God’s Will Be Done
There is an alarming thought in this article on Barack Obama and religion.
For the past six years, the most prominent Christian in America has been the president. His belief is not of the “God said it. I believe it. That settles it,” sort that fundamentalists embrace. Rather, Bush subscribes to a syllogistic doctrine of presidential infallibility: God works through Christians; I am a Christian; I have decided to do X; therefore, X is God’s will.
For one thing, that sounds like a syllogistic doctrine of infallibility period, never mind the presidential part. But leave that aside. Since it’s Bush who is the subject and Bush is in fact, incredibly enough, the president, it’s the syllogism itself that is so alarming. Does he really think that? If so that’s even worse than what I thought he thought, which was that God spoke to him, but not, like, every second. I thought he thought God gave him guidance on the generalities, but that he had to help himself a little – had to break a sweat now and then at least. But if he just thinks it’s all as simple as that formula – then he thinks that everything he thinks and decides and does is by definition and automatically God’s will and therefore right. And that means he thinks there’s no need to think or consider or judge or ask questions at all, ever. Now I know he pretty much never does any of those things; the failure to ask questions is quite notorious; but I thought he might indulge in them just occasionally. But why would he, if he thinks there’s no need? And if he believes that syllogism, he must think there’s no need.
So that’s what religion gets you. Someone who thinks there is no need to think or consider because God will do it for him; who, unfortunately, is the most powerful human on the planet and in charge of tens of thousands of nukes. Oh how exciting.
But it’ll get even more exciting when other people in other countries who have the same kinds of thought processes (but just beleive in a different god) also have nukes!
Come to think of it, I’ve always used the story in Revelation about the dragon bringing a third of the stars in the sky down to Earth in the End Times as an example of how ludicrous the Bible is, but what if that story is simply a metaphor for nuclear war..
(Sorry about the unforgivable spelling mistake.. why don’t you offer a ‘preview’ feature in the comments section?)
The optimist in me hopes he has minders.
Oh yes – that could happen any time. Pakistan, India, Israel…Isn’t life exciting!
Not spelling mistake, typo; different thing, hence entirely forgivable. I wrote diving for divine the other day, which made nonsense.
Lack of preview feature probably because the whole site is programmed from scratch, so it doesn’t have every possible bell and whistle. In any case nothing can be changed or added now, I don’t have the skills. Sorry.
Yeah, he has minders, but you know what he says – he’s the decider.
And this syllogism is referenced to what explicit Administration policy statement exactly?
Yeah, all true, but you gotta admit Bush is funny. And also because he’s too stupid to conceal the way the presidency works and is influenced, we all get to see how things really are. Well-connected easily-led puppet figure. Intelligent people don’t make such good puppet material.
Strange. The statement seems more a political diatribe than an evaluation of the evidence. The conclusion of more fair-minded people is that Bush seems to make some statements only for the purpose of keeping an important voting bloc on side.
Well, there are also episodes like this one (link below), where reportedly Dubya told Palestinian leaders he was doing God’s will by invading Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1586986,00.html
I agree with Ms. Sullivan on this point. I think Bush *thinks* he is religious, but the next time “God’s will” is something different than what Bush wanted to do anyway, will be the first time.
Re John J’s citing of the Guardian report: I hold no brief for George W. (to put it mildly), but I don’t think that report is of any great evidential value. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestine National Authority, who was also at the meeting in question, denied its accuracy:
“Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“A statement in Abbas’s name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a ‘completely false’ account.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html
Yes – I’ve seen doubt cast on that story, I think.
The whole thing is speculative. The Slate article is interpretive rather than empirical. That’s why I called it a ‘thought’ in the Comment, rather than a piece of news or similar. And I hope it’s a mistaken interpretation, I must say. I hope Bush thinks at least a little thought is sometimes useful.
While I would not have voted for George W. (I’d even have voted for McGovern over Nixon in 72. I preferred Michael Foot in 1983 over Maggie T) I don’t think he is stupid or evil. Many of his policies and beliefs are wrong, no doubt. As GWB is a practising Christian, and I’ll take him at his word, you can take the comment in the article as an accusation, not a statement of fact. Christians pray for guidance.Whether it is an answer or simply the fact that concentrating on a single complex problem without distraction helps one come to settled decision, based on the available evidence, Christians often find that they can decide on a course of action after prayer. But it is their decision, not God’s. And I don’t ever remember reading that GWB has claimed God’s validation for his actions. Only that he will be judged by God for his actions.
