In Bush We Trust?

nakedemperor

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2004
1,437
152
48
NYC
Over the past few months I've been struggling with how to feel about the faith-based rule of President Bush. I've been combing articles from the Weekly Standard, Ron Suskind, and various other sources for the president's own words, and anecdotes about the president himself, to try to reassure myself that genuine faith is a boon for a national leader. I've come to two definitely conclusions: that true faith leads to deeper reflection, and would indeed be (if not mandatory) a blessing for the President of the United States. The second conclusion I came to is that the President (and here I'm talking specifically about W) has a personal brand of faith which does not lead to deeper reflection.

In an NYT article I read, the evangelical pastor Jim Wallis made the clearest distinction between beneficial faith and the President's faith, a distinction which will put the president's Christian supporters on the defensive but won't come at all as a surprise to those Christians who do not. Wallis said, "If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher in ourselves. . . but when its designed to certify our righteousness. . .then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection."

And then the meat and potatoes of the quote: "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not, not ever, to the thing we as humans want so much. Easy certainty."

And therein lies, after much deliberation, my problem with the president's personal brand of faith. Coupled with the intellectually disinterested personality of a president who doesn't read, doesn't tolerate dissent among his top lieutenants or constructive dialogue or even friendly questioning, this faith has been and will continue to be a dangerous thing for the American people. Well, for all people, really.

As an R.N.C regent at a pre-election dinner pointed out, as quoted in a Suskind article, "the devil's in the details". This is such an apt and ironic saying it KILLS me. George W. Bush is a man who sat at tables at Yale and Harvard Business School, at the tables of failing oil-companies, at the table of a Carlyle board (which asked him to leave because he didn't "add much to the value of the board" and "didn't know much about the company") and never sweated the details, never had anything substantive to contribute. In 1993 Bush had very little to show on account of these shortcomings, but in 7 years would become the president of the United States. But that's another issue.

Anyway, back to the details. Or, the complete lack thereof. Listening to Dick Clarke and John O'Niell (and Christine Todd Whitman, until recently) or any number of Suskind-quoted lieutenants and advisers gives you a pretty good idea of how Bush avoids the details just like he avoids to devil. Remember the top Bush aide talking to Suskind about the journalists being part of the "reality-based community" and that being a BAD thing? Well, when you don't have the details and you don't know the fact and you don't read the paper AND you have achieved complete "easy certainty" in life, it is bad news bears for those of us who happen to be unfortunate enough to take part in "reality based communities".

I'll close with an anecdote I read from The Standard and The Times, the first having to do with an exchange between Senator Joe Biden and President Bush, when Biden asked "How can you be sure [America is on the right track in Iraq] if you don't know the facts?" To which the president replied "My instincts. My instincts."
 
And then the meat and potatoes of the quote: "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not, not ever, to the thing we as humans want so much. Easy certainty."

This is probably one of the few things i actually agree with with this post.

Dont take this the wrong way. But I am getting tired of people who dont claim any faith or are antagonistic from judging whether a person has deep faith or not. I mean even for people of faith it can be tough to determine who has deep faith or not.

I suppose we also need to establish was "Deep faith" is. Maybe thats just the lawyer in me speaking though. I think deep faith is something that touches a person so sincerely that they want to change their life and the world around them because of it. Instead of focusing on what we want deep faith makes us focus on whats right and wrong and what would be best for the people around us.

Its one of the reasons find it so odd that the President's critics seem to think he has no depth to his faith when obviously he does. He is very reflective. He is very sincere. He doesn't speak out about His faith all the time but its very obvious that its deep faith and effects him to his core. His actions have shown it. As does his character.

So I have to majorly disagree with your assessment.
 
Wallis said, "If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher in ourselves. . . but when its designed to certify our righteousness. . .then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection."

And then the meat and potatoes of the quote: "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not, not ever, to the thing we as humans want so much. Easy certainty."

And therein lies, after much deliberation, my problem with the president's personal brand of faith. Coupled with the intellectually disinterested personality of a president who doesn't read, doesn't tolerate dissent among his top lieutenants or constructive dialogue or even friendly questioning, this faith has been and will continue to be a dangerous thing for the American people. Well, for all people, really.

If Bush is NOT reflecting in a Christian way and thus NOT being a good Christian man, then why are you so afraid then of his obviously bogus claim to being a Christian? You say he has his own "personal brand of faith".

