<center><h1><a href=http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=748&POSTNUKESID=d17cd10b1bd7c0d83b7235795b60f0cb>Bushs childishly literal notion of what is truthful has set the tone for his entire administration.</a></h1></center> <blockquote>...religious sensitivities should not be excluded from the sphere of public reason. However, the problem that arises is when religious belief is put in a realm that protects it from the usual rule of scrutiny [when] further inquiry is cut off with an appeal to faith. Even the most religious minded apply standards of reason in everyday decisions. For example, we dont want our police making decisions based on faith; or our physicians to become faith-healers; or our investment advisers appealing to God first and foremost in their decisions on our retirement portfolios. Yet this is the kind of voodoo logic that Bush implies by his carefully chosen moralistic words. At this point Singer asks if there is any underlying ethic the president holds. He concludes there is not, that Bush offers no broad ethical principles to guide him, that his constantly shifting positions are ethically contradictory. Bush cannot be defined as having either an individual rights ethic, a utilitarian ethic, or a Christian ethic. Rather, says Singer, Bush appears to be driven by what Bob Woodward called a secular faith in his instincts....</blockquote> Talk about your moral relativism.