God and Politics - Who Does He Select?

Sometimes I found he was useful to remember; especially when I lost things that were important. After slamming through the house, panicky and breathless from searching, I could stop in the middle of a room and shut my eyes. "Please God, let me find my red hat with the blue trimmings." It usually worked. God became a superfather that couldn't spank me. But if I wanted a thing badly enough, he arranged it.

That satisfied me until I began to figure that if God loved all his children equally, why did he bother about my red hat and let other people lose their fathers and mothers for always? I began to see that he didn't have much to do about hats or people dying or anything. They happened whether he wanted them to or not, and he stayed in Heaven and pretended not to notice. I wondered a little why God was such a useless thing. It seemed a waste of time to have him. After that he became less and less, until he was ..... nothingness.

I felt rather proud to think that I had found the truth myself, without help from anyone. It puzzled me that other people hadn't found out, too. God was gone. We were younger. We had reached past him. Why couldn't they see it? It still puzzles me."

Well, I finally found the transcript from last Fridays airing of Scarborough Country. I had a major "Wow" moment with this one. We keep talking about the Christian Right, the midwest and southern Christian constituencies, and the importance GW has placed on his faith. While many across this country have grabbed his faith as a sign of GW being on their side, someone that they trust because of his faith, I as a Christian have been greatly repulsed by it.

What was the major "WOW" moment? That you are repulsed by Bush's expression of his faith? I'm missing your ephinany.

Here's the transcript (edited out the crosstalk and nonrelevant interruptions and further edited by me so no one is required to reread it in its entirety -fd'aAnd the view that God intends people to be free is as old and traditional in this country as Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence. Who thought it during the time of slavery? Which slave owners thought that God intended people to be free, including the presidents of the United States who were slave owners?

That the concept may not have been put to practice, doesn't invalidate the claim that Bush is not unique among presidents in arguing that God intends people to be free..

The subject of of this debate was not whether or not the notion that the Christian God actually intended for all people to be free, or whether or not early presidents who advanced this notion were hyprocrites in that they themselves held slaves, it was whether or not Bush is somehow uniquely (and fanatically) reliant upon Christian teachings and/or a personal dialogue with God in his decision making.

O'Donnel diverted the discussion to an issue which could not be refuted (Christians have owned slaves) and implied that this hypocrisy, somehow, extended to George Bush. It is an old debating technique which the others involved failed to call him on.To pretend for 2,000 years of Christian culture there was an agreement on the notion that God wanted people to be free is an outright historical lie. That agreement has never been present in Christian culture, never.

Again, O'Donnell nicely begs the question and Buchanan fails to call him on it. Kengor didn't argue that for 2,000 years the Christian culture was in agreement that God wanted people to be free. He argued that Bush wasn't the only president to advance this notion. It may or may not be a historical or even theological falsehood, but that doesn't, at all, speak to whether or not Bush is unique or fanatical.

By the way, it would surprise me if any current day Christian would argue that, notwithstanding the history of Christians, God doesn't want all people to be free. Therefore, if Bush, as a Christian argues that God wants all people to be free, are modern Christians (like you Squinney) going to dissent with him? That is not unique at all among American presidents and among the founders, among Woodrow Wilson, liberals, conservatives.

Not sure why you chose to use bold here. This is precisely the Kengor argument and it counters the notion that Bush is some sort of uniquely zealot in the White House.Squinney - Do you as a Christian actually agree that there is absolutely no place for prayer in a president's decision making about going to war?

I would agree that there is a reason for concern if the president literally asks God if he should go to war and claims that he has literally heard the answer: "YES!"

The problem is that there is no proof whatsoever that this is what happened with George Bush, only specious innuendo.

Bush said that the former President Bush was the wrong father to turn to for strength. He did not say he was the wrong father to turn to for advice or instruction.

Bush has repeatedly said that he seeks the aid of God to help him be wise in his judgments, not to set policy. You can ignore these comments if you will, but it would help to provide countering comments if you insist upon persuing this track that Bush is a religious nut. Bill Clinton or any other president would have consulted George Bush before invading Iraq.

That may or may not be, but again O'Donnel begs the question. Whether or not Bush asked his father for advice on going to war is not, in any way, indicative of the degree to which his faith informs his decisions.

BUCHANAN: You have a problem with the fact that the president got on his knees and prayed to God Almighty that he do the right thing before he invaded two foreign countries? obviously, Pat, if he did pray, his prayers were not answered, were they, because he was praying...

Here again, I fail to see the reason for using bold.

First of all Buchanan's religiousity is not imputed to Bush. No matter what pompously pious phrases he may use, he is not speaking for Bush.

