Lots of moans and snarks over Dubya’s latest foreign policy comments:
Bush also explained, in unusually stark terms, how his belief in God influences his foreign policy. “I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true,” he said. “One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.”
The idea being that Bush-as-God-believer is a sign of either his uber-cynical manipulation of the electorate (which may well be true — piety is the first refuge of a scoundrel) or, more pointedly, a sign that he’s just a crack-pot lunatic who’s obviously incompetent to lead this country because he believes in Big Sky Heaven Father.
Wanna bet I could pretty quickly find quotes by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK that said pretty much the same thing? At what point did belief in God or even expressing a faith in what someone believes God wants suddenly become a symptom of idiocy?
Bush may be a lot of undesirable things as a president — and I’m not necessarily sold on his being as devout and God-fearing as he makes himself out to be — but … belief in God is not, per se, a sign of incompetence to be Commander-in-Chief or Head of State, regardless of, say, sentiments like this:
His brain has been so corrupted with his silly God beliefs that it’s become reality immune. A better example of the crippling effects of religious belief is hard to find.
Hell, I think it would make a lot more sense for folks to criticize the efforts of Bush, the GOP, and their religious right supporters to suppress in this country the very freedom the desire for which he touts as one of the Almighty’s great gifts.
In the context of all the loopy things Bush has promoted, his ‘faith’ – and I fear that it is genuine – fits well into a picture of apocalyptic millennialism. As someone said, he is acting like the Earth is a business in foreclosure. That is very frightening to me.
And frankly a belief in an omnipotent invisible being simply isn’t reassuring to me anyway. Faith is by definition irrational – the ‘substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen’. Most people of faith focus on its more benign aspects but what marks off the moral boundaries? To me it pretty much seems like a decision to choose this part of the religion but not that part.
And yes, the loudest people of faith do seem to have an odd definition of “freedom” – 100% agreement on that.
And yet he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the desire in peoples’ souls to be alive. Darfur. Genocide.
Oil. That’s where it’s at.
A lot of people seem to have a bone to pick with religiosity in general and ignore the simpler, more cogent criticisms. Such people tend to be tiring (and boring) to read.
I fully agree that Bush’s expressions of faith, in how they play out in his policy, are … disappointing at best, scary at worst. But I’d rather focus on that expression — “by their works you will know them” — than on the basis for them.
As opposed to more concrete foundations for actions like philosophy or political ideology? Or, for that matter, enlightened self-interest?
It all boils down to beliefs and values and internal moral and ethical axioms. Whether they are ostensibly inspired by Jesus, Buddha, Hume, Marx, or whom/whatever, they boil down to propositions (“all men are created equal” or “first do no harm” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “power resides in the proletariat”) that are rarely based on objective, mathematical reality.
At least enlightened self-interest can be argued. Once someone believes they have a hotline from their unobservable, unarguable god, that’s it. Their moral decision-making process is now unbounded by any human limitations. Thanks, but no thanks.
BTW in my experience, when someone makes a big point out of their religious affiliation during a fundamentally secular transaction (business or politics), they ARE trying to mark themselves as trustworthy. It’s a transactional shortcut, and not a reliable one.
(Not sure if you wanted an explanation of the rhetoric you were complaining about. My apologies if that isn’t what you were going for.)
I think that “enlightened” in that phrase is sometimes a misnomer. It boils down to the judgment of person involved and what they decide.
I think you’re driving to the idea that judgment of self-interest is subject to change while judgment of God’s will is not. I don’t know that either side of that equation is necessarily true.
I think there can be an appropriate time to discuss such things in a public area. But, yes, it’s too often used (cynically or not) to assert trustworthiness, such that being beyond reproach in not flouting one’s bona fides is probably advisable.
Sure, and the recognition of that fact is what’s good about it. The god-claiming politician is also relying on his judgment but is not admitting it. Instead his pronouncements are bulletproof, unlimited. There is no need for him to make a rational case and his actions are limited only by his power. That’s what I’m getting at.
I guess I’ll never be comfortable when a politician tells me his decision is informed by input from a being of which he cannot demonstrate the existence. It just puts a pretty face on irrationality.
My concern with W’s religous beliefs stem from who he thinks is controlling events on the planet. One may believe in god without belieing that god acts on the planet separate from the actions of people(or controls others actions).
As problematic as people acting on their beliefs may sometimes be (suicide in defense of the faith), I think W sees god and satan acting on the planet is some type of cosmic fight for supremacy. How do we argue against this type of violence if god is telling someone to perform it? When human volition is removed from the equation, how does one ever work toward civil society?
In addition, W’s version of free has to conform to the monotheistic god’s definiation of what freedom allows, which may not be seen as free by some.
Ah. The sense that claiming one’s judgment is based on the Almighty’s and thus is beyond reproach or question. Yes, that’s a problem. Not to mention way too prideful.
That said, the quote from Dubya is not, in itself, all that bad:
I mean, were I President, I might very well say such a thing. I would most likely say it outside of a speech where I was touting a particular foreign policy (I’m thinking a quiet interview with Barbara Walters). And I might couch it in less rock-solid terms. And I would try to be sure my actions fit those fine words. But the words themselves, not so much a problem.
Of course, I’m highly unlikely to ever be President. Which is likely a good thing, for me if not for the world.
