Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

You guys have been busy while I was working this morning. Where to start?

Bumblebeeboggie,
Perhaps this is a settled issue, but I don't see any digression on this thread from your originally posted question other than a little contentious finger wagging. And all involved have promised to stop. So I hope you're comfortable with our continued discussion of your question.

Tres and Timber,
Your point, about everyone having a belief system, I believe is mute because we're not talking about Bush's religious faith, we're talking about his wish to impose his faith upon others. Of course many of us have a sense of conviction about our personal beliefs, otherwise they wouldn't be our beliefs, but most of us and hopefully most of the free world would support the idea that no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. And this is where Blatham's example of a scientologist president is relevant. Within Scientology, like evangelical fundamentalism, followers must impose their beliefs on others foolish enough to disagree with them.

It isn't a question about whether A president's religion appropriately dictates policy. The question is about whether THIS president's religion (or avowed religion) is a danger for the rest of the world. What is most dangerous about it is that either politically motivated organized evangelical fundamentalists or even Bush himself, are convinced that they are absolutely right. And that their ends justify any means. This mind set, whether it's a scientologist, evangelical fundy, psychotically delusional
mental patient or sect, UBL, Saddam, liberal, conservative, whatever, is dangerous. The American people should recognize this danger and vote Bush et al, out of office at the very first opportunity. Bush is a huge threat to reason and tolerance.

Maxsdadeo,
My knowledge is first hand, and while anecdotal (lacking a scientific study to point to) extensive. Narcissistically vulnerable, concrete thinking people are unable to make wise decisions because they are rigidly defended causing limited access to a full range of possibilities. In addition, they feel so needy and unbending, they feel they must impose their beliefs on everyone. Thus the 9/11 disaster.

Tartarin,

Quickly, in answer to your line of thought about narcissism, I think the term is greatly misunderstood. Healthy narcissism is necessary as a motivator. But, rather than having too much narcissism, those suffering from pathological narcissism,
actually don't have enough and therefore are rigidly defended, often creating the illusion of confidence in the value in their own beliefs. However, if their beliefs are so sound and sure in their own minds, one must observe and wonder why they are unbending and refuse to put their beliefs to the test. Concrete thinking is not
necessarily a symptom of narcissistic vulnerability, but it often is present in tandem with it. And Timber, your F scale is from the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Indicator) and yes, Blatham it is a psychological test administered for the purpose of evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of personality or character. I will tell you that a test or judgement about the concreteness of a person's thought processes is a very important item on any psychiatric mental status exam and when found to be present, is not considered to be a good sign.

As evidenced by what specific actions?

Tres -- To be honest, when I suspect you know what I mean and are trying to stir things up, I just step back. I think we all know what the separation of church and state means and that there has been much discussion of it lately!

Lola, I usually use Alice Miller as my touchstone on the subject of narcissism but wondered whether there's been any more interesting stuff written about it lately?...

1. his attempt to pack the Supreme Court
2. his appointment of John Ashcroft as attorney general
3. My own personal experience with him and those who work for him
4. His faith based initiative
5. His support of the partial birth abortion law, which is intended purly to provide legal grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade

etc.

Anybody else have any examples for Tres?

A column by Frank Bruni in the September 22nd New York Times indicates that even some Republicans have been harboring (off the record of course) concerns that Bush has become too driven by his sense that God has chosen him for this task -- and that his bellicose rhetoric may be boxing the U.S. into a corner. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/national/22MEMO.html?searchpv=nytToday):

According to Bruni, "They agreed that he was interpreting this juncture in grand, emphatic and even Manichaean terms, a perspective evident in his recent use of the word "crusade" and in his speech to Congress, in which he said that "this is civilization's fight," that freedom and fear were at war and that "God is not neutral between them….One of the president's close acquaintances outside the White House said Mr. Bush clearly feels he has encountered his reason for being, a conviction informed and shaped by the president's own strain of Christianity.

"I think, in his frame [of mind], this is what God has asked him to do," the acquaintance said. "It offers him enormous clarity."

COMMENTS:

I am not the "strict constructionist", Tresspasser, you are. Why are you not demanding strict contruction on this? Why are the strict constructionists in the congress not demanding it?

I made two major statements in this thread about this issue:

1) The Constitution does not place responsibility for declaring war in the hands of the president -- it places the responsibility with the congress. And there is nothing in the constitution that allows the congress to forfeit that right in favor of the president.

And the president is doing a heck of a lot more than just committing our troops to foreign soil. He is invading another country.

2) The congress has not declared war on Iraq!

Nearly as I can tell, both those positions are 5 x 5 with the reality.

Lola, All good points. c.i.

