Asymmetrical Information

Bush's problem for many is that he has the wrong religion - if he professed to some sort of wishy-washy liberal Protestantism, and promoted a variety of redistributive governmental programs under the guise of "social justice," he would be lauded for his "good heart" and "adherence to Christian principles."

Of course, he'd be being lauded by the same people who loudly proclaim their solidarity with Islam in the spirit of ecumenism, but are utterly appalled by fundamentalist/conservative Christian church. Religious tolerance only extends so far, of course.

Agreed, moreover there is no shortage of theists and secularists on the Left whose beliefs motivate them to do far more than Bush or the “religious right” to encroach on individual liberty be it in the name of “social justice,” wealth redistribution, environmentalism, multiculturalism, gender feminism, gun control, whatever.

I’m an atheist and a pretty staunch Bush supporter. His religion does not bother me in the slightest. Frankly he’s probably less likely as a Christian to be determined to intrude on my or anyone else’s rights than any of the aforementioned groups who get a pass for having the “correct” beliefs.

"His religion does not bother me in the slightest."

Just hope you don't get Parkinson's or any other disease that stem cell research might lead to treatment for. Then it might start to bother you a lot.

The most irritating thing to me about this line of attack is the simple illogic of it.

There is no de facto difference between a Bush Administration policy being informed by God or by the tooth fairy. The policies ought stand or fall on their own merits, no?

Right on Jason.

We all come to our beliefs and positions on issues from different motivations; some religious, some cultural, some from the influence of our parents and families. What matters is what we do, how we act, and what we believe.

Understanding a person's motivation is useful to supplement what we already know, from their history, and to help understand how we should expect them to act in the future.

Most stem cells are NOT fetal stem cells. Stem cell research has not been stopped because GWB or anyone else objects to "Fanny Feminist's Family-Friendly Fetus Farm". It's funny that some of the most vocal opponents of growing animals for meat have no problem at all with growing humans for fetal stem cells. Some of them would probably also have no strong objections to growing children as organ donors. Go figure!

If Bush did claim that the bible told him to be charitible towards the poor he would be right. And maybe he is, I haven't looked into his income tax return. As far as the insinuation that Fresh Air didn't give equal time, did you even ask them why the one side only got 5 minutes? I realize this site isn't really any type of journalism, per se, and you probably aren't up on what might pass for "ethics," but if you are going to make insinuations you might at least ask. The usual host of Fresh Air Terry Gross does has a personal liberal bias (IMHO) but as long as I've been listening to the show they try pretty hard to get equal time for both point of view. In fact, if they are on public radio they are required by law to offer equal time if the topic could be considered purely political.

What sort of explanation could the producers have offered that would have caused 50 to become equal to 5?

Jay, I don't really understand your comment, other than that you are offended by an "insinuation". I listen to Fresh Air all the time and I don't mind that Terry Gross reacts genuinely and personally to guests. And are you seriously suggesting I call them for comment?

I also wonder how to react to this comment:

"you probably aren't up on what might pass for "ethics"

Would that be 'journalistic ethics'? Are you referring to my 'insinuation' or Fresh Air's code of ethics? It seems to me you are looking for something to get pissed about. I hope I haven't misinterpreted you.

Saying you think God is on your side is indistinguishable from saying you think you're right. And what politician says otherwise?
If he said God TOLD him He's on his side, then people would have the right to worry.

I took the remark to mean something like "As a blogger you probably don't hold yourself to the professional journalist's code." But the triple ironization of "might", "pass for", and the scare quotes around "ethics" make it hard to be sure.

do they?

in a word--YES!

Coby Cosh wrote a commentary about this very topic recently. It's from a Canadian perspective, but substitute Republican for Conservative and Democrat for Liberal and it reads about as well.

Quote:
"In truth, Canadian liberals and Canadian Liberals will happily put their religious chocolate in their political peanut butter if they think they will like the taste. Religious interventions in politics are entirely welcome when mainline churches and faith leaders squall about the need for disarmament, or higher health-care spending, or aboriginal self-government, or affirmative action for minorities. Anything that coincides with Liberal priorities -- anything consonant with the power and prestige of the Liberal hegemony -- doesn't set off the church-state warning buzzer."

