President Bush and Religion

[pub crawler]

Last night on C-SPAN I caught some of the President's speech at his campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

I think Mr. Bush is a bit confused about his own religion. Speaking about Islamic terrorists, he said "They've hijacked a great religion. They're not religious people." I find it curious president Bush calls Islam a "great religion" when the most influential part of his base - conservative evangelical Christians - clearly believe that Islam is a false religion. Evangelicals send missionaries to the Middle East to convert folks to Christianity. Evangelicals believe in one God: Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior. There is no room for Allah in that equation.

In his closing remarks, Bush stated that "freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."

I wonder which Almighty God he meant? Jesus, Allah or both?

 

[nbcrusader]

What do you expect? The President to speak as a theologian or a statesman?

For all the outcry that conservative evangelical Christianity controls his decisions, you clearly show how the President can act as a secular statesman.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am an atheist but pretty much all monotheistic religions originating from the ME would be speaking of essentially the same God. They are a lot of collective tales from the various nations in the area and they do overlap a bit. Bush would be alluding to the fact that they all worship one God and that it is the same god.

As for the whole Religion of Peace etc. comments, that is all politically correct speak that he is expected to spout unless he want's to spark outrage in the Islamic world (well morso, saying that America is more hated in the Muslim world after the WoT is like going from "You are the great Satan" to "You are the great Satan + 1") and at home by labelling Islam something else. The entire problem I have is with the way that the west treats the Islamic world generally, the various cultures that have arisin withing the Islamic world (North Africa through to Indonesia) are a very mixed bag and I definitely think that some strains of thought are not preaching peaceful coexistence and because these violent ideologies are tollerated it is unfair to exclued them when making generalizations about Islam. Basically its a religion stuck in the past and is no worse than Christianity was in its darker days, it needs a rennaisance rather than reform and the only way thats going to happen if the socio-economic conditions are changed and some genuine earth shattering changes happen within Saudi Arabia and some of the poorer but no less extreme centres of Islamic learning. Basically I think that the west does a lot of harm to the Muslim world when it shakes the hands of violent extremists and calls them moderates rather than condemn them, they just reinforce the negative elements of a religion (it's not bad, it's not great its just a religion) rather than encourage progress.

 

[kobayashi]

For all the outcry that conservative evangelical Christianity controls his decisions, you clearly show how the President can act as a secular statesman.

though he has (wisely) attempted to cast an inclusive net accepting of various religions, his actions and initiatives may still very well be influenced by specific groups. in some cases there is good evidence for this being so.

 

[A_Wanderer]

May I inquire as to what actions. Obviously Stem Cell research and the allocation of public funding is an example as is his stance on gay marriage there are others though.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

"President Bush" and "Religion" The two most incendiary topics on FYM! oh boy....

 

[pub crawler]

What do you expect? The President to speak as a theologian or a statesman?

For all the outcry that conservative evangelical Christianity controls his decisions, you clearly show how the President can act as a secular statesman.

I expect the president to be honest. If Mr. Bush were to reveal his true religious beliefs (which are aligned with those of conservative, so-called ?Born Again? Christians ? and it is documented that he has acknowledged that he is such a believer), I believe most people would be shocked. He would have to admit that he views the Islamic religion as a false religion and Allah as a false god. Even if in Mr.Bush?s statements (at the rally to which I referred) he was using the term ?great? to mean ?predominant,? he still gave the Islamic religion credence by implying that the evil of Islamic terrorists lies in the fact that they are not truly Muslim. The problem is that in the context of conservative evangelical Christianity, Mr. Bush?s statements do not fly. As a Bible-believing Christian, Mr. Bush must believe that the Islamic religion ultimately is of the devil.

I think people need to know what they are getting with this president. I believe evangelical Christians themselves, many of whom consider president Bush a ?Godly Man,? are mistaken in their beliefs with respect to this president. The fruits of his invasion of Iraq, for example, are dead soldiers. More than 1000 dead men and women, blown apart by bullets and explosives, lying dead in the desert. These are not the fruits of the actions of a Christian, I think.

 

[pub crawler]

Bush would be alluding to the fact that they all worship one God and that it is the same god.

