What is wrong with using moral views to lead?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I have read a number of places, not just here, that one of the biggest complaints of those that dislike Preisdent Bush, is that he uses moral views, judgements to guide his hand.

President Bush feels, however right or wrong, that he is doing the right thing, the right way based on his religious beliefs. Why I ask, is this such a terrible thing?


Secondly I ask, if his moral beliefs and judgements are so bad, what then should he base his judgements on?

Please, leave out the puppet comments and the like and play the "what if game" it you must, and please post assuming he makes his own calls. Can we do that, thanks.

[Impenitent]

it isn't a terrible thing, it is a pointless thing...

his religious views differ from the religious view of the left so there is a tension...

anyone can play the blame god game... few have the cohones to say yeah I have the big gun so do it my way or else... they prefer to camoflague things in politically correct niceties that are nothing but bullshit... the only power the left has right now is to scream religious bigotry accusations... and as they lose power the cries and whining gets louder

[Mr.Vicchio]

Well, I don't see it as pointless. I think that a leader must hve a value system to base his whole leadership on. Granted that deosnt' mean one has to agree with it, but atleast you know where he stands. And that is my view on it.

The rest well.. I won't argue that secularism is... a purview of the left more so then the right :)

[Zeebadee]

If what Bush is doing in Iraq is based on his "moral views" then we are indeed in very serious trouble.

[Mr.Vicchio]

That is your opinion and not the question at hand.

[Zeebadee]

Ok, then your question is really bogus, because you assume as fact that Bush actually HAS morals. I'm not ready to make that assumption based on his performance and actions.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Zee thats your opinion.

[CmJour]

My view is that it is wrong to use your religious beliefs as the basis of your moral decisions because you already have to have morals to determine if a particular religious belief is good. Therefore basing your views on morals should be independent of religion.

is it false that bush has said in private and in social settings that war in iraq is a 'crusade' or a clash of cultures of some sort? 'islam versus christianity'?

a uniformed general spieled about it at a podium in a church at length about it. i think there's something more to it.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Bush has never said this was a crusade against islam. He said this was a war against Islamic extremist yes.


And CmJour, I wholley disagree, religious Values can be the basis of ones moral beliefs. If inot religion, then where does one get their morals, and if these morals are independant of religion, why have religious convictions at all?

[white rice]

Because he clouds his moral views with business and political interests. It makes him just as bad as Imp's description of the left and according to him, how they sometimes cammoflage their cause in PC.

Examples, he supports in vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos) but opposes stem cell research (which destroys embryos). He believes strongly in the word of the Bible, but supports the Death Penalty even for reformed born-again Christian criminals who would be considered innocent in the New Testament.

He originally opposed nation building, but cites 9/11 and God as the reason he's in Iraq. Instead of sending officials experienced in building nations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and East Timor, his administration sent GOP shills who are more concerned about politics than doing their job right. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...12.whoswho.html

[Mr.Vicchio]

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty and being christian.

As for invitro vs stem cell.

Again you misunderstand. InVitro is trying to create life, help parent shave children, which is good, vs Stem Cell is which is creating life for research, which is not so good.

[white rice]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, There is nothing wrong with the death penalty and being christian. As for invitro vs stem cell. Again you misunderstand. InVitro is trying to create life, help parent shave children, which is good, vs Stem Cell is which is creating life for research, which is not so good.

The death penalty is a larger debate, so I'll have to leave it at that. If there is a topic devoted on that, I'll back up my comments with some research.


InVitro fertilization is a process where one zygote (embryo) out of many is chosen to be implanted in the mother. The rest are discarded (die) when the mother is finally successful in becoming pregnant. So for every one baby, ten or more embryos die as a result. Keep in mind that not every attempt is successful.

Stem Cell researchers used to take those formerly discarded embryos, that already had a certain fate, and find applications to them in diabetes, cancer, aging, burn victims, parapelegics, etc...

The applications of "creating life" is reserved mainly for cloning, which is different than Stem Cell research because it is devoted in creating one specific type of cell, like a muscle or a nerve ending, and is being used to save lives on a scale greater than that one or two children in vitro could make per trial. The government knows of this difference by banning cloning research in the US outright while allowing stem cell research with existing lines.

If you want some moral consistency, the Pope denounces both methods.

[dotcoma]

It's not "leading with morals" that concerns me, it's hiding behind them to win the support of the people.

[CmJour]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, And CmJour, I wholley disagree, religious Values can be the basis of ones moral beliefs. If inot religion, then where does one get their morals, and if these morals are independant of religion, why have religious convictions at all?

If a religion is in fact true, that would be a reason to be religious. And if one is religious, one's religious beliefs should be the basis of one's moral values that were based in reason already . Just believing and having conviction won't give you a sound morality.

Having morals independent of religion doesn't mean one can't be religious. The Christian Philospher Richard Swinburne believes in morality independent of God, and that God has to follow this morality in order to be good. If you think about it, this is the only way God can be considered good, because it would make no sense to say God is good if good is by definition is whatever God is. God could be and do anything and that would be good simply because it comes from God. But this doesn't tell us what good is. If you say that God can't do anything he wants without crossing moral boundaries, then you are putting external constraints on God and implicitly saying that the standard of morality has to exist independent of God to externally constrain him in order for him to qualify as good.

[samsara15]

It is wrong to lead using moral views when those moral views are used to put pressure on those who do not share them. After all, Osama and his buddies would also lead by using moral views of their own, wouldn't they?

[VXerick]

Originally posted by white rice, Because he clouds his moral views with business and political interests. It makes him just as bad as Imp's description of the left and according to him, how they sometimes cammoflage their cause in PC. Examples, he supports in vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos) but opposes stem cell research (which destroys embryos). He believes strongly in the word of the Bible, but supports the Death Penalty even for reformed born-again Christian criminals who would be considered innocent in the New Testament. He originally opposed nation building, but cites 9/11 and God as the reason he's in Iraq. Instead of sending officials experienced in building nations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and East Timor, his administration sent GOP shills who are more concerned about politics than doing their job right. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...12.whoswho.html

You are confusing your liberal views with Bush's religious ones. Whatever you believe in that he doesn't, you find fault with and vice versa. I thought the lead post could result in an interesting discussion but then liberals bring politics into it.

So in that regard let me make a further analysis. (Mia this is my opinion, ok?)!
Liberals in general are against religion in general. It's not surprising that they would not be able to differentiate between Bush's moral values and his religious beliefs. Because liberals don't believe in capital punishment but most conservatives do, they find this odd? How so? Liberals don't mind murdering unborn babies, do they? And unborn babies have never committed a crime against anyone but their selfish mothers who don't want to bother with them. An adult who commits murder deserves to lose his life because of it. There is no incongruity there at all except the lopsidedness of the liberals morals, such as they are.

VXerick

Isn't the argument that morals are derived from religious teachings?

[Impenitent]

not all morals are religious... read a philosophy book

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/moral.htm

Impenitent

Gee, thanks. I take it you haven't read it.