Bush's Fundamentalism, or lack thereof

[Upchurch]

I was inspired by a thread I started in R&P and a recent discussion on this board about Bush to start on on Bush's Fundamentalism (or lack thereof).

I'm not going to go into great detail, but from what I know of Bush, I feel that he does probably believe in the 5 fundamentals that make up Fundamentalism but that he does not adhere to the other more subjective characteristics that defines a Fundamentalist. Namely, he does not appear to hold the belief that those who follow his beliefs are subjugated in the world, he does not seem to feel that the government should enforce his religion, and he does not seem particularly anti-modernism.

As I say that, I realize that there are some notable exceptions to some of those characeteristics that would tend to point that he is a Fundamentalist, but I would say in overall terms, he doesn't seem to fit the bill.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, I'm not even sure how you define a fundamentalist; I think it's kinda like "I know one when I talk to one."

My impression of Bush: Pretty devout, for sure. Fundamentalist? Eh, I guess you could make a case. But it's not like he's Pat Robertson or someone like that.

 

[Katana]

I think that Bush is less a fundamentalist than he is a politician who just panders to them.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I'm not even sure how you define a fundamentalist; I think it's kinda like "I know one when I talk to one."

I was inspired by a thread I started in R&P

That link has contains a discussion on the definition of Fundamentalism.

 

[drkitten]

Well, I'm not even sure how you define a fundamentalist; I think it's kinda like "I know one when I talk to one."

Did you read the post Uppie referenced? There's a fairly standard definition of "fundamentalist" that has been floating around for a century. From Wikipedia:

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

The big two that cause problems with the rest of the world are Biblical inerrancy and sola scriptura.

My understanding is that Shrub has been remarkably cagey in his statements, to the point where no one actually knows where he stands on these two points. If Uppie has some evidence about whether or not Shrub believes in the inerrancy of scripture, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My understanding is that Shrub has been remarkably cagey in his statements, to the point where no one actually knows where he stands on these two points.

*Charles Durning voice*

"Oooh, I like to dance the little sidestep
Now they see me
Now they don't
I'm here and gone!"

GW Bush is a politician. This deliberate vagueness is hardly surprising, even for as artless a speaker as he is.

If Uppie has some evidence about whether or not Shrub believes in the inerrancy of scripture, I'd be interested in seeing it.

People here have pointed out his "the jury is still out on evolution." This can be seen as pandering to inerrancy, but it may, or may not, be more than that.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

If Uppie has some evidence about whether or not Shrub believes in the inerrancy of scripture, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I've got nothing conclusive either way. The OP was meant to start a discussion more than to put forth a claim. The opinion I did put forth is just a gut level impression rather than based on any cold hard facts.

eta: I will put forth the Terri Schiveo (sp?) situation as an instance where Bush was inclined to use government power to enforce what I felt was a religiously based position. As DR pointed out, his stance on evolution is an anti-modernity position.

 

[drkitten]

GW Bush is a politician. This deliberate vagueness is hardly surprising, even for an artless a speaker as he is.

People here have pointed out his "the jury is still out on evolution." This can be seen as pandering to inerrancy, but it may, or may not, be more than that.

It's also possible to be a creationist without necessarily being a blblical literalist or inerrantist, for example, among the group known as Old Earth Creationists.

I agree that a substantial fraction of Bush's power base are fundamentalists (and therefore biblical inerrantists), so it makes a certain perverse sense that he would avoid making statements that directly contradict them.

On the other hand, he's also a bad enough extemporaneous speaker that I wouldn't be surprised if someone had caught him by surprise with a live mike and trapped him into an embarrassing gaffe.

 

[ceo_esq]

It's also possible to be a creationist without necessarily being a blblical literalist or inerrantist, for example, among the group known as Old Earth Creationists.

Some Christians who profess to believe in biblical inerrancy seem to use the term in a different sense than the one I infer was intended by, say, the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910. There are non-creationist Christians who will claim that the Bible is nonetheless free from error.