Seems to me if that was the case, he would be more similiar to the Secularists on the Left who have their own "personal beliefs" without any help from "reflection".

You would probably be terrified of a Secular President who didn't have any guidelines of any sort whatsoever. You wouldn't have a clue as to what he believed. :poke:
 
This isn't coming with any anger, NE - just an observation. You really don't understand Christianity at all. You regard it with fear and trepidation, in accordance with the dictates of your indoctrination. If I may paraphrase another man of faith, Ronald Reagan:

"It's not that you're ignorant - you just know so much that isn't so".
 
NE, while I think your post is very well thought out, there's a small problem that I don't understand. How do you jump from the depth of Bush's faith to his inattention to detail, which (supposedly) makes him a bad President?

My take on it is that a deep faith would lead one to be introspective about one's faith, but not necessarily about business, etc. Having read quite a bit of stuff from Bush, I observe that he does reflect on his faith, and how to live it out. But I don't see how Bush's lack of attention to details in business translates into a shallow religious faith.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
If Bush is NOT reflecting in a Christian way and thus NOT being a good Christian man, then why are you so afraid then of his obviously bogus claim to being a Christian? You say he has his own "personal brand of faith".

I wasn't implying that Bush's claim to be a Christian is "bogus"; I was trying to point out how Bush relies on his faith in dangerous ways (e.g. complete and utter self-assuredness, "easy certainty" if you will, and a frightening lack of need of any sort of second-guessing or altered policy in the face of failed policy). I believe everyone's faith is different. It manifests itself differently, if affects your daily routine differently, etc.

ScreamingEagle said:
Seems to me if that was the case, he would be more similiar to the Secularists on the Left who have their own "personal beliefs" without any help from "reflection".

This is based on the (false) premise that you think I believe he's not a Christian, a "secularists" when this premise is taken to its illogical extreme.

You would probably be terrified of a Secular President who didn't have any guidelines of any sort whatsoever. You wouldn't have a clue as to what he believed. :poke:[/QUOTE]

I believe in morality without religion, common sense without God, and good values without an all-knowing all-powerful father figure to give them to you.

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.
 
nakedemperor said:
.....Bush relies on his faith in dangerous ways (e.g. complete and utter self-assuredness, "easy certainty" if you will, and a frightening lack of need of any sort of second-guessing or altered policy in the face of failed policy).....

so confident self assured people that do not let those that are less confident and less self assuerd distract them make you nervous?

or is that, secular, non-convicted, wishy washy people that are easily swayed are what you would prefer to follow?

also, just because i would like you to say it...which policy has a failed?
 
manu1959 said:
so confident self assured people that do not let those that are less confident and less self assuerd distract them make you nervous?

Well, if you read every fifth word of my post, then maybe I'd understand how you came to this conclusion. Confident people make good leaders when they understand the intricacies of an issue, hear many different opinions on th best course of action, entertains constructive dialogue, and appreciates gentle dissent. Otherwise they make reckless leaders. There are reasonable hesitations that slow deliberate men, that W doesn't even notice.

man1959 said:
or is that, secular, non-convicted, wishy washy people that are easily swayed are what you would prefer to follow?

I completely disagree that non-religious people are any "less convicted" as you put it, than the faithful.

manu1959 said:
also, just because i would like you to say it...which policy has a failed?

Another chat for another day.
 
If you believe in morality without religion, where do the morals come from? Laws? Your ass?

I don't understand your statement: "I completely disagree that non-religious people are any "less convicted" as you put it, than the faithful."

Are you referring to non-religeous people or secularists? There is a difference. You can be a person of faith (believe there is God/Jesus/Allah/pick your deity), living by the teachings (eg 10 commandments) of the faith, but choose not to worship or observe Holy days observed with that faith. I represent one of these people. I don't go to church, but I try to live as I should based on basic Bible teachings. The stories present some great inspiration on getting through tough life problems.

What do you mean by "less convicted"? Are you trying to say that non-religeous people have a black&white, cut&dry opinion of any topic? Funny, your failed presidential candidate had more waffles than IHoP...

