Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Not entirely on topic, but close:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8031-2003Mar10?language=printer

Lola, excellent post - wow, what an automaton!

When I get invited to act like a man by someone who can hadly claim to be one, that's not much of a challenge. You don't "claim" to be a conservative", but you defend all things right of center. You don't "claim to be a Christian (and if true, Christians everywhere should heave a sigh of relief), but you're always setting yourself in the breach as the defender of the Judeo-Christian ethic. You're "half" everything. You snipe, curse, and insult, then claim moral high ground, and intellectual acuity. I considered PMing you last night to try to bury the hatchet, but by your posts I see you want total surrender, AND you want the last word and best insult. Fu*k you. I have no respect for you, either.

Lola-
I read Broder's piece. The "right" side of the aisle was panning it last night on 'Crossfire'.
It's weird - the defenses that are thrown up to explain this man's incompetence. "He's obviously too busy" to talk to the American people. "He talks to world leaders all the time, you just don't know about it". We now have a man in the whitehouse who had left the Continental United States few enough times before taking office about as many times as you can count on one hand. I probably had more exposure than he has, by the time I was twelve. Let's hope we can be rid of this dunce, or at the very least, get to see an unrehearsed debate between him and a human being.

Tresspasser

I accept what you said in your last post to me. BUT, you seem like an intelligent person and playing games in these kinds of discussions really is not very helpful.

Once one side in a debate or discussion makes a point, the other side is ethically bound to acknowledge that point. Otherwise the debate/discussion is a farce.

My original point was made in response to an assertion you made about the legislature declaring war against Iraq. I wrote, "The legislature NEVER declared war against Iraq -- not back in Bush 41 and not now in Bush 43"... "

Your response to that comment was, "Wrong."

To which I replied, "Sorry, T, but you are the one who is wrong."

And then I offered substantiation of my position.

You have not offered substantiation of your position -- mostly because it cannot be substantiated. The fact is that the legislature has never declared war against Iraq.

The comments you offered in your last post go to points that are interesting - but they circle around the question of who was correct in this specific issue.

Since you were so adamant about describing what I said as "wrong" -- don't you think you should do a better job of acknowledging that you were wrong and that I was not?

Part II of "Bombing His Way to Armageddon", available at www.buzzflash.com:

There are millions of Americans praying for the President, according to Bush himself:

"I feel the comfort and the power of knowing that literally millions of Americans I'm never going to meet ... say my name to the Almighty every day and ask him to help me," he [Bush] said. "My friend, Jiang Zemin in China, has about a billion and a half folks, and I don't think he can say that. And my friend, Vladimir Putin, I like him, but he can't say that."

Yes, it is a tradition going back to the Egyptian Pharaohs; the subjects of the divinely chosen leader pray for his wisdom and well-being.

As the inimitable Arkansas journalist Gene Lyons recently wrote:

According to Bob Woodward's book, "Bush at War" even in one-on-one interviews, "[t]he President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's Master Plan." This observation followed Bush's pronouncement that "[w]e will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil."

Conquering evil is bin Laden's plan, too. Even fighting beside the "socialist infidel" Saddam Hussein, he hinted in a taped statement Feb. 11, was permissible "to establish the rule of God on earth." Quoting the Koran, he assured his followers that "those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

So have we really been transported back to the 12th century A.D. with Bush as Richard the Lionhearted and Osama/Saddam as Saladin in a replay of the Third Holy Crusade?

White House staffers have told journalists that Bush believes God chose him to lead the nation through its hour of darkness. Indeed, shortly after September 11th, Bush used the term 'crusade' to describe his war against terrorism. But the reality is that Bush's notion of being chosen by God implies that he is imparted with divine knowledge that others don't have. As a divinely chosen leader, Bush believes that he is accountable to no one. He has shown utter contempt for Congress and the democratic election process.

In Woodward's book Bush sniffs, "I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

Of course, kings could make mistakes and they would remain kings. They didn't, indeed, have to explain themselves to anyone. When you lose an election and are appointed by the Supreme Court, maybe you have to a right to view your ascension as divinely inspired. Bush may believe that he is heir to the great thrones of Europe, when kings viewed themselves as rulers by divine right.

King James VI of Scotland, who later became King James I of England, having ascended to the throne in 1603 following the death of Queen Elizabeth, was one of the better-known proponents of the notion of the divine right of kings. He wrote: "The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man."

When James II angered his countrymen by attempting to restore Roman Catholicism in England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 put an end to the rule of the House of Stuarts and dealt the notion of divine right a major blow. It still existed in France, however, where the reign of Louis XIV was rooted in the divine-right doctrine; the remark "L'etat, c'est moi" (I am the state) is attributed to him.

It is widely believed that the death of this doctrine occurred in the late 18th century. During the Enlightenment period -- and as exemplified most clearly in the French Revolution -- more democratic ideas held sway and the concept of an absolute monarch, let alone one appointed by God, became part of a mythic past. And yet the doctrine was once again championed in the early 1900s by the German Emperor Wilhelm II as king of Prussia, and by Czar Nicholas II of Russia.

And once again, apparently, by Bush.

