The inner strength of George W. Bush

[Auff]

From an anonymous author:

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election
in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic
machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger
years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in
college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and
whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the
responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence,
appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller-coaster
campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed
to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden
(some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key
moment, "W" did not lose his cool. At times, his staff seemed over
confident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly
implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the
votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was
still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying
to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but
confidently waited at his ranch. He did nothing: that is the
mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster
for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James
Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background,
confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had
such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically
whenever anyone used the term faith. But this was the same man who was the
first politician ever in recent memory to name Jesus Christ as the lord of
his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or
having a "life change." He said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ," to
which his handlers and advisors, no doubt, off stage, were also saying,
"Jesus Christ" in a much different tone.

God has a way of honoring those who honor Him. David learned that while he
was on the run from Saul's armies. Job learned that after his time of
horrible tribulation. The Messiah said so Himself, many times.

So this was the man who actually put faith into practice. He actually loves
those who hate him. It is a staggering concept, so foreign in daily
occurrence that few thought it anything but grandstanding. Even one of W's
biggest supporters chided the President for adhering to his "new tone." Yet
there he was, again and again, thanking the Democrats.

Appointing his enemies to high places in his government. Inviting his
former foes and their wives to private movie screenings, and (I know, this
is hard to stomach) even treating them with dignity. See, this was the man
who learned early on how faith worked: by praying for his enemies, you "heap
burning coals upon their heads."

This was the man who named the absolute top people in national security and
defense, then caught barbs from the politically righteous that this one
didn't have the right views on abortion or that one didn't have the right
position on guns.

And on September 11, at mid-morning, this was the man thrust into a position
only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington.

The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a
generation was on his soul. So this same man---the one that the media
repeatedly attempted to tarnish with charges of "illegitimacy," and the one
whose political opponents desperately sought to stonewall until mid-term
elections---walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just
three days after the two most impressive symbols of American capitalism and
prosperity virtually evaporated, along with, perhaps, thousands of
Americans.

As he sat down next to his wife, immediately I knew that even if his faith
ever faltered, hers didn't. I have never seen a more peaceful face than
Laura Bush, whose eyes seemed as though they were already gazing at the
final outcome . . . not just of this conflict, but of her reward in
Heaven itself. In this marriage, you indeed got two for the price of one.

Then came the defining moment of our generation. Some people fondly recall
their Woodstock days. Others mark with grim sadness November 22, 1963, as
the day America lost her innocence. But I firmly believe when the history
of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike
that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a
nation off its knees. It wasn't so much his words, though read a
decade later, they will indeed be as stirring as any. This conflict would
end, he noted, ". . . at a time of our choosing." It certainly wasn't
his emotion. What had to have been one of the most stunning exhibitions of
self-control in presidential history, W was able to deliver his remarks
without losing either his resolve or his focus, or, more important, his
confidence. It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that
sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him.

His quiet confidence let our enemies know . . . and believe me, they
know. . . that they made a grave miscalculation. Now, this same man who
practiced his faith through a tough election, who steeled his convictions
even more in a drawn-out Florida battle, and who never once gave in to the
temptation to get in the gutter with his foes (well, ok, maybe the "Clymer"
comment is an exception), this same man now lifted the weight of the world
and the responsibility of a generation and put it on his modest shoulders as
though it were another unpleasant duty.

[Eddy's Geist]

Auff, a wee bit fanatical are we?

[Auff]

I suppose we are...

[Deamon]

Sorry.. I didn't read the actual post, and I know I'm not meant to judge a book by its cover but the very title of the post made me burst out laughing

[Auff]

Typical closed minded approach to life. You must be liberal.

[Kimmy]

Auff.. have you not met Deamon before?!!

[Eddy's Geist]

Daemon, take note.

Auff is the kind of person that was attracted to Hitler in the mid thirties.

These people tend to put God and Country above all else and seek out figures in their lives to provide leadership. They tend to be afraid of new ideas or of people that are different than them and like to catogorize people in to groups for easier labeling. They also tend to see the world in shades of black and white.

[Auff]

Odd logic, reverence towards God, therefore follower of Hitler? Very weird. How's you garden plans going?

[Eddy's Geist]

Hitler used God to his fullest advantage. While Hitler himself didn't necessarily prescribe to the christian faith the Nazi party did. So you shouldn't have any issues with reconciling your faith between god and nazi-like beliefs. Like I said earlier... you'ld fit right in with the nazi party. You could even get one of those cool lil' brown shirts and knickers to boot!

All the same, nice try at the "strawman" approach. I didn't say that if one belives in god then one is a Nazi. What I did say is that there is a certain type of person who tends to be fanatical in their hero worship and they often try to disguise their hatred of others behind patriotism and religion.

I have no doubt that if Bush said "round up all the liberals and put 'em in camps" that you would be in the vanguard herding people in to boxcars.

I just thank God everyday that we still have the right to bear arms so as we can defend ourselves and our country from zealots like yourself! http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Eddy's Geist (edited 01-19-2002).]

[Eddy's Geist]

ooops... hit submit twice http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Eddy's Geist (edited 01-19-2002).]

[wrecker05]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
They tend to be afraid of new ideas or of people that are different than them and like to catogorize people in to groups for easier labeling. They also tend to see the world in shades of black and white.</font>

HMMMMMMMM sounds like a liberal to me. Eddy you still haven't recovered from the 2000 election have you?

