Fascinating, Balanced piece on Bush, politics and Jesus - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-01-2004, 01:11 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Fascinating, Balanced piece on Bush, politics and Jesus

http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2...tor/index.html

The passion of the Bush
"The Jesus Factor" showed how the president has failed to serve either the Gospel or the Constitution.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Taylor



April 30, 2004 | As long as the topic is the Christian right, it's easy for those of us on the left to insist on the separation between church and state. But there's at least one example that makes mush of our certainty that religion should never play a role in politics: the civil rights movement. A liberal who argues that religion should always stay out of politics is basically arguing that America could have gone for years without a civil rights act, a voting rights act, a fair housing act: There is no reason to believe any of those gains, nor dozens more, would have happened when they did without the influence and organizational power of the black church.

Given that, how does a liberal agnostic who's convinced that more than a fair share of what's wrong with the world has to do with religion watch "The Jesus Factor," the PBS "Frontline" documentary about the part religion plays in the life and politics of George W. Bush? (The "Frontline" Web site says the full program will be available for viewing online starting Saturday, May 1.) For me, the answer is ... uneasily. "The Jesus Factor," which was written, produced and directed by Raney Aronson, makes a compelling case that Bush's born-again Christianity is sincere. Which is not to say that he doesn't know how to use it for political purposes. Doug Wead, who served on George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign as a liaison to the evangelical community, says at one point in the documentary that Bush's religion is absolutely calculated and absolutely sincere and even Bush himself can't tell which impulse is which.

In the unexciting, earnest and worthy way that's par for the course with "Frontline," "The Jesus Factor" takes the viewer through Bush's conversion. He was raised an Episcopalian and switched to Methodism when he married; by the mid-'80s he was an alcoholic failed businessman and failed congressional candidate on the verge of losing his marriage and his family. A conversation with Bush family friend Billy Graham (which Bush describes here in a typically illiterate Bushism: "One day I spent a weekend with the great Billy Graham") ignited a passion for religion that took hold after Bush joined a men's Bible study group in Midland, Texas. Shortly after, Bush stopped drinking and began to put his life together.

"The Jesus Factor" does an excellent job of explaining the political repercussions of Bush's born-again conversion. With the help of Doug Wead, Bush was able to bring his father's 1988 presidential campaign the support of evangelicals. As Wead notes, the senior Bush's campaign lost the black, Latino, Jewish, even the Catholic vote. This, he says, was "the first modern presidency to win an election, and it was a landslide, and lose the Catholic vote. You could win the White House with nothing but evangelicals if you get 'em all." And remember, this was a victory for a man who had come behind the two Pats, Robertson and Buchanan, in the 1988 Iowa primary.

The mistake that's often made by people who don't like a particular candidate, and certainly made by those who don't like Bush, is to assume that that candidate's positions are cynically convenient instead of sincere. "The Jesus Factor" makes a pretty good case that Bush means what he says. Certainly, you can't imagine a president stupid enough to say, in public, that what's needed in the American judiciary are "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God" if he didn't really believe it.

At one point, we see Bush criticizing the way the government has traditionally made religious organizations that take federal money change their board of directors to resemble a broader range of the populace. What's absolutely chilling about this moment is that Bush is saying this to an all-black audience. Essentially he's getting them to applaud the same mentality that kept blacks and women and Jews off boards of directors for years. (And we also find out that of the millions handed out to religious groups from the faith-based initiative in the Department of Health and Human Services, none has gone to any Jewish, Muslim or non-Christian group.)

"The Jesus Factor" suggests that "Frontline's" dull, reasoned approach has its virtues. This is one of the few documentaries I've seen that didn't present conservative evangelicals as yahoos and rubes. You can find some or even all of what they have to say appalling, and yet Aronson does them the simple decency of allowing them to present themselves, and the audience the essential courtesy of allowing us to make up our own minds about them. And though I despise George Bush as much as I have despised any White House occupant since Nixon, sometimes his critics make dumb mistakes. Jim Wallis of the liberal evangelical magazine Sojourners is understandably bothered by Bush's "righteous empire" rhetoric. He may be right, as well, that it is theologically unsound for Bush to talk of ridding the world of evil (he quotes the scripture about noticing the sty in your neighbor's eye and not the log in your own). But if Wallis cannot see evil in the planned murder of 3,000 of his fellow citizens, I'm glad Bush can.

But the irony of "The Jesus Factor" is that the man it calls the most openly religious president in recent memory comes across as a man who embodies the separation of church and state for the simple reason that, in him, both institutions cancel each other out. The strongest impression of George W. Bush in "The Jesus Factor" is of a man trying to serve two masters simultaneously and failing to serve either. As someone points out here, you cannot take a pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and then make a statement that our rights are derived from God. You cannot, as Wallis notes, misquote lines from the Gospel of John, as Bush did, to make the light of Christ into the light of America. (If John Lennon took guff for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, shouldn't Bush take his lumps for saying America was bigger than Jesus?) But, conversely, you cannot claim to be a Christian and hear, as Bush apparently does, the Gospel's instruction to "succor the poor" as "sucker the poor." You cannot claim to be a Christian and strip away environmental protection from the land that, surely any Christian believes, is God's handiwork.

What's so horrendous about George W. Bush isn't that, despite his assurances to the contrary, his religion informs his policy decisions. It's that Bush embodies the politicians that the political scientist Stephen L. Newman describes in the current issue of Dissent, those who do not understand that it's vital "that the ends of policy be truly public." Newman is arguing against the position taken by the late philosopher John Rawls -- and many liberals -- that the reasons for state action must never invoke religious language. There is nothing wrong, Newman argues, when religious reasons are used to serve a legitimate civil interest. (The civil rights movement is the greatest example; a more unlikely one, the conservative Christian governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, attempting to change the state tax code so that the rich and corporations paid more than the poor because, as Riley said, the other way round was un-Christian.)

But when Bush sponsors a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, when he opposes stem-cell research (which, as even Nancy Reagan has pointed out, could very well have benefited her husband, a hero to conservative Christians), when in the face of AIDS in Africa or teen pregnancy in America, he ties sex education funding to abstinence programs, he is using private reasoning for ends that may please a portion of the community but do not serve a majority.

At one point in "The Jesus Factor," Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News, who has covered Bush for years, points out that the term "compassionate conservative" really means nothing, designed as it is to mean all things to all people, allowing people to hear what they want -- compassion or conservatism. It's a phrase where meaning cancels itself out. The radical notion beneath the measured, reasonable tones of "The Jesus Factor" is that Bush's politics and religion do the same -- they add up to zilch. The horror of that notion is that that emptiness doesn't diminish Bush's ability to spend the next four years throwing the lions to the Christians.


sd
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 01:52 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:05 PM
I watched this program and have been trying to figure out how to articulate my thoughts about it for days. This is excellent documentary work. It is unbiased and presents the facts in a neutral, unemotional, and nonmanipulative way, letting the viewer draw their own conclusions. I highly recommmend it to everyone.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 01:57 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Sherry,


Thank you for posting this.


I will watch the program.


It supports many of my concerns.


Some in here accuse some of us of hating Bush.

I have never hated him. I believe he is sincere in his own heart.


His premises and convictions are not right for a leader of the United States.


The nation and world is at much greater risk with his Administration in office.



If I started this thread some may have said something like they see a trend in my posts. Whatever the hell that means?


Again, thank you for posting this. It should be part of the discussion.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 02:27 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

Some in here accuse some of us of hating Bush.

I have never hated him. I believe he is sincere in his own heart.


His premises and convictions are not right for a leader of the United States.

I don't think I ever really believed he was sincere in his own heart until I saw this documentary. At the same time, I completely agree with you that his religious convictions are not harmonious with the role of the President of the US because his convictions are not unlike those of a religious crusader. Conservative Christians will likely watch this documentary and feel validated in their respect for Bush while non-Christians like myself and many liberal Christians will be quite disturbed.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 02:36 PM   #5
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Please.

Post.

Links.

ONLY.

Not.

Giant.

Blocks.

of.

Text.









THANK YOU
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 03:03 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Please.

Post.

Links.

ONLY.

Not.

Giant.

Blocks.

of.

Text.









THANK YOU
I respectfully think that there is too much of a big deal made out of this, and what are we to do when the links go bad? Stop discussing? I see the link, and I see the author. I know that this isn't plagiarized.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 03:04 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:05 AM
BTW, fascinating article, but I did have a hunch about it all along. I never blamed Bush for insincerity; I just think he's wrong.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 03:33 PM   #8
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Please.

Post.

Links.

ONLY.

Not.

Giant.

Blocks.

of.

Text.









THANK YOU
I think it was good that she posted the full article because on the link i see:

"Want to read the whole article? You have two options: Subscribe now, or watch a brief ad and get a free day pass. If you're already a subscriber log in here."

And i don't want to become a member of every website which is read by any FYMer

Klaus

ps thanks for the article, interesting subject. It's a pitty i couldn't watch it
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 05:01 PM   #9
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:05 AM
thanks for posting that Sherry .
I guess I never faulted President Bush for his conviction just the way he used that in the White House..

Quote:
you cannot take a pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and then make a statement that our rights are derived from God
I guess that kind of sums up what I think as well.. I guess in Canada to I am use to having a greater seperation of church and state
__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 07:50 PM   #10
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:05 AM
The request to post links only, followed by a brief excerpt if necessary, has been repeated a number of times in FYM. It has been the MO for quite some time now. If it is from a pay site (and I do know that some of Salon is subscriber-only), then we would ask that GREAT discretion be taken in posting entire articles.

It's not only because of plagiarization concerns; it's also because we're trying to protect Interference in terms of reprints of copyrighted material, even when the author and source are properly acknowledged. There are a lot of good reasons for this policy, and we--including Elvis--ask that you all respect it.

Thank you.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 01:35 AM   #11
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 05:05 AM
That looks really good. We get a lot of PBS shows here, I'll keep an eye out for it...
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 02:31 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I respectfully think that there is too much of a big deal made out of this, and what are we to do when the links go bad? Stop discussing? I see the link, and I see the author. I know that this isn't plagiarized.

Melon

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


I think it was good that she posted the full article because on the link i see:

"Want to read the whole article? You have two options: Subscribe now, or watch a brief ad and get a free day pass. If you're already a subscriber log in here."

And i don't want to become a member of every website which is read by any FYMer

Klaus

ps thanks for the article, interesting subject. It's a pitty i couldn't watch it



Many sites will not open a link without going through a registration process requiring email address for password.


Many in here will not register or give their email.


If we are going to have worthwhile discussions members whom post in threads should read the article involved. It seems some in here just want to go off from their preconceived opinions. Without having the article posted it is easier for threads to spiral out of control and be worthless.


Are we, FYM really at risk for plagiarism? If the article is posted with dateline, and author. and link.?

Are they not really going after people who publish and charge for magazines and papers?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 06:04 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Pax -- A lot articles from Salon.com are for Premium members only. So those who aren't subscribed might never get the chance to read the whole article.

Respectfully,
soulful
A Salon.com Premium Member.

*edited: sorry, didn't read the rest of the thread.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 09:02 AM   #14
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Thanks for the support guys Full credit etc etc was given and such, so...and as far as discretion, I hardly EVER post opinion pieces since so many of them, well, suck, but this was special. Discretion to me suggested to post it.

Anyway, I'd hope now we can discuss what's in it rather than board rules?

sd
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 09:44 AM   #15
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Deep:

Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
...If it is from a pay site (and I do know that some of Salon is subscriber-only), then we would ask that GREAT discretion be taken in posting entire articles.
.....

This has been asked twice now. Please keep this on topic. If you wish to discuss this, please do the usual, and contact any of us or begin a thread in Help.


__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com