In Bush We Trust?

[musicman]

No, not creating a theocracy, but abusing the "easy certainty" his faith grants him. Bush is as close to a "ruler" as any president has ever been. The legislative branch is no longer a check-- it takes its marching orders directly from the president (why he hasn't vetoed one single bill-- he hasn't needed to). The judicial soon to follow.







.

And all of this is in accordance with the wishes of the American electorate. So, what's the problem?

I remember, right after the election, you posted that you were surprised and disturbed that Americans had actually voted against their own interests. Perhaps you'd like to refresh our recollections with some specifics on that. In the meantime, consider also the possibility that you fail to understand, A) the American electorate, B) people of faith, or C) the concept of self-interest as it applies to either.

 

[nakedemperor]

And all of this is in accordance with the wishes of the American electorate. So, what's the problem?

Nothing, people did what they thought was the best course of action. My consternation doesn't stem from what the American people did.

I remember, right after the election, you posted that you were surprised and disturbed that Americans had actually voted against their own interests. Perhaps you'd like to refresh our recollections with some specifics on that. In the meantime, consider also the possibility that you fail to understand, A) the American electorate, B) people of faith, or C) the concept of self-interest as it applies to either.

I probably don't completely understand people of faith, but it doesn't take a person of faith to understand where faith can lead a practicioner astray. I still contend that people voted in what they thought were their best interests, but didn't necessarily make the right decision. It doesn't surprise me that conservative Christians are so enamored of the a president who wears his faith on his sleave; but this sort of superficial, all-encompassing reason to vote for him, that he "shares their values", I think blinded a lot of people to the ramifications of electing whom they did.

 

[musicman]

Nothing, people did what they thought was the best course of action. My consternation doesn't stem from what the American people did.



I probably don't completely understand people of faith, but it doesn't take a person of faith to understand where faith can lead a practicioner astray. I still contend that people voted in what they thought were their best interests, but didn't necessarily make the right decision. It doesn't surprise me that conservative Christians are so enamored of the a president who wears his faith on his sleave; but this sort of superficial, all-encompassing reason to vote for him, that he "shares their values", I think blinded a lot of people to the ramifications of electing whom they did.

Thanks for the clarification. And, my compliments on your use of words like "I still contend" and "I think", rather than "It is thus and such". In the final analysis, all we feeble humans can do is what we think is best, don't you agree?

 

[nakedemperor]

Thanks for the clarification. And, my compliments on your use of words like "I still contend" and "I think", rather than "It is thus and such". In the final analysis, all we feeble humans can do is what we think is best, don't you agree?

Amen. For better or for worse.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The concept does not overtly manifest itself. It is implicit in Bush's tacit acceptance of certain principles which he hold to be self evident, now and always, despite empirical evidence to the contrary of the hesitations of his cabinet. This self-assuredness is derived in part or in whole from his faith. He believes he is doing the Lord's work. And when you're doing the lords work, detractors and doubters need not be heeded, and so the president brushes them aside. He doesn't need to read about Iraq, because he knows he did the right thing. He seems puzzled when people criticize him, and displays the grin and the furrowed brow, and doesn't take heed; he doesn't need to, HE knows what he is doing is right and just and the Lord's will, and nothingelse matters.

No, not creating a theocracy, but abusing the "easy certainty" his faith grants him. Bush is as close to a "ruler" as any president has ever been. The legislative branch is no longer a check-- it takes its marching orders directly from the president (why he hasn't vetoed one single bill-- he hasn't needed to). The judicial soon to follow.

I never criticized his commenting/expresing things about his own religion. So no, I'm not against freedom of religion-- in fact I think it can definitely be a blessing to have a religious president (read my first post and you wouldn't have had to ask this question). I'm neither anti-Christian nor do I hate the president. I can see where you made that assumption though, considering I'm criticizing the president's application of his faith, not the faith itself.

Here's an excerpt from a Susking article I read in researching the OP:

Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis [evangelical pastor who runs the Sojourners]. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. "Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!" he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, "Faith Works." His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable - a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, "'but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism."'

****Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.

****"No, Mr. President," Wallis says he told Bush, "We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism."

****Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.

****"When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking," Wallis says now. "What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year - a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.


End quote.

That last sentence encapsulates why Bush's faith (not Christianity, his personal interpration and application) is dangerous.

Your arguments so underwhelm me.

 

[Merlin1047]

I fail to understand why Christians seem to scare the living bejeebers out of some leftists. These are the same folks who seem to think that islam isn't such a bad thing.