[wrecker05]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
</font>
Unlike liberals some of us believe in that far fetched idea of freedom of speech.

[Eddy's Geist]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by wrecker05:
HMMMMMMMM sounds like a liberal to me. Eddy you still haven't recovered from the 2000 election have you?
</font>

LOL! You're right! Except I didn't vote for that Gore idiot!

Speaking of the post election... I thought that this is the funniest line in the whole article:

"No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James
Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background,confident and faithful."

I can just visualize the scene... at's a dark and stormy day... but through a small break in the clouds a lone ray of sun strikes the ground - illuminating Dubya in an aura of forthrightness... The lawyers, all garbed in shining armor go forth to battle the evil democratic hordes.

[Eddy's Geist]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by wrecker05:
Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
</font>
Unlike liberals some of us believe in that far fetched idea of freedom of speech.


You lost me here... is it freedom of speech to round up people and put them into boxcars?

Anyhow... conservatives are just as likely as liberals to squelch someones freedom of speech if they don't agree with what's being said. Both sides then try and rely on the arguement that they too are exercising their freedom of expression by castigating the others for what they said.
At least liberals are less likely to call the FBI and report someone for making "un-american" remarks.

[Auff]

Ah, the patriotism police theory again....

Eddy, if you're going to be a cynic, fine. But do you have to make so many assumptions about people? You are more often than not incorrect. As the saying goes, "Make an ASS out of U and ME".

So you didn't vote for Gore, and you appear to hate conservatives, so perhaps you didn't vote? Perhaps you voted for some 3rd party guy (a So Cal commie, perhaps?)

I am serious about that garden thing, man. It is a great stress reliever. Beats eating a bullet. And aren't you living in So Cal for the good life?

[Eddy's Geist]

Auffol, it's called sarcasm. Don't take it seriously.

Speaking of making assumptions.. you started that long ago. Seriously. Just because someone isn't conservative that doesn't make them a liberal and vice versa. I don't hate conservatives either. Actually, about 85% of my friends are conservatives. When I spout off $hit it's more for conversation... am I conservative though? No, my political beliefs run more along anarchist lines. I don't like liberals.. trust me.

I did vote. I voted for the candidate that I thought would best represent the working class of America and the person who I felt wasn't beholden to lobbyists and special interests and has a desire for smaller government. This automatically disqualifies both Bush and Gore. I voted for Nader even though he wasn't a perfect fit and I knew he didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. The person I felt was the absolute best candidate didn't get the republican nomination... that would be McCain. McCain isn't a perfect fit but he had the experience and he knows adversity. If Bush was the best that the republican party could pull out then I feel sorry for you guys that hold yourselves to one party. Hell, Buchanan was a better candidate than Dubya... speaking of alternatives to Dubya... his brother would have been a better choice. I'd of given serious consideration to what he envisioned for the future of the country. He's not a lightweight powder puff like Dubya. So, you still think I'm a liberal? You know I'm not a conservative.

By the way, what's your fascination with my proclivities for feeling suicidal from time to time? Hey, it happens and it's no big deal for me. Usually by the next day I wonder "Why the hell did I feel that way".

Which brings me to a final question for you Auff? Why did you bring it up twice? Especially when it's out of context to what we're discussing? Am I supposed to be embarrased? Or is it something else... did I bring up something that hurt your feelings?

************************************************** ******************
Addendum.

Auff, reading the above statement I got to thinking.. I've said some things to you that were pretty nasty and were defintely below the belt. For that, I'm sorry.
I think that you and I both need to drop the personal attacks and debate on issues. Agreed?

Ed

[This message has been edited by Eddy's Geist (edited 01-19-2002).]

[Auff]

Eddy, I don't mean to embarass you about the suicide stuff. I'm sure your a good guy and all, just a little mixed up. If I didn't care I wouldn't waste my time. Try the garden thang, or at least some other outlet. Life is good.

And I don't get offended very easily, not by anyone in a chat room anyway. You jab a little, so do I. We both like it.

How could you possibly have voted for that loser, Nader? What a goof ball he is.

Just one word of advice, seriously. Don't be such a GD cynic.

[Deamon]

Let Deamon explain what he is, first of all, he is NOT a liberal, secondly he is extremely pro-catholic and anti-every other christian church. Deamon is also a fanatical communist. That is Deamon, he is not a liberal..

[shotglass]

Deamon, a question for you.

You love Communism so much that it gives you a disdain for the freedoms of the Western world. What about Communism makes it so great? That it tears down everyone not politically connected to the same level of abject poverty and misery?

[Eddy's Geist]

Embarrassed? nah, not in the least. It's just a facet of my personality.

Yeah, Nader IS a goofball. What I liked about him though is that I honestly think that he isn't too corrupted. I have this theory/idea that by the time anyone gets into such a position that they can be considered for the President's seat that they've compromised their values somewhere along the line. Yeah, I know that's cynical http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Auff]

Deamon, how can you be a Catholic and a commie at the same time?

