarcastic.

[kestrel91316]

91. They weren't innocent people. Where did you ever get THAT

idea??? :sarcasm:

[Vidar]

71. Bush vs history of the world.

[dkofos]

75. bUSH is totally fucking nuts

Off to the Hague with the WAR CRIMINALS

[HardRocker05]

76. guess he's not religious. nt

[lumpy]

78. And religious people don't have other people

do their killing for them, Mr.Bush.

[Zhade]

101. "And please, God, kill Sideshow Bob."

Marge: You can't ask God to kill someone.

Homer: Yeah. You do your own dirty work!

[savemefromdumbya]

79. what aboout the 655,000 thousand innocents you just killed Mr Bush

[HardRocker05]

80. Daddy bush: atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. it's pretty clear

that religion = good, no religion = bad in the repuke mind. and of course islam and eastern religions aren't "real' religions, and judeaism is just barely real.

[Zavulon]

84. The problem: stupid fuckheads kill people. Like you, Mr. pResident.

Stupidity does kill, and your "administration" is all we needed to be shown that. Asshole.

[Zhade]

87. Um, Crusades?

I mean, that's just one easy example of many, across multiple religions.

He is absolutely out of touch with reality!

[kestrel91316]

89. O-kayyyy..........

"........I don't believe religious people kill innocent people. I don't believe that......."

Where did you BUY that goddam history degree you like to crow about, Chimpy, that they never learned ya about THE FUCKING INQUISITION??????????

[Jawja]

96. but he believes that the people

who were killed by the religious in the Inquisition were evil and deserved to die. Just like he believes the "evil doers" he is torturing and killing today deserve to die. He said they don't kill INNOCENT people.

George W. Bush doesn't torture and kill innocent people, in his mind. He kills evil doers and enablers of evil doers.

[Cha]

92. bush was told to say that..bush has

no belief system. Sociopaths listen to their ego that says "I'm right, the rest of the world can fuck off."

[Zhade]

102. Oh, he has a belief system - a deranged, brutally bloody Christianity.

He is NOT a nonbeliever - unless, of course, you can read his mind.

He is, however, a reprehensible believer. I prefer the nice liberal ones here more!

[Cha]

103. NO, I don't read minds I just

know what he says and how he acts and he's a lyin' sonavabitch.

[Zhade]

109. Oh, he lies, no doubt.

Still, if he professes he's Christian, I have no evidence to think he doesn't believe as he says.

With Iraq, and so many other things, we have evidence of his lies. His beliefs? Not so much.

[Cha]

115. Well, there was this paragraph

in a book by Dean that said when they were both governors..bush had made the statement that those "christians types drove him nuts"..I think it's all a big fake act to get their damn votes.

[Zhade]

124. Now see, that's pretty interesting.

Far more relevant than "he's not a Christian because he's done terrible things", which is nonsense.

[Jawja]

94. and who is HE to determine

the "call of this generation??"

Arrogant thug. :mad: :eyes:

[geniph]

105. I think the Wahhabi sect would take offense at being called irreligious

not that I give a flying fuck what the Wahhabis think about much of anything. Much like my opinion of the Shrub and the rest of the Christofascists. Religious extremists of any stripe pretty much suck ass, as far as I'm concerned.

[BreweryYardRat]

114. Truly religious people don't kill innocents.

Bush is not truly religious.

And btw, did they clean up this transcript? It seems way too articulate for the monkey.

[Raksha]

117. WTF???? He's delusional...there's just no other word for it. n/t

[Matariki]

118. Hey, that logic worked for the Inquisition...

[Disturbed]

120. Religous people only kill guilty people;

those that deserve to be killed.

[Megahurtz]

119. Sometimes I am just left speechless......

:wow::wtf::banghead:

[spanone]

121. psssst...don't tell him about the crusades. You'll bum him out.

[JHB]

122. One word, Shrub: "Lynching"

n/t

[Imagevision]

125. Whacko Bush says he's staying in Iraq even if only barney & Laura support

him - this this is a sick fu*king puppy!

[AnnieBW]

128. I Could Name A Few

1. Timothy McVeigh
2. Osama Bin Laden
3. Randall Terry
4. Savonarola

and that's just for starters...

[Crunchy Frog]

131. Then he's admitting that he's not religious. Some honesty at last.