Does Bush think at all?
<a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-religion-drug-treatment0128jan28,0,2359477.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines"; target="_blank">Linky</a>
Funding a religion based drug treatment program? Yeah, that's efficacious.
If you guys knew the hoops we psychologists have to go through to get funding for well-researched treatment program, to see this proposal makes me sick.
This is another in a string of "Gee, I think this would be a good way to do things. It sounds like a good idea. Let's do it." decisions he's made. Forget the research. It drives me crazy. High-stakes testing for lower-ed students has been shown not to work, but he implemented in Texas. The experts say one thing, he says another. It's like stupid parents on school boards deciding to ban Harry Potter from school libraries because they think it teaches a bad lesson. Morons. All of 'em.
Besides, whatever happened to separation of church and state? Funding a program that advocates conversion to any religion sounds like a venture into an area the gov't should not get into. Moron.
Funding a religion based drug treatment program? Yeah, that's efficacious.
If you guys knew the hoops we psychologists have to go through to get funding for well-researched treatment program, to see this proposal makes me sick. This is another in a string of "Gee, I think this would be a good way to do things. It sounds like a good idea. Let's do it." decisions he's made. Forget the research. It drives me crazy. High-stakes testing for lower-ed students has been shown not to work, but he implemented in Texas. The experts say one thing, he says another. It's like stupid parents on school boards deciding to ban Harry Potter from school libraries because they think it teaches a bad lesson. Morons. All of 'em.
Besides, whatever happened to separation of church and state? Funding a program that advocates conversion to any religion sounds like a venture into an area the gov't should not get into. Moron.
Comments
It seems similar to the way they want religious symbols on government property. Can't private churches promote religion without the government giving them a helping hand?
As a pyschologist you will know that "faith" communities have a very good success rate at counselling people through crisis. Whatever you may think of faith or particular faiths, it is a dominant motif in successful drug rehabilitation, victim and grief counselling, etc etc... People are far more likely to succeed when they believe. I think that so long as a standard of practice is enforced and that people have a choice of treatment services, then mingling a purely clinical approach with religious practice is a legitimate move.
Given the choice between an Alcholic and another Bible thumper, you pick the lesser of two evils.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
It's funny how people get stupid in the fight for limited resources. A scientist would have to come down in favor of well integrated faith based programs, or at least the active attempt to mingle faith and clinical practice as a course of treatment. The success rate is better. Politics of varying types and a legitimate concern about how people and institutions will behave given a struggle for limited resources might lead you to consider a program on merits other than pure effectiveness.
For the theocrats and the humanists there is also a legitimate but more esoteric debate to be made about the nature of a successful treatment -- possibly exchanging dependencies?
<strong>I can see here already some of the members of AI have no ability to read and think. Oh well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Care to elaborate?
<strong>You're needlessly conflating a few areas here.
As a pyschologist you will know that "faith" communities have a very good success rate at counselling people through crisis. Whatever you may think of faith or particular faiths, it is a dominant motif in successful drug rehabilitation, victim and grief counselling, etc etc... People are far more likely to succeed when they believe. I think that so long as a standard of practice is enforced and that people have a choice of treatment services, then mingling a purely clinical approach with religious practice is a legitimate move.
Given the choice between an Alcholic and another Bible thumper, you pick the lesser of two evils.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problem with people using faith as a way to help get over addiction. It does work. I have 2 problems with the proposal, however: one, it's not based on any type of research. Why is that a problem? Well, a simple dismantling study of why religious-based programs work would likely reveal that the basic tenents of faith have nothing to do with their success. It's much more likely that the effectiveness is due to surrendering responsibility (not necessarily a psychologically healthy thing to do) or accepting life as it comes (a very healthy thing).
The second problem is that programs propounding one religion or another should never get funding in a competitive environment like treatment based research funding is. It will inevitably play on the weaknesses and biases of the reviewers rather than the actual merits of the particular program.
And my point by starting this thread was Bush's insistence that just because it sounds like a good idea to him, he wants to fund it. I hate it when politicians do stuff like this.
About the more philosophical questions, I have the same concerns.