Tartarin,

Alice Miller is great as far as she goes, but I don't believe she treats the subject comprehensively enough. If you stop where she does with her concepts of narcissism, the picture for recovery is bleak, or at least depends too heavily on the activity of the therapist. Soul Murder by Leonard Shengold, M.D., in my opinion presents a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of pathological narcissism. And there's always Otto Kernberg in Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narsissism or Object Relations Teory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. And another is Narcissistic States and the Therapeutic Process by Sheldon Bach. My theoritical bias is conflict and compromise theory as best delineated by Charles Brenner in Mind in Conflict. I feel conflict and compromise is a better, more hopeful way to understand pathological narcissism rather than simple trauma theory.

Sorry for the digression, guys.

Lola, now your beliefs are showing...

1) Choosing conservative judges is no more and no less "packing the court" than was choosing liberal judges when Clinton was in office.
2) I happen to have some qualms about the decisions Ashcroft has made as attorney general, but you seem to be suggesting that appointing him can only be based on his faith, which would imply that he lacked qualification for the position. This does not seem to be a valid assumption.
3) I can't speak to your personal experience, but I can infer for myself how your apparent biases would likely color said experience.
4) I happen to consider the faith-based initiative to be an appropriate effort to end the government's historical prejudicial treatment of Religious organizations. (There is at least one discussion devoted to this issue if you want to explore it in more detail.) But that aside, I can't see how a program to offer ANY RELIGION access to government funding for charitable work constitutes an effort to impose a specific faith (Bush's) on others.
5) You state your opinion as fact. (Not a very useful habit.) (This is also a good issue to take up in a separate discussion of its own.)

So far you've offered me evidence of things you think Bush is doing because of his faith, but nothing that suggests to me he is trying to "impose his faith on others". Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to explain how "imposing his faith" can be separated from "doing what he thinks is right". In the end your complaints should rest with his actions, not why you think he is taking them. The latter simply smacks of bigotry to me.

As near as I can determine, long established precedent enable the sitting President to commit troops relatively autonomously. The Legislative Branch may invoke the War Powers Act, thereby gaing control of the finances of the troop commitment, but untill the troops are engaged in hostile action, I don't believe The War Powers Act comes into play. The President, as Commander In Chief, is entitled and obligated to employ the resources under his command as he sees most fit for The Nation. Congress can call 'em back, but The Whitehouse can ship them off.

Bush the Younger has the Authority. I have a bit of difficulty with much of The Administration's managing of this matter, and deep misgivings regarding The Administration's ability to successfully manage a Post War.

But I tend to agree with those who say he has the authority to go to war, regardless whatever other justification for or repudiation of his actions may exist. He can do that, and it certainly appears that he has.

And I just don't agree that Bush is proseltyzing or preaching. I just don't agree with that assessment, and I look at the same evidence other folks do. There is a difference of opinion here which is fodder for several different threads, I know, but that's pretty much my position.


Oh, and Lola, that was a great post. Even if I disagree with your comment to me, or a few other minor points :wink:



timber

The record of the state of Texas' "faith-based" initiatives shows the danger of such policy:

The report, "The Texas Faith-Based Initiative at Five Years," examines the programs begun by George W. Bush when he was governor. The report is sponsored by the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an alliance of 7,500 religious and community leaders.

In 1996, Texas appointed an almost entirely Christian commission to eliminate regulations that prevented faith-based providers from receiving government funds. Then-Governor Bush pushed agencies to change policies and eliminate licensing and inspection requirements for religious charities, and Texas became the first state to implement taxpayer-funded religious services.

After five years of such experimentation, Texas discovered many serious flaws:

--After Texas' Department of Protective and Regulatory Services stopped regulating childcare providers, rates of confirmed abuse and neglect at the religious facilities rose quickly and are now 25 times higher than at state-licensed facilities. Religious facilities had a 75 percent complaint rate, compared to 5.4 percent at state-licensed facilities.

--Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse inspectors presented Teen Challenge, a Christian residential drug treatment program and one of Bush's highly-touted models, with a 49-page list of violations of state regulations. Teen Challenge said its mission was "to evangelize people" and "initiate the discipleship process to the point where students can function as Christians … applying spiritually motivated Bible principles." The program had no credentialed counselors, no chemical dependency services, failed to inform clients of their rights, and was found to be illegally handling medications.

--Jobs Partnership's stated mission was to help clients "find employment through a relationship with Jesus Christ." The group's budget and curriculum show that $8,000 of state money was used to buy Bibles and that the program focused primarily on Bible study. A district court found use of the state funds unconstitutional because they were used for religious purposes, and also said the state had violated clients' religious freedom by not providing a secular alternative. The only other job training program in the area was located in the next county.

--The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, run by religious and crime-fighting Texas conservatives, was given $1.5 million in state funds for a religious-sponsored job training program that required "total surrender to Christ." IRFFR beat out a Lockheed Martin and University of Texas-sponsored program in competition for the funding, despite the fact that the university program had a job placement rate almost 300 times greater than IRFFR's.

--Bypassing public debate, the Department of Criminal Justice used $1.5 million to fund the Inner Change prison pre-release program, a "Christ-centered, bible-based" program sponsored by Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson. The program, which proposes to encourage "the spiritual and moral regeneration" of offenders and create respect for "God's law," received funding despite a lack of evidence that the program reduces recidivism.

