Replies

What makes you think he is giving credence to other gods.

According to the faith that GWB professes, there is only one God and that this Almighty God spoke originally to the jews, bringing His law to them. He then came in the person of Jesus to bring salvation to the jews first, then the gentiles. He requires exclusive worship and denies the existence of other gods. Worship of other gods, or the supposition of the existence of other gods is blasphemy and those that did so, records the bible, earned the severest punishments.

If this Almighty God speaks to the people of other religions it is to inform them that they need to repent of their false religions and false gods.

And if you think that the Christian's God and Allah are one in the same, then you are, without a doubt, blind to what they both teach.

As I stated in another post the concept that God has had an influence in other religions is nothing new.

I agree that it is nothing new, but it definately is not in accordance with the God of the bible.

Christianity might (I would disagree) be a load of crap, but at the least, lets have some intellectual honesty with regards to what the bible teaches.

Granted that Christianity is the only true religion and as a Catholic I maintain that all the other Christian sects are heretical and theologically of no value. However, I can't put that belief into practice in a democracy and neither can Bush with his individual Christian sect. The belief that there are some truths in other religions is admittedly a cop out but you cannot justify the equal status of all religions under the law without establishing some theoretical justification. For a theist who believes in absolute morality you are led to one of two potential options. Either there is only one absolutely true religion all others being a corruption of the same or a completely foriegn novelty. Or, there is only one true religion, all others being merely a corruption of same or a completely foreign novelty which may or may not have some incidently true precepts.

The difference between these two is that in the first case there is no justification for the political equality of another religion from a theological point of view. Where as in the latter's case because they are only a corruption, or an example of incompleteness theologically, there is some validity to treating them politically equal.