BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Bush thinks God is on his side. Because it wasn't...

 
 
Tryphena Absent
01:57 / 07.04.03
obvious at all.
 
 
A
04:54 / 07.04.03
Jesus must be spinning in his grave.
 
 
Ariadne
05:39 / 07.04.03
Someone give that man a drink.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
05:50 / 07.04.03
How to alienate your Middle-Eastern allies in one easy step.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:41 / 07.04.03
A drink? Give the fucker a pretzel.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
12:58 / 07.04.03
The UK's 'Hotdog' magazine mentions that a trilogy of films based on the Tim LaHaye novels mentioned in the article are currently in pre-production. They'll be released on, get this, 5/05/05, 6/6/06 and 7/7/07. Expect a Creed/Nickleback concept album to follow.
 
 
Undecided
16:49 / 07.04.03
Will Jesus just come back and rain some divine bolts of destruction or something down on these people already? Please, Jesus? For us?
 
 
Seth
17:05 / 07.04.03
The Jesus of the 21st Century wears a 200' tall exo-skeleton that shoots rockets from its cock. Tremble.
 
 
Ganesh
17:11 / 07.04.03
Cock & awe.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:43 / 07.04.03
I just emailed my mum the article and she freaked me out for 56th time by saying she's 'really into' the audio tapes. Christ on a crutch. Won't be long before we're living in a post-apocalypse 80's movie, only Van Damme won't be available to save us. A mutated Freddie Prinz Jr will be our hero, but he'll be too busy getting gang-raped by bull-headed mutoids. Fuck.... fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck... it's all falling away from us and there's nothing we can do, because most people think it's OK.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
18:43 / 07.04.03
I just emailed my mum the article and she freaked me out for 56th time by saying she's 'really into' the audio tapes. Christ on a crutch. Won't be long before we're living in a post-apocalypse 80's movie, only Van Damme won't be available to save us. Freddie Prinz Jr will be our hero, but he'll be too busy getting gang-raped by bull-headed mutoids. Fuck.... fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck... it's all falling away from us and there's nothing we can do, because most people think it's OK.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:14 / 07.04.03
Six: Tangential perhaps, but you may be interested in this thread, which has some interesting links re: the dubious theology and subtext of the Left Behind books, and some thoughts of apocalyptic fiction in general.
 
 
Slim
20:41 / 07.04.03
The article struck me as high dubious, I kind of think the writer was just bored and wanted to type out some bullshit.

Either way, this proves once and for all that a Protestant should never be elected President.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:08 / 08.04.03
Read the caption under the picture again and think about the use of the word 'engage'. I found it particularly funny.
 
 
fluid_state
02:53 / 08.04.03
Yes, Dubya will make a lovely bride. I wonder if Evil has picked a best man yet.
 
 
Salamander
05:13 / 08.04.03
didn't you hear, the best man is satan himself, the gusts will consist of all the mythological fallen bogies, evil has a big family, even president bush was invited, and so was jc and sid. i got my invitation yesterday, didn't you get yours?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:10 / 08.04.03
Am I the only one that finds this whole situation terrifying? I mean, the fact that he actually BELIEVES he is on a divine mission is perhaps the most frightening thing in all of this.
 
 
Ganesh
10:48 / 08.04.03
Well... I think y'need to moderate Bush's apparently 'rock-solid' belief with the fact that he's a career politician who happily distanced himself from his own denomination, the (now not-so) United Methodists, when they refused to support his stance on Iraq. His faith seems to mould itself around his political ambition rather than the other way round.
 
 
Jack Fear
11:11 / 08.04.03
I mean, the fact that he actually BELIEVES he is on a divine mission is perhaps the most frightening thing in all of this.

I swear, there's no pleasing some people. We bitch and moan for years about politicians with no core values, who shift with the wind according to whoever's waving more money in their direction: now we've got a president who's a true believer, and we're still not happy.

But the other extreme is equally unappetizing, isn't it? I heard Dominique de Villepin the other day on the BBC World Service; he was talking about Bush's religious faith, and Blair's as well, as ecidence of an "unsophisticated" world view. His sneer as he said, "They are moral leaders, and this world is too complex for moral crusades," was palpable, and I, frank quitely, found it repugnant.

I mean, I like to think of myself as relatively sophisticated (for an ignert Yanqui), and I can recognize the value of realpolitik and self-interest: but to baldly claim that morality has no place in politics? Ick.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:35 / 08.04.03
Ganesh: Well, not exactly. It's not so much that "his faith seems to mould itself around his political ambition" as that they are one and the same: what Bush wants will always jibe with what God wants—the inevitable result of the nature of Bush's God-concept, which comes directly from his brand of Christianity.

W is a born-again Christian, and the born-again movement places primary emphasis on the personal relationship with Christ—as opposed to, say, the Catholic Church, with its emphasis on Jesus as Universal Savior: the evangelical born-again Christian says, "I accept Jesus as my personal Savior," while I, as a Catholic, call Jesus my Savior because He is Savior of all mankind, and I am part of mankind—which means He is my Savior whether I "accept" Him or not. The fact of individual salvation doesn't change, of course, but the route by which you come to it gives you a very different slant on the world and on Jesus.