Best wishes
PS I am reading the Platonic dialogue with E and will respond, but I have been away for a week.
“Only that he will be judged by God for his actions.”
That’s Blair, not Bush.
Bush not evil? Don’t Christians frown upon warmongers? Wasn’t Jesus called the Prince of Peace? I recall something about turning the other cheek.
Whom would Jesus bomb?
Yes, Christians (and atheists and non christians) frown on war mongers. But acting in self defence ()Afghanistan) or in enforcing international law (Iraq, various UN resolutions) is not war mongering. I do wish left opponents of George Bush or other right wing political leaders would focus on the policies rather than the personalities. If you persist in thinking Bush is stupid or evil you won’t work out which policies you need to offer, say, the American people, or the Australian people. It was that failure in 2004 which cost Kerry. With the huge opportunities given by Bush’s policies he did not articulate enough good reasons to vote FOR Kerry as opposed to voting against Bush. I hope the Democrats don’t make the same mistake in 2008.
Best wishes
JM, where did I say Bush is stupid or evil? I agree with you about policies rather than personalities; but I also think basic competence is highly relevant, and when someone in such a powerful job (made all the more powerful by the unconstitutional reasoning of his legal team) seems to lack basic competence, I think that’s worth discussing. I have read plenty of sane, rational accounts of the Bush admin, including even from conservatives and Republicans, that say he is remarkably disengaged and that he never asks questions. When he was briefed about Katrina the day before it hit N.O., for example, he asked no questions. He asked no questions about the budget. That’s not personality, it’s a matter of the skills needed for the job.
And how do you know what cost Kerry? How do you know it wasn’t the swift boat thing, or the incumbency advantage, or the idea that you don’t switch presidents in wartime, or what Kerry and THK ate at Wendy’s that time, or all those?
Mr. Mushens,
There has never been a war that the power elite didn’t recruit religious believers for support. I would think that as a Christian you’d be uncomfortable in taking on this role. Don’t the deaths of perhaps 100,000 noncombatants weigh on your conscience?
Remember, god is reading your mind.
Dear OB
No, you did not call Bush stupid. But some of your commenters did. I don’t know what cost Kerry. No-one does. You might be right. But to topple an incumbent, in the absence of a failing economy ( that did for the Tories in 1997- people remembered 1992 and ejection from ERM. But Labour still needed to offer a positive vision to voters) you need to give swing voters enough reason to switch from the incumbent. And I don’t think Kerry did that.Maybe Clinton can in 2008. I am sure Gore can’t.
Dear Doug
You are of course correct. Christians are not pacifists and there is a long tradition of accepting war if the war qualifies as ‘just’. Although Christian theologians defined the terms in the Middle Ages, the concepts work just as well for atheists or non-pacifist faiths.
I, along with many Christians, supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as just. In Iraq, all the alternatives were bad. I believed then, and still do now, that removal of Saddam Hussain’s regime and implementation of a democratic regime in Iraq was the best option. Yes, I am anxious about all the deaths. But Saddam’s regime was a killing regime, and I don’t blame Bush or Blair for all the killings committed by the insurgents. They are the ones targetting mosques, markets and ordinary people. And while a decisive majority of the Iraqi people (77% in the last poll) said that it was still worth it getting rid of Saddam, I think I am willing to stand alongside them.
And yes, if there is a God, as I believe, I will have to account for all my actions.
Best wishes
It is easy (and fun) to mock GW Bush as ‘stupid’, but of course he isn’t in the accepted sense of the word. Certainly he is not academically gifted, but nor is he a semi-literate moron.
However, after more than five years it is reasonable to conclude that his intelligence is inadequate for the astonishingly demanding post he holds, is feeble in comparison to the exceptionally talented and fiercely clever people who inhabit the rarified aeries of power, and apt to collapse when faced with problems of daunting complexity and immediate importance.