[Deamon]

Well I was raised catholic and my family is protestant or church of england, or baptist SOBs and I hate them because of their persecution of the catholics for so long... I also think its cool the vatican has survived for so long, and yes communism is connected with poverty, but also with power, Marx had a dream that was ruined, stalin had a misguided and messed up dream but it might've worked out if his succesors had been a little stronger

[Auff]

What persecution? So there are slight differences of opinion. And perhaps some types tend to stay amongst themselves. And, yes, there is always a small majority who misconstrue, perhaps even "persecute", but they are a small majority. I am Catholic in the least Catholic state in the US (NC, 3.5%) and have only experienced acceptance.

Communism is evil. My good friend Ronald Regan said that. By taking away the ability to make profit, communism takes away the incentive for invention and hard work, thus stifling the creation of wealth.

[Eddy's Geist]

I think Daemon is referring to the protestant/Catholic troubles in Ireland. Actually, I should rephrase that to the trouble the protestents cause the catholics in Ireland and England. Regular heathens they are.

[Macbeth]

Daemon is Catholic!?!

Now, I'm going to have to rethink my entire concept of good and evil.

[Eddy's Geist]

And the Spanish Inquisition didn't make you question your values regarding good and evil?

You know, after we get rid of all the Mormons, jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, and Seven day adventists the protestants are going to turn on us. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Macbeth]

Your assuming that my view of good and evil is somehow linked to catholicism.

What I meant by that was that Daemon threw me a curve (points to him) and now what I thought was one thing may be another.

But to answer your question . . . Yes the Spanish Inquistion did make me question my values regards G and E, so did high school.

[jhans]

Our ability to get off the topic is amazing. Oh well, let me continue this diversion. I am not a Catholic but I have many friends that are. I have made the statement many times that “there are religious Catholics and there are ethnic Catholics”. This is a condition that has a close parallel in Judaism. There are plenty of people who are “born” Jewish even though they do not really believe in the tenets of Judaism. Likewise there are many Catholics “born” Catholic that do not believe in the tenets of Catholicism. I’m not talking about people who when they are young say that they are Catholic just b/c their parents are. Instead, I’m talking about adults who continue to say they are Catholic even though in some cases they despise the Catholic Church. With Jews I understand why many of the non-practicing continue to call themselves Jewish. The Jewish state was historically set apart from the rest of the world. Jews believed it and the rest of the world acknowledged the separation either through respect or enmity.

Catholics on the other hand were no more persecuted by the Protestants than the Protestants were by the Catholics. Both parties are guilty but only one continues to treat their religion as almost an ethnic identity. I have several Catholic friends who are self admitted atheists that talk trash about the Catholic Church and yet they each say that they will raise their kids Catholic. Alternatively, all of my friends who are agnostics or atheists and who were raised Protestant would not even consider associating themselves with any religion. Likewise my wife has a large family with eight aunts on her mom’s side and five aunts and uncles on her dad’s side who were all raised Buddhists. None of her 30 plus cousins practice Buddhism and therefore non call themselves Buddhists.

Eddy, have you seen the inside of a confessional recently? http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif Deamon, do you really pray the rosary? http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif I would never identify myself with any religion if I did not full (not fool) heartedly believe its tenets.


[This message has been edited by jhansberger (edited 01-21-2002).]

[Sappho]

Does the same thing work in government as in religion?

I call myself an American, and I believe in the US government, but I don't necessarily believe in every tenet of it.

Religion is much the same way. Especially for "ethnics", except I think "cultural orientation" is more appropriate as ethnicity refers to actual blood lines.

Once you're baptized Catholic, you're a Catholic, and there's no going back, no matter how much you renounce the Church. For many people there was no choice in that matter as infants. Embracing certain tenets but not others only means you believe out of your own free will, not what's been forced upon you.

[Macbeth]

When I was in high school I had a discussion with my school principle (a nun). I told her I did not want to go to church (mass) because it was full of hypocrites. She told me if I went there would only be one more.

[Macbeth]

I would never identify myself with any religion if I did not full (not fool) heartedly believe its tenets.

That is to say that you would never identify yourself with any religion. Doesn't that seem like your taking the easy way out?



[This message has been edited by Macbeth (edited 01-21-2002).]

[jhans]

That’s the point Sappho. As a United States Citizen I am what I am regardless of what I believe. It is a right which is given to me under a system of rules. Religion is a belief system. I can confess myself to be a U.S. citizen regardless of how I feel about the country. I am not stating what my beliefs are by stating my citizenship. On the other hand, religious identity has always implied a statement about your belief system unless the religion and the culture are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. Judaism is such an example. Catholicism is not. Therefore, why would someone who does not believe in a religion’s tenets want to make the statement that their identity is that of a system of beliefs that they do not believe in? I am not saying that someone who wants to change things within a religion cannot continue to work for change in that religion and still use the moniker of the religion to identify themselves with a core of common beliefs. I am talking about people who don’t believe any of the tenets. People who don’t even believe in any god let alone a Catholic one. I could call myself a Satanist who loves Jesus Christ but would that make any sense? The essence of the question deals with a group of people in society whose cultural identity extends far beyond the Catholic Church and yet they feel a need to call themselves Catholic. I use the word “ethnic” to draw the same conclusion that you inferred, it is a bond that is so tight as to be almost a blood bond. It is hard for a Jewish person to accurately state his ethnicity without stating that he is Jewish, however, Catholicism is a tie that one can chose to break in a generation and yet not a small number of non-believing Catholics hold this identity as almost ethnic.

[Sappho]

Are you saying that democracy is not a belief system? If it's not a belief system, then what is it? Isn't that why government works? If it's by the people, for the people, if the people don't believe, it's not happening, right?

