quote:That fact alone does not tell us we should support embryonic stem cell research. Such a conclusion requires the premise that curing fatal and debilitating diseases is a desirable outcome.
And if you're planning for the End of Days, then the answer would be "No."
The interesting thing is that Bush is opposed to stem cell research (all his rhetoric aside, the "science" he based his "60 viable lines" criteria on was not credible, and was not supported by the very scientists his decision affected), but supports in-vitro fertilization.
IVF creates far more embryos than it requires for implantation. Embryos that are not used are cryogenically stored, and are eventually thrown away.
Embryos. Thrown away. And it's OK with President Bush. What is he, one of those closet liberal baby-killers?
Stem Cell Research seeks to use embryos that would otherwise be discarded. I don't think anyone's ever discussed (or promoted) the actual creation of human embryos just for use in SCR.
And I apologize for acusing Bush of being a baby killer. I should be more specific:
Let's play the George W Bush version of "OK to kill...?":
1) Unborn fetus, outside the womb: YES 2) Unborn fetus, inside the womb: NO 3) Born fetus, living in Iraq: YES 4) Mentally retarded minor, accused of murder and represented by an underpaid public service attorney who falls asleep during the trial: YES
Typical Liberal Democrat response would be: YES, YES, NO, NO.
So far, Bush is winning with three "YESSES" to the Liberal Democrat's TWO.
Bev,
Political bias? Well, I guess so. But again, I can collect facts to back up all my statements. Is that bias, then, or just an unpleasant truth that is opposed to the supposed truth that you would like to believe?
But let us not forget Reagan's famous quote: "Facts are stupid things."
posted
The "typical" Democrat opposed the invasion of Iraq? Half the Senate Democrats and 40% of House Democrats voted for the resolution; more would have approved the invasion had the UN been on board. Either way, it's likely that half the Democrats in Congress supported the use of force likely to result in Iraqi deaths under some circumstance.
So either your tabulation of acceptable baby deaths needs some rewording or you're grossly oversimplifying complex issues.
Jesus Christ was not "Tough on Crime." Jesus Christ was not "Small Business Oriented." Jesus Christ was not "Good for the Economy." Jesus Christ did not "Start a war to preserve the peace." Jesus Christ did comment on "Gun Control" Jesus Christ did not "Cut Taxes to the Wealthy." Jesus Christ put "Family Values" behind "Individual Values." Jesus Christ was not a conservative. He was very radical for his time.
So, how can we say that President Bush has behaved in a way that could be seen as a Christian Prophet?
quote:I would really like a reporter to ask GWB which of his statements were God's and which were his own.
Bob, if you order a transcript of his speeches, you'll find that the statements which were God's appear in red.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
/tangent He was speaking to the Amish? The Amish were bothering listening? You guys all know true Amish don't vote and generally stay out of political discourses of any kind right?
posted
What I refer to Dag is in all of Christs teachings, there is some talk of the sanctity of marriage, but most of it calls for individuals to be the best people they can be, to do unto others as they would have done to themselves.
To be a good Christian, it is more important to be a good person than to be a good son, father, mother, etc.
Now, Paul, he's another can of worms all together.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Political bias? Well, I guess so. But again, I can collect facts to back up all my statements. Is that bias, then, or just an unpleasant truth that is opposed to the supposed truth that you would like to believe?
As in any debate, if someone is heavy on one side, I want to hear another side to it before I make a decision on what to believe. It seems to me that you are heavy on one side.
So often people state things as facts without realizing how much interpretation is going into those facts. It is the interpretation more than the facts that is biased. That statement of mine implies that facts can also be biased. So, how can facts be biased? When other facts are left out.
Do you believe me when I say that I don't particularly think God speaks through George W. Bush. I don't know what I think one way or the other. What unpleasant truth would I be avoiding here? I am seeking truth. Seeking truth means not taking a biased viewpoint hook, line, and sinker.
posted
Please tell me why Bush's religious beliefs make him any different from a leader who's motivated by his lack of faith, his education, his past experiences, or his circle of friends. There isn't a single entity in power now who isn't motivated by something.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
A political leader influenced by his religious values is just human. All politicians - all people - are influenced by their religious values.
