PopeInTheWoods

Shrubya's hard-on for "faith-based" organizations implies that he beleives it is more likely that theists (or those of faith) can be moral than that infidels can. Don't be disingenuous.

As far as the stem cell issue, the ONLY objection that can be made to going full ahead with reseach is by considering the embryos to have more rights than the fetuses that it is currently legal to teminate. These stem-cell-generating embryos will NEVER develop the CNS hardware to perform even the most rudimentary forms of thought.

And as for Ashcroft's prayers, what do you think would have happened if Janet Reno had started all of her Justice Department meetings with a "voluntary" recitation of something like "We acknowledge that the natural world is all there is, so let us strive to produce the best possible outcome in every situation before us"?

And if you don't like my questions/answers, then just answer turtonm's post.

Andy

PopeInTheWoods

Unsupported assertion! I could just as easily say that a zygote is obviously merely a part of its mother's body. What makes it so special?

Andy

manhattan

Whilst I agree that he believes that, it also has to be pointed out that theists have substantial "feet on the street" in the charity game. In major cities, there are probably enough charitable organizations without religious affiliation (or at least without affiliation to a specific religion) that federal assistance can be directed to them.

But once you get outside the beltways and into the smaller towns, often the only thing around is a church group. For us to deny that is also disengenous.

Heck, the whole reason I signed up to infidels was to find an atheist charity. I found a thread talking about a pending announcement of exactly such a thing. But I'm still waiting for the announcement.

4th Generation Atheist

The "citizens" thing was his dad...it originated in an interview w/ a reporter from American Atheists.

I too admit to being wary---you can tell when a politician is lying by the fact that his mouth is open and his lips are moving---but I think this is a big first step for the Tumbleweed's PR department. Something must have been brought to his attention. I don't foresee any big change in the policies he supports, but there might be fewer insults (real or implied) in his speeches and press releases. We have to understand that faith is really important to this man personally. We can't change that; we can only object when he crosses the boundary into public policy. Here, I suspect what happened is his spin people started noticing the letters and emails about tolerance, and altered his speeches to be less insulting. (He needs the support of rationalists in business, after all.) We can't relax on the policy issues, though, because he needs a serious education in the church/state issues for policy purposes.

Bookman

Give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the prez.

Bookman

Toto

Bush's charitable choice isn't focussed on a choice between funding religious charities or atheist charities. The choice is more likely to be between funding a govenment program staffed by professional social workers or a religous group staffed by true believers with no professional credentials, who think that Jesus is the only answer you need. At least part of Bush's (and his fellow conservatives') purpose is to undercut government, because he believes government is inherently incompetant.

There are not many explicitly atheist charities. Atheists have not established charities as part of their ideology, or as propaganda ploys. If you truly believe in the charitable purpose of an organization, you would probably not want to confine it to those of a particular religious persuasion.

ohwilleke

I have provided in my Will for a gift to the Humanist Foundation of the American Humanist Association, an atheist charity, if my wife and kids are deceased. It is a good cause. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and the secular web also accept donations, but are more narrow in their outlook.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

4th Gen.: Thanks. And my feelings are similar... I'm wondering why he brought it up, but I am not complaining.

Sure, it might be one day of the year, but better that than no days.
Sure, it might be lip service, but better that than no service.
Bush Sr. said that non-believers shouldn't even be considered citizens! Bush Jr. offered a positive recognition of non-believers at a prayer breakfast. This has to be some improvement, no?

But coming right out and saying that the U.S. has no official religion, considering who Dubya's supporters are... that was a statement. No question about it. That was not a wishy-washy pseudo-kudo or anything else. He had to know that every non-believer in the land is going to quote that forever more (or until the next holder of office) every time some Reconstructionist waves the old "this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles for Christians by Christians" hogwash around. It was a decisive statement.

[Edit: spelling]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Dianna

Bush: Every religion is welcomed in our country; all are practiced here. Many of our good citizens profess no religion at all. Our country has never had an official faith. Yet we have all been witnesses these past 21 weeks to the power of faith to see us through the hurt and loss that has come to our country.

I just don't see it. Where does he mention non-believers? He mentions people who don't profess a religion--not people who don't profess belief in deity. They aren't the same.

I don't believe for a minute that Bush meant to throw the atheists a bone.

Dianna.

manhattan

Well, yesterday he referred to LDS as a "great religion."

Believe what you want, but he's been saying some pretty non-fundie things since the 11th.

Maybe he saw the light!