Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Tartarin, one problem:



If you are talking about 5th Avenue, maybe. But, street smart, he has no idea what the street is.

Bubba, You never bin in downtown Midland?

JUST WHO CAN WE TRUST????

TT, Yes I have, lots of, lots of, lots of lawyers there! That ain't no street! Even then, he had a many man servants!

Yew bin in MIDLAND???!?

and i even bean to Odessa! oil well in the parking lot across the street from the post office

I have to admit that I've noted lots of conservative types who are expressing lots of disappointment with the lad.

He gives new meaning to the bumper sticker that was so popular during the 90's: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.

Well, Bill, thanks for not dropping by for a cold beer, buddy.

Street smarts that was meant to be sarcastic was it not. They would eat him up alive in my little corner of the world.

I must admit it says something about Texas than he wasn't eaten alive here.

Tres

Your last post addressed to me wasn't very helpful. I made the simple point (following an earlier poster) that my grandparents, active Christians, would have deplored Bush's militaristic version of Christianity. You responded, though in other words, "yeah, and they were always right, right?" suggesting...well, I'm not just sure, but perhaps that I can't think independently from my grandparents, now deceased some thirty years. Or perhaps you suggest that a version of Christian belief other than your own is somehow less intellectually facile.

Naw, couldn't be that, Blatham - that'd be haughty and arrogant.

As a resident of the Bible Belt, I would have to add my view that the kind of thinking that Bush employs reflects on the size of his intellectual abilities, as well as the all-consuming self-righteous arrogance of evangical true believers of the Southern persuasion. Harsh, but not an unfair assessment, IMHO.

Bible Belters= here in the west we have the city of Colorado Springs, home of the most right wing pentecostal born again yahoos you are ever likely to run into, Focus on the Family (organization) certainly one of the most fanatical of the belters has its own interstate highway exit. In this morning's Rocky Mountian News is the item of one of those churches essentially abducting an 8 yr old girl for the clandistine purpose of "baptism" against the knowledge of the parents, and considered a possible criminal act by the D.A.

Getting back to BumbleBee Boogie's original question about whether Bush's religion inappropriately dictates policy, here is one of the best examples of why I think his religion is terribly, tragically inappropriate.
I don't have a link to the article-it was included in a letter written to a friend.


Fighting For Women's Rights (and health)
Feb 11, 2003 17:16 PST
Subject: New FDA Appointee

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Hagar's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval or mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health.Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious
grounds rather than scientific merit would halt the development of
mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome.Women rely on the FDA for drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy. For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics.[/color]

As it happens, I was about to tune into WBUR's "The Connection" discussion show but decided against it when I saw the topic!



"America has always been a praying nation. But rarely have those prayers been so organized. In the last couple of years, millions of people have signed up to pray in virtual prayer groups on the Web. Now an organization called The Presidential Prayer Team is asking people to register on a web site and "adopt" a government official or an overseas soldier, and pray for them.

More than a million have signed up. Intuitively, many people believe in the power of prayer. But this question is also a matter of scientific debate. Recent medical studies have shown that praying for others, intercessory prayer, as it is known, can actually make a difference. Critics say that such research amounts to "squeezing God into a test tube."



Wbur.org, if you're interested!!

Frank - I'm going to let you in on a little secret here. I happen to agree with you and Congressman Paul (whom I happen to admire). I disagree with the courts' decision on this, and think a more formal declaration of war should always be required before our military sets foot on foreign soil to do battle. I understand your point.

MY point is simply that as of right now, the "law of the land" as it is currently being interpreted and implemented disagrees with us. So, to argue that in this specific case we can use this argument to stop the war or hold anyone accountable for not "doing it right" is a non-starter.

As with debates over education policy or welfare policy I am generally inclined to debate in these forums based on "what is" rather than what I believe should be. So, while I am inclined to agree with you on this point, I am not inclined to conclude as you do that it does or will have any impact on current or future events. That horse left the barn many, many years ago. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. You seemed to be offering your grandparents' opinion (by proxy, no doubt) of Bush as if you believed it should hold some weight beyond what any two individuals--who aren't here to share their own thoughts--might think if they were. So, with no disrespect to you, your family, or your memories, I am simply at a loss as to what value you think your comments carry.

And for the record, I don't recall claiming to be a Christian. You assume that because I have stood against anti-Christian comments here. I hold your beliefs in no greater or lesser esteem than do I anyone else's. I simply see no value in your assertion of what your deceased grand-parents would have to say about our President's beliefs or actions. Sorry if that gave offense; it was not my intent.

..

Last things first, I went looking specifically for a pro-choice source for my information, and here's what I found on the Planned Parenthood Web site:



Clearly any agent that acts not by preventing fertilization but by preventing the survival of the fertilized egg is by definition functioning as an "abortifacient". So it would seem that what is "medically ininaccurate is your source and your assertion, not this Dr. Hager.

Next, working backwards, you (or your source?) make light of his suggestion that women pray or read the Bible to help with premenstrual symptoms. Perhaps you are unaware that some people find prayer or the reading of scriptures to have a positive effect on their sense of wellbeing. I wonder if you would consider it equally "bad" if he had suggested they consider meditation, deep breathing, warm baths...

And finally, first things last, you started out by labelling Dr. Hager as pro-life. Why go beyond that? Everything else you cite seems like just a thinly veiled attempt to paint as a nutcase someone who disagrees with your views on abortion.

It fascinates me how those who are for freedom of choice suddenly balk when some people use that choice to reach different conclusions about the important issues of our times. Just exactly what is it about Dr. Hagen that puts him "outside the mainstream"? That he is a Christian? That he is pro-life? That he thinks prayer and the reading of scripture can be helpful to those who believe? I see nothing "outside the mainstream" there.

Pro-choice need not be anti-fact, anti-Christian, or anti-life. It's such a shame it so often is all three.