A political leader who makes decisions and crafts policy based only on his interpretation of his religious beliefs, even in those instances where such decisions are [arguably] wrong, is no longer governing. He is ruling.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Are you sure you aren't just me, lobbing easy questions at me just to help me look good?
(Checks) Nope.
quote:Please tell me why Bush's religious beliefs make him any different from a leader who's motivated by his lack of faith, etc., etc.
In one word: Verification.
Religious beliefs are, by definition (see above, and every other religious discussion on this forum) not subject to logic or rational verification.
We all agree on that.
A person who bases his or her actions on their "religious beliefs" is, by statement as to the cause of their action, acting without a rational support for their action, and intentionally disallowing any means of verifying the efficacy of their action. In fact, if you question their actions, you question their belief in God, and the very existence of God Himself, and you can OFFEND people (for proof, see above). People might think you're an atheist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or...heaven forbid--a traitor!
On the other hand, basing your action on HUMAN causes (whether friends, or education, or experiences, or big paybacks from the oil and tobacco companies) allows for traceabiliy. Do these actions reasonably lead to these outcomes...have we seen a similar cause-and-effect in the past? Can we run some analysis to determine if the assumptions are valid. Can we check the truthfullness of the assumptions used to make the decision?
Of course, if those friends are Donald Rumsfeld, and he says things like "We cannot tell you where we got this information from due to reasons of National Security (tm); trust us" then you're right back to the religious-based decision making.
posted
Wow, for an easy one you sure muffed it. Bush hasn't justified any of his actions solely on his religious beliefs, so the first half of your post doesn't apply to him.
And last paragraph is either saying we shouldn't keep secrets or we shouldn't act on them, I couldn't tell which. Either way, ludicrous.
You're right--Bush's decisions have nothing to do with Christianity or compassion.
Sorry.
From the above site:
5/2003 Bush blocks human rights cases from reaching U.S. courts. 2/2003 Bush cuts federal housing subsidies. 2/2003 Bush cuts aid to the poor in his budget. 1/2003 Bush proposes yet more tax cuts for the rich. 12/2002 Bush kills rule allowing new parents to collect unemployment. 9/2002 Bush proposes a reduction in Medicare payments. 4/2002 Bush considers eliminating requirements for testing children for lead. 4/2001 Bush cuts health programs for uninsured.
The likelihood that his thinking and his policies are shaped by a single, coherent, radical ideology is virtually nil. Bush may be a bad president -- he may pursue bad policies on the domestic front and abroad -- but if so, his Christianity has little or nothing to do with it.
posted
There are three different problems that speaking with God's voice calls down upon a person.
1) Those who do not believe in your God do not see why they should listen to you.
2) If you make pronouncements that go against your religion, and claim it is God directing you, then you are speaking blasphemy, and those who believe in your God will be most miffed with you.
3) Some will argue that God speaks through people. Some will argue that the Devil does too. How do we know which is the voice in your head?
Now President Bush has never said that he speaks for God, but that he hopes God uses him as a tool for God's works.
Certainly the Southern Baptist Religion, and its beliefs influence President Bush and his decisions. The question is how big is that influence. If I am not a Southern Baptist, or not a Christian, or not a Diest, is that influence counter my beliefs? If I am a Southern Baptist, and I find some of what he does going against my beliefs, should I accuse him of Blasphemy? Since the Devil is said to quote the bible, should I be thrilled when President Bush does?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note -- President Bush is not a Southern Baptist. He is, in fact, a United Methodist, although you wouldn't know it by comparing his policies to UM social teachings.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”
“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”
But read the whole article...I'm going to put some tin foil aside for the guys who produce this site, for hats, just in case.
posted
An article full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. How do I know that is a fair representation? Just as a person on trial in the courts has the right to be represented by an attorney, I can't automatically accept someone's critical opinion without hearing a defense.
If the defense fails to convince, then I would be more inclined to believe the criticism. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Every human being deserves that. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, if we were to cross-breed this thread with the religious discussion in "Mormon Theology Question" we would get this thought:
Why are the same people who are so reluctant to believe in God so sure they know what the President is up to? If you are going to be skeptical about one, where is the benefit of doubt on the other?