Why is it that having faith in a higher power somehow makes a person suspect? Why is the left so terrified that Christians might pollute their secular utopia? Or are they simply afraid that the sybaritic, self-involved orgy into which they plan to turn society is endangered by a few folks with some morals?

 

[nakedemperor]

I fail to understand why Christians seem to scare the living bejeebers out of some leftists. These are the same folks who seem to think that islam isn't such a bad thing.

Why is it that having faith in a higher power somehow makes a person suspect? Why is the left so terrified that Christians might pollute their secular utopia? Or are they simply afraid that the sybaritic, self-involved orgy into which they plan to turn society is endangered by a few folks with some morals?

I don't know if you're refering to me or not with this post, but considering I started the thread, I'd say its a safe bet. At any rate, I'd like to re-clarify my position: I'm not scared of Christians, I'm scared of what the reverend Wallis called "easy certainty" derived from faith. I'm pretty sure this "easy certainty" isn't very common, but it seems very prevalent in the president's worldview.

I'd also like to speak to the statement that "the left" is terrified of Christianity and wants a "secular utopia". This is pretty nonsensical, if you consider that upwards of 80% of people on the left are Christians. Obviously calling them "fake Christians" is indefensible, but I got blasted earlier for only accusing one man of subscribing to a form of his faith not intended by the founders of his faith.

 

[manu1959]

your topic was failed polices of bush due to his faith...i asked you to name one...

still waiting

 

[nakedemperor]

your topic was failed polices of bush due to his faith...i asked you to name one...

still waiting

My topic was not the policies of the Bush administration that have failed, the topic of the OP was what about Bush's individual faith predisposes him to failure.

Keep waiting.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff-- my segue was awkward and pretty jumbled, sorry 'bout it. The sentiment I was trying to express was that the President who "trusts his gut" and "has faith" in all of his decisions, believing he's "doing the lord's work" doesn't have very much use for details, nuance, or (most alarmingly) dissenting opinions. Bruce Bartlett (domestic policy advisor to Reagan and treasury offical for H.W. Bush) put it rather dramatic but pretty much to the point terms:

"This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence."

In the Bush White House, open-dialogue, based on facts, does not have much inherent value. Nor does empiricism.

Well, I certainly think that the President has a direction in which he'd like to shape his administration: the war on terrorism. And his strategy is to fight terrorism in order to lessen (and eventually destroy) its ability to threaten America. So if you're talking about analysis or dialouge about what his administration's direction is going to be, than I wouldn't expect him to have any more discussion about it. It's very clear that he has his minds made up about fighting terrorism, and he earned my vote (again) for sticking to his guns.

As far as "being on a mission from God," the Bible specifically refers to God ordaining the leaders of all nations. In other words, God is the one who allow smen (and women) to rise into leadership over countries. So in that sense, Bush may feel that he is called on by God to lead the US. But then, so was Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, etc. etc.

 

[Avatar4321]

My topic was not the policies of the Bush administration that have failed, the topic of the OP was what about Bush's individual faith predisposes him to failure.

Keep waiting.

Well you are going to have to establish what exactly the President has failed at because quite frankly its nice to see a President who actually takes on challenges than allows future Presidents to clean up the messes.

 

[sitarro]

I don't know if you're refering to me or not with this post, but considering I started the thread, I'd say its a safe bet. At any rate, I'd like to re-clarify my position: I'm not scared of Christians, I'm scared of what the reverend Wallis called "easy certainty" derived from faith. I'm pretty sure this "easy certainty" isn't very common, but it seems very prevalent in the president's worldview.

I'd also like to speak to the statement that "the left" is terrified of Christianity and wants a "secular utopia". This is pretty nonsensical, if you consider that upwards of 80% of people on the left are Christians. Obviously calling them "fake Christians" is indefensible, but I got blasted earlier for only accusing one man of subscribing to a form of his faith not intended by the founders of his faith.