Yes, it has taken the madness of King George to restore a concept of divine rule that most scholars thought had been abandoned to the trash heap of history. During his March 6th news conference -- and on previous occasions -- Bush has referred to "my government," echoing Louis XIV ("I am the state"). Citizens of America expressing their opinions are just focus groups to King George. Royal court reporters are vetted for a news conference and escorted in two-by-two to their seats (as they were on March 6th) so as not to offend the king. We also learned that King George wouldn't appear before the common leaders of the European Union unless he was assured of a standing ovation.

"I hug the mothers and the widows of those who may have lost their life in the name of peace and freedom," Bush has said on more than one occasion. He views himself as the benevolent sovereign, sending America's finest off to fight in a war for oil and hegemony, then being the "First Hugger" for bereaved survivors. He hugs them on behalf of his personal Lord & Saviour, the same one that sends their children off to die.

As for the men and women of the clergy -- representing the religious leadership of every major denomination in the United States, with the exception of the Southern Baptists and Evangelicals -- who believe Bush's little war is a violation of God, Bush won't even meet with them.

Why should King George waste his time talking with these men and women of the cloth? After all, he is busy running his kingdom and has a war to start.

In any case, King George knows that they are all impostors. God has selected only King George to implement God's divine will on earth.

He knows that all of these religious leaders are just hearing voices, so what's the point of wasting time indulging their fantasies?

Maybe the most interesting question -- to me, anyway -- is why so many WANT to believe in GWB. We'd learn a whole lot about them (and ourselves) if we sorted out the complex answer to that one. I've commented a couple of times that it reminds me of people who buy a new car -- a lemon -- and no matter how many times it breaks down, they defend it hotly. We identify very tenaciously with our consumer choices in the US -- and the presidency has become a consumer choice. Are consumer choices -- from elected officials to religious affiliation to soap brand to "life style" -- perhaps the only choices we see ourselves as having?

Tart:

Everyone knows you don't roll out new products in the late summer.

Oh wait, this is springtime.

That means customers of questionable creditworthiness are flooding showrooms in search of that hot new little convertible, and asking if the 0% financing is available on it.

Sadly, they will either have to climb back into their rattletrap and drive away, smoke trailing behind them, or settle for a nice, clean, pre-owned vehicle. No warranty remaining.

Of course, they can always pray to their President for guidance...

Lola

Thanks very much for the link. That's really the first criticism I have bumped into of either the president's pathetically scripted performance or the attending reporters' incompetence.

snood

I can no longer watch Crossfire. Though TVs are increasingly inexpensive, weekly replacement becomes burdensome. But I too am utterly surprised by the mental gymnastics one can witness in folks who just won't/can't face how unintelligent and uneducated this man is. Even now, with all of the tutoring he has had over the last few years, he would likely be unable to make a good showing even in many debates on this site. It seems clear that some people, perhaps many, are deeply unsettled in the absence of an authority figure.

Blatham

Amen.

How anyone can watch that poor boob deliver a speech or stand before a group of reporters and give those pathetically inadequate, almost unintelligible responses is beyond me.

But some people have stronger stomachs than others!

Or weaker brains, Frank...

Best thing I ever did was KILL MY TV!

..

Frank - I was not "playing games" with you. I think I explained myself clearly. You and I are both "wrong" as far as the USSC and our government are concerned, and I don't hold out any hope for that changing. So yes, you are "wrong" in that the standard to which you wish to hold them is not the standard that is being enforced in this country.

Hopefully you can recognize the difference between the way you think it should be and the way it is.

Tresspass

What I recognize is that you are unable or unwilling to accept that you are wrong -- when you are wrong.

I was not wrong.

The legislature NEVER declared war on Iraq.

You were wrong to say I was wrong.

No problem. There are lots of people who cannot own up to mistakes -- and best we just drop this and get back to the discussion at hand.

Peace!

Tell you what I just did with a frequent offender. I went to his profile and looked through his posts. Nine out of ten of them were aggressive, know-it-all, rude, and merciless (and most the rest were complaints that people were mean to him!!) Not you, Tres, but you get the bronze medal!

Awe heck, Tartar, I think he deserves the gold. c.i.

I think the reason some folks believe in Bush despite all indications of the danger in doing so is because he supports their defensive stance. They share his outlook, frighteningly enough. If it is possible to define a few simple, absolute rules and they could be defended righteously, unambivalently and without consideration of other views, some feel more secure. So they fight with great energy to hold on to their illusion of safety. Never mind that the richness and beauty of life must be sacrificed.

Those of you who have not been raised in a fundamentalist home may have a bit of trouble imagining the full extent of the inane sensibility that constitutes GW's religious beliefs. He wants a feeling of security and he, along with this cronies, is stubbornly trying to prove that such security is obtainable. And he's doing it without regard to whomever he may hurt in the process. And this man is the President of the United States, appointed by the Supreme Court, a group of men and women who were not elected. This is very dangerous stuff. It scares the piss out of me.

Oh my gawd, I wet my pants.....

Two years now, and finally - relief. Thanks Lola, I let the whole load go. Unlike c.i. (who coincidently, is getting on up there in years) I made it to the closest urinal - ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how sweet it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lola -- I've had some friends among evangelicals in my area and what strikes me about them is their anger -- not personal (well, not at me), but the deep, vengeful anger which comes from some big life-altering injury. That's the part that fascinates (and horrifies me). The cause of that anger seems important and I can't identify it, though I've had some ideas...