Ruchira Paul believes that George W. Bush claims direct personal communication with God. This, of course, cannot be tolerated because
Those who claim direct communication with other worldly forces for their earthly actions are either lying or deluding themselves. In both cases, it is dangerous to vest extraordinary powers in such unreliable hands.
Paul finds evidence for her claim in remarks Bush made “to a business group in Irvine, Ca.”:
“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.
“I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other.”
The only problem is that Bush doesn’t say he talks to God nor does he claim to receive specific instructions from a supernatural source. In all of Bush’s speaches, campaign tours, policy statements, or press conferences, I can’t find one allusion to prophecy. Regardless of what you think of Bush’s particular policies, nothing in the above-quoted passage is unreasonable. First of all, I would hope every political leader (and probably every person for that matter) bases important decisions on things he believes to be true.
Secondly, Bush, along with most of the country and most of the world, believes in God. Paul may very well object to this and insist that only atheists be entrusted with leadership. But I think even she would realize the silliness of such a claim. So now the question becomes, is what she in fact said any different? By assuming (fantastically) that one who expresses belief in God is, in reality, claiming “direct communication with other worldly forces” and is thus “dangerous”, she effectively disqualifies any sincerely religious individual from public service (and sanity).
And yet somehow it’s the religious who are labeled intolerant and close-minded.
Hi David,
Thanks for reading and the trackback.
So G.W. Bush doesn’t talk to God but claims to know what the Almighty’s gift to mankind is and bases his beliefs and his policies on that. What’s the difference? Either the Almighty spoke to him and told him that or he is making it up.
Yes, I am intolerant of public displays of religiosity -just as I am of irrationality of all other kinds. As for voting for a religious person, I have little choice. Going public against religious faith is a sure kiss of death for a candidate in the current political atmosphere in the US.
I was born in India and grew up there - another overtly and overly religious democracy. I saw firsthand the follies of mixing politics and religion. Both my parents and my husband’s folks lost their homes and moorings in the eastern and western parts of erstwhile British India to the partition that took place in 1947. Their homes fell into what was to become Muslim Pakistan and they being Hindus had to leave their ancestral homes. The religious fractiousness that came to govern the politics of the two new nations is causing problems in the Indian subcontinent to this day - nearly sixty years after the bloodbath that ensued after the initial division. I see the same kind of religious chauvinism operating in the US - the trend has increased in the last twenty years and I find that dangerous.
You have perhaps pegged me for a dogmatic atheist which too requires taking a doctrinaire position on one side of the divine issue. I do not know how to exactly define my attitude towards God (organized religion, on the other hand, I reject categorically). Let’s put it this way. If some day either side proves to me irrefutably the existence or the absence of one or several gods, neither scenario will have much impact on my daily life or my sense of right and wrong. So put me in the category of the “supremely indifferent.”
I noticed that you are a student of Judaica. I am not terribly interested in religion except for its broader harmful effect on society but I do love Jewish history, the little that I know of it. On a happier note, you may want to check out my review of Nathan Katz’s book “Who Are the Jews of India?” I loved the book and writing the review. The comments on that post too are interesting. Hope to see you again.
I can’t seem to be able to figure out your HTML tag for links. So I will leave the link here for copy and paste:
http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com/accidental_blogger/2006/03/a_distant_land_.html
Comment by Ruchira Paul — May 12, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
It’s me again. I should have linked to an earlier post of mine which explicitly supports the claim that Bush does believe that he talks to God. In fact I will provide a link in my latest post to clarify matters in case someone else brings up the objection that you did about my “misrepresenting” Bush’s statement. I have heard it before as have my readers. I just extrapolated from there. There is no misrepresentation.
http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com/accidental_blogger/2005/12/abu_mazen_pales.html
Comment by Ruchira Paul — May 12, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
You’re just dodging the question. By your logic, any religious person is unfit for public service. Are you willing to stand by that?
As for Nabil Shaath’s statement, if that’s all you can point to as evidence that Bush claims to be a prophet, it’s pretty weak. It’s a second-hand account and, even if Bush actually said that, it’s quite possible that it was tongue-in-cheek. It certainly sounds like it.
Comment by sagoboulevard — May 14, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
You are obviously a deeply religious person and perhaps do not understand the danger of mixing personal religiostiy with public policy. If lessons of history -the inquisition, the Holocaust, the Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India and the current “Muslim vs the rest of the world” stupidity have not convinced you, nothing will. Religious chauvinists never see the folly of their positions. That is where the expression, “holier than thou comes from.”
I have no problem voting for a person who is seeking personal peace from religion and keeps that message to himself or herself. I find it revolting when they run for public office and conflate their religion with their politics.
So, you don’t like the Nabil Shaath’s version. The White House has never refuted it though. And how do YOU know how it was said? Did Bush tell you if he was tongue in cheek or deadly serious? How is my interpretation any less valid than yours? And why is Nabil Shaath such a weak witness? Because he is Palestinian? His description of the conversation was repeated by news media all over he world. No clarification (tongue in cheek or otherwise) was ever issued by the White House. Read the following account. Bush talked about seeking a “higher father’s advice” in conducting his war with Bob Woodward too. That account too has not been questioned by Bush.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
Comment by Ruchira Paul — May 14, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
May be you find nothing wrong with this either.
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/the_christian_f_3.html
Comment by Ruchira Paul — May 14, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
I understand “the danger of mixing personal religiosity with public policy” but perhaps you don’t realize the problem of fully separating the two. When we step foot into politics, we do so armed with our beliefs about the world, about justice, about privacy, etc. For most Americans, that includes some theological beliefs. While you are welcome to enter the public sphere with all your beliefs, you’d prefer religious people to leave some of theirs at home. Your caveat that you’d vote for a religious person so long as he or she “keeps that message to himself or herself” further testifies to your patronization.
I expanded on this in a post a while back. There I wrote:
Comment by sagoboulevard — May 18, 2006 @ 6:13 pm