Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Max, maybe snood glows, but I prefer to think that I glisten when I sweat, er, glisten.

The newspaper article is another example of why this administration is out of touch with the constitution. This quote, from the post by Phoenix, says it all:

"President Bush made headlines in a speech on Dec. 12 when he bypassed Congress and issued an executive order to make it easier for religious groups to receive federal money for welfare programs."

Bush blithely and arbitrarily bypasses Congress and the American public when he wants something he knows is unconstitutional, so that he can get as much of his religious agenda into government as possible.

The constitution went to great lengths to separate church and state because of abuses throughout history. Adding a little religion here and there will soon grow geometrically once the door is opened.

When I look at the countries under the control of religion, I see the most evil anywhere in the world. The atrocities commited in the mid-east are hideous and infect those societies in the most savage ways.

Religion as part of government becomes corrupted by power as easily as the most weak-willed, venal politician. Put the two together and the consequences are sure to be devastating--the present administration is a good example.

Diane, Maybe the history books will say that GWBush was responsible for breaking the barrier between the separation of church and state. There are enough examples, aren't there? c.i.

And we come back to the ends justifying the means argument.

I believe that we can reach a consensus among all of the participants of this thread that it is our desire to see that the greatest number of people receive assistance as possible.

If so, then why not fund those organizations that have a delivery system in place that will benefit the greatest number of people at the least cost.

What am I missing?

The end justifying the means is simply that the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with "efficiency." Our government spends money foolishly all the time. Efficiency and government spending is an oxymoron. c.i.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/faith.htm

if efficiency was our objective we would not have a democracry (republic)
sidebar; listening to a local PBS program tonite the topic was "Under God" in the pledge, a spokesman stated, this phrase MUST remain because the US was chosen by god to be favored over all other nations.

Now you're talking!

I hate to be the contentious one, but I have to say, "No, not I." If you (pl) have reached this consensus, I am outside it.

In an inteview with Bill Moyers tonight on NOW, Bill Keisling, the diplomat who resigned his post in Greece talked about the reasons for his resignation. One of those he mentioned was the pervasive and widespread negative health consequences for women around the world because of this administrations' attitudes and aversion to birth control, reproductive education, and abortion rights.

dys,
I find it hard to believe that PBS would allow such a statement to be issued under their logo. Was it issued as an opinion by an individual or organization, or what?

Blatham,
You ought to see who Bush is proposing for an important job re the womens' issues you raised above. Enough to curl your nose and ear hairs. Will return with citation when I can refind it.

Max


You are missing the fact that our system calls for a seperation of Church and State. Preacher Bush is attempting to over ride it.

Blatham, that's a good point. It started with the Reagan administration. He made a deal with the Pope, or so I once read in one of the weekly news magazines. Aid was withheld to countries offering birth control information or services. It is a tradegy for some of these countries whose citizens are struggling to eat and survive.

au writes:



unilaterally over ride it. There is the name I've been looking for to remember Bush by - in 2015 I'll be sitting, talking to friends and briefly reminiscing about old 'Unilateral Bush'.

Perhaps we could simply subtract the Bush administration from this discussion and ask, Should religious faith dictate the policies of the federal government of the US?

Same answer, NO!

goldie and frank: No it doesn't. The Constitution calls for no State established religion, the distribution of funds ecumenically would not violate this one iota.

Roger -- Whatsa matta wit you? You one of them agnatheists?

That's a good idea, Tartarin. Let's talk about whether religion belongs anywhere in govenment. Religious freedom includes the right to have no religion. Religion is for the home not govenment.

QUESTION:

What are you talking about?

I have no idea of what "No, it doesn't" refers to.

max, You evidently missed the link I provided on the separation of church and state. c.i.

Sorry, c.i. I attributed a quote from you to frank.



Your interpretation of the seperation doctrine is different than mine.

I maintain that not establishing an official religion is consistent with the framer's ideal of "seperation", that's all, nothing more.