It's a proven fact that most people of ANY faith, tend to have a clear idea of what they want and how they want to achieve it. This is because their faith (whatever it may be) aids in knowing clearly difference between right and wrong, and allowing for very little in between or grey areas. They also put the well-being of others ahead of their own agendas. Liberals MEAN well, but their 'what about ME' attitude is what hurts their cause.
 
nakedemperor said:
Well, if you read every fifth word of my post, then maybe I'd understand how you came to this conclusion. Confident people make good leaders when they understand the intricacies of an issue, hear many different opinions on th best course of action, entertains constructive dialogue, and appreciates gentle dissent. Otherwise they make reckless leaders. There are reasonable hesitations that slow deliberate men, that W doesn't even notice.
I completely disagree that non-religious people are any "less convicted" as you put it, than the faithful.
Another chat for another day.

well.... i simply responded to the basic theme of your post ...gee i am sorry lets chat about every fifth word then.....i used the symetrical argument to your post to point out the lack of logis to your argument...miss that class did you...too busy letting randoms sign your gashes rack?

deliberate men are not slowed by the less convicted

convicted people are convicted people in case you missed the entire point of my sarcasam

lets try this...tell me about your experience as a leader and why anyone should lieten to your opinion of such?

you have no context and no experience therefore your opinion is well... your opinion....thank god the pres of the us has more balls than you
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
If you believe in morality without religion, where do the morals come from? Laws? Your ass?

Common sense. I don't not kill people because a frowning paternal figure shakes his finger at me from 2,000 years ago. It's simply ingrained inately in me that killing people is immoral.

fuzzykitten99 said:
I don't understand your statement: "I completely disagree that non-religious people are any "less convicted" as you put it, than the faithful."

Well, if I rearrange the word order for the syntactically challenged, it says: I don't believe non-religious people have weaker convictions than the faithful. Capiche?

fuzzykitten99 said:
Are you referring to non-religeous people or secularists? There is a difference. You can be a person of faith (believe there is God/Jesus/Allah/pick your deity), living by the teachings (eg 10 commandments) of the faith, but choose not to worship or observe Holy days observed with that faith. I represent one of these people. I don't go to church, but I try to live as I should based on basic Bible teachings. The stories present some great inspiration on getting through tough life problems.

Well considering I said "non-religious people" rather than "secularists" I'm pretty sure I meant "non-religious people". And by that I mean people who don't practice religion. Following me yet? I know its tough, but like Rush said, "words mean things".

fuzzykitten99 said:
What do you mean by "less convicted"? Are you trying to say that non-religeous people have a black&white, cut&dry opinion of any topic? Funny, your failed presidential candidate had more waffles than IHoP...

Yes, I'm trying to say that people who don't practice religion, like myself, have "black and white, cut and dry" positions on a wide variety of topics. To believe otherwise is frankly kind of loony. I appreciate that faith may give you clarity and certainty on a variety of issues, who knows, maybe you wouldn't know not to steal without the ten commandments, but other people do.

fuzzykitten99 said:
It's a proven fact that most people of ANY faith, tend to have a clear idea of what they want and how they want to achieve it. This is because their faith (whatever it may be) aids in knowing clearly difference between right and wrong, and allowing for very little in between or grey areas. They also put the well-being of others ahead of their own agendas. Liberals MEAN well, but their 'what about ME' attitude is what hurts their cause.

Well, as much as I'd love to get drawn into a "liberals ALL have a selfish worldview" debate with you, its a ludicrous argument and I won't stray off topic to address it. Your supposition about this "proven fact" doesn't address the sentiment of my OP in distinguishing between the good, directed "clarity" provided by faith and the "easy clarity" that reassures some of the believers.
 
manu1959 said:
well.... i simply responded to the basic theme of your post ...gee i am sorry lets chat about every fifth word then.....i used the symetrical argument to your post to point out the lack of logis to your argument...miss that class did you...too busy letting randoms sign your gashes rack?

Your use of the ellipsis has made this paragraph illegible to me. Could you rephrase?

manu1959 said:
deliberate men are not slowed by the less convicted

Wonderfully astute assertion. But would you agree that deliberate men who don't have a clue as to what they're being deliberate about could endanger those around them, especially if they are CIF of the most powerful army in the history of the world? Being deliberate is always good, but without deliberation, it can be reckless.

manu1959 said:
convicted people are convicted people in case you missed the entire point of my sarcasam

I suppose I did. Unfortunately for you, sarcasm doesn't translate to well through text. Better luck next time.

manu1959 said:
lets try this...tell me about your experience as a leader and why anyone should lieten to your opinion of such?

