Bush takes backdoor approach

[Lurker]

President Bush has announced his plan to select
Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members.

This position does not require Congressional
approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on
matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,
including hormone therapy, contraception,
treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for
sterilization and pregnancy termination. Dr.
Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women:
Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends
biblical accounts of Christ healing women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager
is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as
"pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife,
entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he
suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible
and praying. As an editor and contributing author
of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian
Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies
and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have
endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that
the common birth control pill is an
abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr.Hager's
strong religious beliefs may color his assessment
of technologies that are necessary to protect
women's lives or to preserve and promote women's
health. Hager's track record of using religious
beliefs to guide his medical decision-making
makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate
to serve as chair of this committee. Critical
drug public policy and research must not be held
hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this
important panel should be appointed on the basis
of science and medicine, rather than politics and
religion.

American women deserve no less.
 

[westkoast]

Dumb, blind Republican's fail to see the problem with putting Bush back in office.    They just know Kerry is a flip flopper :rolleyes: god forbid a politician change his mind on a certain stance because the American people do not want it that way.

This is example #3 of why Bush should not have been re-elected.  Its been a frickin week since he was put back into office and we already have him putting another religious man in an important spot, he wont stray or should I say flip flop :rolleyes: on his stand about the gasses harming our environment, and when the time comes he is going to make the Supreme Court a conservative, christian, group of judges.

Can someone let certain Christians know that not everyone is Christian and no, we dont want to be "saved"

I expect Ted nowhere to be found in this thread....

[Ted]

Here I am! :wave:

Let me digest your logic. If Bush appoints a judge or FDA administrator who believes in God, he is making a closet attempt at saving your soul? What a ridiculous premise. You can believe in whatever you want—you live in America, but a whole bunch of other people live in America, too; and when the majority of the people believe in something and vote according to that belief, some people are probably going to have to just live with it. Or they could pull a Lurker and protest Bush's presidency by moving to Mexico.

Seriously though, is Athiesm going to be a requirement to hold a government position? :rofl:

Bush was re-elected because a majority of people in the US wanted him re-elected. I think the hardest thing for Democrats to swallow is that THEY are the ones who are out of touch with the people, not the Republicans. Moral values was the number-one issue for the majority of voters. Watch what your party does in the next few years. I predict you will see a lot more religious, pro-life, pro-ownership democrats. I mean, they have to do something to win, don't they?

And by the way, there's a big difference between changing your mind and what John Kerry did.  And I think you know that.  

[jn]

"The people" Ted?  Thank you for letting me no I am not a person.  

More on this topic later.  

[Lurker]

Actually Ted it wasn't a majority that said moral issues were their number one reason.  That reason was number one with approx 25-28% of the voters.  That was the largest percentage for any issue but not a majority.  And moral issues doesn't necessarily mean people support extremist positions.

I agree koast's take is extreme in the opposite direction but you should be able to admit that appointing someone who doesn't have much regard for women's reproductive choices as head of a commission in charge of those choices seems a bit illogical.  Bush could have appointed someone who has strong views but not radical views.  This person has extreme radical views.

To quote the article this commission studies several health related issues in connection with women's reproductive systems:

relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,
including hormone therapy, contraception,
treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for
sterilization and pregnancy termination

And the new head of this commission feels

His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager
is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as
"pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women.

He doesn't want to prevent pregnancies but you can definately believe he has no tolerance for abortion either.

And this makes him sound more like a quack than a knowledgable doctor.

Dr. Hager appears to have
endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that
the common birth control pill is an
abortifacient.

Also the following has nothing to do with abortion but with women's health in general:

We are concerned that Dr.Hager's
strong religious beliefs may color his assessment
of technologies that are necessary to protect
women's lives or to preserve and promote women's
health.

And IMO the most important statement:

Members of this
important panel should be appointed on the basis
of science and medicine, rather than politics and
religion.