I agree that "religious identity implies a statement about your belief system", but no more than calling yourself a libertarian or a republican does.

As far as "religion and culture being so intertwined as to be indistinguishable" and this being the case for Jews, but not Catholics, I have to say no. Catholicism is a culture as much as a religion. And, Catholics and Jews have a lot more in common culturally than you assume. Just ask the therapist of any Latin American Catholic or New York Jew. Their patients have strikingly similar issues.

I have yet to see a someone who openly does not believe in God and calls themself Catholic without "raised", "culturally", or even, Lord help us, "ethnic" attached to it to denote a difference in belief to the aforementioned adjective.

Just because Jews have their own country does not make Judaism an ethnicity. Saying so only asserts Hitler's belief that Jews are an identifiably separate race (a fallacy originating with the Spanish Inquisition). Plenty of Christians (Catholics and not) and Muslims live in Israel. When asked their ethnicity, most will state their country of origin, not their religion. Arab is an ethnicity, defined by geography and language of origin. Muslim is not. Not all Arabs are Muslim, and vice versa. However, many Arab countries are defined by the culture that has risen out of Muslim beliefs.

So neither "Catholic" or "Jew" defines ethnicity. Just culture or religion, depending on context. "Irish Catholic" and "Russian Jew" do define ethnicity, however, just as plain old "Irish" and "Russian" would define ethinicity by nature of geography and language. And then there's Ukrainian versus Chechnyan, or Cork County versus Northern Ireland, and so on and so forth.

In light that it is Martin Luther King Jr. day, may we embrace our differences. . .

[jhans]

Sappho, democracy is obviously a belief system. Don’t make a straw man and pretend that you have knocked it down. Is it your belief that all American citizens believe in democracy or call themselves a little “d” democrat? I had a professor in college that called himself a communist. Guess what? He was an American citizen. I do not have to believe in democracy to be an American. In fact, I do not consider myself a democrat and yet I am an American citizen. If I were to choose something that I really believed in as a political belief system it would be capitalism. Democracy insures that the will of the majority reigns supreme. That is why the founding fathers created a constitution of limited self governance and an attached Bill of Rights to further fend off the evils of democracy. I believe as did many of the founding fathers that our government works in spite of democracy not because of it. The reason that our democracy works is because built into the hybrid democratic system is the supreme idea that there is a higher law than any law that democratic legislatures may chose to pass.

As to your second paragraph; no kidding. A party identification is a purposeful association of beliefs whereas citizenship is not.

As to your third paragraph, I will note that you answered the question that I am asking. I have noticed a certain tendency that is somewhat unique to non-believing Catholics. My post was intended to seek answers for this tendency. I appreciate your view even though I find fault with it. My view is that Catholicism is developing a unique cultural identity that may someday be equal to that of the Jews. It appears as though you believe it is already there. As for your statement about assumptions, it is your assumption and not mine.

As to your fourth paragraph I have seen some of the same adjectives used except for the term “ethnic”. If you could show me such a reference I would be very interested in it. This would tend to prove that the future change that I am expecting has accelerated without my knowledge.

As to your fifth paragraph, I would never imply that having your own country is enough to establish ethnicity. Additionally, I do not believe that Jews or Catholics are truly a separate ethnicity; I simply overstate the term to imply an association that is like a blood bond even though it is only a mental condition. I am not ignorant as to the geographic and religious diversity existing in Israel and I do understand that often religion’s affect on culture can be as significant as culture’s affect on religion. My point is not that there is never any cross over between the two. Rather, I am simply noting the unique state of Catholics in America who in all other respects are mostly indistinguishable from the society they live in yet often non-believing ones feel a need to maintain a religious association that they truly only treat as a cultural one. To me, this is the precursor to an “ethnic” identity.

As to your sixth paragraph I refer you to the fact that I am using “ethnic” in a figurative since and not a literal one.

[jhans]

Macbeth, I am not saying that I do not identify myself with a religion; I just wouldn’t identify myself with one I didn’t believe in.

[Sappho]

Thanks for clearing that up.

As to your fourth paragraph, I think you need to re-read mine: "I have yet to see a someone who openly does not believe in God and calls themself Catholic WITHOUT "raised", "culturally", or even, Lord help us, "ethnic" attached to it to denote a difference in belief to the aforementioned adjective." I was referring to your previous statement of people who do. Who are these people who don't believe in God but call themself Catholic without other adjectives attached? I would like to meet them.

So far, you're the only one I've heard use ethnic as attached to religion. It's cute and clever, but I hope it doesn't catch on.

[Macbeth]

jhansberger - Thank you for your non-answer, it must have taken a great deal of soul-searching to arrive at such a well articulated conclusion.

I'm giving you a hard time but, you really didn't answer my question as presented.

[Auff]

There are ethnic Jews, and people who practice Judaism. These are two different sets, although there are many who are in both.

Many Catholics incorrectly claim an ethnicity (ie: Irish Catholic). This practice is accepted but not encouraged, since the word catholic means "universal". Its akin to calling yourself African American, or Italian American; we're all American, plain and simple.

There is much bad history within Catholicism, such as the Inquisition. All cultures have some events they would like to forget, as well as most people. As a sinner, I know I am one of them. Some protestant Christians will point out these events and claim moral superiority. What would Jesus do?

