1
   

Casualties of Faith

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 08:15 am
While we are at war with fundamental Islam around the world we are faced with the fundamental Christianity of our president and his administration here at home. Which IMO is no less a national danger.

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Casualties of Faith

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: October 21, 2004

wASHINGTON

When I was little, I was very good at leaps of faith.

A nun would tape up a picture of a snow-covered mountain peak on the blackboard and say that the first child to discern the face of Christ in the melting snow was the holiest. I was soon smugly showing the rest of the class the "miraculous" outline of that soulful, bearded face.

But I never thought I'd see the day when leaps of faith would be national policy, when the fortunes of America hung on the possibility of a miracle.

What does it tell you about a president that his grounds for war are so weak that the only way he can justify it is by believing God wants it? Or that his only Iraq policy now - as our troops fight a vicious insurgency and the dream of a stable democracy falls apart - is a belief in miracles?

Miracles make the incurious even more incurious. People who live by religious certainties don't have to waste time with recalcitrant facts or moral doubts. They do not need to torture themselves, for example, about dispatching American kids into a sand trap with ghostly enemies and without the proper backup, armor, expectations or cultural training.

Any president relying more on facts than faith could have seen that his troops would be sitting ducks: Donald Rumsfeld's experiment - sending in a light, agile force (more a Vin Diesel vehicle than a smart plan for Iraq) - was in direct conflict with the overwhelming force needed to attempt the neocons' grandiose scheme to turn Iraq into a model democracy.

J.F.K. had to fight the anti-papist expectation that his Oval Office would take orders from heaven. For W., it's a selling point. Some right-wing Catholics want John Kerry excommunicated, while evangelicals call the president a messenger of God. "God's blessing is on him," the TV evangelist Pat Robertson says, adding, "It's the blessing of heaven on the emperor."

Mr. Bush has shown all the evangelical voters who didn't like his daddy that he gets, as Mr. Robertson puts it, "his direction from the Lord."

When Paula Zahn asked the televangelist Tuesday whether Mr. Bush, as a Christian, should admit his mistakes, Mr. Robertson said he'd warned a self-satisfied Bush about Iraq: "The Lord told me it was going to be (a) a disaster, and (b) messy."

Mr. Robertson said, "He was the most self-assured man I ever met." Paraphrasing Mark Twain, he said Mr. Bush was "like a contented Christian with four aces. He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. ... And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties. 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' "

W., it seems, really believes he's the one. President Neo. (And his advisers are disciples. That's why Condi Rice so willingly puts aside her national security duties to spread the Bush gospel in swing states, and why Karen Hughes raced to impugn Mr. Robertson's veracity after he described his chilling encounter with W.)

W.'s willful blindness comes from mistakenly assuming that his desires are God's, as if he knows where God stands on everything from democracy in Iraq to capital-gains tax cuts.

As Lincoln noted in his Second Inaugural Address about the Civil War, one can't speak for God: "The Almighty has His own purposes."

Mr. Bush didn't just ignore Mr. Robertson's warning - he ignored his own intelligence experts, who warned before the war that an invasion of Iraq would spur more support for political Islam and trigger violent conflict, including an insurgency that would drive Baathists and terrorists together in a toxic combination.

As Michael Gordon wrote in his Times series this week on blind spots in the strategy to secure Iraq, the Bush crew engaged in an astonishing series of delusions: assuming they could begin a withdrawal of troops 60 days after taking Baghdad; enabling the insurgency to flourish; abolishing the Iraqi military and putting American lives at risk; misreading the obvious reaction to an American occupation of a Muslim country.

C.I.A. officials were so clueless they wanted to sneak hundreds of small American flags into Iraq before the war started so grateful Iraqis could wave them at their liberators. The agency planned to film that and triumphantly beam it to the Arab world.

The president has this strange notion that his belief in God means detailed and perfect knowledge of everything that God wants. He may wish to keep his head stuck in the Iraqi sand, but he may discover that the Almighty has His own purposes.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 589 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 08:39 am
Quote:
C.I.A. officials were so clueless they wanted to sneak hundreds of small American flags into Iraq before the war started so grateful Iraqis could wave them at their liberators. The agency planned to film that and triumphantly beam it to the Arab world.


Surely they were not serious about this? Wonder why they didn't go through with the plan? Sometimes it seems like this administration conducts serious world matters like campaign election tactics.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 08:59 am
A faith-based presidency
is what we have

'My faith plays a big part in my life," said President Bush in the last debate. But, "I never want to impose my religion on anybody else."
No, he has left the imposing to the groups he funds and the appointees he selects.

From the first day Bush entered office and reimposed the Reagan-era gag rule - by which any family planning clinic in the developing world that so much as mentions abortion loses its U.S. funding - Bush has promoted a far-right Christian agenda. That is probably because, while white evangelical Christians make up only 25% of the population, they made up 40% of his voters.

Note: editorial from New York Daily News.
This is something I had been aware of, of course, but not until I read Esther Kaplan's "With God on Their Side" did I realize how many profound (and silly) ways Bush has pandered to Christian fundamentalists.

Silly first? Okay, here: In the middle of the 1.5million-acre Mojave National Preserve in California, there is an 8-foot cross on a big rock outcropping. It was ordered removed for separation of church and state reasons. The Bush administration appealed that decision, lost and appealed again - but in the meantime, it did something very weird. At the bottom of a 2004 defense funding bill, it added a provision to trade 1 acre in the middle of the Mojave Preserve (guess which?) for 5 private acres at the park's entrance. Bush used a defense bill to keep a cross in a national park.

But let's get down to more serious issues, like sex. Through Bush's faith-based initiative (which has yet to directly fund any initiative run by a Jewish, Muslim, Hindi or Sikh group), Bush has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to "abstinence till marriage" programs throughout the country. By law, only abstinence can be discussed in these classes, even when, as Kaplan witnessed when she visited one in Tennessee, a teen directly asks, "How do you use a condom?"

"Abstinence works," Kaplan admits. But there is no evidence that programs promoting abstinence work.

In fact, says Adrienne Verrilli, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S., Minnesota, Arizona and Pennsylvania all evaluated their abstinence programs and concluded they needed to include a broader discussion of contraceptives and safe sex.

One more bit about sex: Just this year, the Food and Drug Administration's advisory committee recommended approving the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter sale. Since it is almost unheard of for the FDA to rule against its advisers, women's groups rejoiced. By some estimates, this pill (which prevents a clump of fertilized cells from implanting in the womb and starting a pregnancy) could eliminate as many as half of all abortions in America.

But guess what? The acting commissioner of the FDA - Bush's man - ruled against the pill.

In this administration, whatever the fundamentalists want, the fundamentalists get. In short: This is a man who does impose his beliefs. Religiously.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 09:12 am
I agree with you, but try arguing that to the other side and it is frustrating as all get out.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 09:28 am
Revel
Arguing with the religious zealots is an act of futility. They all believe in the Bush credo. My way or the highway. Religious people preach tolerance but have never practiced it and continue to spread it's poisonous tentacles
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 09:51 am
au1929 wrote:
Revel
Arguing with the religious zealots is an act of futility. They all believe in the Bush credo. My way or the highway. Religious people preach tolerance but have never practiced it and continue to spread it's poisonous tentacles



I love when some people try to lump all people with religious faith in one giant package, somehow believing that everyone who believes in God is some sort of Bible thumping, close minded, book burning whackos.

Many of us have faith, yet we keep it to ourselves. We are your friends and neighbors. We are your co-workers and the people you buy your morning latte from. We have personal faith and we choose to not let it run our lives, rather we use it as a sort of compass to back up what we know is right.

Most of us could care less about gay marriage and yet we get lumped in with the frothing fanatics that are all that the media shows.

Many of us hate abortion, yet we do not protest because we respect others rights to make decisions about their own lives.


And many of us get VERY frustrated when the same people who scream that we should not blame every Muslim for the actions of a few fanatics are the first to lump those of us with faith in God with the rabid but vocal minority that want a return to the 'days of olde'.

I would appreciate in future au if you would at least acknowledge that many persons of faith are far from the fanatics you seem to want to paint them as.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:02 am
Fedral
Yes I will acknowledge that all people of religion are not bible thumping zealots. However, someone will have to explain how these good Evangelical Christians who believe in tolerance can be the backbone of support for our bible thumping president.

Who if he could would make a farce of the principle of separation of church and state. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:06 am
Good post, Fedrl. Sometimes the anti-religionists are every bit as fanatical as some of the rabid Bible-thumpers. I have a close friend who happens to call himself a born-again Christian, believes the Bible word-for-word literally, tithes to his church and all the rest that goes with it. (He's sane in most other respects and a great guy.) He also happens to be vehemently anti-Bush and plans to vote for Kerry. He also has a Master's degree from Harvard. He also vociferously supports separation of church and state. Go figure. Painting all self-professed Christians with the same broad brush is self-defeating, just as it is self-defeating to characterize all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:17 am
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

Think the fundementalists aren't active here at home?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:43 am
au1929 wrote:
Yes I will acknowledge that all people of religion are not bible thumping zealots. However, someone will have to explain how these good Evangelical Christians who believe in tolerance can be the backbone of support for our bible thumping president.

Who if he could would make a farce of the principle of separation of church and state. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.


I'll step up and try to explain. I consider myself to be "born again," but not drunk on the rush of the experience... I go to a Four Square church, which is evangelical as all get-out. I believe Christ died on the cross and shed his blood to cover our sins. I believe in miracles. But I am among about 33% of my peers who believe Kerry is the better candidate to support in this election. However, perhpas I have a handle on why fundamentalists like Bush so much... of course, perhaps not... This is all jmo, fwiw, but what I speculate draws them to Bush...

1) He's born-again. He was a lost soul, drinking and drugging, a failure at business, just an average sinner, then he was transformed and saved.

2) He speaks christianese.

3) Born-again christians feel persecuted. They may even like to feel persecuted (makes them more like Jesus, you know... Rolling Eyes) They see Bush as being persecuted, by liberals, by the media, by the WORLD... It resonates with them and their own personal struggles...

4) There is some speculation that Bush was called to lead (by God.) 9/11 validated that belief for those looking for validation.

Not all christians believe these things. Not all believe he was called. But we do tend to sympathize with his positions on policies. But some born-again christians argue that born-again christians are citizens of Heaven first, not the U.S. or any nation on earth. And therefore, should not be president. Others argue that because of that, he has dual citizenship and is the perfect instrument to bring God's will to our nation. That is the fanatical fringe, though, not a mainstrem belief, but one that holds some sway... Idea
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:45 am
"Christianese" :-)

Nice list, princess.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 11:25 am
I am a fundamentalist christian myself but I am voting for Kerry. (I don't believe in the rapture maybe that is what separates me?)

That is not the point or who we are talking about though. We are talking about people like the President who want to change the consitution to not allow gays to marry. Or people like Jerry Fawell.

If it don't apply, I don't understand why anybody would get offended.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Casualties of Faith
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 02:29:17