I am a political agnostic. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I really don't understand this. The fetus is unborn... but outside the womb? How is that possible? And explain how both Bush and Democrats are willing to kill it.
posted
I believe he was refering to leftover fertilized eggs from IVF procedures. They were fertilized outside the womb and never implanted.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ditch-deliver'd by a drabe?" I'm sure a lot of the American troops in Iraq were born by Caesarean.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:An article full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. How do I know that is a fair representation? Just as a person on trial in the courts has the right to be represented by an attorney, I can't automatically accept someone's critical opinion without hearing a defense.
And Bev, I think I'm one of the few people who debate here who posts pointers to sites that contradict my main points, or points to and ridicules sites that overmake my point.
So I hope you can forgive me when I become so bold as to actually post pointers to sites that support my statements.
BTW, you're more than welcome to make a defense. I would only ask you NOT to point to articles full of the opinions of those who feel as you do--including, of course, the author. That wouldn't be fair, now; would it?
And as difficult as people are to figure out, they're still a lot easier to figure out than "God."
And why do I need to give GWB the benefit of the doubt when he's shown us his intent through his statements and actions? Over and over again.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still seem to think I am on the opposite side of the fence from you just because I want to hear from someone on the opposite side of the fence from you. I don't understand why you won't take me at face value.
*sigh* Now I remember why I tend to stay *out* of political discussions.
Edit: BTW, we are not talking about whether or not GWB exists. And few believers would claim to understand the motivations and doings of God. God tells us to be very careful in our judgements. We can't live life without drawing some conclusions, but when it comes to accusing people of things, we need to be careful. I am trying to be careful, that's all.
quote:And why do I need to give GWB the benefit of the doubt when he's shown us his intent through his statements and actions? Over and over again.
I would be interested in knowing what you think his intent really is?
With all this trepidation over his religious beliefs, it seems Bush's opponents have a clear and terrible vision of the America he plans to create.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would be interested in knowing what you think his intent really is?
I know this was directed at someone else, but...
I would say his clearest intent right now is to get re-elected...and then make it so that Republicans get elected again in 2008 and so on. I don't see a bigger vision out of Bush other than keeping his "base" happy, which is namely folks with lots of money. Though he has been called Prophet and Abraham Lincoln on Hatrack recently, he seems fairly ungodly and lacks any clear vision of a future. He follows the now old Republican addage of "Cut Taxes and Spend" which makes the future look bleak for anyone not already rich or who pay into Social Security but have little chance of actually using it. He burns bridges with just about every ally we have ever had, making any future President have an even steeper slope to climb to get on some stable footing in the world. He watch has seen international terrorism come to our shores and in stirring the pot in the middle east more than any other president he assures we will have many attacks (hopefully stopped, though) for years to come.
I think he lacks any vision and simply taking God's name in vain doesn't make up for it. As long as we are in an endless "war" he won't need a vision, either. He can cite being a "sitting president during wartime" until the cows come home and can forget having to deal with any old vision thing.
posted
Or you could say that Bush's *morals* guided him in making these policies. Isn't that true of all leaders? Every human has their own code of morals that influences their decisions. Bush's happen to follow along the lines of those found in the Bible. People who disagree with the Bible and don't share those morals disagree.
Other people disagree with Kerry because they don't share his morals & outlook on what is most important or whatnot. I'm not thinking of anything specific, I am just drawing a parallel.
I'm not sure I see a significant difference between the two. Both cases the person's paradigm is effecting their decisions. I am not at all confident that a non-religious person is not effected by emotional biases and irrationalities.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People who disagree with the Bible and don't share those morals disagree."
The difference is that if Bush genuinely believes that his decisions are being guided by God, he is also less likely to second-guess them, plan for alternatives, or consider their deeper ramifications. In other words, it leads to hubris.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, his reason was about abortion, not birth control. More specifically, the UN Population Fund has been accused of assisting China's population control policy, which includes forced abortions.