There are some protestant Christians who believe that Catholicism was taken over by the Romans in order to bastardize Christianity. Mary is a substitute for Venus, and along with the other saints are really false gods. The Pope is a puppet of the devil. Catholic statues, carved to honor saints, are false idols that are worshiped. Seventh Day Adventists believe that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday to worship the sun god, and to “mark” those believers for destruction during the Second Coming.

Well I’ve been a practicing Catholic for my whole life, went through years of religious training, and I don’t remember being told to worship anything other than one God. Perhaps the Romans did attempt some illegitimacy, but that doesn’t erase the fact that it was all started by guys like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I don’t worship them either (but I do honor them). And the Pope? I never saw anyone refer to him as Him.

Since I attempt to live my life as Jesus demonstrated, I will not hold any grudges against any of those who misunderstand Catholicism.

Religious and political affiliations are not easily changed, due to family and social ties. That’s why so many black Democrats will not “come home” to the GOP, even after Clinton and Byrd.

[jhans]

Sappho, I guess I’m not completely clear on what you said. I have re-read it and it still looks the same to me. I thought you were noting the fact that most non-believing Catholics say that they were “raised” Catholic as opposed to they “are” Catholic. I was agreeing with you that I have seen this done many times. However, I also thought you were saying that you have seen non-believing Catholics use the term “ethnically” Catholic. Since I had not seen this use, I was interested in it. From your follow up response I think I understand that you were trying to say that you have not seen non-believing Catholics attach the word “ethnic” while you have seen them attach the words “raised” or “culturally”? You know, come to think of it I said that I had also seen these terms used but really I cannot recall the word “culturally” used. It does make sense that it would be a good word to use if you wanted to maintain the association without stating your belief in God.

[Sappho]

Jhans, I think we're going around in circles here.

As far as the word ethnic goes, you were the first to propose using it in reference to one's mother religion. Hence, I followed up with a "Lord help us." You state that you think you understand, we're in accordance, and that's good enough for me.

In a previous statement to Macbeth, you imply that you do identify yourself with a religion. For curiosity's sake, what religion might that be?

Auff, there is a word for the absorption of pagan (or another culture's) beliefs by the Church (or a conquering culture) so as to help gain converts. I can't quite think of it right now, but it's very specific to this instance, so when I do, I'll let you know. Or maybe someone else here knows. The Romans did it to the Greeks, the Christians did it to the Romans, and the Roman Christians (now Catholics) did it to just about every other pagan in Europe. Later, the same thing happened when the conquistadors and missionaries brought their religion (along with small pox and other pleasantries) to the New World. Our Lady of Guadalupe is none other than the personification of the Aztec goddess of the moon. The branching of indigenous beliefs with parts of Christianity have created such hybrids such as Santaria, Voo Doo, etc. All major Christian holidays revolve around major pagan, or natural world-worshipping events. Christmas traditionally falls near the winter solstice (wreaths were originally intended to ward off evil spirits near the solstice), while Easter dates back to Christians' Judaic roots. Easter is always the Sunday following Passover, and Passover is determined by the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

We're all connected, religion or no, by the very history of our beliefs. I think it's great.

Jhans, in an earlier statement you also said something about one generation of a family raised as Buddhist, and the following generation as not Buddhist. I would argue that Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. Many practicing Catholics (and other religions) practice Buddhism as well. Both whole-heartedly. Thomas Merton was among the most famous of them. And in his studies of non-violence, I'd even argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian practicing Eastern philosophy as well.

[jhans]

Sappho and Macbeth, let me first start out by saying that my post was not intended as an attack on Catholicism or any of its tenets. Instead, it was really just me thinking aloud and trying to reconcile a pattern that I began to notice when I was a teenager. I have spoken about this issue to several of my non-believing Catholic friends and have yet to receive the answer that I am expecting. The answer that I am expecting is something more along the lines of what Sappho is saying. Instead, I get an answer that makes it seem as though it has to do with parental expectations and perhaps some peer pressure. However, non-believers raised in Protestant families have the same parental expectations and peer pressure yet they do not seem to keep their religious association once they move out of their parent’s house. As I stated before, none of my non-believing ex Protestant friends want to raise their kids Protestant. I know that my personal experience can lead to a logical fallacy b/c I shouldn’t argue the specific as a general statement, however, from time to time when I bring the subject up, I usually am able to find out that other people have noticed this same pattern. I was hoping that since both Eddy and Deamon stated that they were Catholic I could hear their responses since from their past posts it surprises me that they call themselves Catholic.

OK, let me answer Macbeth’s question. Macbeth stated that not identifying myself with any religion seemed as though I was taking the easy way out. I am in fact, a Protestant and if I did not believe in its basic tenets I would not think I was taking the easy way out just because I wouldn’t line up with one religion or another.

[Macbeth]

First of all, nothing that comes out of a Catholic's mouth should ever suprise you. I learned that lesson in Catholic school. Take me for example, I call myself a Catholic, I even go to mass, sometimes I even bust out the old rosary AND I'm still struggling with the whole Jesus is savior business. So why do I still call myself Catholic you ask? Because it would seem a little silly to observe lent, go to mass and whatnot and say, "I'm not a Catholic because I'm still on my spirtual journey."

I in no way took anything you said as an attack on my religion. I can appreciate your thinking aloud. There is no doubt the Catholic Church ganers much interest (always has).

