Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

I think it wouldn't be incorrect to assert that a significant portion of the christian community do not truly desire a separation of church and state, but rather, would prefer to see christian (quite specifically) ideas and values gain a broader presence in community life.

Thus the Ten Commandments are a good thing to have posted in schools, but not passages out of the Koran, nor from the Tao.

The dollar is fine if it includes "In God We Trust", but wouldn't be if it said "In Reverend Moon We Trust", or "In Magic We Trust".

Claims such as 'we are a christian country and always have been' are not only historical nonsense, they assume a preferred or senior faith.

max, Disagreements are fine, but there are reasons why the founding fathers of this nation made it part of the Constitution for the separation of church and state. Please read the following link which explains all the reasons why Bush's faith-based initiatives are not acceptable. If you still disagree, we must accept that our interpretations on this issue will never be resolved.

http://www.au.org/press/pr12601.htm
c.i.

The only way you could control this--and you should not--is if you disallowed any religious person from holding office or working for the government, because any time a religious person acts anyone can argue that the action is based in faith. A man might oppose Roe V. Wade on purely legal grounds, but if he is openly a man of faith, you will argue that he wants his faith to dictate government policy. On any issue the same is true. There is no way to separate a person's faith from his or her actions without restricting that person's religious freedom. Which is why I keep telling you that you should be focusing on the policies being put forth, not the faith of the person putting them forward.

Consider this: what if the reason Ted Kennedy wants to increase federal education spending is because as a Catholic he believes God wants him to do everything he can for children? Would you argue that he should not be allowed to act politically in this arena purely based on his personal reason for wanting to improve education?

Of course not. In fact, I am quite sure that you have no problem with a politician's actions being based on his or her faith, so long as you agree with those actions. It is only when you dislike what he or she wants to achieve that you play the "faith" card.

So don't play it.

Frankly, I think a lot of people attack a politician's faith because they are lazy and don't want to do the work required to mount an intelligent debate of that politician's policies.

Tres -- I think the answer to that is very obvious. We're talking about the direct and specific application of one's faith to federal policy. We are also talking about the public proclamation of religious preference by someone in office or seeking office. Inevitably one's personal values come into play if one is a legislator but they are, as values, put to the test against those of opposing legislators. But to attach those values to a religion and say, Therefore they are better values and will make better laws, is wrong. I'm all for religious people holding office; I'm all for atheists holding office. I'm looking for parity here and for each group to keep its religion out of the political and legislative forum. Just for a moment, think of a political situation in which "God" is regularly invoked and substitute for "God" either "Santa Claus" or "Satan." You will get a flavor of what many in this country have to put up with. "In Santa Claus We Trust." "Satan Bless America."

Let's all join now in a chorus of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling down the vineyards where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

You okay, diddie?

Tartarin - What is lost from the debate of the benefits or weaknesses of any policy if you remove your argument that it stems from someone's faith?

Even having "in God we trust" on the dollar is a question of policy we can debate constitutionally without needing to reference the faith of any individual engaging in that debate. Arguing that person X wants "In God We Trust" on bills because he is a Christian is to argue nothing and attack his faith. Arguing whether our government should have that statement on our currency is to argue something worthwhile.

But just as with racists who fail to see what is wrong with noting the race of every black person they mention in a conversation, I understand that those who harbor this anti-Christian bigotry do not see what is wrong with pointing out someone's faith in discussions of policy. I just know--as with racism--that it is wrong.

snood:

I've got "Inherit The Wind" on (currently playing at the time of this posting on Turner Classis Movie channel, for those of you with cable or a sat) and I am amazed at how history keeps repeating itself and we never seem to learn anything from it.

It's got me a little edgy with the Godfolk.

"What is lost from the debate of the benefits or weaknesses of any policy if you remove your argument that it stems from someone's faith?"

Stop and listen for a moment, Tres, to what I keep saying. Everyone takes his values with him to the campaign and the legislature. It's his religion which he must leave behind -- not from his soul but from his rhetoric. One's beliefs inform one's values. Neither your beliefs nor your values should be imposed, as such, on another. After all, all legislation comes from compromise. It is not supposed to be dictated by god or even a coalition of deities, but is the result of agreement among our representatives. In their job, their first duty is to the people, not to their god. Having "In God We Trust" on our money assumes that "God" is okay with everyone -- whereas in fact "God" offends quite a few. As I say, roll it around in your head as "In Satan We Trust" and ask yourself how Christians would feel... Do Satanists have a right to do that to Christians?

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.


T'was Grace that taught...
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear...
the hour I first believed.


Through many dangers, toils and snares...
we have already come.
T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far...
and Grace will lead us home.


The Lord has promised good to me...
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be...
as long as life endures.


When we've been here a thousand years...
bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise...
then when we've first begun.


