Theological gynecologist nominated for FDA

Remove all ads!

Surely I can get a few nibbles on this one at least, maybe a big 'ol bite or two.

Now, I'm not one to join in and say "Bush is a moron!" Anyone who honestly thinks he is a moron is behaving rather, well, moronic in my book.

But this, this is just, well, befuddling. This is just ridiculous. Bush has nominated this cat, Dr. W. David Hager, to be an FDA advisor on reproductive health when he deals with PMS thusly:

I'm still chuckling over that quote. Here's the article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/17/politics/main525916.shtml

 

Ah I see what this is really about, him being a Christian.

Well he's got more guts than me. I would never be a politician. It's quite clear religion and politics don't mix. Money, greed, and power often go against religion.

Too bad a country that is supposed to be "free" can't really be "free" for everyone.

 

I really don't think this has much to do with the president.. I doubt that he was in any way involved in it. But I can see that this, along with Ashcroft, is part of the deal with the religious right in the party. Keeping them happy, and so on.

Personally, I don't sympathize with the religious flank one bit, but in a sense, it doesn't really upset me that they take some positions... a pretty large minority in the US is part of the religious right, and supports people like Hager and Ashcroft.. When a conservative president is in office, it's only fair that he gives that wing of his party a piece of the cake. It's in fact quite democratic. If it upsets anyone, I suggest they stop voting republican!

 

As Big B said religion and politics dont mix even though I tend to think that their strenghten eachother bad sides instead of the poor innocent religion getting destroyed by the wicked politics
I am off the opinion that religion should never ever influence real politics at all, religion is a personal and private thing that should have no affect at all on the public life. Politicians are free to believe in what they want as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to achieve religous goals and believes through political channels.

 

No, this isn't about him being a Christian. Most everyone in the Federal government is a Christian. That's a straw man.

The debate doesn't merely surround the fact that he is Christian, like I said, virtually everyone in politics in the U.S. is Christian.

The objection has to do with whether or not someone with an agenda, someone who wishes to restrict access to a legal procedure should be placed in a position to influence decisions which might narrow that access. I would enjoy a debate about whether abortion is ethical or should be legal but for here, it is enough that it IS legal. So, you want people on the FDA who have demonstrated that their decision making process will not be influenced by their personal beliefs that abortion should be curtailed. The FDA should base their decisions upon whether proposed drugs or procedures are medically prooven, not whether they personally wish the U.S. courts would change their opinion. That is what this is primarily about, the belief that this Dr. has shown he can't be trusted to set aside his personal beliefs as evidenced by those he has worked for. So, the proper way to dismiss the objections, is to show evidence that he is willing to set aside his personal beliefs, not dismiss the objectors as being "anti-Christian."

idoru brings up a good point. The President will seek to appoint those who have similar beliefs to him and also appoint those who will make the Fundies happy. No doubt in my mind, Pat Robertson and Falwell would love this guy on the FDA committee. However, idoru, the President also has a responsibility to make appointments who can act in accordance with their duty. If the President wants to make appointments to curtail the availability of abortions, he should do so through the Federal judiciary. I have no problem with him nominating judges for the bench who tend to believe as he does, that's the way things work. He can also seek legislation if he wishes. He shouldn't make an end around.

 

Who could possibly sit on the FDA without an agenda in regards to Abortion. Data (from Star Trek TNG)???

Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic ... every worldview has something to say about the topic of life, death and the unborn.

The problem is that he is a conservative Christian. If he were a liberal Christian (like Jessie Jackson) he would not be opposed.

There is a terrible double-standard in the media and in Washington against those who hold to a consitently conservative set of opinions.

Where was the NCAA when Clarence Thomas was on trial??? (It should be the NCALA .. national coalition for the advancement of liberal americans)

on the other hand ... where was the NOW when President Clinton was living by the motto, "The boss gets one free grope!" ???

 

I think the problem can be worded more accurately.