A-Wanderer, I can assure you that if president Bush believes the same as the vast majority of the conservative Christians believe, he does not believe that Jesus and Allah are the same God.

 

[pub crawler]

"President Bush" and "Religion" The two most incendiary topics on FYM! oh boy....

Yeah, well, whaddya gonna do....

 

[nbcrusader]

I expect the president to be honest.

If he were to take a theological role, then Yes, the President would state that Islam cannot be a true religion as it is inconsistent with basic Christian tenents. I've seen no one expect the President to act in such a theological role.

How far do you want to extend the "honesty" of an elected official's religious beliefs? Does this mean that Kerry should oppose abortion?

 

[BVS]

If he were to take a theological role, then Yes, the President would state that Islam cannot be a true religion as it is inconsistent with basic Christian tenents. I've seen no one expect the President to act in such a theological role.

How far do you want to extend the "honesty" of an elected official's religious beliefs? Does this mean that Kerry should oppose abortion?

I'm actually with NBC on this one, he's acting as a statesman, and I'm glad he chose to do so. What do you expect him to do?

Yes he's done some questionable things with the regards of crossing the lines of church and state, but he chose not to here.

 

[pub crawler]

If he were to take a theological role, then Yes, the President would state that Islam cannot be a true religion as it is inconsistent with basic Christian tenents. I've seen no one expect the President to act in such a theological role.

I object to the fact that this president speaks in a sort of code to and for his conservative Christian constituents. It has been pointed out by at least a few journalists that president Bush occasionally and cleverly weaves lines from hymns in his speeches, and in the speech I quoted in my first post above (which can be found in its entirety at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040709-14.html), he mentioned the "almighty God" (I'd guess he's talking about the Christian God, wouldn't you?), he called the U.S. "our blessed country" and stated that "America is leading the world with confidence and moral clarity." This idea of "moral clarity" is a powerful theme being used among evangelicals (see https://ssl.capwiz.com/cmc/e4/nvra/?action=form&state= for evidence supporting my assertion). President Bush, again in the speech I quoted from above, also made some minor allusions to biblical writings (e.g., he said that "...each of us is responsible for loving our neighbor just like we'd like to be loved ourselves").

Bottom line: you say he's acting like a good statesman. I say he's playing to conservative evangelical Christians blatantly and as much as possible, because he is one of them and he is beholden to them.

How far do you want to extend the "honesty" of an elected official's religious beliefs? Does this mean that Kerry should oppose abortion?

I'm not totally familiar with Kerry's position on abortion, but I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that he says he doesn't support abortion personally but wouldn't stand in anyone else's way of having an abortion. To that I say this: I am sure that the abortion issue does not inform all of Kerry's other views, for example his views on foreign policy. Bush, on the other hand, has stated that he is a "Born Again" Christian, and he's obviously a conservative "Born Again"/evangelical Christian. His Christianity, if it's real, most certainly profoundly affects his life and his world view as it relates to virtually every matter of importance. That said, I really have no gripe with his personal faith, I am just annoyed and angered by the way he uses his personal faith to manipulate and be manipulated by those of the evangelical Christian persuasion.

*Edited for typo and to clarify one sentence.

 

[melon]

What do you expect? The President to speak as a theologian or a statesman?

For all the outcry that conservative evangelical Christianity controls his decisions, you clearly show how the President can act as a secular statesman.

It's problematic when you don't believe what he's saying. Not liberals. Not conservatives. Not Muslims. Not the Middle East.

But, overall, I thought it was a sin to lie.

Melon

 

[melon]

How far do you want to extend the "honesty" of an elected official's religious beliefs? Does this mean that Kerry should oppose abortion?

I've watched politicians treat my happiness as a political punching bag. It's clear that "secularism" is only convenient when we're wishing to stop fundamentalist Muslims from trying to kill us, but how dare we deal with our problematic fundamentalists who are hell-bent on making us the Christian version of Iran? And all they'd need to do is stack the judiciary with fundamentalist Christian judges, and we'd be them.

"Honesty" would actually be refreshing, for once, and I'll be honest in their place. I wish they'd all go fuck themselves.

