Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

Yeah ... enough of the digression.


I wonder if Bush the Younger were not an admitted religionist ... would it be likely in that case he'd be getting condemmed for being a godless heathen?


Or if he were a Jew, a Moslem, or a something else ... surely that would offend some folks too, and those folks would be wont to attribute what they deem his unacceptable behavior to that faith, or is this particular phobia centered exclusively on Southern WASP Fundamentalism ... which is probably less influential on the lives of its adherents than their other club memberships or social affiliations?



timber

The title was in the author's article
Trespasser will, I've reposted the title, article author and the poll question in the first paragraph of the article. I did not express an opinion as that was not my purpose in posting the article. I thought it was an interesting and provocative treatise, which has apparently been shown to be correct. I often post articles with which I disagree to provoke thinking and conversation. BBB

Bush and God
By Howard Fineman - NEWSWEEK 3/10/03
With Tamara Lipper, Martha Brant, Suzanne Smalley and Richard Wolffe
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

Does George W. Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictate policy?
Yes. Church and state are supposed to be separated.
No. What's wrong with bringing morality to the White House?

BBB - Sorry if I was unclear. I welcomed your restating of the topic and my response thereto was intended to sort of "reset" myself and let you and anyone else who is interested know where I stand with regard to that topic.

Someone else always says it better than me. From Ari Espinoza's 'The Plea of Abraham': )

We're told in Genesis of how Abraham argued with God over the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: "Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? What if there should be fifty innocent in the city, will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that the innocent and guilty fare alike." The Almighty relents his plan for the sake of the fifty, but Abraham continues to question, finally counting down until he arrives at ten; God replies: "I will not destroy, for the sake of ten."

Of course, we know that there weren't even ten innocent souls in either of those doomed cities, and we know well how the tale ends. Still, it's a timely story. Given how journalists wax poetic over how religious this Administration, with daily Bible study groups and Bush's admission that he prays every day, Abraham's plea on behalf of people he doesn't even know should be reworded and presented before the White House. Will you destroy Baghdad even if there are at least ten innocent people there?

That the United States is entering a new phase in its history has gone blithely ignored by the media. That national policy is being dictated by a Republican ideology enamored of evangelical arm-waving is declared an example of "moral clarity," consequences be damned. This alleged religiousness of Bush and his cohorts has not met with any serious question probing how moral it is to bomb a city because of one man is a perversion of any serious religious principle. Imagine this exchange at a news conference:

"Will you destroy Baghdad, Mr. President, for the sake of one evil man even though there might be fifty innocent people?" Response: "Yes, I will."

"Will you drop bombs and crush a city for the sake of one evil man even though there might be twenty innocent people?" Response, "Yes, I will."

"Will you erase Baghdad from the map for the sake of one evil man even though there might be ten innocent people?" Response, "Yes, I will."

The only sincere belief that Bush has is to invade, destroy and occupy Iraq, a country that has not invaded or attacked the United States. This is not a man deeply consumed with the heavy moral weight of armed conflict and thousands of civilian deaths for the sake of "regime change." He does not appear bothered in any discernable way, especially if you watched his March 6 news conference where he looked rather sedate. It's a deeply calculated political game, by which Bush will mouth religious platitudes but leave the cold ugly realpolitik to his advisors and handlers. This mental trickery can convince Bush that he really is a righteous warrior doing the Lord's work. In reality, he has the theology of a dry drunk.

Bush had blurred the September 11 attacks with Iraq, knowing full well that the Administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is fraudulent. He's cloaked the immorality of pre-emptive strikes in enough religious vocabulary to confuse gullible Middle Americans into thinking he's been personally selected by God to lead the nation. It's a twisted and serpentine juxtaposition of fears, language and feeling that has somehow comforted a large swath of the population. And most of these claim to be righteous, God-fearing people. If religion truly is the opiate of the people, America is the highest nation on earth.

All leaders have invariably invoked the divine to justify their ambitions and plans, and most importantly, their wars. Mr. Bush is no different from any of them, who present themselves as humble servants of a greater power merely doing what is commanded of them. But Bush is not Alexander chasing the Great King Darius; he is not Xenophon leading the Ten Thousand and our forces in the Gulf are not the outnumbered Greeks fighting the vast, multinational Persian army.