The personal nature of salvation extends to the theology of the churches: whereas the rigid catechism of the Catholic Church grows out of its hierarchical nature—which in turn grows out of its collectivist notion of salvation, the idea that we're all in this together so we'd darn well better get organized—evangelical theology, by contrast, tends to be far more vague and open to interpretation: denominations such as W's United Methodists are essentially umbrella groups, within which can exist a host of highly idiosyncratic theologies—as many, perhaps, as there are individual Christians in that denomination: after all, if Jesus is your personal Savior, then you are, in effect, a Church of one.

Michelle Cottle wrote an excellent piece on W's faith for The New Republic, and I cannot resist quoting it at length (emphasis mine):

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

...W.'s relationship with Jesus has always been of the twelve-step, baby-boomerish variety so popular in recent years. The president's path to salvation began in the mid-1980s, when his chum Don Evans got him involved in a Bible-study group characteristic of the "small-group movement," ... a "mix of self-help, self-discipline, group therapy ... and worship." Bush thus came to know Jesus as someone who helps you achieve even the really tough things you want to get done: stop being a drunk, grow up, become president, etc. Basically, Jesus became Bush's life coach--a sort of divine Tony Robbins.

....Lots of political leaders make decisions and pronouncements based broadly on what they believe is God's will. But Bush's brand of born-again Christianity isn't rooted in the kind of theological study or debate that might produce a coherent worldview. Instead, it follows directly from the believer's one-on-one communion with God. At best this gives the prescriptions Bush gleans from his faith an ad hoc quality.... At worst, this becomes completely self-justifying, placing a divine stamp of approval on pretty much anything the believer wants to do--or rather, wants God to help him do. ...Bush decided Saddam was evil, and everything just flowed from that.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Read the whole piece: it's fascinating, unsettling, and, though deeply reverent, still wonderfully impolite.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
12:36 / 08.04.03
Woah, Jack, I don't recall saying morality had no place in politics.

First of all, I was never was a Clinton-basher so please don't lump me in with Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads who complained that morality had been removed from the Oval Office.

Secondly, define "morality." It's pretty subjective, don't you think? Yes, there are some things we can pretty much agree on. Killing someone is usually wrong. Sleeping with your sister, usually wrong. But after some of these "moral absolutes" there's a lot of grey area. We can certainly argue that W is in fact, if not an immoral man, then certainly a hypocritical one, based on his actions as president and as governor of Texas.

Finally, yes, I do find ANYONE who has a place in geopolitcs and believes they are doing "God's Work" at a bit scary. Bin Laden's sure he's doing God's work. The folks who launched the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing God's work.

I'm sorry, but whenever people start waving the flag and talking about doing something in the name of your country and your religion, I get edgy.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:52 / 08.04.03
Cherry: Please note use of the collective "we." I'm not attempting to lump you personally in with anybody—just making a comment on human nature.

But as to morality in political leadership: would you prefer politicians who acted in naked self-interest, as long as they were upfront about it? Would it be better if the president had said something along the lines of, "My fellow Americans, we're sick of paying a buck eighty-seven a gallon to fill up our SUVs, so we're going to pacify Iraq in order to keep the oil flowing. Other nations of the region, take note—what we do to Saddam, we could do to you, so quit giving us any shit, play ball, and nobody gets hurt"?

Shouldn't we be reaching for something more? Shouldn't we want a foreign policy that promotes human rights, the common good, and self-determination for all people? Are these not essentially moral goals?

If all we want is free trade, efficiency, and stability—these things are best achieved by repression and brutality: law of the jungle. Once the notions of fairness and justice come up, though, foreign policy of necessity takes on a moral dimension, because fairness and justice are moral notions.

I have no problem with moral leadership, so long as it's, you know, actually moral. The problem, of course, is with hypocrisy—realpolitik and dressing it up in moral language.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:58 / 08.04.03
Oh, and

Finally, yes, I do find ANYONE who has a place in geopolitcs and believes they are doing "God's Work" at a bit scary.

Really?



C'mon! You're not scared of him are you? I mean, he is the predestined, seer-foretold god-king of a medievalist theocratic monarchy, and he does take his marching orders from an oracle who speaks for the gods while in a possessed, loa-ridden trance-state... but he's so cute and cuddly!
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
13:10 / 08.04.03
I swear to Christ, Jack Fear is my hero.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:56 / 08.04.03
We live in a democratic world (though a poor democracy it may be) and that is meant to be the fundamental basis of government in the western world. Doesn't it stand to reason that we deserve leaders who work with their electorates in mind, representative of all of the people in a country and not of a God? Practicality and representation over morality and Godliness.

The problem with Bush is not that he believes in a protestant God so much as it clouds his view of other religions, nations and gives him an absurdly black and white view of the universe. The leader of an imperialist nation all too often turns out like this but world events recently have created an absolute monster. I think that we're all aware that morality should be a little objective when applied to an entire country and the problem is, of course, that Bush always takes a subjective view.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
17:29 / 08.04.03
I agree that we do deserve an unbiased leader who is able to take an objective view, but... it doesn't seem that we can get one. I really am eager to be shot down on this one, but I recall Clinton being a good example of a President who took the opinion of his people into consideration. This got him the reputation of being an 'odd duck' or impossible to pin down on an opinion, though.