I think part of the problem here is that you cannot put a finger on Catholics. For example you say, " you get an answer that makes it seem as though it has to do parental expectations and peer pressure." This is not true of my experience or my brothers (but it might be of Sappho's). I often say, " I was raised Catholic." But you have to ask what does that mean. For me it means I was baptized, made my First Holy Communion, and we went to midnight mass once a year. Then my parents put me in Catholic school largely because of a better education. However I have never gone through the sacrament of Confirmation (don't plan on it either). So, why did both my brother and I find our way to the Church? I can assure you it had nothing to do with parental expectations. As far as peer pressure goes, I generally avoid discussions of religion in my peer group.

Here is the key as I see it. Catholics pick and choose the tenets they choose to practice, perhaps that is why we have survived. The Church would say my brother lives in sin, he would say he lives with his future wife. My grandfather has not stepped foot in a church since the Second Vatican Counsel (when they changed alot of the way a mass is conducted), yet he still calls himself Catholic.

In summation, I don't know a single Catholic who full (or fool) heartedly believe its tenets. But some of us believe in the basic ones.

[This message has been edited by Macbeth (edited 01-22-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Macbeth (edited 01-22-2002).]

[jhans]

Macbeth, I originally did not put those words in that sentence. However, after reading it back to myself, it sounded funny b/c “full” and “fool” have a very similar sound and look when you are reading at a fast pace. I did not want anyone to read it quickly and then start arguing with me about me calling their religion foolish. I guess by making the clarification I stepped into the same problem. Therefore, read it with or without the clarification and know that in any case my intent was to clarify not criticize.

NOTE: THIS WAS POSTED PRIOR TO THE CHANGE IN YOUR ABOVE POST. I felt that I should not delete it, however, b/c it appears to be a point of contention.

[This message has been edited by jhansberger (edited 01-22-2002).]

[Macbeth]

Then I misunderstood you, my mistake. I apologize.

To be perfectly honest, alot of things Catholics do are foolish. We bury statutes of saints upside down in the yard !?! What is that all about?

My biggest contention with your original statement lies in the words, "believe its tenets." This lead me to believe your refering to ALL the tenets. Later you say, "basic tenets." Now this seems much more reasonable as I'm sure there is at least one principle of the Protestant faith you don't agree with.

As I said, the very essence of Catholics is that they throw the rule book out the window. Besides we can always get our slate wiped clean in confession! (O.K. that was a joke most of us don't even go).

[This message has been edited by Macbeth (edited 01-22-2002).]

[jhans]

Macbeth, I did say that I would never identify myself with any religion if I did not full (not fool) heartedly believe its tenets. I probably should have added the word “major” in front of the word “tenets”. I do not see a problem with Catholics having a problem with some of the Church’s tenets and still wanting to call themselves Catholic. There are many people who live with their “future wife” and yet they do not deny the basis that is the religion that they associate themselves with. Nevertheless, I am speaking about people who are either atheists or agnostics. You haven’t given me any information that would indicate that your grandfather or brother fall into that group.

On the other hand, you might be just the person I am talking about? http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif You stated that “I'm still struggling with the whole Jesus is savior business. So why do I still call myself Catholic you ask? Because it would seem a little silly to observe lent, go to mass and whatnot and say, "I'm not a Catholic because I'm still on my spiritual journey." This would tend to indicate that you might be agnostic? If you are, I think your behavior can be somewhat explained by the fact that you still see yourself on a spiritual journey. However, my question for you is why do you feel a need to do those things that require you to retain an association in order to prevent you from looking a little silly? Is it truly just the spiritual journey that compels the behavior or is there another reason? For instance, if you stopped observing lent, mass and whatnot, would you be disappointing anyone besides yourself?

You can slap me if you think I am way off base on this but you added an interesting twist that in my feeble mind looks like you are putting the cart before the horse. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by jhansberger (edited 01-22-2002).]

[Eddy's Geist]

Well Jeff, raised Catholic to me means just that... it's not like I had any say in my religious upbringing. Am I Catholic? Yes, and No.. it's hard to escape much of the indoctrination... but while I belive in a God I don't hold the bible to be much more than a great work of fiction and corrupted history. I prefer tolkiens Silmarillion as a Bible if i had the choice of picking and choosing http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

I also think that the church is and has been a bunch of hogwash for millenium. Maybe that's because i have several generations of aunts that were nuns and they often got to encounter what goes on behind the scenes.

While I'm sure you might not see me as Catholic.. it really matters not to me. I live my life without fear of hell.

I don't think there's a hell.. not even for Hitler. I wish there was one though.. 'cus then I'd have my own suite reserved for me. yeah.. the Rainman suite in HELLL!!!!!

Just wanted to add a disclaimer... I don't want what I've written to be taken as an attack on others beliefs. These have been tailer fitted just for me by a Salvadoran tailer on Market st.



[This message has been edited by Eddy's Geist (edited 01-23-2002).]

[Auff]

Come on, Eddy, there's just way too much friggin' evidence to believe its all a ruse.

For instance, why is water the only compound to be a lower density as a solid than a liquid? Because of this, fish can survive a winter in a pond, insulated by a layer of ice. If water was more dense as a solid, the pond would freeze completely, killing all the fish. Since fish survived we have evolution, hence humans.

The only plausible explanation is that water was designed that way (designer water).