The presumption of most people being nominated is that they will be professional and ethical in office. But once a candidate is "outted" as a conservative Christian that presumption dies.

I don't think BigB's argument is at all a straw man. But I also think that religion and politics do mix (those who don't are usually either religious people fed up with the system or the politically-minded irreligious who don't want the religious people mucking up their attempts to build Utopia) quite well.

None of Dr. Hager's are really troublesome except for the claim that PMS, headaches, etc. are solved by prayer. I've only heard that claim from dubious sources like Planned Parenthood. I'd like to hear what he actually said. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that he merely stated that prayer can help.

 

Math, I think there are many, many doctors who are opposed to abortion being legal who could work at the FDA in an advisory capacity wonderfully.

You just have to be willing to do your job and set aside your personal beliefs. That's exactly what we demand of lawyers and judges every single day in this country. He has to be willing to say to himself, "I'm opposed to abortion personally, but it is legal. The only issue for me to decide is whether RU-486 is medically safe. The evidence indicates that it is, therefore, we should allow it." The role of the FDA is not to engage in social engineering in my opinion. Leave that to the legislature, let them fight over it in the courts, if you are a responsible doctor working for the FDA shouldn't be a problem.

We expect a judge to say to himself, "well, this person is a reprehensible being and should be locked up, but the police invaded and searched his house even though I denied a warrant, therefore the evidence seized is inadmissible and I have to let this maggot go." That isn't easy for him to do, but he has a job and he does it. So do the doctors working at the FDA.

 

Let's see some proof, I strongly dispute this.

I don't think that politics and religion should be mixed at all, because I don't want people whose religious views I disagree with making laws regulating me!
It's all well and good to say you want someone who has strong morals and is a decent person to be in power, but everyone has a different idea on what "strong morals" are.

For example, a lot of Christians that I know, including, unfortunately, members of my own family, are against D&D and fantasy in general because they think it promotes witchcraft, mythological symbolism, etc. Therefore it is the tools of Satan. They think it should be banned. Are these the kind of people you want in power? It scares me!

There are many different religions in the US besides Christianity, which is NOT in any way the dominant religion in this country. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc, all make up the US of A. For that reason alone, I think religion and politics should never be mixed, simply because no matter what religious beliefs you have, if you make descisions based on your faith, you will never represent the entire country, just the small segment that shares your beliefs.

[ October 25, 2002, 02:23: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

 

Sorry, I really didn't think anyone could dispute that most politicians in the federal government are Christian. I'll go one more for you, not only are most Christian, but the overwhelming majority are. And one further, not only are the overwhelming majority of federal politicians Christian, so are the overwhelming majority of state politicians.

Here is some evidence:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

It details the 107th Congress. From your post, I'm not certain, but it reads as if you may not realize that Catholics are Christian. Well, they are.

There are 37 Jewish member, no Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims. That's out of over 500 members.

Do you need more evidence? I really thought this would be something that is self-evident. I'm sure if you just spent a little bit of time doing your own research on the web you could make your own determination. Your from the Pitt area I believe, who is running for office there and what religion are they? If they're not Christian, they're in a distinct minority here in the U.S.

I suppose you could get in a pissing contest claiming they aren't "real" Christians, but I don't think it can be reasonably contested that most politicians in this country at least think they're Christians. Maybe they're wrong. That's what makes claims by some Christians that they are being persecuted sometimes pretty laughable.

 

Lachismo, baby, that last line makes it sound like you don't think that members of one part of a religion would persecute members of another part. We know that that ain't true.

Nutrimat, your line "I don't want people whose religious views I disagree with making laws regulating me!" is exactly the attitude Big B and I were talking about. The irreligious don't want Christians in government. Unless, of course, they're willing to just call themselves Christians and ignore their personal beliefs.

A lot of nonsense gets thrown in with this "personal beliefs" idea. If you believe something, then you think it to be true. Not only in your personal life, but true always and everywhere. If you drop your beliefs when you go to work, you are a hypocrite.

