What a cuttingly insightful reply. Way to raise the tone of the debate.
Your argument, stripped down bare, is:
“We are unable to know what anyone means when they say something, ever.”
I can’t raise the tone of the debate when there are people that are so far out of it that they refuse to accept that meaning can be drawn from words.
Well, in all fairness Dubya has been known to use words to mean the exact opposite of their traditional definitions.
You gotta admit though, GWB is very good at saying things that can be construed to mean just about anything, and nothing at the same time. He’s an incredible politician. And by incredible I mean “that cannot be believed; not to be credited; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief.”
This definition drawn from KJV Bible Dictionary at http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/incredible.html.
I’m all about the credible sources.
Fascinating. And you criticize others about their reading comprehension skills?
Would you mind elaborating on what you mean with “fascinating”? Because I have no idea what you intended to convey with that word.
That’s only what theocracy means when halfwit partisans use the term as an attack on anyone they disagree with who happens to be religious.
Here’s the wikipedia definition:
the governmental rulers are identical with the leaders of the dominant religion…unlike other forms of government a theocracy is unique in that the administrative hierarchy of government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of a religion. This distinguishes a theocracy from forms of governments which have a state religion or from traditional monarchies in which the head of state claims that his or her authority comes from God.
[quote=“John_Reynolds”]
Would you mind elaborating on what you mean with “fascinating”? Because I have no idea what you intended to convey with that word.[/quote]
Okay, you got me. I was being deliberately vague, Bush style. :D
Clarity of expression and reading comprehension being what they are here on QT3, I have to ask, are you disagreeing with me? Because that snippet seems to support my statement.
Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; divine kingship.
And what’s the cutoff IQ level you must be restricted to in order to infer, and truly believe the inference, that Bush might very well have meant “with the Lord Buddah”, “with the Lord Allah”, “with the Lord Satan”, or any other lord than “the Lord God Almighty”?
And what’s the cutoff IQ level you must be restricted to in order to infer, and truly believe the inference, that Bush might very well have meant “with the Lord Buddah”, “with the Lord Allah”, “with the Lord Satan”, or any other lord than “the Lord God Almighty”?[/quote]
I’m not following. I think Bush is obviously a christian and the only logical inference from his statment is that he mean “The Lord God Almighty” in the christian sense.
EDIT: Ahh, I think I see where I represented my position unclearly. I was attempting to curb the inevitable “He could have meant any Lord” reply from some anal retentive type looking to argue exact semantics. So I acknolweged that Bush didn’t actually say which Lord, but I still think the only logical inference is that he meant God in the christian sense.
Still, saying he personally is a big believer in God is hardly news. Tons of presidents have been. That doesn’t mean theocracy is on the horizon, as he very clearly prefaced his remark with the understanding that in his professional capacity as president has the obligation to defend anyone’s right to worship or not worship.
And what’s the cutoff IQ level you must be restricted to in order to infer, and truly believe the inference, that Bush might very well have meant “with the Lord Buddah”, “with the Lord Allah”, “with the Lord Satan”, or any other lord than “the Lord God Almighty”?[/quote]
I’m not following. I think Bush is obviously a christian and the only logical inference from his statment is that he mean “The Lord God Almighty” in the christian sense.[/quote]
Then the statement isn’t particularly ambiguous, at least not for any definition of the word ambiguous that I’ve ever seen used.
Are you this dense in real life? Or is this a troll? Here: I added bold to the parts that refute your absurd claim that “theocracy refers to a government run by officials who believe in divine guidance.”
You have to at least admit the use of the word “theocracy” is hyperbole. Or am I not being clear enough for you? Want to claim I have poor reading comprehension?
Dumbass.
“Some [of the older leaders] are fading,” Oldfield said, “but that’s because George W. Bush is head of the Christian right.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6276308/
Pat Robertson’s resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader – a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to fast and pray for the president.