[jhans]

Eddy, I never had any problem with the word “raised” Catholic. I have heard Catholic and non-Catholics use the word in order to explain their upbringing. Instead, my question was directed more at those who “are” Catholic yet don’t believe in the Catholic God. I know it sounds like I’m being judgmental b/c if someone wants to mold a god into a certain image and call it their god, who am I to say what name you can call that god. However, if you believe that the God that you believe in is the Catholic God, it is curious to me why you refute the primary source for the nature of that God. If you have issues with certain parts of the bible I would not think it peculiar. However, to call it “fiction” and “corrupted history” is a complete denial for the basis of Catholicism. I mean, I know that not all Catholic teaching is solely from the bible but without it, there would be no need to have created the secondary doctrines.

You said that “While I'm sure you might not see me as Catholic.. it really matters not to me.” It is true that I feel that there is no need to call yourself something that you really don’t believe in, but your experience seems to be common enough that I must be wrong. Of course I knew I was wrong before I posted the original question. In fact, that is the reason I posted it. It is my inability to understand the power of the cultural draw that compels non-believers/disbelievers to continue to associate themselves with a system that many of these same people appear to despise.

[Macbeth]

O.K. it sounds like were actually getting somewhere now.

Am I agnostic? No, as I understand the term I am not agnostic. I have no doubt that God exists (this belief was strenghened after reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity). Yes, I think my behavior can be explained by the fact that I still see myself on a journey. Just as my priest has told me he often questions his faith in Jesus.

Ahh, but now we get to the heart of it. Why do I feel I need to do those things that require me to retain an association in order to prevent myself from looking silly?

I do these things for a variety of reasons. Lent requires discpline (I like that). Prayer requires one to think (I enjoy that). I'm attracted to the fact that I can walk into a Catholic church in any city in the U.S. or country in the world and feel a sense of community. I dig being a part of something bigger than I am. If you took God out of all these practices would I still enjoy them? Yes, but as I said, I do believe in God and feel the need to worship (perhaps I'm killing two birds with one stone).

If I stopped observing lent, going to mass, praying and whatnot I would be disappointing no one but myself.

I think we both know that your mind isn't feeble. Cart before the horse? Hmmm I don't know. That brings up the age old question? Does one come to the Church through God or come to God through the Church. Does it matter? I may be 40 by the time I figure out if I believe in Jesus or not but I'm not going to get anywhere by sitting on the sidelines.

[Sappho]

Allright, Jhans, since you'll come clean and admit you're a Prod, and Macbeth and Eddy have confessed to trouble with their beliefs both as practicing and non-practing Catholics, I guess I should too.

But first, I have to argue (AGAIN!) about your statements regarding Catholics who claim to be so without believing in a God. WHERE ARE THEY? Macbeth isn't one of them. Struggling with your faith, with whether Jesus was really a man or a man/god hybrid, or god at all, IS the essence of faith. Doubt is what makes faith such an amazing, difficult, human thing. Story book character or not, Jesus himself had doubt.

Eddy doesn't seem to be one either. He admits to not believing in the tenets of Catholicism, but he doesn't call himself Catholic, he states he was raised Catholic, that's all. Your Protestant friends who don't want to raise their children Protestant say they were raised Protestant, too, don't they?

Eventually we all have to grow up to tell "parental expectations" and "peer pressure" to go to hell if we ever want to actualize as human beings. Faith is a choice of free will, it doesn't just fall upon you.

I fall into the raised Catholic category. I was also subjected to 16 years of Catholic education, and later, the beautiful theology of scholars actually working for change. As I have always questioned Jesus from the beginning, and had trouble with faith, the Catholicism I relate to and remember fondly is the superstitious statue-worshippers. To those that don't understand, it's easy to make fun of and easy to see lack of meaning. To my aunt who has seen more than a few sightings of the virgin it means everything. And I have to respect that. My grandmother is half Jewish, prays the rosary like mad, and wears a cross the size of a fist under her clothes. But when she needs a question answered, she goes first to the Ouija board, then to the priest. She also claims Hitler was a good man, but that's another story.

All of this has made me a student of many religions, and a believer of none. I get more sense of community from a packed movie theatre than a church. Something about everyone laughing and crying together.

That doesn't mean I don't struggle with faith, or God, or occasional fear of being struck down by lightning. But I attribute my fear and guilt to the psychological remnants of a passive aggressive household, and someday, with a little work, I'll get over it.

But the next time I put my house up on the market, I'll certainly be burying a St. Joe in the yard upside-down (facing my house, otherwise the neighbor's house will sell). And then I'll have to display him in my new house (that's the key) so people can question me on my faith. You think I'm kidding.

And I never said, or implied, that you were attacking Catholicism, its tenets, its believers, or non-believers. Perhaps your own insecurity is triggering guilt over that matter. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif This is a conversation, is it not?

[This message has been edited by Sappho (edited 01-23-2002).]

[Rek]

George finally DID win. But he DID get snippy about it.

