Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Accepted or not (and clearly many don't accept it), history tells us it's the only way to stay out of trouble. Those old wiggy guys knew that. Two hundred years later, we still have power-greedy fundamentalists fighting the battle (you can't tell me this is about "right," it's about power). You'd think they'd learn...

Accepted, until it is discarded. Perhaps it is time to do just that.

Let me say, that I overstepped my bounds and misspoke earlier when I said c.i. and goldie were wrong.

I profusely and humbly apologize.

You do have a different opinion, which is, of course, not wrong, just different.

That same old tired argument is as accurate now as it has ever been.

We will see if it get's it's day again.

max, Fair 'nuf. c.i.

In this, and in many other matters, that clearly is true and long has been so, IMHO. Again IMHO, in this, Bush has much in common with many, if not most, of his predescessors. "The President" has always been the products of and point men for commities. That's the way democracy works. The larger the committee, the less efficient it is at determining, let alone implementing, policy. Given that "The Committee" here includes not just Bush the Younger and his inner circle, but the whole of the other two branches of government as well. A larger, and more inefficient, committee is difficult to imagine. That is one of the chief benefits of Democracy ... it is extremely inefficient.

What church The President attends, which Faith he professes, are of relatively less effect on the course of government than is the natural inertia of government. To imply "The President's Faith" has no part in "The President's Agenda" would be disingenuous, of course. It is equally disingenuous to not consider parts played by the myriad other considerations that make up "The President's Agenda", whoever The President, whatever "The Presidential Agenda". Or so it seems to me.

"The President's Faith" is of interest, but I think it unlikely of much impact.
Focus on such, despite it's emotional gratification, distracts from more pertinent scrutiny.


Then again, others feel differently. Who, if any, as are "Right" or "Wrong" is inderterminate, if not indeterminable. A different opinion is not by definition a "Incorrect" opinion, any more than is a shared opinion always a "Correct" opinion. Its really pretty much a matter of opinion, in my opinion. Of course, I have opinions of "The Rightness" of things, myself




timber

Max




That will happen only if Bush is able to stack the Supreme court with his fellow right wing ideologues in the image of Scalia. The democrats in the senate must do everything in their power to make sure that does not happen.

As for your apology it is accepted but really not necessary.

Timber, under other circumstances I would agree with you. Where we differ is that I see a president who has surrounded himself with men who share his evangelical fervor and who are also extremely powerful in business as well as politics--men who have spent several years to draw up their own agenda of how to maintain this country's power over the rest of the world. If they aren't all fundamentalist Christians, they have the same mindset.

When you add Bush's tendency to push through his agenda without going through proper channels (I gave an example of this several posts back) the inefficiency of government doesn't have the usual moderating effect.

I just had the curious experience of driving into town while on the radio a talk show host had taken on this topic. ALL the calls I heard during the ride agreed that America is blessed by god, Bush is blessed by god (quite specifically), and god is on our side in war and EVERYTHING. No exceptions. As I listened to the smooth arguments, I realized that god isn't a deity, but a trump card. As long as you hold that trump card, you can do what you want. Well, there's a difference from a trump card. You actually have to produce the card, while among the credulous and/or polite, all you have to do is SAY god tells you things, is on your side.

I suggest we get a lot less credulous and infinitely less polite about all this.

Bingo.




timber

Ah dear Dys - thinks of the religious right
as the religious wrong
Never a dull moment around here y'all.
I am seriously trying to figure out who or
where, all these religious right people Bush
thinks he is pandering to, actually are? Do
you think that the U.S. REALLY has THAT MANY
religious fanatics??? If so, that is really gross
and has ruined my evening. I would then
be obliged to sincerely consider a move to
Canada or Mexico or ANYWHERE BUT HERE!
Please, my friends, tell me that Bush,Inc. are
merely out of their collective minds & they
are just shooting from the hip, desperately
HOPING AGAINST HOPE that there are enough
religious crackpots out there, to allow them to
make up another imaginary poll that says 67%
of the American people support Bush in his ?ethics??

I'm WITH YOU DIANE!!!! Tartarin, I propose that
they PAY really GOOD MONEY TO THOSE PEOPLE
who THEY HIRE to call into the radio talk shows
acting (they pay out of work actors) as if they
believe in God, or they believe Bush, Inc IS God
(collectively, that is) or/and that they believe
that their God wants us to go on over there and
slaughter as many other living, breathing, human
(or non)beings as is humanly possible - and to DO
IT with or without the approval of the rest of OUR
the entire planet !