Secondly, it is not all obvious that if Bush prayed his prayers were not answered. O'Donnell can't possiblly know what Bush actually prayed for, and he is attempting to introduce his own political position on the war into a (sarcastic) assessment of what God delivered to Bush. For those who believe the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, there is reason to argue that God answered Bush's prayer and gave him the strength to make the right decision. This is simply nonsensical on O'Donnell's part, and, again, no one calls him on it.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that O'Donnell's scenario of Bush specifically asking God "Should I invade Iraq for weapons of mass destruction." is accurate and I guarantee that if he were being honest, O'Donnell would admit he doesn't actually believe posed such a question to God. It is merely O'Donnell's way to introduce another point which supports his political stance but which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.Here, again, is Kengor's point.Here, again, is O'Donnell dodging it.

KENGOR: Yes.

This makes no sense. Did you edit out his actual answer? Begging the question with a question. Based on what evidence? Nothing O'Donnell has argued heretofore supports this conclusion.

You've chosen to embolden what is merely a cheap comment from O'Donnell. Is this quip of his supposed to prove that George Bush claims to know what God wants?Exactly. This is what Bush has contended. He prays that God will help him reach a proper decision and then he makes the decision. He hopes that he has followed God's guidance and made the right decision, but he doesn't know for sure because God didn't appear in a burning bush and tell him "Go invade Iraq." As an anti-Bush Christian Squinney, tell me where Bush has gone wrong with this.Pat, do you think that this war was guided by God, this invasion, that the president was guided by God?

BUCHANAN: No. I rest my case.

You emboldened the wrong comment.

O'Donnell is resting his case on Buchanan's answer? What the hell is his case? That God didn't guide the president? The issue is not whether or not God approves of the war in Iraq, it is whether or not we have a president who believes God told him to invade Iraq.

And even if the debate were what O'Donnell tried to turn it to, since when is Pat Buchanan the final word on what God does or does not want?No it doesn't. Nor does it prove that the president prayed and believes he got God's answer. It proves nothing at all.Anyone care to argue with this?BINGO!

GW claims to talk to God, but how on earth are we supposed to know what answer he's getting. Pat Bucchanan doesn't think God told GW to invade. Pat Robertson doesn't believe GW listened when he warned GW that God had told him there would be casualties. GW says he got a different answer. Aren't we getting into really dangerous territory here?

Bush claims to speak with God in, I suspect, the very same way you as a Christian speak with God. He has never even intimated that he has a literal conversation with God. If you can offer proof that he has, I will readily acknowledge that I am wrong. He speaks with God in the sense that millions of others speak with God. He prays to God. He believes God hears is prayers, and he believes that in one way or the other God answers those prayers. From what I know of Christian teachings, this is a mainstream perception of prayer. Only someone hell bent on casting Bush as a religious nut is going to insist that his use of the term "speaks" is literal in the human sense.

As for your question, none of us are ever to know God's answer to Bush's prayers, anymore than Gerorge Bush will know. So what?

What difference does it really make whether the man believes his decision making is influenced by God. How is it more comforting to know that he believes his decisions are solely his alone? He would still make the same decisions.

I would agree that we should be very concerned by a president who claimed, as Pat Robinson does (amazing how Robertson has now become every Liberal's authority on Christainity), that God literally tells him things.
However, there is simply no evidence that this is the case.

The dangerous territory we are getting into is that some of us are accepting the argument that faith implies fanaticism, and allowing others to make such charges based upon tissue thin evidence. For those who equate religion with a societal disease, there is very little danger, simply vindication, but for those who themselves possess faith, it would be wise to worry about those who would hold that faith is irrational at least as much as those who practice their faith irrationally.

PS: For those who would leap upon the incongruency of faith and rationalism, I am using irrational in terms of this definition:

"Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock."
Comments?

No surprises here squinney...I have always thought he was a fruit loop...

Quote:

Sometimes I found he was useful to remember; especially when I lost things that were important. After slamming through the house, panicky and breathless from searching, I could stop in the middle of a room and shut my eyes. "Please God, let me find my red hat with the blue trimmings." It usually worked. God became a superfather that couldn't spank me. But if I wanted a thing badly enough, he arranged it.

That satisfied me until I began to figure that if God loved all his children equally, why did he bother about my red hat and let other people lose their fathers and mothers for always? I began to see that he didn't have much to do about hats or people dying or anything. They happened whether he wanted them to or not, and he stayed in Heaven and pretended not to notice. I wondered a little why God was such a useless thing. It seemed a waste of time to have him. After that he became less and less, until he was ..... nothingness.

I felt rather proud to think that I had found the truth myself, without help from anyone. It puzzled me that other people hadn't found out, too. God was gone. We were younger. We had reached past him. Why couldn't they see it? It still puzzles me."

an excerpt from Frances Farmers essay about God...