Melon

 

[pub crawler]

The evangelist who has a national and to some degree international television audience on the Christian cable channel that broadcasts 24/7:

Pastor Rod Parsley
Launches The Center For Moral Clarity

July 7, 2004 will surely go down in the annals of our Christian heritage as a defining moment for the Church.

Standing before an overflow crowd at Dominion Camp Meeting, with tens of thousands joining him through the eye of the camera and the world wide web, Pastor Rod Parsley launched The Center for Moral Clarity (CMC) and called the church to the front lines in the battle for morality in America.

There has never been a more defining moment for our nation, and Pastor Parsley has been called of God to be an agent of change to return our nation to the discarded values of the past.

CMC is a revolutionary new outreach dedicated to defending truth and shaping our culture through prayer, information and activism. With the Bible as its foundation, The Center for Moral Clarity will be a vital bridge, connecting the church to the cultural issues facing our society and will equip you with a wide range of tools to help you make an impact in your community.

It is time for the church to arise, take its rightful position and defend all that is right in America against all that is wrong.

Alone you are only a voice; but together, we are a force!

https://www.centerformoralclarity.net/CMCUpdates.aspx




The President of the United States on July 9, 2004:

"America is leading the world with confidence and moral clarity"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040709-14.html

 

[Kieran McConville]

"Moral clarity means never having to say sorry."

Someone stick that on a tshirt - I'd wear it!

 

[Judah]

There was a good article in the Village Voice in May, that touched on this (i.e. what is GW believing when he acknowledges other religions?). The "Lincoln" in the following is a professor of theology at Univ. of Chicago:

"Lincoln points out an especially cunning aspect of the post?9-11 incarnation of Christian militancy: that Bush's invocation of Islam as a "religion of peace," a great religion hijacked by the terrorists, need not contradict the specifically Christian aspects of this vision. Some Christians, Lincoln observes, "would maintain that Christianity is not a religion. The others"?Islam, Shinto, whatever?"are religions." Christianity, simply, is reality: the truth. Bush can praise Islam to the skies, but it needn't take away from the Christian right's sense that Bush knows it's really Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

The whole article here:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0418/perlstein.php

 

[nbcrusader]

This is essentially correct for everyone, not just "Christian militancy" as the author so kindly states.

Everyone here has a belief. If they think there belief is true, to the exclusion of all others, that doesn't make the others any less of a religion.

Rick Perlstein simply exposes his own bigotry when pointing out this truth.

 

[pax]

I don't know that Perlstein is bigoted. Most of the evidence he presents for Bush's mindset is pretty old and easily researched on the 'Net. Bush's connections to the Reconstructionist movement, for example, certainly are a bit frightening, though it's nice to know that they do stop at stonings.

 

[nbcrusader]

The principle of the quoted statement can be applied to everyone. Why Christianity gets the "militancy" label is not a fine example of objective reporting, but an example bias (perhaps playing to a choir that enjoys such labels).

 

[pax]

The problem is that, in some cases (certainly not all or even a majority, but some), I'm not sure the label is inappropriate. I read in the Intelligence Report (a publication of the well-reputed Southern Poverty Law Center) that some of the very extreme right-wingers are not only extraordinarily intractable and intolerant in their beliefs, but do not shy away from violence and extreme grabs for power. And they do believe that they alone are correct--not only in their belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, but in many other beliefs as well--and will stop at nothing to prove that they are right.

So how are such people not militants, Christian or not? Particularly when the "militant" label is even more casually tossed around on the other side of the fence, to libel feminists, gay rights activists, African-American leaders, and the like.

 

[nbcrusader]

I am sure you can find "militants" for every group or cause. I would say Perlstein has casually tossed the term in this article when speaking of Bush.

Do you think this was a thoughtful and supported use of the term when refering to Bush?

 

[pax]

To describe Bush himself? Possibly not.

To describe some fabulously wealthy people who have given him lots of money? Absolutely, and it's the financial connections that worry me.

 

[nbcrusader]

To describe some fabulously wealthy people who have given him lots of money? Absolutely, and it's the financial connections that worry me.