While many poloticians have said they are religious, how many of them have said that they based their policy decisions on their faith? If they are willing to base some of their policy decisions on their faith, are they willing to base all their policy decisions on their faith? Might that lead to some violation of religious freedom or of the separation of church and state?
On another note, ***Dave, you suggested that philosophy is not a concrete foundation for action. You further suggested that it all boils down to axiomatic propositions that aren’t mathematically provable. I think you’re painting with too broad a brush here. Most philosophers would agree with you that political philosophy cannot be argued with mathematical precision. However, some deontological ethicists would say that ethical principles can be proved with the same level of certainty that mathematics enjoys. The dispute between deontological ethicists and others hasn’t been resolved yet, so speaking from a professional philosopher’s point of view, I’d say it’s too soon to say that all ethical and political philosophy lacks concrete foundations. It’s certainly true that we haven’t yet discovered such foundations, but that doesn’t mean we won’t at some point in the future.
However, setting the issue of concrete foundations aside, most philosophers would contend that political philosophies can be justified on the basis of rational argumentation if we’re willing to allow a standard of proof that’s weaker than that used in mathematics. To say otherwise seems to me to lead to relativism, which I don’t think you’re willing to accept.
In addition, in the philosophy of religion, the notion of ‘faith’ is normally taken to be irrational in the sense that those things that one accepts by faith are those for which no rationally convincing argument can be given. Notice that faith can be consistent with all your rational beliefs, so beliefs accepted on faith need not contradict other beliefs for which one has rational arguments. That kind of irrationality would be a stronger kind than the kind that is usually applied to faith.
I think the question comes down to this: what standards of intellectual rigor do we expect the President of the United States to use in conducting his official business? It seems clear to me that we don’t want the President to be making decisions that contradict those things that are rationally believed by most people in the country. I would further claim that we don’t want the President to be making decisions on the basis of beliefs that are not rationally supportable, but which are consistent with those things that are rationally believed by most people in the country. I would further assert that I don’t want the president to be making decisions based on a relativistic view of the world. What’s left is some level of rational argumentation and which I would hope is widely accepted. In a sense, I’m suggesting that we need a philosophical president, not a dogmatic president, and I think the publicly available evidence suggests that we have a dogmatic president at the moment.
Sorry for the length.
Clearly a large enough plurality of the voters do want a prez who bases his actions on Christianity.
The notion that George does so over and above other neocon obsessions is laughable.
It is of interest to me if George or any other person in a position of power is an Armageddonist, and what kind — the ones who think they have to turn the Earth over to JC in good shape for some sort of divine kingdom here, or the ones who give fuck-all for the future because it’s all going up in smoke.
I would presume that anyone bases their action on their moral and ethical code (whether considered or customary) of what is right and wrong, their practical/survival instinct of what will be most beneficial (to them), and as influenced by advice from others and regulated by the law and society. That’s everyone from George down at Starbucks to George in the White House. Whether that sense of morality comes from Christianity or not isn’t the issue, to me, especially since the state/religion aspect of it is guided by the law.
Now, if George said, “I am actually a worshipper of the Elder Ones, and believe that my job is to prepare us all for being eaten the day before election day” … yeah, I’d worry a bit. And to the extent that he’s actually out to set up the world for Armageddon, if true, is also of concern. But I’d be more concerned over the actual actions he takes, and if he does something beyond the law (as a matter of conscience or not), then one of the results has to be being held accountable, politically and legally. That’s true whether it’s because he’s Christian, Chthulhuan, or a Foundationist.
I will agree with you that I would prefer a philosophical president to a dogmatic president, to the extent that the former will try to puzzle out the right and the wrong of a matter, whereas the latter will simply take accepted wisdom as to what answer “obviously” fits.
My interest isn’t in Bush’s faith — I don’t really care what he believes — but in his willingness to accept the responsibility for his actions and their consequences, and in his ability to act in accordance with his stated beliefs. Most people don’t, but most people aren’t the leaders of the free world.
At least with the other presidents in my living memory, you could trust them to play politics. Bush doesn’t seem to care that anybody finds out that he’s not playing the game, he’s just doing what he likes.
Which just goes to show that there are worse things out there than people who play politics …
Seeing as it’s my statement that inspired this entry I should probably elaborate a bit.
It’s not that Bush believes in an invisible Sky Daddy that bothers me so much as he appears to make it his primary source for decision making as opposed to, say, the input from his advisers or various experts in the field in question. As you’ve pointed out there have been plenty of presidents who would occasionally espouse their Christian beliefs.
Bush is different, though. He’s the deciderer (according to him) and he’s basing his decisions on what he believes to the be true rather than what is actually true (e.g. Saddam most certainly has WMDs and is close friends with Bin Laden regardless of what the reality actually is). He commonly argues as though he is absolutely certain about something that everyone else around him has doubts about and he’s implied this knowledge comes directly from God. If that weren’t bad enough even after it becomes obvious to him that he was wrong he can’t bring himself to admit it and goes on to claim that he’d do the same thing again even knowing he was wrong and then he uses his belief in Jesus as some sort of justification for being a friggin’ idiot.
That’s the problem I have with his professions of belief. I have no doubts he’s sincere and, honestly, that’s what worries me the most.
I have no argument with that, Les. 🙂
An example, perhaps, of why simply listening to the Almighty and not questioning what you think you hear is not a good idea: