Is Bush Too Religious?

Is Bush too religious?

This question animated media elites, secular Blue state leaders, and Democrats over the past year.

But a serious examination and answer is offered in
in The Economist (Dec. 16, by Micklethwait and Woolrigde, presumably - authors of The Right Nation).


"Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had rubber-chicken dinners."

They go on to detail the five main ways religion informs the president's rhetoric.

"By and large, Mr Bush has not associated the workings of providence with America or himself. The best evidence is his frequent assertion that' the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity. To many Europeans, this formulation seems unnecessary. They argue that liberty is good in itself, not because it is God's gift. But to Americans the association is almost axiomatic, since it is rooted in the declaration of independence ('all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'). In some ways, Mr Bush is actually rejecting the 'exceptionalist' claim that America is a unique nation singled out by its liberty."
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3502861

What remains unexamined is why hysteria, venom, and hatred of Bush reached its apogee in living US memory. This mystery goes beyond all rational explanation.

 

Good post (as usual) Orson.

I have spoken to this a few times myself. It seems to be all right if someone leaning left of the political center talks about God, Jesus, the Bible, social justice within the context and constructs of the Judeo-Christian theologies, etc.

Martin Luther King, Jr., quoted Amos on numerous ocassions, "But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream," and no one on the left complained; and they shouldn't have; no one should have. King's fight for social justice is an honorable chapter in our nation's history.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make numerous references to God, Jesus, and Scripture. They are virtually given a free pass from the left.

And you are right about Jimmy Carter. He campaigned as a "born again Christian," and ended up being Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1977 (I think that was the year.).

I would just, for once, like to see fair play in the midst of all this. It would be a welcome change!

Merry Christmas, Orson. Happy Hanukkah some, Happy Kwanza to others, Happy Winter Solstice to the pagans, Happy Ingersoll Day to the atheists, Merry Jeffersonian Day to the Deists, Enjoy the Sulphur to the Satanists, Blessed Hay Day to the Wiccans, and to all others................. Pax vobiscum.

 

From my observations with friends and acquaintances (includes both democrats and republicans) who dislike Bush not one has mentioned anything about his religious views. They dislike (or hate) his domestic and foreign policies.

 

Ditto what Ian said.

 

It isn't polite to object to someone on the grounds of religion - especially among those, usually on the the political left, claiming the aura of political correctness: multiculturalism, cultural toleration, moral relativism. But is was a large part of the anyone-but-Bush campaign this past year: abhorrance of moral certainty and religious talk.

If you haven't heard these jibes, documented by columnist Joihn Leo, then it's likely you're not listening to the same music minorities hear.

-Orson

 

An example:

HERE's recent story linking my complaint with the "foreign policy" objections two people admit as proper objections to Bush.


--------
Schroeder questions Bush linking politics and God
22 November 2004

BERLIN_- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has questioned whether US President George W Bush should link political decisions to religion.

Speaking in a German television interview_on Monday, Schroeder said:_"It's foreign to me. I have difficulties with it, "_after being asked what he made of Bush's growing use of Christianity as a basis for US policy. The text of the ARD talkshow interview was made available in advance to reporters.

Schroeder, a Social Democrat, is a lapsed Protestant who declined to use the formulation "so help me God" at his swearing in ceremonies as chancellor both in 1998 and 2002.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=14211&name=Schroeder+questions+Bush+linking+politics%2C+God+

 

...and virtually all of the N YTimes op-ed page columnists write disapprovingly of Bush's faith: Dowd, Herbert, Krugman and others.

Dr. Paul Kengor (political science prof at Grove City College) says "I don't think there is anything like it since Richard Nixon.They detest this man and his faith has a lot to do with it.... the Left in particular, hated John Ashcroft even before there was a Patriot Act. It really galls them when a conservative Republican president talks his faith. And it's funny, because they don't feel that way when their own folks do it. Bill Clinton spoke in churches 21 times, as president. George W. Bush has spoken in churches three times. That excludes memorial services. But Clinton spoke in churches seven more times than Bush. By the way, over half of those 21 occasions were during election years. Clinton flat out asked for votes, did vote pushing in churches. The New York Times and the media did not complain or cry foul. They let it go. Quotes like this are common. This is Jesse Jackson just two weeks ago: Herod was a conservative, Jesus was a liberal. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) in Iowa a few months ago, said Jesus was a Democrat, I think. Now imagine if George W. Bush said something like that. I am sharing quotes now, and listeners are saying I don't remember those fellows saying those things. Well, they were not reported on. But when George W. Bush cites Jesus as his favorite philosopher, you have a collective coronary by the entire Washington press core."

Now, lest you imagine that this is hysteria, consider some reactions to Kengor's book at www.amazon.com:

"Bush has used religion to propel him into power. He is not a Christian because he is not in any way Christ-like. He hijacked our Lord and Savior. He is an occupier of innocent countries, a killer of innocent people, and he will, in the end, destroy the reputation of Christianity as a whole. How much did Bush pay this author for this book? Jesus is weeping...." Says "Pastor John of Detriot.

Or take Joyce A. Giancola (Georgia):
__
"I would think that Americans would take heed to what's hapening around the world in the name of religion - The Crusades; the Salem Witch trials; Irish Catholics v. Protestans; Jew v. Gentile; Mulsim v. Jew; Muslin v. Christian; Christian v. Buddists; Do we really want Bush's verson of religion as the state religion in America? Bush is the only U.S. president to attempt to impose his particular religion on the country in a dangerous disregard for separation of church and state."

I've encountered this last line a lot in the past year, listening to people vent:

Evil and George W. Bush: A delusional life, August 23, 2004 Reviewer: J. D. Shockley (San Francisco) - __
"Never underestimate someone's capacity to delude himself and others. Bush is responsible for unspeakable suffering, for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children. As an arrogant rich man who doesn't try to change society to alleviate the poor(1%ofAmerica has 45%of the wealth, we have 40 million Americans without medical coverage) he is very far away from any of the Christian ideals. Also, and needless to say, there is no proof of God, there is no proof of a God that is good, or even less, the wrathful, jealous and scatological God often depicted in the bible(the one Bush seems to follow) Many monsters throughout humanity believed to have a direct line to God, people like Hitler."

THEREFORE, saying you 'never hear such things about Bush' and its purely about policy is flat out wrong!

This book is pure Propaganda , September 18, 2004
Reviewer:
Chuck Madsen "Chuck" (Hoffman Estates, IL) -
"As a publisher of children's books I think it is a shame to use spirituality as a way to get into the soft spots of people's hearts to sell a man whose actions are cynical and ungodly"

 

To clarify my post I said none of my friends and acquaintances (they are a mix of athiests, Jews, and Christians) thought Bush' religion was a factor in choosing who to vote for I had knew, and I would assume my friends knew, all about the religous views of both Bush and Kerry and the associated controversies in the print and broadcast media.

 

Well, I object....

I object to not only Bush's religious views, but the fact that all political wannabes in this country must, of necessity, pay at least lip service to ancient desert legends in this post-modern world of nuclear weaponry. Can you all imagine what our reaction would be if Bush called upon Zeus for guidance? We would find it ridiculous. Why do we find it less ridiculous, and perhaps even admirable, that he calls upon an equally unprovable and equally fantastic religious identity, except that instead of a God who could change himself into a swan it is one who turns water to wine?

 

Re: Well, I object....

Because there is historical evidence attesting to the existence of Jesus and none attestng to the existence of Zeus.

Very few scholars, if any, deny Jesus existed, Carl.

 

aww heck, who knows, maybe because 90-95% of americans believe in a higher power?

it's good to know that this many folks here in the U.S. are such idiots.

oh well, we all know america is a crappy country barely getting by anyway.

 

Re: Re: Well, I object....