The proper understanding is that there are ethical and unethical ways to achieve an end. The judge in Laches's example is NOT setting aside his personal beliefs that criminals should be punished. He is instead acknowledging a right way and a wrong way to punish them. Likewise a judge who believes abortion is wrong is not setting aside his beliefs when deciding a case in favor of an abortionist. He is instead working according to ethical means; it would be wrong to ignore case law and simply convict, but it would be right to write pro-life opinions, take a pro-life stance in areas where there is no case law, etc.

The difficulty with the FDA is that when someone's job is to say "is RU-486 healthy?" a pro-life person cannot help but say that it is, in fact, deadly. Since there is no Federal law declaring that a fetus is not a person, member of the public, entitled to FDA protection, etc., it is entirely reasonable, ethical, and expected for him to the drug as illegal. (Federal law, AFAIK, allows abortion. It does not indicate that a fetus is outside the protection of the FDA. Quite the opposite, I would imagine.)

This is an unavoidable problem with such appointments, as they often do allow a great deal of discretion on the part of executive branch administrators and any personal beliefs can ethically come into play.

 

Ok, first of all, Catholicism and Christianity, while sharing some of the same beliefs and ideas are not the same religion, Any more than Baptists and Lutherans are the same!

If your original post read "virtually everyone in politics in the US is Catholic", I wouldn't dispute this. But most of the people that go to the Christian churches in this area would strongly object to being called Catholic or being lumped in with the Catholic faith.

What's the difference? I asked my mom (a born again Christian) once, and her response was (as best as I can remember it:
The Catholics believe in Purgatory, they believe in saying prayers to get people out of hell, they believe in a confusing, almost Byzantine system of rules and regulations. There are moral sins, venerial sins, things like that.

When I went to a Christian Church for the first time, and talked to the pastor, I was struck by how simple, and how basic it was. There is basically you and Jesus, and through Jesus, God. There is no mention of venerial sins, of not eating meat on Fridays, or praying for souls in purgatory. If you believe in Jesus, and are saved, you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. No ands, ifs, or buts. That's all there is to it. They teach what is in the bible, not the beliefs of the Vatican.

Shralp, you said

THEN you said

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Federal law allows abortion. There are clearly laws defining this, by your own admission. Yet "it is entirely reasonable, ethical, and expected for him to the drug as illegal.".
Why? He (the theoretical person in your example) is clearly favoring his religious beliefs over an established federal law. His beliefs are undermining and contradicting the laws which are already in place. What you will have then is a system of total confusion, where the government says "you are allowed to do this", but on the other hand "we are going to make the means for you to do it illegal".

[ October 25, 2002, 19:10: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

 

I'd just like to point out that Catholicism is a subcategory of Christianity. So is the Baptist religion, Lutheran etc.

Just like Sunni and Shi'i are both subcategories of Islam.

You can't deny that most politicians in the U.S. are Christian with a straight face.

 

Funny, I've always thought of Christianity as a splinter of the Catholic religion, not the other way around.

 

Look, Catholics are Christians. I'm sorry you don't seem to want to believe that.

Here is a list of Christian denominations:
link

Notice where it says "Catholic?"

I had a number of years of Catholic schooling, have a number of Catholic friends. I guarantee not a one would say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a Catholic."

That's because they are.

[ October 27, 2002, 12:15: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I went to Catholic school for 12 years. In those 12 years, I never heard any one of my teachers, faculty members, or other students refer to themselves as "Christian". They referred to themselves as "Catholic". On the other hand, there are some churches in this area that refer to themselves as "Christian", adapting the beliefs I've stated above. These people take pains to distance and seperate themselves from the Orthodox Catholic religion. Here is the difference:

Orthodox Catholics believe in:
Moral and Venerial Sins
Purgatory
Praying for the Dead
Pastors, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope
Are part of a regional "Diocese", which receives help, support, and guidance from the Vatican in Rome. Very organized, and very widespread.