Gee "easy certainty" , what a concept . You have "easy certainty" that sticking things up and into an orifice that is designed to hold stuff in , is natural .You subscribe to a group thought that has "easy certainty" that man is responsible for climate change and can actually do something about it by not driving big vehcles .You also support a mindset that has "easy certainty" that a woman has the right to destroy a life just because it is growing inside her (like it's a cancerous growth). Or how about the "easy certainty" that everything on this planet has evolved from a single cell organism and that explains why we have species as diverse as squid and parrots that mimmic humans . It also supposedly explains how humans are so far advanced over even the closest species to us .
I contend that nobody knows with absolute certainty what is the truth and you are as guilty as the side you criticize . Your side is also easily just as guilty as who you criticize for voting for people that support your pet agendas wether it is good for society as a whole or not . You are also of the mind set that by going to college you know about the real world . I learned more about the business of architecture in 2 weeks than I learned in 6 years of college studying the architecture my loser professors wanted to tell me about . I literally can count on half of a hand the decent teachers that I had in college . Most were lazy , intellectually bored , ego cases that were only able to impress young impressionable minds (this is from a perspective of looking back 30 years) . I can learn almost anything better and faster on my own than if I waste my time in college , so don't be condescending towards others that don't have your little sheepskin on the wall. All of the book education in the world will not mean anything if you don't have any common sense , Bill Clinton is a perfect example of this truth .
Oh by the way , the Iraqis proved all of you egghead doubters wrong again today , mark it down on your calendar of defeats .

 

[Avatar4321]

I contend that nobody knows with absolute certainty what is the truth

This is the only part of which i disagree with.

 

[nakedemperor]

Gee "easy certainty" , what a concept . You have "easy certainty" that sticking things up and into an orifice that is designed to hold stuff in , is natural.

Aw, you're adorable. You think all people who are attracted to men engage in anal sex. Guess again, cowboy.

You subscribe to a group thought that has "easy certainty" that man is responsible for climate change and can actually do something about it by not driving big vehcles.

The entire danger of the "easy certainty" I was arguing against is its lack of empirical eveidence to support convictions and assumptions. Climate change and emissions control are data-based theories and not applicable in the faith-based easy certainty disucssion we're having.

You also support a mindset that has "easy certainty" that a woman has the right to destroy a life just because it is growing inside her (like it's a cancerous growth).

Well I suppose the mouth is an orifice where things are designed to go in, so I can't really fault you for putting your words in mine. But I don't believe in abortion in 99% of cases.

Or how about the "easy certainty" that everything on this planet has evolved from a single cell organism and that explains why we have species as diverse as squid and parrots that mimmic humans . It also supposedly explains how humans are so far advanced over even the closest species to us .

Again, the theory of evolution has mountains of empirical data with holes in it. It is not based on easy certainty with NO empirical evidence (e.g. intelligent design). Again you're misconstruing the definition of the phrase I used in the OP.

I contend that nobody knows with absolute certainty what is the truth and you are as guilty as the side you criticize.

O f course no one know "the truth"; but building theories on empirical data rather than "faith" or "your gut" or "your instincts" is a far more effective leadership tool. Capice?

Your side is also easily just as guilty as who you criticize for voting for people that support your pet agendas wether it is good for society as a whole or not .

Well when you tell me what my "pet agendas" are without knowing what the hell you are talking about its hard for me to argue with you except to tell you that I'm an individual and not the stereotypical "leftist" you despise so much for lurking incessantly in your mind's eye.

You are also of the mind set that by going to college you know about the real world . I learned more about the business of architecture in 2 weeks than I learned in 6 years of college studying the architecture my loser professors wanted to tell me about . I literally can count on half of a hand the decent teachers that I had in college . Most were lazy , intellectually bored , ego cases that were only able to impress young impressionable minds (this is from a perspective of looking back 30 years) . I can learn almost anything better and faster on my own than if I waste my time in college , so don't be condescending towards others that don't have your little sheepskin on the wall.

I condescended to no one. If you had actualyl READ thepost to which you are refering I said that I learned the most in college than in any other part of my life. Well champ, I'm still in college, so you'll forgive me for not having had the opportunity to compare and contrast; I will merely describing the benefits of having a college education (not a degree, mind you, as you assumed) in terms of tackling the "real world".

All of the book education in the world will not mean anything if you don't have any common sense , Bill Clinton is a perfect example of this truth .

Wonderful. You're a subscriber of the black-and-white distinction between "book smarts" and "street smarts". The line is blurred, my friend, as are the boundaries between most different cognitive skill sets.

Oh by the way , the Iraqis proved all of you egghead doubters wrong again today , mark it down on your calendar of defeats .

Pardon me? Listen, I normally dont get pissed off at people for making assumptions about what I do and do not believe because frankly it happens every day on this message board, but when you tell me I wasn't rooting for Iraqis to succeed in their quest for democracy, or in any way insinuate that I doubted their capabilities, then you can go piss off. You don't know me, so don't talk like you do.

 

[manu1959]

My topic was not the policies of the Bush administration that have failed, the topic of the OP was what about Bush's individual faith predisposes him to failure.

Keep waiting.

name one...

still waiting