Further, there is a huge difference between allowing something to be done and actively funding it with taxpayer money. More than half the population has serious moral reservations about abortion; close to half want it banned or severely restricted.
quote: The difference is that if Bush genuinely believes that his decisions are being guided by God, he is also less likely to second-guess them, plan for alternatives, or consider their deeper ramifications. In other words, it leads to hubris.
Sounds like a valid concern to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every human has their own code of morals that influences their decisions. Bush's happen to follow along the lines of those found in the Bible. People who disagree with the Bible and don't share those morals disagree.
This is the idea that bothers me. Since when does George W have a monopoly on morality and specifically on biblical morality? I don't disagree with the Bible. I disagree with the president. Why is it that the religious right has first dibs on morality? At least in Oklahoma, there is a maddening ideology that if you don't lock step with the pro-life, anti-gay marriage crowd, you must be immoral and anti-christian. Consequently, anyone who happens to espouse those very few and very limited ideas, must be right about everything else. The result? Jim Inhoffe, the biggest joke in Congress since Mr. Smith went to Washington.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that. But so many people were saying that Bush was doing things motivated by religious beliefs. I said "Bible" to simplify things. That may not have been entirely accurate.
The point is he has a code of morals. So does everyone. Some people like his morals, some don't. Same with any leader.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Didn't mean to sound snappy. I live in Oklahoma and I get really defensive during election years. Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you had actually taken the time to read any of those links, you would have discovered that 1) Yes, originally there was a concern that China was using its share of the UN funding to coerce women into having abortions, and 2) People both inside and outside of the Bush White House had since learned that the practice had stopped, and coerced abortions were no longer an issue.
Yet Bush continued to refuse to contribute the $34 million he had promised the UN fund, anyway.
I can fully understand the POTUS supporting initiatives that are in sync with American LAWS, but have serious problems with him (or, eventually, her) making up their own international laws to impose on other countries, counter to the internal policy of the USA.
Why do we even bother with laws, then? I thought the STRENGTH of America was that we were a nation of laws, as opposed to randomness, corruption, nepotism, charismatic leaders, "Cult of Personality", anarchy, etc.
[raid rant] I thought that's what Osama bin Laden hated so much about us. And now, apparently, Bush has decided he'd rather be just like him? [/rabid rant]
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact remains that there is a difference between allowing a practice and subsidizing a practice. Whether the abortions are forced are not, they are still anathema to a large percentage of Americans. Bush is following the law. If Congress wants to force him to give this money to the Population Fund anyway, they can.
The laws in this country (most of them, anyway) are made in response to the political process.
And "making up their own international laws to impose on other countries, counter to the internal policy of the USA" is a ridiculous way to characterize this. We are giving people money. We have the right to put coniditons on its use. We are not telling people in other countries what they can and can't do. We are telling people in other countries what we will pay for.
And to use an attempt to align the use if taxpayer dollars with the moral views of a large number of taxpayers to like Bush to Osama is beyond the pale.
quote:In July, 2002, Bush cut off $34 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This funding had been allocated by Congress the previous December. Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in mainland China. His justification came from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion members of Congress and an anti-abortion organization called The Population Research Institute, which claimed to have obtained first-hand video taped evidence from victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization in county where the UNFPA operates in the PRC. The decision was praised by many in pro-life movement, including the United States' largest public policy women's organization, Concerned Women For America.
Abortion-rights supporters criticized the decision and point out that the PRI refused to release information that would allow the team to locate the women, and thus no independent verification of PRI's claims was possible. Nor was it possible to confirm that UNFPA funding was actually behind the abortion and forced sterilizations alleged in the video. However, he sent a fact finding team to the PRC to investigate the situation there, and the team reported that UNFPA funding did not go towards forced abortions or sterilizations. Bush thus disregarded the findings of his own investigatory mission on this matter. See [1] for more information on the PRI.
quote:More than half the population has serious moral reservations about abortion; close to half want it banned or severely restricted.
Well those people should just shut their mouths and give their money without complaint to a practice they find loathsome, shouldn't they?
I mean, really. You deluded chumps can oppose abortion in your own misguided, naive lives-but don't bring that out to where we enlightened adults live!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
