We have never been a fan of Donald Rumsfeld’s bloodthirst and his self-congratulatory parades — but the revelation this week of his purposeful injection of the Bible into United States War Policy in order to salve a contemptible Commander in Chief — is the beginning of the melting away of the Bad Bush Policy that brought us to war in the Middle East, and Obama better get out of the way of the truth, or he’ll get washed under with Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush as a co-conspirator in the torture cover up and in the unholy war against the Muslim faithful. GQ magazine — known more for celebrating men’s style than revealing war atrocities – published the cover pages for Rumsfeld’s Top Secret “Worldwide Intelligence Update” where Bible quotes were pasted over United States soldiers in action to help Bush find comfort in the blood he was letting.
Many conservatives have urged Obama to not release more images of torture because those rueful semiotics will only inflame the Middle East again — but those images are already finding their way into the public eye — and the rationale behind not releasing all images of state-sponsored USA torture is instantly rendered moot with the revelation of these shameful Rumsfeld reports that make it clear a Christian United States was invoking its God and its Bible in the race to defeat the Muslim enemy.
If we are not all offended at having the Bible and our soldiers mixed on the same government war update, then we need to rethink our allegiances and alliances in the light of the world where comity and good behavior are not the expectation, but the requirement of being a leader nation.
Obama needs to get in front of the previous administration on torture and the invocation of the Bible in national policy — and the longer Obama waits, the more complicit he becomes in the tainted ruse.
Do you think the United States Senate and House of Representatives and military would survive with an atheist president? Perhaps a godless leader is precisely what we need right now to rinse the residue of religion forever from the official policy of a non-Christian, but still sovereign, nation.
I thought for sure it was just a joke on reddit but then I followed the links and it was, well, not a joke. I am not shocked that this is how the last administration ran things.
Here’s the full story on Rumsfeld, Gordon:
He created such a treacherous policy of convenience and non-faith as he used religion to soothe a frightened, Christian, president. We deserve the scorn of the world because of his deeds and Obama better put everything into the light of day right away or he’ll be marked forever by a policy he did not enforce, but protected.
I can truly say without any reservations at all, that Donald Rumsfeld is completely useless. I think that using religion as a “cloak to conceal your dagger” is way overused! Religion is not a faith on which this man actually stands. It is nothing more than a tool to persuade and manipulate.
I am a firm believer in the Holy Bible! However, I have found that very few are able to wield it wisely as a weapon against injustice. I think that this is primarily due to the fact that they do not truly believe in the power of the words in the ‘Good Book.” It’s just a platform on which to stand! The unscrupulous actions of such men is what initiates scrutiny against the Holy words of our Lord.
I respectfully disagree on your statement about us needing an atheist president to purge or rinse any religious residue from our governmental policies. We celebrate our fore fathers for having the tenacity to bring into effect the privilege of “Freedom of religion!” Religion is woven into the history of our great nation and will predominantly continue to be so. However, I am referencing a time in history when our executive leaders were true believers in the words of our Lord. To our dismay, that kind of faith seems to have faded into the history books and pretense replaces true consecration.
I wonder, must we continue to learn the hard lesson that “You never know what you’ve got till it’s gone?”
Do you believe religion belongs in government? If yes, in what way and should there be any restrictions?
Did you agree with Obama’s point earlier in the year that “freedom of religion” also means “freedom from religion” and “freedom not to believe?”
If the intention of the founding of the United States was to have a clear separation between Church and State and that America was NOT a religious nation — as evidenced in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 — how do you explain the seeping of a “belief test” in our national representatives and in the memes of self-righteous excuses for waging war on foreign enemies that “do not believe as we do?”
No David, I do not think religion belongs in government. I think someone should inform Rumsfeld of this! I was not trying to imply that I was for religion to be incorporated with government in my previous entry. There has to be a separation between Church and State. I think that if a government official is religious and practices faithfully their religion then that residue should not be eradicated. They would have the right to worship, pray or read the word as they choose. I think that the religious experience is on an individual level … not the masses. As I addressed earlier, I completely disapprove of religion being used as political leverage!
I do think that there are ripple effects that we as Americans suffer from due to those trying to combine the two. I am a very religious person. I was raised in church. I guess I was fortunate in the fact that my parents religion was not forced on me. I was allowed to choose for myself. I have many very different views than they have had. I have not seen Obama’s “Freedom of religion” speech but just to clarify any doubts that you might have, freedom of religion does include the freedom not to believe in a religion. It is ultimately a matter of one’s choice. “Freedom of Religion” was the primary reason that the pilgrims traveled to this new world. They did not want to be made to worship nor believe in a way that was not their own.
I can only speculate on why we as a nation seem so intent on forcing other countries to conform to our ways of worship especially since we cannot seem to agree on any one view concerning religion and worship in our country. This has always puzzled me! In any case, the war in Iraq did seem necessary, but unfortunate, in the aftermath of their terroristic attacks on our own soil. I will point out that I do not think that everyone of that nationality is a terrorist. It is important not to have tunnel vision!
I do admire the rugged paths that our founding fathers traveled in order to pave a way for the rights and privileges we cherish today. I do think that religion played a much bigger role in American history than it does today, as life was much simpler and religion was a way of life then. We need to be mindful of those sacrifices. The threads of their labors still exist today.
Now, to have a religious president (One that actually possesses something rather than professes something- not just used as leverage for votes) just might have a positive effect on our nation seeing as he would have a “Higher Being” on his side. I might also point out that we do indeed have “In God we Trust” stamped on our currency. However, there is a fine line between Church and State and those lines are being crossed without reverence or respect. I am afraid that I am failing miserably to convey my perspective on this matter with any clarity. This subject matter is certainly one that merits in depth discussion!
It is a fascinating topic, Kimberley.
As for “In God We Trust” — it was placed on our currency in a fit of crisis during the Civil War when religious ecstasy replaced secular governing — and we’re left with the uncomfortable mixing of Church and State to this day:
I am a bit of a history buff! I knew about the reasons for stamping “In God we Trust” on our currency as history books record it. I was thinking more on the symbolic sense of the sentiment.
The entire process of the stamping of a christian sentiment on our nations currency is almost as enthralling as a good debate:-)
It is definitely a topic worth divining, Kimberley!