 

[westkoast]

Here I am! :wave:

Let me digest your logic. If Bush appoints a judge or FDA administrator who believes in God, he is making a closet attempt at saving your soul? What a ridiculous premise. You can believe in whatever you want—you live in America, but a whole bunch of other people live in America, too; and when the majority of the people believe in something and vote according to that belief, some people are probably going to have to just live with it. Or they could pull a Lurker and protest Bush's presidency by moving to Mexico.

Seriously though, is Athiesm going to be a requirement to hold a government position? :rofl:

Bush was re-elected because a majority of people in the US wanted him re-elected. I think the hardest thing for Democrats to swallow is that THEY are the ones who are out of touch with the people, not the Republicans. Moral values was the number-one issue for the majority of voters. Watch what your party does in the next few years. I predict you will see a lot more religious, pro-life, pro-ownership democrats. I mean, they have to do something to win, don't they?

And by the way, there's a big difference between changing your mind and what John Kerry did.  And I think you know that.

Uhh that comment was more about the mentality of those christians.   Its directed toward people who have that mentality that they need to push their christian views onto others in order to "save" them.   He has that extreme mentality.

Also, why do you people think morals and christianity are one in the same?  They are not.  Since I am not christian does that mean I have no morals? I guess in Utah public school math, 25% is a majority.

Lastly, did I say you need to be Atheist to hold a position?  The fact that this guy clearly is letting his religion dictate science and medicine is the problem.  Not that he's christian.  I should have put 'extreme religious man in an important position'.  Letting your religion dictate decisions you make for others who do not share that belief is the problem.  The fact that you are trying to argue FOR this decision is also a problem Ted.

 I guess those 49% of people voting for Kerry are not people :rolleyes:

[Joe Vancil]

Uh...where did Ted either explicitly or implicitly imply that ANYONE was not a member of "the people"?

"The people" is the term commonly used to represent the majority here in the United States.  It is used in criminal court to represent society's position.  Does that mean that if you don't agree with the position of, for instance, a prosecutor, that that prosecutor is referring to you as a non-person?  That's the logic folks are using to beat up on Ted.

Don't force me to go back to my Genghis, The Tempest Polar Bear logon.  I've tried to save that for people more out-of-touch with reality than the folks here.

Anyone who believes that *ANY* Christian is pushing ACTIONS on another in order to save them is missing the point:  actions do not lead to salvation.  ("For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.")

If you want to prevent a Christian from "saving" you, then you should tell the Christian not to pray for God to reveal himself to you through his son, Jesus Christ.  Oops.  You can't do that, since, after all, that would prevent a Christian from practicing *HIS* faith.  So, in essence, your salvation is between you and God, and all a Christian can do is point that fact out to both you and to God and leave it to the two of you to work the rest out.

A Christian can witness to you;  he can pray for you, but he CANNOT "save" you.  I wish we didn't have to go to such trouble;  I know it'd make my life a lot easier, since my best friend is a Muslim, and I care deeply about him, and don't want to see him meet the fate that the Bible says he'll meet.  If I could force him to accept Jesus, I WOULD.  But the Bible tells me that I can't;  it tells me to take it to God, and because of that, there's a very real possibility that I'll end up spending eternity without my best friend.  And, to be honest, I THINK THAT SUCKS, and I pray to God in every single prayer that he'll find a way to do something about it.

The idea that Christians "push" these "beliefs" on anyone in order to "save" them is complete garbage.  If we COULD, I guarantee you that we WOULD.  And I'd start with my best friend.

What a Christian *CAN* do, however, is promote a way of lifestyle.  It is not forbidden by any law, but rather, is protected by freedom of speech.  And, if you've read your Constitution correctly, unless this equates to the establishment of a religion, majority rules on this, folks.

Personally, I believe the appointment of the person in question is misguided, in that his extreme values seem in conflict with the job he is being asked to do.  It has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A CHRISTIAN.  Stop making it out to be that way, and maybe you'll stop upsetting the Evangelicals enough to get them out to vote in the first place.

Attack Christianity, and you'll find out there's still a huge Christian group within America;  possibly even a majority.  And, when a majority votes, UNLESS THEIR CHOICE VIOLATES A PROVISION OF LAW OR CONSTITUTION, the majority (in most cases) rules.  It's that simple.