Christians (as I know them, you may know them by a different name):
If you are "saved", that is you "accept Jesus Christ as your savior", you go to heaven. No ands, ifs, or buts.
The Vatican is wrong (in many instances, one specific example is purgatory, see "saved", above).
Mostly small churches, usually built and paid for with donations.
Tend to be more "fervent" and sometimes refer to themselves as "born again" Christians.
Sometimes have ties to similar churches, but are not organized, don't have Bishops, Dioceses, or guidance and support from the Vatican.

Now, maybe this is a regional thing. Maybe in other parts of the country, what I'm referring to and what I think of as "Christian" are known by some other name, and what I'm calling Catholic Orthodox is, in fact, known as Christian. It doesn't matter.
The point is, I thought you were stating that most US politicians are what I'm calling "Born Again Christians". This is NOT true (many of the one's I have talked to have lamented this).
Your statement was that most US politicians are what I'm calling the "Orthodox Catholic" religion. I agree with this. The confusion is perhaps stemming from a difference in terminology used.

Does this clear things up?

Now, then:
Now theat I am aware of the true meaning of your comments, and know that it refers to what I call "Orthodox Catholic", I retract my original statements about religion and politics. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Orthodox Catholics, at least in the US, are so disinterested and unbelieving of their own religion that there is no way most of them COULD mix politics and religion if they wanted to.

Catholics view thier religion as a chore. Most of them go to church on Sunday, and the major religious holidays, but the way they view thier religion pretty much precludes it from interferring with anything they want to do that contradicts it. In other words, Catholics sin constantly, and don't have a problem with it. To them religion is something that you do for a grueling hour on Sunday, not a way of life as it is for most other religions. It can be set aside if it inconvieniences them in any way, as long as you confess next Easter (assuming you don't forget about it by then). The Catholic religion is a joke, and not to be taken seriously.

 

Here is a dictionary definition of Christian, which is what I meant by Christian:

I certainly didn't mean that most politicians are Orthodox Catholic, I mean't most of them "profess belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus."

Interestingly, and since you had years of Catholic school I'm sure you know this, for a long time there was no group called "Catholic." For quite some time they just called them self Jews and they just happened to believe Jesus was the savior. Then, they began to be known as Christians. For a long time the group that would become known as Catholic simply were called "Christians."

What bothered me about your posts is it isn't uncommon, particularly in some areas, for Catholics to face prejudice. Part of what was so surprising about Kennedy being elected President was that he was Catholic and it had long been thought that it would be very difficult for a Catholic to be elected President because of some of these prejudices. One way some Christians justify that prejudice is to deny that Catholics are "real Christians" and therefore worthy of disdain.

I consider myself agnostic. I've argued many hours long and hard about the philosophical difficulties of organized religion, Catholicism (and Mormonism with mormons, Islam with Muslims etc.), proselytizing etc. I'm hardly what you'd call a Catholic apologist.

Your statements were similar to those who sought to denigrate Catholicism because of their own prejudiced background. I thought this was unintentional and was merely trying to clarify. However, you then say

That statement smacks of bigotry. If you really believe this then I have to wonder if you really know Catholicism as you proclaim.

I really doubt the Catholics on this board consider their religion to be a joke.

 

Nutrimat, I agree with Latches. Though I may not agree in the Catholic beliefs, I at least respect it. There is really no place on these boards for remarks like your last one.

[ October 27, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Astin X ]

 

Nutrimat
Laches is absolutely right, catholics are christians. Until 1054 AC there was one christian church (with the exception of some heresies) with two major poles of power, the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Constantinople. In 1054 (because of their differences in a basic doctrine of christian faith but mostly because of their disagreement on who is the leader of christian church) Pope Victor II excommunicated the Patriarch Michail Kiroularios and the Patriarch excommunicated the Pope as well. This fact is known as the Schism between the west church and the east church. From this day the followers of the west church are called catholics and the followers of the east church orthodox. Five centuries later Martin Luther created the christian protestand church as a reaction to pope's rule, which was divided in many churches in the following centuries.