Nationalized Dogma (where Is the Line?)

Before I start, I think it's best if I get out of the way what exactly I mean by "nationalized dogma". Allow me to present to you the definition of dogma (more for argument's sake than me needing to define the word).

dog*ma (dфg m , d g -)

n. pl. dog*mas or dog*ma*ta (-m -t )

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

I'm not going to deny that for most people, dogma is an essential for even getting up in the morning. That is what makes humans remarkable over other animal; when problem solving fails; we have the ability to look to a celestial being, or just hope and faith to get us by. It is that faith that makes all people strong, no matter what the situation. The nationalization of dogma is referring to the government selecting and forcing upon the citizens of the United States their specific ideas of faith.

Now then, just recently (and most unfortunately), George W. Bush was re-elected to office. Being as he is our president, it's Bush's job to guide the country in a manner which is not only constitutional, but morally sound. What happens, then when you have a president whose morals are not based on American culture and what is going on in the modern world, but one whose moral fiber has been weaved by the bible? A problem is what you get. Bush is what is as a "compassionate conservative". This phrase in an oxymoron to the educated and it is moral position of greatness to the ignorant. But that is neither here nor there. A "compassionate conservative" outlook is basically:

* Government should fund religious social service programs that include proselytizing and worship as key components;

* We should reexamine a policy of "multiple establishment" of religion, in which different religions and denominations are directly funded by the federal government; and

* It is an "error" to judge federally-funded social service programs by the effectiveness of the services they provide, instead of judging them by religious "long-term ends."

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who sees an issue with this, but it's clear that no one has really sat down Bush and explained what the separation of church and state is. Once again, I think that the ideals of dogma is wonderful, however it is not something that should be involved in the government. Bush has been giving money to church groups to aid the war on drugs. Instead of a 12 step program, addicts are given a bible and the promise of Jesus' love. These are organizations that should be self-funded in order to exist. The government should have no hand in any religions anything.

The

...