What's starting to get annoying to me, personally, is the idea that if the majority chooses something that a minority doesn't want, then it violates the minority's rights in choosing what the majority wants.  The PURSUIT of happiness, people - not the GUARANTEE of happiness.

I'd say its time for a few members of the liberal-leaning contingent to start practicing the same sort of "tolerance" that they've been preaching.

 

[Guest]

Uh...where did Ted either explicitly or implicitly imply that ANYONE was not a member of "the people"?

"The people" is the term commonly used to represent the majority here in the United States.  It is used in criminal court to represent society's position.  Does that mean that if you don't agree with the position of, for instance, a prosecutor, that that prosecutor is referring to you as a non-person?  That's the logic folks are using to beat up on Ted.

In the same spot where I said you have to be Atheist to be a government official.  Maybe the courts use "The People" in that context, the way Ted used it was different than that.  Maybe he did mean it that way, sure did not sound like it to two posters.

Also, morals are not exclusive to Christians.  I have no idea why so many people in this country think you have to be religious to have morals.

Don't force me to go back to my Genghis, The Tempest Polar Bear logon.  I've tried to save that for people more out-of-touch with reality than the folks here.

Anyone who believes that *ANY* Christian is pushing ACTIONS on another in order to save them is missing the point:  actions do not lead to salvation.  ("For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.")

There "" around saved for a reason.  If I literally meant saved I would not have put it in quotes.  "Saved" to non-christians refers to how certain Christians try their darnest to have people see it their way so they do not goto hell.  We all like to joke about the word and it isnt meant to be taken literally.

If you want to prevent a Christian from "saving" you, then you should tell the Christian not to pray for God to reveal himself to you through his son, Jesus Christ.  Oops.  You can't do that, since, after all, that would prevent a Christian from practicing *HIS* faith.  So, in essence, your salvation is between you and God, and all a Christian can do is point that fact out to both you and to God and leave it to the two of you to work the rest out.

See above.  Pretty much I dont need nor want a Christian to come try and pitch me on a belief system I do not agree with.  Much like a Christian would not like someone to come and pitch them about Islam or being an Atheist.  You have your beliefs and I have mine.

I know it'd make my life a lot easier, since my best friend is a Muslim, and I care deeply about him, and don't want to see him meet the fate that the Bible says he'll meet.  If I could force him to accept Jesus, I WOULD. 

Wow.  Just wow is all I can say to this one.  How can you talk about tolerance to me, when in fact you cant even tolerate someone chosing another religion cuz they might goto YOUR hell.  You go as far to say as you would force him to do something if you could.

The idea that Christians "push" these "beliefs" on anyone in order to "save" them is complete garbage.  If we COULD, I guarantee you that we WOULD.  And I'd start with my best friend.Uh...where did Ted either explicitly or implicitly imply that ANYONE was not a member of "the people"?

Not all but to say Christians dont is just not true.  Having a woman come up to me at the bus stop and ask me if I goto church, then to tell me how better my life would be with Jesus Christ in my life, then hand me a small stapled book on Christianity is not pushing beliefs?  Drug dealers who use similar tactics are labeled "Pushers" why would she not be?  Or how about someone like yourself telling your friend he should become Christian or he will be damned.  Or what about appointing a extremely religious man to make decisions, based on his beliefs, that effect everyone?  That IS pushing beliefs and that is why I have a major problem with this.

Personally, I believe the appointment of the person in question is misguided, in that his extreme values seem in conflict with the job he is being asked to do.  It has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A CHRISTIAN.  Stop making it out to be that way, and maybe you'll stop upsetting the Evangelicals enough to get them out to vote in the first place.

How does it have nothing to do with being Christian?  His Christian views have influenced decisions he has made before, like not giving contraceptives to non-married women.  He even wrote a whole book on the subject.  What more do you want?

Attack Christianity, and you'll find out there's still a huge Christian group within America;  possibly even a majority.  And, when a majority votes, UNLESS THEIR CHOICE VIOLATES A PROVISION OF LAW OR CONSTITUTION, the majority (in most cases) rules.  It's that simple.

Im not attacking Christianity, only the people who take it too far (and thats IMO only).  IE, Letting Christianity effect how you make decisions for people who dont hold the same beliefs, people who try to pitch Christianity to people who dont feel the same way, and Christians who believe that is the only way to go.  No one knows for sure so I just find it very wrong to tell someone else what they believe is wrong....yet dont know for sure themselves.  Faith has nothing to do with it because at the end of the day you dont know.

What's starting to get annoying to me, personally, is the idea that if the majority chooses something that a minority doesn't want, then it violates the minority's rights in choosing what the majority wants.  The PURSUIT of happiness, people - not the GUARANTEE of happiness.

Where did I say this?  Please show me where I said this.  No one even voted for this guy so you can throw out the talk of the minority and the majority.  There is NEITHER.  He was appointed by Bush and the people have no say.  I have a MAJOR problem with that because he is making big time decisions based on his religious beliefs.  Jewish, Islamic, Cathloic....would make NO difference.  You cannot let those things influence you when you are making decisions for millions and millions of people who may or may not fall that way.

I'd say its time for a few members of the liberal-leaning contingent to start practicing the same sort of "tolerance" that they've been preaching.

Its hard to be tolerant of Christians who tell people they are going to hell unless they get their act together and turn Christian.

[Ted]

Sorry to everyone, majority was the wrong word to use. Point taken.

Westkoast, where did I argue FOR this decision? Tell me. Please. I also favor more neutral judges and officials.

The only point I've argued is your "no religious people in governement comment." And NO, from what you wrote, that is not a stretch. You said "Its been a frickin week since he was put back into office and we already have him putting another religious man in an important spot." The only word you used to describe the guy was "religious." Why? Why not "extreme" or "radical" which is clearly what you think of this guy. Could it be that the word "religious" carries all of those meanings to you?

[guest-koast]

Sorry to everyone, majority was the wrong word to use. Point taken.

Westkoast, where did I argue FOR this decision? Tell me. Please. I also favor more neutral judges and officials.

The only point I've argued is your "no religious people in governement comment." And NO, from what you wrote, that is not a stretch. You said "Its been a frickin week since he was put back into office and we already have him putting another religious man in an important spot." The only word you used to describe the guy was "religious." Why? Why not "extreme" or "radical" which is clearly what you think of this guy. Could it be that the word "religious" carries all of those meanings to you?

Did you read my previous post(s) Ted?  Go back and re-read and that should answer your whole second paragraph.  I already said that I should have used the word 'extreme'.  If you bothered to read my post you would have saw that.  Again, I am not against Christians or religion at all.  I find religion to be good for certain people and help certain people live a good life.  Just isnt my cup of tea.What I am against is government officials using Christianity to influence decisions they make for people in this country.  Not everyone is Christian and not everyone shares the same beliefs that alot of Christians do.  There is a reason why church and state are to be seperate, its one of the things this whole country was founded on.

[Joe Vancil]

Pretty much I dont need nor want a Christian to come try and pitch me on a belief system I do not agree with.

But pitching secularism to a Christian who is working at a government job is okay?  It's the same darn thing!

Wow. Just wow is all I can say to this one. How can you talk about tolerance to me, when in fact you cant even tolerate someone chosing another religion cuz they might goto YOUR hell. You go as far to say as you would force him to do something if you could.

Damn straight, I would.  This is a person I care about enough that I'd willingly sacrifice most of my church if JUST THIS ONE FRIEND was saved.  This isn't INTOLERANCE of another's religion;  it's concern for this friend's soul.  He's Muslim, and as best I can, I accept that that's what he's chosen and that's what he believes.  He's a moral guy, and a great friend, and it scares me that my religion teaches me that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.

In God's wisdom, he knew that this is how Christians would behave if he didn't tell us to leave the person's salvation to them and to him.  We're to witness;  we're to light the way;  we're NOT able to "deliver" these folks to God.  The Bible as much as says that we can't.  I just wish that I COULD for my friends.  Oh, trust me, I see the conflict;  Skander actually told me an Islamic story of a man sent to Hell who called out to God seeking comfort.  If it turns out that Skander is right, and I'm wrong, I know what I'm going to do when I'm sent to Hell.  Now - you tell me - why do you believe Skander bothered to tell me that story?  Think it might be because we tend to care about the people who are important to us - want to give them the chance to experience the joy that we believe we have coming?  Sorry - but I don't think that that's a terrible thing.

This isn't about INTOLERANCE.  It's about CONCERN.

I'll be the first to say that if Christians are wrong in their beliefs, then it's easily possible that they are committing great injustices by spreading lies.  The problem is that they just as easily could be right, and in such case, listening to them is a good idea.  So - how do you resolve that conflict?

Enter the Bible - again.  Gamaliel, a Jewish leader, pointed out what he felt the Jewish leaders should do about the Christian teachings:  nothing.  If it isn't of God, it'll pass away.  If it *IS* of God, it shouldn't be fought against.  The wisdom of Gamaliel is that he didn't try to silence the message.

The Bible is one lesson after another about TOLERANCE but not necessarily ACCEPTANCE.  Yet folks over and over and over accuse Christians of being "intolerant."  That's not it at all.  Say what you want.  Believe what you want.  Tell me what you will.  Just don't ask me to accept it all as truth.  Yet YOU state, "Its hard to be tolerant of Christians who tell people they are going to hell unless they get their act together and turn Christian. "  What would you do?  SILENCE them?  Trust me - it's no easier on the other side, where we hear that "There's nothing wrong with this particular type of lifestyle," when the Bible as much as says that there *IS*.

Sounds to me like there's a lot of folks who don't remember the story about Gamaliel on BOTH sides of the fence.

Christianity is NOT a "lifestyle choice."  It is something far more personal and far more spiritual.  I'm not a Christian because I "choose to be."  I'm a Christian because my experience with God is something real and emotional and personal.  God doesn't speak in a loud voice, nor do words mysteriously appear on my walls, but you grow to understand that despite that, he LEADS you...sometimes places where you don't really want to go.  And like anyone else forced into places we don't want to go, sometimes - to our detriment - we fight it.  

Being a Christian IS NOT EASY.  It's like the story of Columbus believing the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat.  (That's actually more myth than fact, but it's a well-known and easily-understood analogy.)  The difference is we can't hop on a ship and go sailing to prove it.  And that's very, very frustrating - especially to someone with a background in lots of science.

Christianity is not something you can "shut off" so that you can make a decision, just like knowledge isn't something you can "shut off" when teaching someone to do something that you already know but they've never done.

The man appointed to the office we were talking about has PLENTY of things to challenge him on scientifically.  Attacking him as having Christian values that he's pushing is a weak, weak argument.  He MIGHT be right.  Push him on suitability for the task;  push him on his weak ideas.  Don't push him on something that NEITHER of you can prove - or disprove.

 

[westkoast]

Pretty much I dont need nor want a Christian to come try and pitch me on a belief system I do not agree with.

But pitching secularism to a Christian who is working at a government job is okay?  It's the same darn thing!

Wow. Just wow is all I can say to this one. How can you talk about tolerance to me, when in fact you cant even tolerate someone chosing another religion cuz they might goto YOUR hell. You go as far to say as you would force him to do something if you could.

Damn straight, I would.  This is a person I care about enough that I'd willingly sacrifice most of my church if JUST THIS ONE FRIEND was saved.  This isn't INTOLERANCE of another's religion;  it's concern for this friend's soul.  He's Muslim, and as best I can, I accept that that's what he's chosen and that's what he believes.  He's a moral guy, and a great friend, and it scares me that my religion teaches me that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.

In God's wisdom, he knew that this is how Christians would behave if he didn't tell us to leave the person's salvation to them and to him.  We're to witness;  we're to light the way;  we're NOT able to "deliver" these folks to God.  The Bible as much as says that we can't.  I just wish that I COULD for my friends.  Oh, trust me, I see the conflict;  Skander actually told me an Islamic story of a man sent to Hell who called out to God seeking comfort.  If it turns out that Skander is right, and I'm wrong, I know what I'm going to do when I'm sent to Hell.  Now - you tell me - why do you believe Skander bothered to tell me that story?  Think it might be because we tend to care about the people who are important to us - want to give them the chance to experience the joy that we believe we have coming?  Sorry - but I don't think that that's a terrible thing.

This isn't about INTOLERANCE.  It's about CONCERN.

I'll be the first to say that if Christians are wrong in their beliefs, then it's easily possible that they are committing great injustices by spreading lies.  The problem is that they just as easily could be right, and in such case, listening to them is a good idea.  So - how do you resolve that conflict?

Enter the Bible - again.  Gamaliel, a Jewish leader, pointed out what he felt the Jewish leaders should do about the Christian teachings:  nothing.  If it isn't of God, it'll pass away.  If it *IS* of God, it shouldn't be fought against.  The wisdom of Gamaliel is that he didn't try to silence the message.

The Bible is one lesson after another about TOLERANCE but not necessarily ACCEPTANCE.  Yet folks over and over and over accuse Christians of being "intolerant."  That's not it at all.  Say what you want.  Believe what you want.  Tell me what you will.  Just don't ask me to accept it all as truth.  Yet YOU state, "Its hard to be tolerant of Christians who tell people they are going to hell unless they get their act together and turn Christian. "  What would you do?  SILENCE them?  Trust me - it's no easier on the other side, where we hear that "There's nothing wrong with this particular type of lifestyle," when the Bible as much as says that there *IS*.

Sounds to me like there's a lot of folks who don't remember the story about Gamaliel on BOTH sides of the fence.

Christianity is NOT a "lifestyle choice."  It is something far more personal and far more spiritual.  I'm not a Christian because I "choose to be."  I'm a Christian because my experience with God is something real and emotional and personal.  God doesn't speak in a loud voice, nor do words mysteriously appear on my walls, but you grow to understand that despite that, he LEADS you...sometimes places where you don't really want to go.  And like anyone else forced into places we don't want to go, sometimes - to our detriment - we fight it.  

Being a Christian IS NOT EASY.  It's like the story of Columbus believing the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat.  (That's actually more myth than fact, but it's a well-known and easily-understood analogy.)  The difference is we can't hop on a ship and go sailing to prove it.  And that's very, very frustrating - especially to someone with a background in lots of science.

Christianity is not something you can "shut off" so that you can make a decision, just like knowledge isn't something you can "shut off" when teaching someone to do something that you already know but they've never done.

The man appointed to the office we were talking about has PLENTY of things to challenge him on scientifically.  Attacking him as having Christian values that he's pushing is a weak, weak argument.  He MIGHT be right.  Push him on suitability for the task;  push him on his weak ideas.  Don't push him on something that NEITHER of you can prove - or disprove.

Joe, how can you not see that Christianity has no place in decision making in this government?  Its not fair to the millions and millions of people in this country who are not Christian.  I don't think you would be very happy if an Islamic governemnt official was making decisions based on his religious beliefs and you had to follow the things put into place by those decisions.  Your mentality would be the same as mine but since Christians are making the decisions right now you are all for it because you are Christian.

That fact that you are so concerned and would, if you could, force somoene to see things your way shows you can not tolerate it to a degree.  Your beliefs have you thinking that its not ok for him to be Muslim because he is going to hell.  Good guy or not, as a Christian, you believe he is going to hell unless he believes in YOUR lord.

Ok so let me get this straight....you being a strong Christian and all.  Being gay is a lifestyle choice to Christians, but being Christian is not a lifestyle choice?  Even tho feeling you are a  homosexual carries some of the things you mentioned.  A personal feeling of being that way, an emotional attraction and feeling towards the opposite sex, and it is something very real.  Being a homosexual is not something faked.

We are challenging if he is the right fit for the job and feel he is not because he has let his Christian beliefs influence decisions he has made as a doctor.  Its not  because he is Christian...its because he makes Christian decisions that effect non-christians.

[WayOutWest]

Joe,

It's hard to believe that someone who's shown to be analytical in the past can be so blinded by your faith.