The problem here is folks seem to be assuming theocratic leaders come from religions to take over governments. Sometimes, perhaps, they come from governments, or at least political movements, to take over religions.
At least this is a reasonable argument. I think it’s based on a fundamentally flawed premise, though.
The fact that so many right-wing christians love having GWB in the oval office says more about the political preferences of right-wing christians than it does about any religious leadership of GWB.
Pat Robertson was never in any way in charge of American christians or christianity. One thing that secular liberals forget about right-wing christianity is that, while it’s easy to mischaracterize as some kind of monolithic threat to civil liberties, evangelical christianity in America is anything but unified or homogeneous.
The only form of christianity with any kind of actual leadership at the national level would be Catholicism… and the Catholic hierarchy—especially in America— could hardly be said to have much sway over Catholic Americans.
Clarity of expression and reading comprehension being what they are here on QT3, I have to ask, are you disagreeing with me? Because that snippet seems to support my statement.
[/quote]
Are you this dense in real life? Or is this a troll? Here: I added bold to the parts that refute your absurd claim that “theocracy refers to a government run by officials who believe in divine guidance.”
You have to at least admit the use of the word “theocracy” is hyperbole. Or am I not being clear enough for you? Want to claim I have poor reading comprehension?
Dumbass.[/quote]
Absurd claim??? That absurd claim is supported by the Britanica definition, which I quoted, which you ignored.
AND
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
AND
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2: the belief in government by divine guidance
Source: Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
I assume you know the meaning of the word “or”?
Admittedly, there is some disagreement over what is exactly meant by a theocracy, but I’ll take Brittanica and M-W over fucking wikipedia any day. One thing is certain, what you describe is more accurately described as ecclesiocracy.
Furthermore, the main point I was refuting is that theocracy means religious worship is enforced by government, which is the meaning I thought you might be disputing, and hence, agreeing with me. God for-fucking-bid!
So fuck you, shithead!
Responding to Ryan’s lame trolling, Bren, does you no favours, especially when you are, even in my opinion, wrong. Saying that you feel you need to have a relationship with the Lord to be a president is not the same as admitting that you are the leader of a theocracy. If that were the case, then half the countries of the world would be theocracies, including Britain (Blair is a devoted Christian). Bush didn’t say he was going to act upon it, or that he believed laws should be enacted ensuring that all future presidents have a faith in the Lord; it’s just his personal opinion. If Clinton had said that he didn’t see how you could be a president without a degree in Economics, would that mean that he was bent on creating a government where only Economics students could ever gain power?
It’s an interesting discussion and mental exercise, evaluating GWB’s leadership in terms of a theocracy. I don’t believe it is, by definition, but I do believe he leads by “theocratic principle”. And I believe only someone seriously deluding themselves would deny there are some interesting similarities there. So, in this sense, right, wrong, I could care less.
What I take serious issue with is someone accusing me of making absurd claims and calling me a dumbass in the framework of a trivial semantic and pedantic debate about the definition of a word. In that, I am not wrong. Nor is Ryan, I’ll concede, despite him being a shithead, who merely subscribes exclusively to a single, more narrow definition.
:roll:
The issue is not that Bush is a Christian, or that he’s a little bit of a Christian, or whatever.
One of the elements of Neocon machination is the presentation of Bush AS a Christian, as Premiere Christian, as a man with the right of God and the power of the American military.
The truth, to them and to Bush, doesn’t matter. What matters is what is presented to the public.
Its all orchestrated. Bush plays around, implies Christians should be presidents, its ALL GOOD from the Neocon perspective. Meanwhile, you guys moronically argue about whether or not Christians should profess their faith in office, or whether Bush really means it that Christians should be president, or whatever.
You’re being played. The only intelligent response is to reject the message, and stuff in back in Bush’s face (or elsewhere). Not to DISCUSS it.
Take your Neocon orchestrations and shove them up your ass, Bush.
jack chick for president! I can see it now!