Bush's financial support is from Christian militants???

 

[pub crawler]

Some Christians, Lincoln observes, "would maintain that Christianity is not a religion. The others"?Islam, Shinto, whatever?"are religions." Christianity, simply, is reality: the truth. Bush can praise Islam to the skies, but it needn't take away from the Christian right's sense that Bush knows it's really Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Actually that makes a lot of sense. For evangelicals, there is that belief that Christianity is not a religion, but a faith -- and that makes all the difference in the world.

The really important point to be made about all of this is that American Conservatism as it is currently dictated by the right wing gives very black and white answers to all of the country's ills. Everything can be figured out if one listens to those who speak with Moral Clarity. George W. Bush claims that his leadership provides us with Moral Clarity.

Unfortunately, Americans are generally in a deep slumber and have no idea what this administration is up to -- and don't give a fuck in general. The electorate simply listens to the president and trusts that he is doing the right thing.

 

[pax]

Um, yes--the Reconstructionist movement was very generous to Bush's campaign.

 

[pax]

Let me note that while the Reconstructionist movement, from my quick readings, is largely theonomic and theocratic, not all Reconstructionists promote violence.

That said, here are some links to info about Christian Reconstruction and George W. Bush, and connections between them:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than Christian would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00147.htm

...the origins of America's largest electronic voting machine companies may be just as distressing [as connections between Sen. Chuck Hagel and a similar company; see full story], especially for those who venerate the separation of church and state. The convoluted system of renaming and buyouts of America's voting system companies is a complicated story. However, once the various corporate trails have been followed, a disturbing picture comes into focus.

Brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded American Information Systems. Bob is currently president of Diebold and Todd Urosevich is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales of ES&S. (In 1999, American Information Systems, purchased Business Records Corp to become ES&S.)

American Information Systems (AIS) was primarily funded with money from Ahmanson brothers, William and Robert, of the Howard F. Ahmanson Co. The majority stake in ES&S is still owned by Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation

Howard Ahmanson belongs to Council for National Policy, a hard right wing organization and also helps finance The Chalcedon Institute. As the institute's own site reports, Chalcedon is a "Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life... Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity of a return to Biblical Law has been a crucial factor in the challenge to Humanism by Christians in this country and elsewhere..." Chalcedon promotes Christian Reconstructionism, which mandates Christ's dominion over the entire world. The organization's purpose is to establish Old Testament Biblical law as the standard for society.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html

(A very scholarly look at Christian Reconstructionism.)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=376

(The original story I read about Christian Reconstruction in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Inteligence Report.)

 

[pax]

And one more--this one deals more explicitly with Christian Reconstruction's ties to major Republican figures, including, very closely, George W. Bush himself. Watch the stupid little commercial if you have to and read the whole article.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/index.html

The Episcopal Church split is only a small part of Ahmanson's concerted efforts to radically transform not only American religion, but the nation's moral culture and, thereby, the country itself. His money has made possible some of the most pivotal conservative movements in America's recent history, including the 1994 GOP takeover of the California Assembly, a ban on gay marriage and affirmative action in California, and the mounting nationwide campaign to prove Darwin wrong about evolution. His financial influence also helped propel the recent campaign to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. And besides contributing cash to George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, Ahmanson has played an important role in driving Bush's domestic agenda by financing the career of Marvin Olasky, a conservative intellectual whose ideas inspired the creation of the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Even when not explicitly violent, do I believe that these ideas are bad, bad news? Yes. Do I think that the President having ties to them is a bad, bad thing? Definitely.

 

[nbcrusader]

Um, yes--the Reconstructionist movement was very generous to Bush's campaign.

Pax, that is some very interesting reading. I should note that the Reconstructionist movement conflicts with teachings of "evangelicals" or "fundamentalists" in many regards.

Who are the generous donors to the Bush campaign? I did not recognize the names of those associated with Reconstructionist teaching.

 

[Klaus]

"Moral clarity means never having to say sorry."

Someone stick that on a tshirt - I'd wear it!

of course that's wrong - there are situations in life where everything you can do is to choose between two wrongs.
Shakespeare got famous with that stuff