Instead, we have the smart technology, the satellite-guided weaponry and night-vision superiority against an enemy with Soviet-era tanks. Indeed, we are Sennacherib to Baghdad's besieged Jerusalem. War does not always need to be a battle of equals, but let's face facts: Iraq's military is weak with aging hardware. War optimists are predicting an easy victory within days if not hours. But no one has asked, if Iraq is so fearsome, why are we so assured that the capitol will crumble and his soldiers melt away? An inconvenient question when so much canned music and computer-generated effects are ready to roll.

But the final disturbing question remains: why must we destroy a city and cause so much destruction for the sake of one man, lest there be ten innocent people there? I challenge this morally bankrupt and backwards-looking government to answer that before the "shock and awe" of 3,000 missiles begin screaming across the sky.

Can you answer that, Mr. Bush? Can you?

The Plea of Abraham

Ok TW, I understand what you are driving at. Maybe people ARE being guilty of intellectual "shorthand". Let's say that the president has a policy that is not popular with the vast majority of the nation, but is a tenet espoused by his religion. I think that it is reasonable to conclude that he is pushing that policy because of his connection to that particular faith.

You ARE right though, that people should base their evaluation of the policy based on its merits, or non-merits, not because of from where it came!

Well, as I alluded to earlier, George Bush thinks his god wants him to invade Iraq.

So he is declaring war on that state.

In doing so, he is violating the Constitution of the United States, because that document vests the power to declare war in the hands of the congress -- and THE CONGRESS HAS NOT, AND NEVER HAS, declared war against Iraq.

I offer that as an example of George Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictating policy.

"Does George W. Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictate policy?
Yes. Church and state are supposed to be separated.
No. What's wrong with bringing morality to the White House?"

I missed that, BumbleBee. I love the wonderful naive implication that religion = morality!!

Ah, History, how many pages have they deleted from your book?

Geesh
A guy steps back to take care of business for a day or two and this place goes crazy on the postings!!

Sorry, Timber:


But I just had to repeat this.

You, I believe, have struck the nail squarely upon the head and obliterated it.

I have read through page after page of anecdotal "I knew a guy, who knew a guy, who knew a guy who was a Christian, and he was a jerk" on this thread.

Once again, timber, you have succinctly and cogently expressed what I too have observed.

Kennedy was Catholic. Yet I don't think anyone here could indicate a trend of judicial or administrative appointments, or policies, which sought to further the values and ideas of Catholicism.

Carter was Baptist. His faith aroused no (or little) concern either, I think for reasons similar to Kennedy's faith and expression of it while in office.

The problem, clearly, is NOT one of holding a faith, or admitting to holding a faith. In fact, of course, an admission to holding no faith would be a good guarantee of keeping one out of the presidency.

The problem is the nature of the faith held, and the influence of that on appointments and policies.

Let's imagine a president who is an evangelical Scientologist. Aside from the wonderful benefit of nationwide free personality tests, we might have some problems. This fellow will sincerely hold that each of is deeply and pathologically misdirected in our life values by his/her Reactive Mind, that this influence must be ameliorated for the good of self and of community.

It will be his notion that he can really only count on other Scientologists, particularly those who have demonstrated long and profound committment to the faith, to really function so as to make the world a better, saner place.

Though claiming non-denominational preferences, he'll favor consultancy groups with a heavy representation of members who have had their reactive minds 'cleared', because they are, he knows, better and saner people.

He'll favor policies judicial and administrative which reflect L. Ron Hubbard's writings on justice and effective organization.

Would these steps be inappropriate?

Well, a Scientologist President would probably find at least a cabinet post for John Travolta



timber

Ambassador to the Seventies.

Wouldn't he be the President?

Thanks Pheonix.

1) Please show me where Bush has said that God wants him to invade Iraq.

2) According to the Congress, the Senate, the USSC and existing precedent going back several administrations, Bush does not need an explicit declaration of war. What he needs he has been given.

Are you suggesting that the Constitution prohibits people of faith from holding office?

i'm probably wrong but i think that either a declaration of war or specific funding of a war is required, to the best of my knowledge neither has occured.

Frank understandably wants to argue what the strict Constitutional requirement is, but that ignores the standing, accepted methods used by many recent administrations to commit our troops on foreign soil without an actuall declaration of war. Asking to hold Bush to a standard to which none of his recent predecessors were held might be convenient for those who want to prevent this war or to hamstring Bush, but it is a non-starter, so why waste time on it? Bush has done what the judicial and legislative branches require, and more.

tres ?

dys?