The fact of the matter is that a person in power is allowing his religious beliefs dictate policies of health and medicine.  What if a Muslim or Jew put into place the "let God heal it" approach and banned man made medicines and treatments?  Pretty fucken looney huh?  To me the looney tunes have already started.

Your comments about forcing someone to do something if you COULD is the very PROBLEM some of us have with religion.  Someone in power right now CAN force us to do or not do certain things and it's scary, Nazi scary if you ask me.

[Joe Vancil]

Joe, how can you not see that Christianity has no place in decision making in this government?

Simple;  it has the same place as forced secularism.  CHRISTIANITY isn't the problem.  The problem is whether or not the guy is a good fit for the job.  Obviously, he's not...because of his SCIENTIFIC beliefs - not because of Christian ones.

Its not fair to the millions and millions of people in this country who are not Christian.

So what's fair to the millions and millions of people who *ARE* Christian?

I don't think you would be very happy if an Islamic governemnt official was making decisions based on his religious beliefs and you had to follow the things put into place by those decisions.

Are you sure?  Which "religious belief" would I have trouble with?  Forcing me to pray 5 times daily?  Forcing me to give to charity?  Forcing me to take a pilgrimage to Mecca?  YES - these things are things I'd have a problem with, because they are directly tied to the PRACTICE of your religion.  Last I heard, health issues aren't religious.  Folks are trying to MAKE them into one because a Christian is in place.

you are all for it because you are Christian

WRONG AGAIN.  I'm against an appointment such as this because the man's actions don't match the needs of the office.  I'm just after you guys to stop beating up on him BECAUSE HE'S A CHRISTIAN.  Beat up on him because of his unfitness for the job;  leave his religion out of it.  It's a subtle point, but one which evangelicals are keenly aware of.

If you substituted the word "black" for "Christian," throughout this argument, everyone would recognize it as being racist.  What's the difference?

That fact that you are so concerned and would, if you could, force somoene to see things your way shows you can not tolerate it to a degree. Your beliefs have you thinking that its not ok for him to be Muslim because he is going to hell. Good guy or not, as a Christian, you believe he is going to hell unless he believes in YOUR lord.

Yes - good guy or not, as a Christian, I believe he is going to Hell unless he believes in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.  That's what a Christian believes (or at least one of my denomination of Christianity).  And if I could stop that from happening, YOU BET I WOULD.  The problem is that I CAN'T;  and it's not him telling me that, or you telling me that, but GOD telling me that.  Like I said - sometimes, we don't like where God leads us;  we just have to have faith that he knows better than we do.  If that's what you call "intolerance," then I hope the world becomes a little more "intolerant."  

INFLUENCE IS ALWAYS FELT - my friend's influence on me, hoping I become a Muslim, my influence on him, hoping he becomes a Christian.  Influence is unavoidable if you want to be engaged in life to any degree.  Denying that is fighting against reality.  The next time a friend of yours makes a decision, I want you to go to him and tell him that you want to make sure that you're not influencing his decision in any way.  He'll look at you with a strange look.  The only way you'll have "no influence" is if you don't have a friendship - and even then, it's questionable.

Ok so let me get this straight....you being a strong Christian and all. Being gay is a lifestyle choice to Christians, but being Christian is not a lifestyle choice? Even tho feeling you are a homosexual carries some of the things you mentioned. A personal feeling of being that way, an emotional attraction and feeling towards the opposite sex, and it is something very real. Being a homosexual is not something faked.

I was actually hoping someone would make this point.  Not being gay, I can't tell you if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or not.  From my perspective, it would have to be - but that's because I'm heterosexual.  I believe such a choice to be wrong; my religion would even call it "sinful."  HOWEVER, as a Christian, this is between that person and God.  However, I shouldn't give the idea that I approve of this choice;  that isn't being intolerant - the person still has the right to make the choice.  I simply disagree with the choice.

We are challenging if he is the right fit for the job and feel he is not because he has let his Christian beliefs influence decisions he has made as a doctor. Its not because he is Christian...its because he makes Christian decisions that effect non-christians.

