Golden Rule VS Immunity from War Crimes

[reynaud]

This thread was inspired by the fact that according to Elizabeth Holtzamn in the July 23, 2006 issue of The Chicago Tribune notes That Bush is seeking a pardon from war crimes.

If America is, as bush and his fundies suggest, a "Christian" nation, wouldn't the Golden Rule be our benchmark? Although Jesus was never quoted saying the Golden Rule, this rule is pretty much the way that Jesus (the) Christ taught and lived. Actually the Golden Rule is also the basis of Confucianism and other ancient philosophies.

Bush is seeking to be granted immunnity for violating war crimes while presumably following the Golden Rule. This is the one that says "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", and not the one that says "He who has the Gold makes the rules".

Apparently Bush wants not to have the justice system allow to be done to him what he wants to do to, let's say people who Might have some information worth being tortured for or for people who just might.know something about terrorists.

According to "President" Bush and "General, Attorney" Alberto Gonzales, warterboarding and other stressful and humiliating actions are NOTt torture. If that is the case then I pray that Mr. Bush will NOT be tortured.

If this is not torture then why are Bush and Gonzales wasting their time and our money trying to get congress to grant them immunity over something that is clearly and international crime. If my memory serves me, I remember that Bush wanted to make sure that his military would not be tried for acts of war crimes.

Ms. Holtzman's article also ran in the July 23rd issue of Common Dreams. You can read it by going to
www.commondreams.org/views06/0923-22.htm

Maybe someone who knows what investigation is should be heading up the Central Intelligence Agency. After all an investigative reporter like, lets say Greg Palast, would know intelligence. Then there should be no worry about war crimes.

[powers]

It gives a bad name to both our Country and it's predominant religion to have a leadership claiming to be a representative for both. It also doesn't help matters that religious leaders and congregation members continue to campaign for and elect these "religious" republics.

Citing abortion, gay marriage, and the hypocritical view that the ten commandments and crosses can and should be displayed publicly on government land but other religious (or non) views, symbols and ideologies should be restricted for "infringing on the christian views" only divide the country further yet are not issues that are founded in the bible.

Seemingly most catholics do not mind this or feel that it is against what their beliefs tell them. Despite threats from the IRS or other executive branches I would feel more secure about the future of this nation and the respect that religions ask for (demand?) if a portion of the 80-some percent of Americans that call themselves Christians were to stand strong and tell the country that this is NOT the same religion they believe in.

I would think it was clear that "turn the other cheek," "Shalt Not Kill," "Keep the Holy Day Sabbath (on Fox news propoganda)," and other such "Moral Christian Views" are not the views on which todays "religious right" hold dear.

When I stand against policies that I disagree with I seperate myself from those policies. When religion allows candidates to call themselves religious, allow conservative ideals to masquerade as religious ideals or allow the God that tells them to "love thy neighbor" to be overridden by a President that tells them "God told me not to anymore" they allow the rest of the nation and world to believe the American Christians are a new and different sect than the ones in Rome (although the rest of the world is also suspicious that the whole religion is changing because of the changes in the "west").

The religion that once used to push for a better America appears to be pushing for a christian America. Sadly, that "christian" is much worse than the utopian society that religions used to strive for.

Maybe someday soon we can live in harmony with religious fanatics, but I feel safer about making sure I don't call Muslims "evil" to avoid being attacked than I do about allowing someone's illogical and hypocritical viewpoint to pass as law in my home and community.

[wyldberi]

The separation between church and state goes back to Jesus. There are numerous places where he was quoted as saying the realm of the spirit is completely separate from the material world and the governments that rule the affairs of men on earth. I never saw where believers were to seek public office.

It's clear the actions of believers in the world is to be marked by love and compassion for the suffering of others. This is something george w. cannot fake; he is a sociopath and a psychopath.

As for the so-called religious leaders who are beating the bush fanfare: they were called wolves in sheep's clothing, reprobates, and "willful deceivers," two-fold children of hell.

Looking at the world today, and considering the stories I hear about the so-called christians who believe encouraging conflict in the Middle East will hasten the return of Jesus to "rapture" the saints, I always seem to remember the passages that talk about the vast majority of professed believers who are fooled into believing a lie, and then confounded when they are rebuked by the Christ who does return, instead of happily handing them the eternal reward they expected to receive.

[reynaud]

wyldberi said:

The separation between church and state... I never saw where believers were to seek public office.

Although Jesus did not say that his disciples needed to get involved with politics it is better to be in congress sharing ones religious views without imposing them on others to make a pitch for what is right.

Unfortunately it is too often that what some people think is right is overbearing and something that people need to decide for themselves, not because it is legislated.

Under the Roman Empire there was no choice for lower class citizens to become elected. The system didn't support it and anyone who would make that suggestion could have been executed for subversion.

Regardless of our "religion" we do have morals that influence us, whether we call it Christianity or athiesm.

Peace

[powers]

Atheism is believing that there is no God, not a moral establishment that tells one how to live. It is possible to be nice to others and have a great life without the bribe or promise of "everlasting life."

Some people get their politics from the party in which they subscribe, others just know from learning and experience how they believe the nation should be run. Some people define their morality as doing things that make them feel better rather than guilty, others look to a book or a pulpit for right and wrong.

Representatives may certainly be religious, it would be absurd if they were not considering the make-up of this country. They must more importantly, however, lead and represent from the constitution and for the people, not from an ideology.

The Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because even then people believed in different things. They could not find a way to make the government work with the churches in including all, so they made sure that the two would never cross.

Well, back when they thought that document would be a guide for the country...