Oh there's a helluva statement. We could apply this "if you're not an expert on the topic you can't talk about the topic or critique people in the field" notion to all the threads on this board, and all that would be left would be Merlin's jokes in the humor thread and Mr. P's recipes. How very constructive of you.

manu1959 said:
you have no context and no experience therefore your opinion is well... your opinion....thank god the pres of the us has more balls than you

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It worries me how so many people view the fact that the president believes strongly in God's will, along with the sentiment that he's "got balls", as unequivocally good things. Well, there have been many leaders in the course of human events who believed they were chosen by God and "had balls", but they didn't necessarily do great things for their people from whom they derived their power. Balls without brains, in terms chosen to suit your vernacular, is dangerous.
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
dodging the question again...

one day you'll grow up...

I'm trying to stay on-topic, on a topic that is broad enough as it is, and you call me immature for not caring to respond to an off-topic question that would have broadened the discussion to "what are all the things Bush has done wrong"? Puh-leeze. I've never backed down from a discussion on Bush's failed policies, but its not what we'e talking about here now is it?
 
nakedemperor said:
I'm trying to stay on-topic, on a topic that is broad enough as it is, and you call me immature for not caring to respond to an off-topic question that would have broadened the discussion to "what are all the things Bush has done wrong"? Puh-leeze. I've never backed down from a discussion on Bush's failed policies, but its not what we'e talking about here now is it?

ok lets stay on topic then...

name a problem...name the failed policy implimented to fix the problem...describe how it failed....and how the problem could have been fixed if your policy had been implimented
 
manu1959 said:
ok lets stay on topic then...

name a problem...name the failed policy implimented to fix the problem...describe how it failed....and how the problem could have been fixed if your policy had been implimented

What are you talking about? THIS is not the topic.. Do you care to respond to my last post on Bush's faith?
 
nakedemperor said:
Over the past few months I've been struggling with how to feel about the faith-based rule of President Bush. I've been combing articles from the Weekly Standard, Ron Suskind, and various other sources for the president's own words, and anecdotes about the president himself, to try to reassure myself that genuine faith is a boon for a national leader. I've come to two definitely conclusions: that true faith leads to deeper reflection, and would indeed be (if not mandatory) a blessing for the President of the United States. The second conclusion I came to is that the President (and here I'm talking specifically about W) has a personal brand of faith which does not lead to deeper reflection. "

Let's go back to your accusation of Bush's "faith-based rule" in your very first sentence. (Who gave you this ridiculous idea in the first place?)

Precisely explain how he is doing that. Are you accusing him of creating a theocracy of some kind? Are you saying he is making all his policy decisions based solely on his religious beliefs without any other input? Also keep in mind that Bush is not a "ruler". He is only the head of the executive branch of our government.

Also, I would like to know why you have a problem with an elected representative who the people knew before he was elected that he had a solid belief in his "personal" religion. If an elected President can't comment/express things about his own religious faith, then who can in this country? Are you against freedom of religion? Are you saying that a man who holds office cannot be religious? Are you just another one of those secular anti-Christians who is trying to wipe the religion off the face of America? Or is it you just hate Bush and will pick on him in any way you can dream up?

Please provide some solid evidence that Bush is harming America with his Christian religious beliefs.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
Let's go back to your accusation of Bush's "faith-based rule" in your very first sentence. (Who gave you this ridiculous idea in the first place?)

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.

ScreamingEagle said:
Precisely explain how he is doing that. Are you accusing him of creating a theocracy of some kind? Are you saying he is making all his policy decisions based solely on his religious beliefs without any other input? Also keep in mind that Bush is not a "ruler". He is only the head of the executive branch of our government.

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.

ScreamingEagle said:
Also, I would like to know why you have a problem with an elected representative who the people knew before he was elected that he had a solid belief in his "personal" religion. If an elected President can't comment/express things about his own religious faith, then who can in this country? Are you against freedom of religion? Are you saying that a man who holds office cannot be religious? Are you just another one of those secular anti-Christians who is trying to wipe the religion off the face of America? Or is it you just hate Bush and will pick on him in any way you can dream up?

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.

ScreamingEagle said:
Please provide some solid evidence that Bush is harming America with his Christian religious beliefs.

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.
 
nakedemperor said:
What are you talking about? THIS is not the topic.. Do you care to respond to my last post on Bush's faith?

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

bush's faith does not concern me any more than ted kennedy's or john kerry's catholic faith or even bill or hillary's .... or even you lack of faith ... it is obvious convicted peole make yu nervous and wishywashy critics are your prefered leaders...good luck
 

Forum List

Back
Top