Same thing, nicer wording.  Now let's leave Christianity and non-Christianity out of this.  In such a case, he's not fit for the job because he has made DECISIONS which are CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POSITION.  I have no doubt another Christian could feel God's influence just as strongly as this guy and make ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DECISIONS based on it.  Some Christians favor the death penalty;  others feel it is entirely against Christian belief.  How can both be right?  But this kind of thing happens *ALL* *THE* *TIME*.  I'm just trying to get you to see that it lies with the PEOPLE - not with the religion.


As for your comments, WayOutWest:

It's hard to believe that someone who's shown to be analytical in the past can be so blinded by your faith.

It's only blind if I'm wrong - which, of course, is a distinct possibility.  However, if I'm *RIGHT*, then it's insight rather than blindness.  Would you not agree?

What if a Muslim or Jew put into place the "let God heal it" approach and banned man made medicines and treatments?

Hey, let's not leave the Christians out of that argument, either.  We've got our share of folks who don't believe in medicine.

In such a case, I'd say the man wasn't fit for the position because his beliefs were not a fit for the position.  Has nothing AT ALL to do with Islam or Judaism (or Christianity).  

Your comments about forcing someone to do something if you COULD is the very PROBLEM some of us have with religion.

Actually, my comments should make you feel RELIEVED.  I've said that GOD says, in the Bible, that it's not my place.  You should feel relieved that I was paying attention.

Of course, taking the keys from a drunk driver against his will is considered a GOOD thing.  We don't *KNOW* he's going to hurt someone, but there's a substantial risk, so we act.  My example is nothing more than that - except that God said, in this case, the person's soul isn't my responsibility (outside of living a Christian life as an example).

Someone in power right now CAN force us to do or not do certain things and it's scary, Nazi scary if you ask me.

Welcome to life.  Each of us are pawns in a bigger power struggle every day.  At work.  In our communities.  As citizens of our country.  As part of a family.  Every day, you are FORCED to do things that, if you truly had all choices open to you, you wouldn't do.  EVERY DAY.

Fortunately, we've got a Constitution which guarantees that there are certain things that NO ONE can make you do.  One is to accept a religion.  HOWEVER, the recommendations that religion makes is something decided BY THE PEOPLE, with their votes, and by the COURTS, with their interpretation of law.  And people change their minds all the time.  Prohibition arrived, and was repealed.  We went to Vietnam, and then we left.

That's why we should take a critical eye to the policies our government supports.  But accepting or rejecting a policy because it does or doesn't coincide with any religion isn't proper.  We should examine THE POLICY - if it's a good idea, we should do it, and if it's a bad idea, we shouldn't.  That takes religion - or lack of one - entirely out-of-play.

 

[guest-koast]

Joe,

Its not about one side getting exluded from the other.  Its about not letting something like religion even be apart of the decision making.  How does keeping religion out of decision making hurt the millions of Christians in the US?  You are making it sound like I'm just saying all this for non-christians.  I am saying this because our government was found on things such as church and state being seperate.  When an extreme Christian doctor decides he isn't going to back contraceptives because they conflict with his CHRISTIAN beliefs then that is a problem, he should not be making decisions for everyone based on his beliefs.   Thats not ok.  No matter what you say.  I really do not understand how a man as intelligent as yourself cannot see the problem with it.  Your faith really is blinding you.

What if an Islamic government official was asked to be the voice of an area you happen to live in.  They are voting on starting programs for women who are in horrible marriages and are afraid to leave their husbands.  Being a Muslim he decides that women should obey their husbands no matter what and votes no on the program.  Would you have a problem with that?  This extreme Christian doctor would be no different.  If he is going to shoot down new forms of birth control and contraceptives because he believes they promote pre-marital sex then that would be a problem.  Not everyone believes that pre-marital sex is wrong or a sin.  

Lastly, this will be my last reply, his decision making is UNFIT for the job title he holds because he lets his Christianity influence his decision making.  The problem here is that the spot he is appointed too, no majority or minority here, handles touchy subjects.  Very touchy subjects among Christians.  There should be NO religious influence on decision making all across the board.  If you do not understand why church and state need to be seperated completey then I dont know if I have much else to say.  Not just Christianity but ALL religious beliefs.