Mixing religion and government is a bad thing and reveals once again that this is a country that 'tolerates' other religions... but make no mistake... big old father Xmas white dude God is looking over us, and he can see everywhere. After all, we are a nation under 'God,' and our money is insured by the big old G hisself.

I hate it when we have to be reminded of this.
 
 
grant
18:49 / 08.04.03
Jack, you're overlooking one important fact in yer analysis of Bush's faith and politics... that brand of Christianity has something in common with the Dalai Lama (just head over to the revamped Christianity.com forums to read more than you'd like on this).

Romans 13:1,2:
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

It's not just that God personally tells him what to do... he's the president because God put him there. He's the agent of God on Earth. And there are lots of people - people who find the Iraq situation morally repugnant - who believe the best they can do is to pray for Bush, support him in everything he does, and trust that it's all part of God's plan.
 
 
Seth
18:53 / 08.04.03
People with Christian faith are a diverse bunch. They're capable of taking a huge variety of stances on the American government and the current conflict. Bush's worldview therefore can't be fully attributed to his ideas on faith, although it may be one factor amongst many.
 
 
Francine I
19:03 / 08.04.03
What Ganesh said. What Grant said. And what's more; I heard Bush and his cabinet paid out substantial cash for a meeting with the author of the Bible Code series a year or so ago. Everybody remember the Bible Code?
 
 
Baz Auckland
00:55 / 09.04.03
I would rather not. I hope the hell everything isn't being planned to fufull the messages God encoded in the Old Testament. What a scary thought. Oil and money motivation is one thing, armageddon is another.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
00:59 / 09.04.03
"We're musicians, ma'am. We're on a mission from God."

Anyways... yes, I do remember the Bible codes. I was a Christian at the time, and thought they were the greatest things ever. Until an atheist friend an I sat down for a long discussion. Realized how stupid they were pretty quickly.
 
 
Yagg
02:16 / 09.04.03
Jesus must be spinning in his grave.

I haven't been here for months. Consequently, I haven't read anything that funny for months.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
07:57 / 09.04.03
Jack: OK, OK, the Dalai Lama does look sort of cuddly.
But I still think there are more scary world leaders out there who have talked about their having a Divine Mission than cuddly ones.

That said, no, I don't want politicians to act in naked self-interest; rather I'd like politicians to do what they're paid to do; which is act in the interests of the people who elected them. I realize how idealist this is, and I realize how subjective the interests of the people is. Certainly the Bush administration would argue that they are working in the interests of the people. I disagree.

Shouldn't we be reaching for something more? Shouldn't we want a foreign policy that promotes human rights, the common good, and self-determination for all people?

Absolutely, my friend! But is the Bush administration DOING that? I argue that they are NOT doing that. How are they helping the nearly 6% of Americans who are out of work? How are they helping people by taking money away from libraries (where people can use the Internet and check out books to, among other things find jobs), schools and other public services in order to fund their war? How is Bush's stimulus plan actually going to help the American people? I don't see it.

Are these not essentially moral goals?

Mmm, yes and no. Yes, I do think the ideas you mentioned are essentially moral goals. But how do we decide what is moral within that framework? That's where the subjectivity lies.

I definitely don't want to turn this into Christian-bashing or anything like that, but I don't think you suddenly become moral just because you call yourself a Christian (or a devotee of any other faith).

Besides that, as an American myself, I believe in Separation of Church & State. Which Bush does not seem to do. I mean, this is a man who prayed in the middle of his inauguration speech! Believe me, I am all for praying but don't you think that sort of behavior alienates those who don't share his beliefs? I do.

By the way Jack, not trying to pick on you. Just sorting out these things as I go.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:22 / 09.04.03
Oh, I'm not talking about the Bush administration in particular: I'm just speaking in generalities, rebutting the idea that morality has no place in politics ever, as de Villepin seemed to be implying. Whether the Bushadmin is in fact acting morally is open to debate, but I don't think that's the question here.

"Acting in the interests of the people" is, of course, the benchmark for truly moral leadership.

But I would argue that "the interests of the people" are not always immediately apparent to "the people," and further that "acting in the interests of the people" isn't necessarily the same as "doing the will of the people"... as any parent can tell you: the kids want to watch TV and eat Oreos all day, and when you try to force them to do something that's in their best interests—take a walk, take a bath, do their homework, be a good citizen—they will resist, and you will be the least popular guy in the room.

Just so, "the people" want mostly to be left alone, to have cheap gasoline and affordable housing and something decent on TV. Ask them to pony up a little tax cash to pay for services they desperately need, and they'll turn on you with knives. The people don't always want to do what's right. The popularity or unpoipularity of a measure or policy is no measure of its moral value. (and again, I'm talking generalities—I'm not saying whether or not this war is right.)
 
  
Add Your Reply