Texas' faith-based program created so many problems that, in 2001, the Texas legislature chose not to renew the state's accreditation program for church-run childcare providers.

Despite failures in Texas, Bush continues to push his federal faith-based initiative, largely through the use of presidential orders that circumvent congressional debate. "As the nation considers this public policy possibility," says Ashley McIlvain, political director for TFN, "Texas already has a record with these policies. We know that faith-based initiatives violate the religious freedom of people in need.

"In Texas, our record shows that the faith-based initiative also puts people in danger."

Faith No More

timber, I must disagree with your assessment of president Bush and his religious influence to our country. He started his religious campaign in Texas, and now at the national level. If you are unwilling to accept the list PDid provided for us, above, than please provide support for your stance. Thx, c.i.

You are correct Tres, my list does not provide the documentation you requested. But please refer to PDiddle's excellent points in his two posts on this subject. I believe they are more than adequate for the purpose.

I object to Bush's policies regardless of his religious affiliation or agenda. But that's not the subject of this thread. I know it's not enough for argument's sake to tell you that I speak from experience well within the evangelical fundamentalist camp because I have nothing I'm willing to offer you to confirm that. And further, my opinion of the Fundy agenda is, as you point out simply supported by my own belief system.

I do value keeping an open mind and I see a lot of evidence that GW not only does not leave himself open to new discovery, but that he sees no value in doing so. And he has a lot of support in this from fanatical fundamentalists, and I don't use that term lightly. Actually openness to new information and doubt are specifically considered to be sins in his brand of religion. Doubt is seen as the enemy of God and scientific discovery is devalued. George Bush is an entitled person, too full of defensive bluster in the form of obsessively addictive behavior for me to have faith in his ability to lead our nation wisely.

PD - Right out of the gate, your citation leads in with his bias in full view...

By crafting this statement as the author did, it appears Mr. Monkerud has tried to be clever and lead us to infer something untrue.

The rules very specifically limit the money to buildings or spaces where services are not held, or--in the case of multi-use buildings--federal funds can not be used for work on any portion of the building used for religious worship.

Now, if we look at what Mr. Monkerud wrote, we see that he has told us that the government is going to give "federal housing money to religious groups to erect or refurbish buildings where religious services are held". In the case of a building where the North wing houses facilities for a daycare and the South wing houses a sanctuary for worship, a group can receive money for work on the North wing, but none for work on the South wing. Strictly speaking, Mr. Monkerud's statement stands up here--they can receive money for work on that building, but he leaves out the caveat--very clear in the regulations--that prohibits using the money for any portion of the building used for worship.

I think it highly unlikely that Mr. Monkerud accidentally stumbled onto a wording that at once paints the worst possible picture whilst simultaneously being technically true. I think it quite likely that he went out of his way to try to find a wording that is misleading without being an outright lie, hoping most people would not know the facts, and recognize his subterfuge.

Beyond that I have little interest in anything he has to offer us. He seems more interested in conveying his opinion than on conveying facts, and this clever attempt at manipulating public opinion removes any credibility he might otherwise have for me. (If he's willing to fudge the truth once, why would I trust any other "fact" he offers us?)

Your mileage may very, of course.

That was laborious, turgid, obtuse, and unconvincing, tw.

I suppose attempting--and failing--to discredit the source would be all one could do in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting one's sacredly held opinion, in the hopes of revalidating it.

In any event, good effort. Still a strikeout.

Oh, I dunno, PDiddie ... The wording of "The Initiative" indicates it was formulated to prevent the expenditure of Federal Funds in the furtherance of erecting or renovating structures specifically dedicated to the act of worship, while providing assistance and other consideration to faith-based activities of secular, humanitarian nature.

On the otherhand, I oppose the current slant of the "Faith Based Initiative", and I deplore the abuses and failings which have so far come to light. Greed, incompetence, and arrogance are to be expected from governmental entities. It is a sin to inflict them on the religious community, which already has its own shortcomings, failures, and excesses to deal with. I see that as a powerful argument for the separation of church and state. Neither entity is much able to be of real assistance to the other, and any pairing of them is likely to be of less benefit to all.



timber

Please re read TW's post, PDiddie.

There was no strike out whatsoever, in fact, it was quite revealing.

Your failure to consider his position, (doubly powerful because it is accurate as well as true) is equally so.

Y'all need to stop by Texas sometime -- talk to the people who've had to put up with Bush's "initiatives." Bring a mop.

How can an Executive Order empower the President to establish and mandate religious policies and require other departments, branches and employees of the Federal government to carry out these religious, faith-based ideals? What if directors and employees of these departments are not religious and refuse to implement them? Would they be relieved of duties?! The U.S. Constitution binds all to carry out their duties without regard to religious matters or preference. It states in the U.S. Constitution, Article. VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." [2] Amendment I to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." [3] How can Congress be asked to participate in the President's grand religious vision?