If Bush did claim that the bible told him to be charitible towards the poor he would be right. And maybe he is, I haven't looked into his income tax return.

President and Mrs. Bush Release 2003 Tax Return
President and Mrs. Bush contributed $68,360 to churches and charitable organizations, including Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, Tarrytown United Methodist Church, St. John's Church, the M.D. Anderson Clinic, and the Federal Government's Combined Federal Campaign.

There are several points which need to be kept in mind when looking at how limited the Bush administration’s moratorium on federal funding of stem cell research is and that it

a) does not cover research funded by private dollars at all
b) does not cover research funded by State governments at all
c) does not cover research which does not involve embryonic stem cells at all
d) does not cover research using adult stem cells at all
e) still allows funding of research using embryonic stem cells from lines from already-destroyed embryos

So long as (a) is in place, libertarians really have no cause for concern since they believe that government ought not be in the business of funding medical research. Strict constructionists also have no cause for concern as they believe that it not a power that belongs to the federal government and so long as (a) and (b) remain true. If (a) were no longer true, that is the only case in which you might* be able to claim that the President and Congress have intruded on individual rights in the context of stem cell research as the government not funding something is not a violation of anyone’s rights. If (a) or (b) were no longer true, that is the only case, in the context of stem cell research, that you could claim that the federal government has expanded beyond the boundaries of the Constitution to assume powers reserved for the people and the States.

As far as the health care impacts, those who far more concerned about cancer or heart disease than Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s and so long as (c) also remains true, also should not be worried since less funding of embryonic stem cell research means more federal research dollars available for cancer and heart disease research.

Stem cell research can still continue given (a) and (b) but it can also continue with limited federal funding for (d) and (e). Which means then that we could have more federal funding of research with adult stem cells and already destroyed embryonic lines which frees up private and State funding for embryonic stem cells for new lines.

* But if one believe that creating and destroying human embryos to harvest them for research purposes is murdering human beings, then the argument that banning this violates individual rights goes out the window. However since any federal ban on human cloning would have to go through the Congress, while unconstitutional (in that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to generally create a criminal code), it is no more onerous than other federal statutes against murder.

Just hope you don't get Parkinson's or any other disease that stem cell research might lead to treatment for. Then it might start to bother you a lot.

Entry: red herring (Clupea distracticus)

Appearance: A flashy crimson sheen, typically with a slippery exterior, membrane-covered eyes, and a skeletal structure dominated by an extremely thin but suprisingly supple backbone. Species may appear in almost any imaginable length but shorter versions are more common.

Habitat and lifecycle: The red herring may make an appearance in almost any form of debate, although Internet fora and other forms of low-accountability, impersonal media tend to be preferred spawn sites. Species may be isolated or social, and if the latter, are often found swimming in schools with various other forms of logical fallacy. Lifespan of anywhere from fifty seconds to fifty years.

Sighting guide: May appear at any time of day or night, but afternoon hours -- i.e. when work duties are reduced and critical thought processes have stagnated, but Internet access persists -- are the most fertile time of day for this species. Dilligent observers may even catch a red herring in the process of materializing.

Cautionary notes: Species acts unpredicably when threatened. Most just vanish into the woodwork but may reappear suddenly, and at unexpected times; a few have been known to become evasive or lash out at perceived aggressors. Recommended defenses if an aggressive species is encountered include Logical Reasoning Spray (tm) or, in a severe case, Site Administrator.

Edible: Yes, although taste may vary. However even an inferior specimen can be quite appetizing if chewed out with enthusiastic vigor, preferably taken in tandem with "Wit of Churchill" or comparable seasoning.

Reference: Guide to Common Debate Wildlife
Chapter 7, "Know your Ichthyoids"
Reasonville, USA : Institute for Logical Reasoning, 2002

Comments are Closed.