[jhans]

Macbeth, obviously you are not the agnostic that I am looking for. I can understand your desire to continue to call yourself Catholic, you and I just have different reasons why we would do so. I wouldn’t be willing to make the association until I felt as though I believed in the principles that were being taught, whereas you are willing to continue the association in order to figure out if you believe in the principles. If I were in your position I’d first decide if I believe in God. I’d do this by reading scripture, commentaries and studying the historical proofs (actually, I did it by studying history which got me interested in the other two sources and then each of the sources began to feed off one another). If I could be convinced that their was a Christian God, I’d try out several denominations until I found one that I felt comfortable with and one that teaches about God in a way that was in line with what I understood God to be. Whereas, you are willing to participate in a specific denomination to determine if you believe in God while at the same time determining if you believe in that denominations interpretation of God. That is why I made the statement about putting the cart before the horse. However, I would say this, while I would conduct two separate searches, I must admit that when I think about the way you are going about it, it only seems backwards when viewed from my tendencies.

Eddy on the other hand is a guy that I think might fit the description for the type of denier that I have been looking for. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif I know, Shappo thinks Eddy has admitted that he doesn’t call himself Catholic, but what Eddy said was “I'm sure you might not see me as Catholic” which suggests to me that he probably still uses the term even though he admits that he views the Church as “hogwash” and the bible as “Fiction” and “corrupted history”. So Eddy, have you called yourself a Catholic w/o using “raised” to qualify it anytime in the last year or so?

Shappo, you asked me who these non-believing people professing to be Catholic are. I did admit that I was using a potential fallacious source by arguing that my specific experiences are representative of the general population. Having said that, the first three such people are friends of mine from high school. The next two of them are friends from college. The next two are friends of mine from law school. Additionally, I have spoken about this issue on more than one occasion and have heard from other people who say that they know people who are non-believing Catholics. Therefore, I brought up this topic hoping to hear about other people’s experiences that might confirm or deny the basis for my post.

[Sappho]

So jhans has confused friends. Whatever. It's THEIR problem. But if I saw them in church I wouldn't question why THEY'RE THERE.

Obviously they didn't teach him to spell in law school. Is it outta or oughtta?

There, there, don't be mad. Sappho loves you anyway. But Shappo doesn't.

http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Macbeth]

Let me break it down for you . . .

Being Catholic (past, present, or future) is exactly like being in a club. You can renouce the bylaws, or turn in your club card, you can even join another club. But you will always be somehow linked to the club. Which is why Eddy and I can joke about nuns and still think it's funny. Sappho may have turned in her card but I still have fond memories of us pretending to be in the choir so we could get outta class early. And don't even get me started with G block.

So why do those that leave the club still call themselves members? I think it's more about the club than it is about the bylaws. Make sense?

So, do you wanna join the club?

[This message has been edited by Macbeth (edited 01-24-2002).]

[jhans]

Sappho, the only way I can continue to write long winded messages that no one wants to read is if I type really fast and make all kinds of grammatical and spelling errors. Sometimes I'll run it through spell check but that adds another ten to fifteen seconds so instead I tend to misspell people’s names and misuse there and their and they're cuz I tend to post in the spoken word instead of the written in order to keep my thought process going and to save time. Although, I do use a lot of words like therefore and however and nevertheless and all kinds of stuff that I don't really use in spoken language. So I guess you could say that my writing style on the boards is kind of or kinda like a hybrid b/n spoken and written language. Which I think is like most of our styles on the boards. So if for some reason I use the word “your” when saying that you're a picky mother f#*ker please forgive me. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Macbeth]

Relax, jhans it's not your fault you can't spell anymore.

That ability went out the door probably around the time you read the hairy hand case, am I right? It's an occupational hazard.

I'm willing to bet $20 you can't write legibly either.

[Auff]

Rek: I would have had a lot less patience than George. During the third(?) debate, while W. was talking and Gore walked right up to him, stood about 3 feet away and looked down on the shorter man, I would have lost it. I would have told that SOB something like "its not your turn, Al, sit down". But George acted like the statesman that he is.

[wrecker05]

I still make mass every morning if possible. God blessed me, I made it four times this week.

[Eddy's Geist]

Another amazing post from Macbeth!

Yes, Jeff... I have said I was a "Catholic" in the past year.
I've also said that I worship at the alter of Cuthulu, I'm a High Priest in the Church of Ed(tm), and "I only like religions that allow one to kill their deities at least once a week!".

See... once you've been "raised' Catholic - you ARE a Catholic in the eyes of the church. You can try out other denominations or even different religions. You're still a Catholic. You can turn your back on the church - you're still a catholic until excommunication rites are performed.

Question for you Jeff... you wrote about trying out an assortment of denominations to find one that fits your beliefs. If you're so certain in your beliefs then why in the world do you need a denomination to 'join" at all? You obviously have figured out what God has intended through your study of history and scripture http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif
Is it a need to surround yourself with people who will assure you that you're right?

[jhans]

Actually Eddy, when I say “denominations” I am using the term very loosely. I think that organized religion is a natural result of human behavior. I kind of have the same approach to organized religion that Thomas Jefferson had to politics in that I think that every denomination needs to be disbanded at least every hundred years or so. Unfortunately, humans love dogma and tradition and eventually load up their denominations with so much extraneous stuff that after a while the extraneous tends to get in the way of the main point. Therefore, I can say that I have a denomination in the since that I am Protestant. However, I do not go beyond this. I am not Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal… or any other Protestant denomination. I am just Protestant. I have attended church at all of the above denominations. The more formal the denomination, the more my comfort level goes down. I generally like the Calvary Chapel associated churches but I must admit that even those churches’s have some traditions that make me feel uncomfortable.