Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

I ask you, TW, where is the sport in that?

Tres

And if he were a Satanist? Or an atheist? Or a Muslim? Or a Scientologist?

But how would you deal with the proposed policies? What would you say or argue that wouldn't reflect back on the ideas and values of his faith? If his notion was that scripture clearly deems the Sabbath as a day of rest (homosexuality is an abomination) or if he forwarded for nomination to an important circuit court some fellow who had written extensively that the best and most effective cure for teen pregnancy was the Introductory Communications Course offered at any Scientology centre (prayer directed to the fetus resulting from a rape)...what then?

They used to think it was sporting to attack people for the color of their skin... I guess this is a step in our evolution. Likely the argument will be made that Religion is fair game since people choose their faith, whereas we do not choose our gender or ethnicity.

I'm just stunned to see so many enlightened folks so willing to attack another's faith.

I read these screeds wherein Bush is lumped in with others based on their shared faith--as if the author believes he or she has uncovered some cabal--and I keep thinking that if you changed the word "Christians" to "Asians" you would see that there is no question that this is bigotry. (Of course, no one would even express those thoughts if we were talking about ethnicity.)

[quote="trespassers will

I'm just stunned to see so many enlightened folks so willing to attack another's faith.

I read these screeds wherein Bush is lumped in with others based on their shared faith--as if the author believes he or she has uncovered some cabal--and I keep thinking that if you changed the word "Christians" to "Asians" you would see that there is no question that this is bigotry. (Of course, no one would even express those thoughts if we were talking about ethnicity.)[/quote]

COMMENT:

Tresspasser

I am stunned to think you think these people are attacking another's faith -- when most are plainly stating they are not attacking the faith -- they are bothered by the unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of that faith into governmental possesses -- and the effect such unnecessary and unwarranted intrusions potentially have on their lives.

I am stunned to see that you do not see that the framers of the constitution were bothered by these kinds of problems also -- and attempted, albeit not completely effectively, to deal with them.

I am also stunned to see you minimize the legitimate concerns of people in this regard -- and that you would state your case in a way that trivializes the position of people who do have these concerns.

frank wrote:

Now go back and re-read the quote inserting "race" wherever you see the word "faith".

What an excellent likeness to George Wallace trying to keep blacks out of college.

Why, frank!


I didn't know you did impressions!!

Tres

Clearly, skin color and faith aren't comparable in this context. One involves ideas and values, notions of societal organization, etc. Comparing faith membership to political membership is the analogy you perhaps ought to think about.

Faith, where not involved in community concerns and policies, is quite irrelevant (man in cave whipping self with cedar boughs, planning to spend whole life there). Faith, where members move out into society and attempt to set policies and values leaves them wide open for all the currents of popular debate.

Frank - Oops! I accidentally had my keyboard set to "stun". Sorry about that. :wink:

You must be reading both a different discussion AND the writings of different framers than I.

I have argued that we should debate Bush's policies, whilst others insist that his faith is the problem.

I know of not a single "framer" who argued that the President should not be a man of faith, or that our government should be devoid of the influence of faith. What they did argue against (and Constitutionally prohibit) was the creation of an official faith, and "tolerance" tests such as seen in Europe at the time. (If you disagree, I look forward to reading your citations.)

Maxsdadeo,

We are all more than "seemingly intelligent" and I do have a fear about something I don't believe in. But it's not unnatural. It is entirely justified. And I'm not sure what it's "telling" about. You didn't specify.

Drug treatment based on religions faith alone can be successful with a certain type of drug depend personality, but over all fails pretty miserably in helping drug abusers make real, lasting changes in their lives. Generally they simply help the person to trade one addiction for another.

And yes, I do believe this man should be stopped. He's setting us back 50 years. And we don't have that luxuary.

Yes, lola, my lovely, long-legged temptress?

Sorry for the delay. I'm just now finally understanding how to quote.

Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — The Bush administration plans to allow religious groups for the first time to use federal housing money to help build centers where religious worship is held, as long as part of the building is also used for social services.
The policy shift, which was made in a rule that the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed this month, significantly expands the administration's contentious religion-based initiative.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/politics/23FAIT.html?todaysheadlines

au - I can't bring up your link, so I don't know whether you author makes this clear or does not, but federal monies can't even be used to build or refurbish the portion of the building used for religious services. In a multi-use building, where federal monies are to be used, only private money can be used for the "religious" portion of the building. (A sanctuary would be built using church funds, dormitory rooms for housing the homeless could be built with federal funds.)

Of course, all of this could be avoided if the federal government would stay out of the charity business altogether (as my reading of the Constitution suggests it should).

Here's the article:

TW- As I have said in the past, religious groups do a great job with social services. But they should not be funded by the government. If the government got out of the charity business, and left it to private, non-profit and religious groups, the goals would be accomplished much more efficiently. And if citizens were not taxed up the yazoo, it would allow people the luxury of being more charitable!

Phoenix, I'm with you! c.i.

Tresspasser

You wrote:

"I know of not a single "framer" who argued that the President should not be a man of faith, or that our government should be devoid of the influence of faith."

COMMENT: Neither have I - and nowhere have I suggested that the framers "...argued that the President should not be a man of faith, or that our government should be devoid of the influence of faith."

Why are you raising that issue?

I did say that many contributors to this thread are "bothered by the unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of the president's faith into governmental possesses -- and the effect such unnecessary and unwarranted intrusions potentially have on their lives."

I also noted that the framers of the constitution were bothered by these kinds of problems -- and attempted, albeit not completely effectively, to deal with them.

But I never said that they thought the president should not be a man of faith -- or that the government should be devoid of the influence of faith.

"Unnecessary and unwarranted" are the operative words here, Tresspasser.

I am astonished that you, as an intelligent individual, are not also bothered by that!
*****

You wrote:

"What they did argue against (and Constitutionally prohibit) was the creation of an official faith, and "tolerance" tests such as seen in Europe at the time. (If you disagree, I look forward to reading your citations.)"

COMMENT:

I have no reason to disagree with that -- nor have I said anything that should be construed as having disagreed with that. Please refer to my earlier comments.

Why are you bringing it up?
*****

You wrote:

"You must be reading both a different discussion AND the writings of different framers than I. I have argued that we should debate Bush's policies, whilst others insist that his faith is the problem."

COMMENT:

Well, earlier, you wrote: "I'm just stunned to see so many enlightened folks so willing to attack another's faith. "

COMMENT:

As I said earlier -- most of them aren't. I think most of them are expressing concern about unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of Bush's faith into our lives.

I respect the fact that you may see things differently -- but I, and those others, certainly have the right to voice our views on the subject. Nor do I think it appropriate to characterize my view on it as sarcastically as you did: "You must be reading a different discussion."

Max

The George Wallace analogy was such a stretch, I actually felt some sympathy for you when I read it.

Try again later.

No cigar this time.

Yeah, you're right, frank.

I gotta work on my hyperbole, maybe if I try real hard I can get to be as accomplished as others on this site.








Naaaaaahhhhhhhh.

Hey, I don't hyperbolize - I exaggerate. (don't sweat either - perspire).

I always had you pegged for someone who "glowed", snood.