So back to the "blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe" thing? What historical evidence are you referring to Jimmy? Are there accounts or writings (other than the Christian texts) that say (a) Jesus is/was God, (b) Jesus rose from the dead, or (c) that Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father?

I'd find this much more convincing if there were Roman accounts or other accounts (but not obviously biased Christian myths) that more or less corroborated the "evidence" that you seem to think is available.

 

Re: Re: Well, I object....

I have no doubt a "man" named Jesus Christ existed. He was no more the son of god than you Jimmy. The bible, although being an interesting history book, is no more the word of god that frankly my Hustler magazine. I am sorry if that offends you, but it is the simple truth.

If you think about it, don't you think that if god is good and almighty that he would be equally as pissed at Clinton for lying about a hummer as Bush lying about WMD? I think he would.

 

Re: Well, I object....

I agree pretty strongly with that, Carl.

The key to that strange incongruity is probably because the explanations aren't to be found in philosophy so much as in history, sociology and social psychology. It's less a matter of reasons and evidence than it is of causes and passions.

The dense cloud of religious scholarship that surrounds a number of the religious traditions hides the fact that sound rational foundations simply don't exist. Religion isn't science and never will be. Christ is no different than Zeus in that regard, and all that's really different is the historical and social context.

While it's possible for non-Christians to be elected to local office in the United States (happens all the time) and even state office (in some states at least), I'm not sure if they could be elected to national office in present day America.

The one exception might be Jews, who get special consideration from Christians since Judaism honors some of the same myths. (Christianity can be considered a Jewish messianic heresy I guess, that eventually grew to be larger than its parent.)

It would be interesting to see how somebody like Lieberman actually did in a national presidential election.

Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and so on would no doubt seem too ethnic and too alien in most cases, too closely tied to immigrant communities. But even native white Anglo converts to these traditions would probably stimulate frantic campaigns in fundamentalist churches to get out the 'anybody-but' vote.

A self-avowed atheist? A thoughtful agnostic? I don't really see a problem in San Francisco, but it probably ain't gonna work in Jackson MS.

Many Christians, particularly those of the conservative Protestant sort, can't really see a distinction between ethics and morality on one hand, and belief in their supernatural myths on the other. So to them, a person without a religious faith that closely resembles theirs will have great difficulty in being a good man. The outsider may even be the tool of the evil principalities and powers that dominate this fallen world.

 

To Carl and Bill

You know, it's nice to see an anti-religious post that isn't hatemongering. You're wrong but you're civil. That's good enough for me. I utterly disagree with you, but I am glad that it's possible to disagree with you.

Bill, on your last paragraph, there is a terrific indictment of a lot of so-called conservative Christians* on their own terms, in that Romans chapters 1 and 2 in the New Testament say explicitly that pagans have an awareness of natural law that teaches them good and evil unless they suppress the awareness (which is evident in subsequent behavior).

Aquinas, Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, Althaus--among others--held to the concept of the virtuous pagan and cited inter alios Socrates, Cicero, and Seneca the Younger as examples.

Of course, "virtue" won't save you, but it can make you useful and effective in society.

The Lutheran doctrine of "two kingdoms" says that government has its own integrity as a God-given institution (again, following Romans), so that a competent and just pagan ruler is superior to an incompetent and unjust Christian ruler.

Best wishes to you both,
Janko



*Remember, from my perspective, fundamentalism is just another variety of liberalism.

 

Re: To Carl and Bill

Hi Unk. I can't speak for Carl, but I certainly didn't intend to be anti-religious. Not even un-religious.

I do have serious questions about the foundations of religious belief. For that reason I kind of lean towards a non-cognitive treatment of the matter. I favor some of the things I see in the Christian mystical tradition for example, and I'm inclined to employ pragmatic criteria of religious effectiveness. (I'm not sure if I would call it 'truth', exactly.)

I also live in a world of religious diversity and I see other religions all around me, busy serving the needs of their own participants just as Christianity serves Christians. But without the foundations, I can't distinguish the true faiths from false ones. And my rather transcendental outlook makes me question the attempt to do so.

So if they are pointing at some dimension in life that ultimately transcends words and concepts, and if they all succeed to some extent in pragmatic terms, then I guess that I should gravitate to the ones that best match my personal constellation of psychology, philosophy and life history. I'm very post-modern and 21'st century, I guess, a religious consumer!

Sorry for the little self-indulgent excursion, but it's where I'm coming from.

You keep me honest, Unk. When I get frustrated and start to say something nasty about Christians, I think: Would it really be true of or fair to my friend Unk and to all the other fine Christians that I have known? ...often not. So I do a little inner 'delete'.

I won't argue with that because it's obviously true.

Yeah, I don't mean for a moment to put out a blanket indictment of Christians. If that's how it sounded, I apologise. If there's one thing that I do know about Christianity, it's that the tradition is incredibly complex and multi-stranded. Christians embrace everything from the UU's to the Amish, from gay Episcopal bishops to St. Theresa of Avila, from Greek hesychasts at Mt. Athos to BJU.

But I do think that there is an element of...what?...popular Christianity out there that does distrust non-Christians, and that it's large enough to make it problematic for a non-Christian to win an election in regions where that distrust is strong. And just from my experience, I think that distrust is often expressed in moral terms.

So as Carl suggested, political candidates sometimes seem to put on religious coloring, making a big show of attending church and telling reporters about the effect that their faith has in their life.

That's probably more important for Republicans, given the demographics of their base. But liberals do it too.

I guess some of the anabaptists tried to create governments of the elect in places like Munster, back in the 16'th century, and Calvin locked down Geneva.

But yeah, I'm not suggesting anything about all Christians or about all Protestants, or even about all conservative Protestants. But I do think that there is an element of distrust circulating out there among some people, whatever its provenance.

And given the obvious venom that fills so many militant atheists, things would be no better if the situation were reversed, I'm sure. The distrust isn't all one-way by any means. I'm not trying to claim the high ground here, I'm just thinking about why presidential candidates make such big show of visiting churches in front of the TV cameras. And I'm speculating about the prospects for individuals with atypical religion seeking elected office.

 

Re: To Carl and Bill

Ditto to what Bill said in his later post. Also, thanks Unk for recognizing an honest question/discussion from hate mongering.

I can't keep up with all the intellectual background, reasoning, and solid academic foundation of my colleague, but I recognize a good debate conducted with civility and collegiality when I see it.

Best wishes to you too - always....
Carl

 

Ditto to what Uncle Janko said regarding civil discourse. It is very much appreciated.

Now Carl, do you really think all the great theological minds throughout our world's history, minds that have studied at some of the greatest universities and seminaries in the world, would believe in fairy tales and myths?

Do you really think people like Tillich, Barth, and the Niebuhr's were that stupid? Do you think people like Martin Luther, Calvin, Knox, Erasmus, the Wesleys believed in myths?

As far as other texts mentioning Jesus, a number of texts by Jews (Joseph for one) and and Muslims (the Koran for another) mention Jesus.

You should also read the stone ossuary recently discovered that has an inscription reading, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." If authentic, this would be the earliest archaeological find that corroborates Biblical references to Jesus.

I won't comment on your post regarding whether Jesus is God nor not. I held your position until recently so I know from whence you are coming.

 

Hi guys:

Thanks for the replies.

Bill, I knew that "anti-religious" wasn't really the word I wanted, but "religious liberal" would be misunderstood as a political description--which ain't necessarily so, viz., President and Chief Justice Taft--and it's so 1920's Unitarian.

Anyway, I read your post too fast and I thought it said "Greek hesychasts at BJU." THAT stopped me in my tracks!

Janko (the 1520's Lutheran)

P.S. to Jimmy: Well, no, not Barth, anyway.

 

Obviously I meant Josephus.

Thanks Uncle Janko, for not "dressing me down" for putting Martin Luther and Erasmus in the same listing.

AKA the Wartburg Lutheran.