Of course, the whole Bible, in any modern form, has been greatly altered from the original intent and meaning by the Council of Nicaea and several times thereafter, and many of the gospels thrown away and changed. How anyone can place their faith in the Bible as God's word when it is so blantantly the work of man is beyond me.

And I won't even get into the other recent revelations, like the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls heavily imply that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, which was covered up by the male dominated Catholic Church.

Which translation offers a legitimate size for the ark?

Which translation offers a legitimate size for the ark?

Is that story an important doctrinal matter, then?

Peter

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?

I figured that anyone who took the book literally would wonder how that worked. My roommate used to be very religious, right up to freshman year of college when he was going to church twice a week and a couple bible meetings a week as well. Then he became a religion major, exposed himself to other religions of the world, and read the bible in more detail. He couldn't stand when people took the bible literally, given all the discrepancies.

And the size of the ark thing was something my college bio teacher once used to try to open one of his student's mind to at least considering the possibility of evolution.

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?

Must be something to do with the separation of church and state

Peter

I didn't mean to help!

I just wanted to say that little bit. Don't mind me, I wasn't a good enough student of my church to know enough about this stuff.

Hell, I don't even know what the difference between my church (Methodist), and the other protestant religions is.

Oh, I wasn't directing my post specifically at you. Just musing out loud.

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?

1. Because I can't keep quiet.

2. Because any discussion of politics necessarily involves moral viewpoints, which for many (read: me) are derived from religion.

I really tried hard not to bring religion up this time, though. Honest.

Why does every political discussion on this BBS devolve into a religious one?

Good question. I blame FerretBoy.

Seriously, and at the risk on bringing this thread dangerously back on-topic, I'm curious about your statement here, Jeff:

What I’d ideally like in a President is someone coming from a similar moral framework as myself who’d make decisions consistent with my belief system. Bush is a lot closer in that regard than most other candidates [...] (O)n value issues that are very close to my heart he’s going to land a lot closer to me than just about any Democrat.

What are the moral issues you feel guide your choice of candidate toward a Republican, and away from a Democrat? I can guess that abortion rights might be a large one, but I'm interested in your thoughts here.

--Dan.

Okay, so so far the list of Bush's positive qualities is:

• Espouses (if not follows) moral guidelines comparable to that of some other people

Not a big list, and the one item on it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Any more?

Generally espouses not getting the government involved or reducing government involvement in many spheres.

for example:
- most of his evironmental programs are setup to encourage responsibility, not force compliance. (And the record shows, at least in Texas, that there are positive results.)
- He endorses allowing citizens to invest some of their social security themselves.
- He endorses keeping Healthcare private, rather than making it into yet another huge inefficient government behemoth.
- He endorses letting faith-based ministries take over some of the responsibility for welfare, rather than boosting government spending on welfare.

I'm generally in favor of a smaller government that fulfils the roles set for it in the constitution, like military protection, advancement of commerce, providing a common currency, advancing science and art through copyrights and patents, etc... Other than his moral views lining up with mine, that is at least one thing politically I agree with him on.

I'm curious, don't you think that the government should have some responsibility in keeping its citizens healthy? Wouldn't it be positive for the government to be a (notice: not `the') health-care provider. (I know I'm using the wrong term there, but I can't think of the right one.)

Personally, I do not.

I think there are positive aspects to the FDA, although it could certainly use some overhaul.

I think that the CDC is definitely performing important functions.

But I don't think the government should be highly involved in personal health care.

I would be more inclined to support having government sponsor private research for things like an AIDS vaccine or cancer prevention, where the researchers have financial incentive in producing results.

So those folks who can't afford private health care should be left to die?

Of course not. Ideally, charities and faith-based groups will support those that cannot afford health care.

Note: I'm not idealist enough to think that this would cover all those in need. I would be more open to government funding of those charities and faith-based groups have have the desire and motivation to help those in need, than to have the health care run completely has a government agency.

For my part, I view mercy as being a function of the church (or other, non-governmental organizations), not the government.

That certainly doesn't happen now. How would you expect that it occur?

Your implication is that the government would provide moneys for these organizations. How, exactly, is inserting a middleman with probable ulterior motives going to work better?

In reply to:

---

I would be more inclined to support having government sponsor private research ... where the researchers have financial incentive in producing results.

---

And on page 11, the thread comes back to one of my own favorite topics: avarice as the sole, successful motivator of human beings.

But I don't think the government should be highly involved in personal health care.

I disagree. I think that the health sector needs a bigger dose of regulation, especially in all areas related to money. The system is sick - needlessly over-complicated and ethically questionable.

