Quote:Republicans seem to be willing to accommodate religion in the public square and speak openly of their faith, while Democrats seem almost reflexively to insist upon separation of church and state.
How very unreasonable of them, to insist on this fragile Jeffersonian principle.
Quote:The faith based initiative allows the government to be able to give grants to organizations who are helping people even though they are faith based. You know, like the YMCA and YWCA. Does that violate the establishment clause?
In a reasonable world? Yes. Money is fungial. Even if every dollar spent by these faith-based religious programs goes to things which are not overtly religious (and they almost invariably are anyway, with crap all for oversight, which would be expensive and impractical anyway), that just frees up more dollars elsewhere to spend on things which are religious. That would be giving government support to a religion, which to me seems like a prima facie violation of the establishment clause.
Want to do good works on the American taxpayer's dollar? Check your Bibles, Torahs, Korans and Bagavad Gitas at the door, and do it through secular organizatons. Otherwise, pass the collection plate and do it the old fashioned way.
Quote:The President does not oppose stem cell research, and in fact has increased funding for stem cell research. He does not support human embryonic stem cell research(other than the already existing clonal population), and I would guess he doesn't support human organ harvesting and trafficking either. There are ethical issues to consider when you allow the government to sanction pregnancy for pay or human cloning for tissue harvesting.
... on the basis that he believes God told him so. And people vote for him in support of his position on these things because, in the main, they believe God told *them* so.
Quote:Also, science has made embryo farming irrelevant since discoveries on how adult stem cells can be reverted into pluripotency.
Convenient, if true. But hardly something Bush knew at the time. The decision, and the support for that decision, was made out of faith. The result is, in those terms, an accident of fate.
Quote:And, yes, he is against abortion and sanctioning gay marriage, as well as at least half the nation is as well. The same banal charges were levied against Ronald Reagan, and other religious Republicans.
(Ah, well, I'm sorry that these charges are so banal. Could I perhaps point out that your stereotype of the left isn't exactly spring fresh either?)
This is my whole point. Huge swaths of the population are willing to put aside the practical republicanism of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and instead vote with their faith. Critical thinking gets checked at the door. Vote for the president because Jesus walks with him! Vote for him because he is a person of high moral character, like it says in the Bible! Ever seen that scene in Jesus Camp with the charismatic-kids-camp praying over the cardboard cutout of Dubya? Not a future the rest of the world is looking forward to.
This is the mania that sweeps your nation, and it's come a lot closer to taking over than Ted Kennedy ever will. Most people are trusting of faith. Most people are suspicious of liberals (and, Buddha forbid, Atheists). Which is more likely to lull people into complacency, honestly?
Quote:But, I don't see the same vitriol spat at Jesse Jackson, or for example that the last Democratic Party's Radio Address was delivered by Reverend Jim Wallis.
I think, on the whole, that Jesse Jackson is well and maxed out on his lifetime quota of vitriol spat at him. If you mean by me, I would be highly uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson as American president on the basis of his religion, but still not anywhere near as uncomfortable as Bush. Jesse Jackson has at least demonstrated some vague understanding that political issues must be justified on political grounds, even if religion underlies them. Not so Mr. God-told-me-to-liberate-Iraq, who apparently feels perfectly comfortable with the idea that divine voices in his head are a sound basis for public policy.
I guess that just doesn't scare you, does it?
Quote:There seems to be a double standard for the left in their vehemence against religion in politics, or maybe Democrat politicians tend to stay quiet because the they are on the opposite side of those three hot button issues from the evangelicals and the Catholic church (those being abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research). John Kerry tried to infuse religion into his campaign, but it just reminded the Catholics how un-Catholic he is.
Me, I'm against religion in politics. And I think the Democrats are weasels. But I'm sure you guessed that by now. The 'left,' that great amorphous coalition that voted against Bush? More complicated. Many are very religious, most are somewhat religious, others are non-religious. What they are almost universally against is religion being a direct driver of public policy. Formulate your beliefs how you like, but for governing, you must be secular. That's the whole spirit of the separation of church and state.
Quote:Wow, you had to go way back... But, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote [...]
Sorry about going way back, but the American public really, really dislikes non-religious types. Yes, that is exactly the Thomas Jefferson I mean. The avowed Deist. The one who believed in an ultimate "creator," but not the divinity of Christ, which, last I checked, was the sine qua non of Christianity. Who didn't mention anything specifically Christian in that passage you just quoted. The one who, like those poor reflexive Democrats of your above quote, insisted fervently on the separation of church and state.
And, a quick google of that quote shows that the context is about slavery, that is, the liberty inherent in every person by a benevolent creator, who would be displeased at the violation of those rights. Very deistic. Not Christian in any particular way.
-Jester