<strong>So you've become introspective then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA
and touche
[edit] sorry, it was screwing up the formatting, added a space: alcimedes
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: AppleInsider Staff ]</p>
<strong>I don't get the "let's fund religion" attitude. Aren't they doing fine without government help? These big-government conservatives apparently think their religions need government support.
It seems similar to the way they want religious symbols on government property. Can't private churches promote religion without the government giving them a helping hand?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He also has a funding for religous groups for something else I just can't recall.
Yeah, where's the seperation from church and state? As for the arguement Matsu brought up, sorry, but if you need to find or believe in god to get yourself on your feet then you are weakminded. That is using faith as a crutch, as if only because they believed in god they were able to clean up, sober up and get back into society. BS. If you want to do that, do it for yourself dignity. I hate when i hear people say, I'm an ex-whatever because i found god and now my life is better. Or when athletes who work their ass all everyday of the week, practice, mold and stregthen their bodies, learn and hone thier skills give credit to god when they put all that perperation to work. They succeded because of all their hard work. God didn't make them stay an hour later, wake up earlier and train harder.
Faith is one thing and if that's for you then fine, I have no issues. I have issues with religion, as it's a cult, an organized way of thinking and if you don't think that same way, you're an infidel. As for the bible, that book was written 30 years after the events happened and translated I don't know how many times. And yet, people live and breathe by every fricking word.
Why doesn't Bush and Ashcroft go after the child molesting believers and preachers of god? The christian KKK rednecks hate anything but white Americans, huh, dumb crackers, Israelites weren't white and neither was jesus.
What happened when all the churches predicted armegedon at 2000? "Oh, oops, we made a mistake". Yea, ok.
Sorry for my rant, I'll go away now.
<strong> The success rate is better. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not exactly. You can get people to stop doing heroin, but they're just addicted to methedone instead. If you can get someone off alcohol, but they're on [religion] instead, their problems aren't really solved. They're just moved the problem from one source to another.
<strong>
Not exactly. You can get people to stop doing heroin, but they're just addicted to methedone instead. If you can get someone off alcohol, but they're on [religion] instead, their problems aren't really solved. They're just moved the problem from one source to another.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd rather have someone feverishly believing in God than being piss drunk and trying to drive home.
<strong>
I'd rather have someone feverishly believing in God than being piss drunk and trying to drive home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm honestly not sure which is more dangerous.
Yeah, where's the seperation from church and state? As for the arguement Matsu brought up, sorry, but if you need to find or believe in god to get yourself on your feet then you are weakminded. That is using faith as a crutch, as if only because they believed in god they were able to clean up, sober up and get back into society. BS. If you want to do that, do it for yourself dignity. I hate when i hear people say, I'm an ex-whatever because i found god and now my life is better. Or when athletes who work their ass all everyday of the week, practice, mold and stregthen their bodies, learn and hone thier skills give credit to god when they put all that perperation to work. They succeded because of all their hard work. God didn't make them stay an hour later, wake up earlier and train harder.
Faith is one thing and if that's for you then fine, I have no issues. I have issues with religion, as it's a cult, an organized way of thinking and if you don't think that same way, you're an infidel. As for the bible, that book was written 30 years after the events happened and translated I don't know how many times. And yet, people live and breathe by every fricking word.
Why doesn't Bush and Ashcroft go after the child molesting believers and preachers of god? The christian KKK rednecks hate anything but white Americans, huh, dumb crackers, Israelites weren't white and neither was jesus.
What happened when all the churches predicted armegedon at 2000? "Oh, oops, we made a mistake". Yea, ok.
Sorry for my rant, I'll go away now. <hr></blockquote>
AMEN!!
"I'd rather have someone feverishly believing in God than being piss drunk and trying to drive home."
Replied to by BR
"I'm honestly not sure which is more dangerous."
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> I'm an atheist by the way but I'm not intolerant of peoples beliefs- its their life.
<strong>
I'd rather have someone feverishly believing in God than being piss drunk and trying to drive home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd rather have people piss poor and drunk, puking in the streets and shitting themselves in bed than a bunch of state sponsored religious zealots.
Hasn't anyone else noticed how much trouble a country can create when they're full of religious zealots?
Glad I don?t live there.