Are we trying to force them to outlaw it? Or are we simply not giving them money?
Oops. I knew that.
Comparitive graph of the world’s top aid donors per capita.
You mean Saudi Arabia has more oil than any country on the planet and they give NOTHING to foreign aid?
Interesting.
Exactly.
How dare they!
They’re acting as if they had some right to practice their religion freely, or to disagree with the rest of us.
Those monsters! :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s say Bush denied aid to all destitute third world countries that didn’t convert to Christianity. Is that “forcing” them to convert, or is it simply “not givng them money”, or in this instance are those two things one and the same?
Wow. That’s all you can come up with after both jjimm and i have demonstrated, using considerable supporting evidence, the idiocy of your earlier claim, which was, if you’ll recall:
So, apart from Saudi Arabia, who else isn’t “passing the plate” on that list?
No, they’re acting as if they have the right to inject their religious beliefs into official foreign policy. They can practice their religion all they want but they have no right to impose a religious position on official policy.
Bush doesn’t seem to understand that he’s not living in theocratic dictatorship. He doesn’t get to use the hammer of executive power to enforce his own religious morality on other people.
I can tell by the fact that you put the word “forcing” in quotation marks that you already know the answer. It’s simply not giving them money.
That was an easy one.
Yeah, it totally sucks - a corrupt monarchy that doesn’t even provide for its own people, let alone anyone else’s, and the poverty leads to widespread wahhabism because the madrassars are the only organizations providing education for poor people.
They’re one of the UK’s and US’s closest allies.
And your point is…?
It depends upon what your definition of the word “force” is.
Force can mean “the use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain”, for example The nazis forced the jews into death camps.
Or it could mean “to compel through pressure or necessity.” Such as I was forced to convert to christianity in order to receive food, to prevent from starving to death.
Keeping the latter definition in mind, is Bush “compelling through pressure or neccesity” foreign clinics to not perform abortions?
[nitpick]No one could force you to convert to Christianity, only to say that you had converted to Christianity, since there’s no test they could perform to determine whether you had really accepted the belief or not. Most Christians know this, which is one reason the sword has fallen out of favor as a means of evangelization.[/nitpick]
I think that in the latter example, “force” is more of a rhetorical flourish. If you’re literally dying in front of someone’s eyes, and they’re placing conditions on the help they’re willing to give you, the word “force” may be appropriate. But that’s hardly the same thing as some guy on the other side of the world who’s considering giving you other people’s money, which was taken from them under threat of imprisonment, so you can pay for contraceptives, but ultimately declines to do so because you also promote abortion.
Insert any other unacceptable choice that you want in my example then. The point still remains. Bush is using our tax dollars to manipulate foreign countries into following his personal religious agenda.
Good- for a moment, I thought I was in Great Debates.
SnoopyFan, your attitudes in this and other threads have disappointed me. I can think of no other poster off the top of my head (although I’m certain there are some) who better fulfill the stereotype of the ignorant American. I think it would behoove you to carefully read what has been presented to you and realize what it means.
A good first step would be to retract your claim that other nations don’t give foreign aid, and also to note that the US gives comparatively little.
(And why the backhanded swipe at the French on the first page? Do you know anything about France besides “Them thar Frenchies tried to tell us we aren’t allowed to do what we want!”)
If this were the stated reason for these actions, I’m sure most people here wouldn’t be bitching nearly as fervently. They’d disagree, sure, but I don’t think the disgust would be nearly as strong, if there at all.
It’s the reasoning, not the cutoff itself, that seems to be bothering most folks with that POV on this thread.
Let me get this straight…
The U.S., according to numbers posted by jjimm above, is almost dead last among donor nations in economic aid, yet, contrarily, the U.S. is also single-handedly responsible for the forced closing of clinics in Africa due to the restrictions imposed on said aid.
Frigging amazing. So, so sum up, we are cheap and sanctimonious. And no one else stepped forward to replace those funds, performing a little Creative Accounting 101, perhaps?
And Diogenes, get off your high horse about ‘religious objections by Bush’ nonsense. He ran as a pro-life candidate; he’s following that position. Those who voted him into office knew his position. Abortion is by no means a “done deal” in this country; a growing percentage of the country is coming to identify itself as pro-life, meaning the issue will continue to be battled over. This isn’t a game, and we pro-lifers aren’t aiming for kicks. It’s life and death, and we mean to convince as many as possible that abortion is death in every case, to the very one who can never say “no” to the procedure. You may want it to go away, but it won’t. Opponents to slavery didn’t quit with Dred Scott, and we haven’t either because of Roe.
And before all you guys get so hot and heavy over the aggregious abuse of American foreign aid by such restrictions, bear in mind, this isn’t the only situation wherein nations restrict international accomodation due to national policy. One obvious example is the death penalty; we have it, supported by the majority of Americans, few other nations do. We have had two recent high-profile cases of aggravated murder committed in the U.S., the accused fleeing, two in one case to Canada, one to France(and Switzerland for a time, I believe, where he lived for nearly twenty years quite comfortably); both nations refused to extradite due to the death penalty*. In both cases, we ultimately removed the death penalty option, and extradition then was granted.
*I know, I know, in Ira Einhorn’s case, there was also the problem of conviction in absentia, but Pennsylvania corrected this problem, leaving the death penalty still an issue. For pete’s sake, can’t I just be brief and hit the high points?
Apparently Jesus would say “Fuck the world.” Except Jesus wouldn’t pass out condoms first.
And I have to agree that **SnoopyFan ** is one of the most repulsively ignorant people on this board. Every single time I read one of her/his/its posts it makes me cringe.
What exactly is your distinction? “Thou shalt not steal” is both a religious belief and an effective public policy. Why is this abortion policy outside of the realm of what is Bush’s “right”? Because you disagree with it? The duty to provide aid to the needy is also a religious belief of many. Does that fact make it out of bounds for a future Chief Executive?
Unbelievbeable. Attempting to force your objective morality onto another person who dosen’t agree with it is the same as oposing slavery? Your hubris aparently knows no bounds. I would say that your position forcing others to obey your beliefs instead of their own is more analagous to those who were engaged in slavery-forcing people to work against their will. Nobody argues that slavery is acceptable anymore. I yearn for the days when your brand of moral imperialism is dead as well.
Imposing a moral viewpoint occurs all the time. There isn’t a law or policy on the books that isn’t an example of such an imposition. The fact that this is another example is not, by itself, proof that this is wrong, unless you accept that all laws and public policies are wrong for the same reason, IMO.