And Bush, by the way, is part of the United Methodist Church, which is a fairly liberal denomination.

Todd- Actually the important part is the fundamentalist part. Fundamentalist anythings tend to revel in their ignorance and use whatever religion they subscribe to to justify their ignorance. Part (though not all) of his problems with making good decisions is that he uses his fundie attitudes to justify being poorly informed and disinclined to be educated. The born-again part really speaks more to the fact that in his recent past he was (and might still be) an alcoholic and cokehead. I personally believe his being “born-again” was a cynical way to get the public to ignore his faults.

The christian part (and you should notice I didn’t capitalize it for a reason) is just the particular label he uses because it is popular in the good ole USA. If we were in Pakistan he would use muslim in the exact same way. I’m not denigrating Christians in general. Real Christians are good people, but being a real Christian is like really being honest. Everyone says they are, few actually are. And I’m not trying to imply that I belong to either group .

What has that got to do with him making bad decisions? Being a Christian doesn’t prevent a person from being uninformed. God doesn’t sit you down and explain every part of life to you. The person has to pray and ask for guidance. If God gave George Bush guidance on this matter and he followed it then I’m afraid no matter how we feel, he was right. However I will say that George W. Bush would not be the first to use God as an excuse for something they did on their own.

Bush is an enigma. By his logic, it’s not ok to utilize the unborn to help the born, but it is just fine to send grown innocents into an insoluble, manufactured quagmire, then pretend their coffins aren’t coming home.

Fortunately, there are many groups doing research that even we liberals/progressives/democrats can support. Our family does, and I would hope for the sake of people with potentially curable diseases other folks will seek them out and help.

Think of it this way: if someone said we should use people on death row for medical experiments, what Kevin is saying would be the equivalent of saying “this isn’t about the death penalty, there are no electric chairs and no lethal injections involved.” The question isn’t the method of destruction, it’s the rights of the thing being destroyed, or the societal cost involved in destroying it.

Officially? You filed all the paperwork and everything?

Dangit!

But, you have to admit, this is a political victory for the pro-embryonic research side. They were able to convince a majority of the representative bodies to agree with them, even though both of those bodies are conservative. That will make this issue that much more important for the upcoming elections, and if the votes go a certain way, by this time next year embryonic research could be fully federally funded.