Babs, you dear, when are you ever going to learn how to express your feelings??? LOL

babs, I know it's not necessary to tell you, but I needed to assure you that all people of religion are not fanatics - maybe 25 - 30 percent (just my personal guess). You don't need to move out of the country - just yet. c.i.

On abuzz, Frank and I joined a very good debate on whether or not we should worry about 'offending' faith holders. I held, and I'm sure Frank did as well, that there is no valid reason why we should give faith a special status in this regard.

I was greatly disappointed to find out today that the Dem who had made the remarks about the influence of 'jews' in this adminstration had resigned with an apology stating he had been 'insensitive'. Better he/she had resigned for a generality.

There was no resignation, blatham.

He said he would no longer hold an imaginary post (regional whip, the political equivalent of next to last in a gang bang) to attempt to appease Charles Schumer's constituents.

babs: All that I can say is, "wow".

Right on, Blatham.

I think it is time for American Jews to realize that every time a non-Jew makes a remark that does not emphatically back all Jewish objectives (Yes, there are Jewish objectives!) -- or who holds a position that favors a more balanced policy vis-a-vis our country and the various countries and factions of the Middle East -- that person is not engaging in anti-Semitism.

In fact, I am fast coming to the conclusion that one of the major obstacles to sanity in the Middle East is American policy. We are now at a point where anyone, particularly a politician, who advocates even-handedness in our Middle East dealings -- gets tarred with that anti-Semite mop.

And now that the conservatives have decided that they can outdo the liberals in courting the American Jewish vote -- things are really getting out of hand.

Asking for even-handedness of our government is not -- and never will be -- anti-Semitism; anti-Jew; anti-Israel.

And our insistence on backing Israel -- no matter what -- is adding fuel the fire over there. Mind you -- I'm not saying "it not help" - I'm saying it actually makes matters worse.

American Jews -- and their intransigence -- are fast becoming their own most powerful enemy.

BTW -- when the conservatives finally get what they are looking for and put their real face back on -- I think there are a lot Jews who will be moaning about how they have been backing the wrong horse.

When Lott resigned for a statement that was construed to be racist. I heard no dissenting voices. However, when the congressman who made direct and obvious anti-Semitic statements several of you have basically said why should he resign, which by they way he didn't. I guess anti-Semitism is OK only racism is unacceptable.

Here in Texas our charismatic conservatives are on the cutting edge:

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Houston Republican, came under fire last week for suggesting that our state's commitment to providing all Texas children with a quality education is a concept from communist Russia, or, to use her words, "straight out of the pit of hell."

Specifically, The El Paso Times reported that after a hearing of the House Border Affairs Committee, of which she is a member, Riddle said: "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."

While Riddle's comments are outrageous, they also reveal the Republican's true agenda in Texas. Riddle's comments amount to more than an individual politician foolishly showcasing her ignorance. Unfortunately, they are an accurate portrayal of the approach that many Republicans bring to the budget crisis facing Texas.

Republicans proposed abolishing the state's public school finance system. Their plan would cut state funding for nine out of every 10 Texas school children without any alternative method to replace it.

'Pit of Hell' comment reveals GOP agenda

Yikes, that's scary PDiddie!

Babs - I keep being surprised at the stats that are out about how many in America believe in god. I was thinking it might be time to leave as well. If more than 50% of those who believe in god are fanatic enough to vote religious agenda into office, then religious agenda will continue to get support in elections and I want no part of it. If I'm that out-numbered what else is there to do?

Yes, apolgies for incorrect statement...I had thought Pelosi had requested a resignation and received it.

Au...you've got this one wrong, and by a country mile. Lott's statement was racist, but Moran's wasn't anti-Semitic. One doesn't have to dig far, as you know, to find other such statements and behaviors by Lott which point to a long-held set of notions which are clearly racist. If you can demonstrate some history of Moran doing something similar, I'd be more willing to agree.

Generalities are ALWAYS stupidly inexact (that's the one generality which isn't). But to tar the comment as anti-Semitism is much too far a stretch.

PDiddie

One wonders where, or if, this idiot herself ever went to school. That is as stupid and uneducated a statement as I've ever heard.

And let's add in the little note that as Texas Republicans consider balancing state budgets by 'dropping grade 12', 'deregulating tuition' (don't ya just love that one), and even dropping education as a proper government function...we'll recall the last GOP convention where news reporters were kept away from the local airport because all the private Lear jets flying in might not mesh with the desired image of 'aw shucks, we're just average folk here'.