BTW, do you think that taxpayers should provide free medical services to inmates?
If so, how do you justify not providing said services to the ~12% of US children who are currently uninsured?

What are the moral issues you feel guide your choice of candidate toward a Republican, and away from a Democrat? I can guess that abortion rights might be a large one, but I'm interested in your thoughts here.

Good question. I started looking for a good "Republicans vs. Democrats" kind of list which would give a good refrence point for a discussion, but came up with very little (though I honestly didn't look that far). So I'll just have to note a few issues of the top of my head:

Family Values
Abortion
Role of Government
Government Spending
National Defense

To expound upon the "Role of Government" bit:

My perception of the Democratic party is that they want to get very involved in people's lives. The programs Democrats propose seem to be largly about taking away from taxpayers to try and "fix" those who are in "need". While I believe in mercy, I don't believe it is the responsibility of the Government. The Government seems to bloat everything it does and be very ineffective, thus I don't feel I can trust where my taxes are going. I'd rather take the responsibilty of helping out others on my own, without relying on the government to do it. That's the reason I give money to my church and its outreach programs for less fortunate people.

On top of this, there are a lot of "needs" that I just don't agree with. Minorities should not get preferential treatment when applying to colleges (they should get equal treatment in every way). Children who fail in schools should be held back; otherwise any kind of evaluation is a joke. Criminals are put in jail to remove a threat of society and punish for wrongdoing, not rehabilitation. Not that rehabilitiation shouldn't be persued, but it should never be mistaken for the primary purpose. Of course these aren't the whole issues (probably aren't even current), but they do illustrate where I think Democratic thinking has gone wrong in the past.

Republicans, on the other hand, promote people taking responsibility for themselves. While government is a necessary evil, it should infringe on people's lives as little as possible. Ok, so admittedly the Republicans have not really produced on this one in some cases, but it is a goal I support. As much as we can reduce our government and determine ourselves where our money should go, the better.

How, exactly, is inserting a middleman with probable ulterior motives going to work better?

Granted, there is no perfect system, and there would almost certainly be abuse (in any system). However, I think that organizations that are already doing the work because of religious or humanitarian convictions will do a far superior job at providing better care in a more efficient manner because they were motivated to do so whether they have the funding or not.

I also don't view it as adding a middle man. Giving to external organizational structures negates the need for the government to duplicate those organizational structures internally. The internal government structures tend to be on the inefficient side.

To take another area of government as an example, I work with educational administration software for a living. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, the average expenditure for public school students is around $8,000/yr. For private schools, it's a little more than half that. Yet, private school students consistently outperform their public school peers in standardized testing. That and dozens of other areas where I've seen government inefficiency in effect lead to my views on goverment involvement.

You mean that it's cheaper to teach those students who want to be taught and/or whose parents encourage their educations? Never!

Bah...I went to private schools my entire life...the students there don't want to be taught any more than their public counterparts. I concede, however, that their parents are more concerned or involved. Still, one would think that throwing twice as much money at the situation would even the playing field some...

... because they were motivated to do so whether they have the funding or not.

So you're saying they do a better job because they are *not* motivated by greed, but drug researchers do better if they *are* motivated by greed? I see.

The problem remains, however, that even in your instance, there is no mandate to take care of every person. If it's left up to private organizations, unless they're rigorously regulated by the government, there will always be those left behind. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single charitable organization serving the needs of the poor in the US that is not Christian affiliated. Much more often that not, their first goal, or at least a primary goal, is to convert people. I don't think that becoming a Christian should be a prerequisite to regaining health. Nor do I think that that sword should be hanging over one's head if they choose to ``ignore'' the conversion principle.

I would have no problem if the government established a private organization whose sole goal is to provide health care to everyone regardless of creed without ulterior motive. But that's not what exists now, and it offends me.

I went to private schools my entire life

Then on what do you base your comparison?

So you're saying they do a better job because they are *not* motivated by greed, but drug researchers do better if they *are* motivated by greed? I see.

Yup. I have little faith in the positive motivations of my common man outside true religious conviction

And, taking a look at the average newspaper, I'm not altogether uncomfortable with that.

Then on what do you base your comparison?

On what do you base your assertion? Let's be honest...there's mostly BS flowing here

EDIT: I'm outta here for the evening...it's been fun.

Can't someone share the same "moral compass" as you and not be nearly as good at following that compass?

Well, if he's hogging the moral compass, it's no wonder Bush has trouble following it: he never gets a look!