"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

(End)

look out for me
i cannot see
i've been blinded
blinded by the light
of the christian right.

Some thngs that keep getting lost in this discussion BY BOTH SIDES is...

...that there is nothing wrong with questioning another person's faith -- and doing so does not necessarily indicate a bigot. (I acknowedge that bigots engage in this kind of thing -- but not all people who engage in it are bigots.)

...there also is nothing wrong with questioning the sincerity of another's faith -- taking into consideration conduct and actions.

...we are not discussing whether or not a politicians religious views have an impact on his policy -- but whether (in this case) there is an INAPPROPRIATE impact.

There seems to be a tendency on one side to paint any impact as inappropriate -- and a tendency on the other side to suggest that since it is okay for a person to be swayed by his/her religion, any impact is appropriate.

Neither of those positions, in my opinion, meet a logical standard.

"meets"

Nixon was a Quaker (Friends) i dont think he was influenced by his "faith" but it might have helped

Frank, The only "logical" standard is the Constitution. Otherwise the questions on the separation of church and state would be moot. c.i.

Pope John Paul II sent a cardinal from the Vatican to have an hour's discussion with President Bush before his press conference last week--not about politics, but about theology. The cardinal told the president that the pope disagrees that God supports an invasion of Iraq. ''God does not intervene in the affairs of man,'' the papal emissary said.

This is sound Catholic theology--going back to Aquinas. It proceeds from the belief that God granted man free will, so that man could choose for himself between good and evil, heaven and hell. If God were to intervene, that would deprive man of the freedom to choose for himself, and thus take back from man the opportunity of deserving grace and attaining heaven.

Bush did not precisely tell the Vatican envoy that the pope was wrong. But he did think the pope was wrong, because Bush's theology depends upon partnership with a God who is directly involved in the affairs of man--a God who lets us know His will, who speaks to us, who takes sides. Bush has not an atom of doubt, I believe, that he knows God's will, that God wants regime change in Iraq, and that God approves of Bush's decision to bring that about, by war if necessary.

Now it may be that invading Iraq is the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Iraqis have suffered under Saddam, hate him, and will not grieve if he is fatally regime-changed. If there is to be a war, I hope it is short and swift, does not claim many lives, and leads to a free and democratic Iraq. I hope it does not lead to a tragic toll of American and Iraqi dead, Middle East chaos, disaster for Israel and a quagmire for the American occupation.

This is also what Mr. Bush hopes for. But the world might feel better about his certitude if it had been arrived at without the application of his theology. The duty of the president (in the pope's view) is to use his intelligence and experience, and the wisdom of learned advisers, to try to decide for himself what the right choice is. By making his decision in partnership with God, Bush is limiting his options.

There are of course many theologies in the world, but the two involved here have different theories of prayer. Bush prays in the tradition of a dialogue with God, in which God hears Bush and Bush hears God. This is the tradition preached by the Rev. Billy Graham, who helped inspire Bush to become born again after Bush turned to him for help with alcoholism.

The pope prays in a tradition where he asks God for the grace to make the right decision for himself, based on his own values and best effort. In this tradition, the pope has free will and the responsibility that comes with it. Free will must be absolute or it is not free. God is not a coach who allows the quarterback to make most of the decisions, but sometimes sends in a play from the sidelines.

''The choice is Saddam's,'' Bush said more than once during his press conference. Whether that is true or not, the choice is no longer Bush's.

The problem with being sure that God is on your side is that you can't change your mind, because God sure isn't going to change His.

Roger Ebert, from the Chicago Sun-Times

Osama has the same state of mind. c.i.

Fundamentalists have been sounding off vehemently for years about the impact of "secular humanism." But what some of us keep having to say over and over again is that this nation in its governance is secular and meant to be.

Frank, your point that "there seems to be a tendency on one side to paint any impact as inappropriate -- and a tendency on the other side to suggest that since it is okay for a person to be swayed by his/her religion, any impact is appropriate" is a good one.

But above all "taking into consideration conduct and actions" is the key. And when we note bad conduct and actions in a leader whose rhetoric is full of pieties, we need to say so and not feel we have to be "polite" about their inconsistencies.

An interesting shading of definitions in the Concise Oxford and Random House American College Dictionaries:

Oxford: "One who holds irrespective of reason, & attaches disproportionate weight to some creed or view."

American: "One who is intolerantly convinced of a particular creed, practice, etc. "

The first I like better in part because it begs the same question I beg!

Ebert's piece is very nice indeed.

Of course, America's system of governance is based on the consent of the governed. Bush's system of governance is that god=Bush rules and this governance extends to the rest of the world.

maxsdadeo



That is the same old tired argument put forward by those who would support government funding of religious institutions. It is not however the accepted definition. Separation of Church and state is an accepted principle.