 

[Kopji]

The current catch phrase is 'Dominionist'. I doubt they would use the word to describe themselves though. Patterned after the idea that people following God's will should have dominion over the earth.

Sort of vaguely evangelical/fundamentalist leaning but with more emphasis on politics.

I just don't think that Bush ever thought much about religion until he found out the political leverage it could bring him. He just sorta goes on happily thinking everyone believes like him and that he knows what's right.

He must sleep really well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The current catch phrase is 'Dominionist'. I doubt they would use the word to describe themselves though.

No. A Dominionist is a particular kind of fundy, namely the sort that makes the other fundies look sane.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. *

That's a Dominionist.

These are people who actually want to bring back stoning to death as a form of child discipline:

What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? *

 

[thaiboxerken]

His stance on evolution is enough to say that he's a religious nutter.

 

[SezMe]

Dr. A, I'd like to see a linky to those quotes...not because I doubt them but for ammunition for a discussion I expect to engage in in the near future.

TIA

But back to the OP: I don't think Bush is a fundamentalist just because I don't think he is philosophical enough to engage the issue. I know, I know, this appears to be just buying into the "Bush is an idiot" theory but I don't mean it that way.

He was a sot. Billy Graham showed him a way out. He took it. So Jesus was his salvation. So his "religion" is a very personal one which, IMO, is the very best kind. This does not make him a fundamentalist.

But the above paragraph aside, when he takes his personal salvation into the public arena, which he has done in spades, is when I think he becomes a buffon and a public danger. Not because he is a fundamentalist but because he cannot distinguish between private salvation and public policy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dominionist Theology: A Brief Explanation

We might divide the "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots" in the Old Testament into three categories:

* The moral law: This tells you what God approves and disapproves of "Thou shalt not kill"; "You shall love your neigbor as yourself". (Yes, that does occur in the Old Testament). Note that no penalties are specified.

* The civil law: This tells you what do do if a woman is taken in adultery, or if one man's ox gores another.

* The ceremonial law: The includes thing such as circumcision and not eating lobsters; its purpose was to mark off the Jews as specially consecrated to God.

Now the peculiarity of the Dominionist is that he thinks that the Atonement only relieves us from the ceremonial law. Most Christians, including Fundamentalist denominations, would say that the civil law has also been removed. They would cite, for example, the case of the "woman taken in adultery" (John 8:3-11)

Now the thing about any code of civil law is that it can't be optional; it must be imposed on people whether they like it or not. Hence it follows that the Dominionists must gain political power sufficient to make the civil law of the Old Testament into the civil law of the modern world.

There are scarier people than Baptists.

Your average fundie, if he understood the term, would say that the Dominionist was involved in a "Judaizing heresy".

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. A, I'd like to see a linky to those quotes...not because I doubt them but for ammunition for a discussion I expect to engage in in the near future.

The asterisks at the end of the quotes are links.

If you're in need of ammo, here's a good one:

Slaves have no economic incentive to work, since they cannot improve their situation regardless of how hard they labor. Therefore the master is allowed to provide that incentive by beating them. *

I should have mentioned in the piece above that one corollary is that anything permitted by the Old Testament must be a Good Thing: e.g. owning slaves and beating them.

And if you want a good laugh, and have read the New Testament, try these two howlers on for size:

The means to lawful wealth is the covenant law, the law of God. Capitalization is thus a radical and total task. Man must seek to subdue the earth and gain wealth as a means of restitution and restoration, as means of establishing God’s dominion in every realm. Wherever godly men establish their superior productivity and gain wealth, they thereby glorify God. Wealth in itself is good, and a blessing of the Lord. *

Sorry, Jesus, did you say something? What's that? I'm a little deaf suddenly. "Cannot serve both cod and gammon"? Anything you say, boss.

Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. *

HELLO?

---

I was planning to do an SW article on these people, hence all the quotes.

 

[BPSCG]

Did you read the post Uppie referenced?

No. I tend to stay away from R&P. Life is busy enough here in Politics, where there are actually facts you can argue over.