Only that I've just realised how incredibly different our nations are - I can't believe this is a serious political discussion.

It's not.

I would have thought that claiming guidance from God was political suicide (ask Joan D'Arc). It's such a ridiculously unprovable claim to make.

There is, of course, a difference between claiming metaphorical guidance from God and direct communication. Bush has not claimed the latter, and so you err if you make the assumption, based on this ridiculously flawed TV debate, that he is is a modern day Joan D'Arc.

Why wouldn't a minion of satan make the same claim?

He would.

There's nothing wrong with praying, I guess (i'm a secular humanist) but for people to use that as a reason to vote for someone seems naive at best.

It would be impossible for anyone to make the candidate's praying as a deciding factor in this election, because both claim to pray. The number of people who would base their vote solely on a candidate's claim to pray is so miniscule that commenting upon their state of mind is irrelevant. They will not be deciding the election.

And to think that God plays a hand in one nation's affairs above others strikes me as monumental hubris. And delusional, unless God has a ranking system with Vietnam above the US....

True, if one thinks that God favors one nation over another. It is a somewhat different story to think that God might use one or more nations to advance his will on Earth. Personally I don't believe this to be the case, but I don't think it is all that vainglorious, for instance, to consider that God had a hand in who won WWII.

I can only sympathise with your repulsion.

And I might too if the charges against Bush were legitimate, but they are not.

hingehead: Why wouldn't a minion of Satan make the same claim? Exactly. And what gets me is that those claiming to be Christians, who should know this, are completely missing it. For those believing in Armegeddon and end times, it is fortold that there will be deception.


Willow: Great piece. I had never read this essay. Will look up the remainder. Thank you.

Any desenters? Anyone that can explain this to me?

but I don't think it is all that vainglorious, for instance, to consider that God had a hand in who won WWII.

I can only sympathise with your repulsion.

And I might too if the charges against Bush were legitimate, but they are not.

Finn, I don't think squinney did the bolding. I think the bold parts are there to show the emphasis of the debaters, bold big writing = yelling. At least that was the impression I got from reading the article.

And I find the whole debate silly.

Finn wrote:

Quote:

but I don't think it is all that vainglorious, for instance, to consider that God had a hand in who won WWII.

Bejeebus I think it's extremely vainglorious. What sort of a God allows it to happen then tweaks the result?

This is an entirely different argument hingehead. That people may or may not have a flawed concept of God, doesn't make it vainglorious fro them to suppose that he had a hand in so black and white a war as WWII.

To paraphrase Calvin [to hobbes] 'either there's no God or he is one nasty dude'

Or, possibly, Calvin is attempting to rationalize God through limited human perspective.

Finn also wrote:

Quote:

I can only sympathise with your repulsion.

And I might too if the charges against Bush were legitimate, but they are not.

The original poster was expressing repulsion at 'Christians' whose focus was on the specific religosity of presidential candidates, not at Bush per se, and I concur.

And that is why a debate on the religiosity of Bush was subsequently quoted? It was all about certain Christians?

In Oz there's been a couple of television shows on the evangelical church in the US, and it's strong support of Israel and war in Iraq, and consequently Bush, which they see as fulfilling predictions from the book of Revelations so they can all get to heaven sooner. You might dismiss them as inconsequential in your elections, but I can't. If they were only 5% of the population of one close contest state their vote will be decisive. Only today I read the Detroit's Arab population (around 5% of the state) will be key to the closely fought battle for Michigan's electoral college votes.

Some people do, unfortunately, believe this drivel, but they are only consequential, in the way that you fear, if the candidate they support thinks like they do. Opponents of Bush would have us believe that he does, but there is simply no proof to that contention.

I'm not sure if you have an equal concern about Arab's in Michigan deciding that state's, and possibly the nation's, election, but here again, even if we assume that the intentions of their voting is malignant or simply terribly misguided, it only matters if the candidate they vote for will act upon those intentions. No matter what ill intentions we might imagine of Arab Americans in Michigan, it is unlikely that Bush or Kerry will sympathize with them.

You really need not worry that there is any risk that the US will become some apocalyptic craving theocracy. Just as no one need worry that if Kerry becomes president that he will surrender the nation to the UN. These are feeble scare tactics, and too common in elections.

You really need not worry that there is any risk that the US will become some apocalyptic craving theocracy. Just as no one need worry that if Kerry becomes president that he will surrender the nation to the UN. These are feeble scare tactics, and too common in elections.

Ah Finn, I admire your unflappability - perhaps I get excited because I am one of the vast majority of people who really care about the direction the US is taking and its impact on our planet, but due to an accident of birth and geography I can't vote in your elections.