With a fair wind and family connections he would probably make an average middle-management drone.
Nor do I think ‘evil’ is quite fair. I don’t doubt that he sees himself as driven by faith and principle. But there are some worrying incidents (Karla Faye Tucker?).
So, yes. It is inaccurate to refer to Bush as stupid or evil.
A mediocrity with a mean streak is fairer.
JM,
“I don’t know what cost Kerry. No-one does.”
I know. That’s my point. But you asserted that “It was that failure in 2004 which cost Kerry.” If you don’t (as you acknowledge) know that, your way of asserting it is odd.
In other words, I sometimes find you exasperating to discuss or argue with, because you shift your ground so much, apparently without noticing, and at any rate without acknowledging, that that’s what you’re doing.
“of course he isn’t in the accepted sense of the word”
But is that really of course? It’s so hard to ascertain or hear/read of any sign of non-stupidity, that I have to wonder. He may be acting, but he does give an impression of being quite slow-witted. But maybe he wants to give that impression.
Dear OB
I may change my ground because I reflect on the arguments made in response to my post, and if I think the arguments are good I will accept them. What should I do?
While I don’t know why Kerry lost, I am party political (a member of the Labour Party) and work (some times) for a political consultancy in the UK, and the Party consensus was that Kerry lost because of a lack of a positive reason to vote for him that was convincing enough to gain enough swing voters. But nobody knows really why he lost
Best wishes (truly)
PS I do like your site, and agree with many of your posts or I would not bother visiting so often. As well as being a Christian I regard myself as rationalist and do not see that there is a necessary conflict between being a Christian and being a scientist, for example.
A soft answer turneth away wrath, etc. Or irritability, or whatever that was.
jeffrey,
I appreciate your considered response.
Bush has said (in public) several times that “God speaks through” him.
I think Ophelia keeps reiterating the same point: Bush does sincerely feel that he is “chosen” by God and that he is “implementing” his will.
Even though Mr. Mushens is being so pleasant and polite, I have to ask: Does “faith” make it easier to beleive and accept patent, proven nonsence peddled by political leaders for their own often nefarious reasons?
Dear Mr Miller
I would be shocked and surprised if Mr Bush had made explicit claims yhat he has been chosen by God and that he is implementing his will. Being a Christian, actually, makes it harder to believe and accept such statements. When, for example, Popes make statements on faith, such as Humanae Vitae – the one on contraception – there is huge debate and lots of believing Catholics thought he was wrong. If GWB made such a statement I’d be a bit worried to be frank.
Best wishes
He has, JM. Try googling Bush “God speaks through me” – you’ll find a lot of news stories. And of course many Christians have been making the point for the past six years that that is a very unhumble way of being religious – but that hasn’t stopped him.
Just googled it. The same, one, story. Let me start by saying that my politics are very different to those of GWB. Just because he is a Christian does not mean I have to trust his politics. The report of a meeting with Amish folk was private. The news article reported 2 statements. The first is unexceptionable. ” Having a strong belief in God is the only way he can do his job.” the second is not. “At the end of the session, Bush reportedly [note, reportedly, the reporter was not present] told the group “I trust God speaks through me. Without that I could not do my job.”
The latter is close to blasphemy. I don’t know any Christian who wouldn’t do a double take if someone said that to them. And I’m sure that Amish would have said something about this if GWB had said this. And the Washington Post reports Bush as saying that the story misquotes him. Even if you don’t believe the second statement was misquoted, his subsequent denial indicates he does not think he should say such a thing. Which kind of leads me to think he just made the first statement.
Best wishes (I’m just looking at wedding dresses as we’re going to sort out flowers for the wedding tomorrow)
“his subsequent denial indicates he does not think he should say such a thing”
No, I don’t think it does. What I think it indicates is that he knows other people will think he should not say such a thing.
You don’t know any Christians who wouldn’t do a double take…but do you know any US-type fundamentalists? They are rather different, you know.
I know U.S. style fundies who stated bluntly during my college years that they chose a particular dormitory because the Creator of the Universe told them to choose said dormitory. Even during my semi-religious age, I found that rather “odd.” But then I find the Prairie Muffins “odd” too.