Bush at the Pope's Funeral

[hgc]

Yes, and the fundies hate them.

They even hate Pat Buchanan? I always wondered what kind of pass he gets from Fundyworld, being an avowed racist and fascist.

 

[TragicMonkey]

One of the weirder things to emerge in the nineties was that American Catholics started joining up with the mostly Protestant Religious Right. They disagree on so much, but are apparently willing to join forces when they need to get their way on particular items, like gay marriage bans, or abortion protests. I think these events are just marriages of convenience, with both parties smiling politely while muttering imprecautions under their breath.

Actually, exactly like when my mother visits my aunt. Brittle smiles, loud exclamations of delight, and vicious little digs in the casual conversation.

 

[President Bush]

I had tremendous respect for Pope John Paul II. I was also a big fan of his dad, Pope John Paul I.

[size=1/8]thanks Conan O'Brien[/size]

 

[Brown]

But he [Bush] has to do that [say "No doubt in my mind the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty. No doubt"], doesn't he?

If you believe that your beliefs are the right ones, the true ones, then you would be obliged to profess your beliefs at any given moment. You would betray your faith, if you were to keep quiet.

Faith compels you. You don't have a choice anymore. You have to spout - regurgitate - the tenets of your faith, if you believe that is the truth.

If you keep quiet, when you know the truth, then you betray that truth.

No, he doesn't have to do this. This is not an issue of religion, it is an issue of good manners. And this remark showed very bad manners on Bush's part.

Many Protestants are quite convinced that the Catholics are bound for hell. The Catholics are completely sure that it is the Protestants are destined for the pit. They both agree that the Jews are in very serious trouble with the Almighty, and that the Muslims are completely mistaken in their understanding of the divine.

They may privately be as judgmental as they wish, and feel superior to all of those other poor b*stards who will have to spend eternity in torment. But that doesn't mean that they must bring their judgmentalism out into the open. It's impolite.

And besides, little Bush is a public servant, who is supposed to represent the country as a whole. If he wishes to be a clergyman, fine, let him resign and become one. As president, he has no business making remarks like that.

I note that Bill Maher expressed a similar point of view, saying that a such a remark was an inappropriate one for a "president of all the people."

Originally posted by SezMe
I question this. Shrub is the first USA prez to attend a pope's funeral. So his attendance is not warranted by past state (USA) protocol. Why is it better that he be there? Who would be insulted if he did not attend? Who cares?

Brown, you're clearer a thinker so please answer this question: "(USA) Politics aside, why was it better for Bush to be there than to abide by usual protocol and send Cheney as the USA rep?" Better for who?

Like him or dislike him, JP2 made one hell of a splash, bigger than most foreign dignitaries. He was the first celebrity pope. He was instrumental in the decline of communism, and helped put an end to those stupid "Polish Pope" jokes (e.g., "Did you hear that the pope took a blind man and made him deaf?")

Besides, all the friends and neighbors were going to be at the funeral: President Fox of Mexico, Prime Minister Martin of Canada, Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain.

Basically, JP2's stature warranted honors from a head of state, and considering the fact that the US has angered so much of the world recently, there would be little point in irritating people further by sending what would be seen as a second-stringer.

 

[ceo_esq]

And besides, little Bush is a public servant, who is supposed to represent the country as a whole. If he wishes to be a clergyman, fine, let him resign and become one.

Do you perceive any tension between your reasoning here and the reasoning underlying the Supreme Court's decision in McDaniel v. Paty?

 

[ceo_esq]

While I also personally disagree with the point of view expressed by Bush, I do not find it inappropriate for him to refer to his religious convictions in public (with all respect, if any, that may be due to Bill Maher).

As for taking the "supremacist position that his view is absolutely correct" - well, isn't that just an unflattering spin on the meaning of the word conviction? If I can accept that another person, even my president, is going to have convictions about anything, then it goes without saying that I accept that there are things about which he is going to have (to use Bush's phrase) "no doubt in his mind". Bush simply said that he was convinced that God sent Jesus to Earth. Everyone already knew this before he was elected. He did not gratuitously add the corollary "therefore, I regard most of the world's population as fit for the furnace." Indeed, given Bush's arguably liberal and non-judgmental brand of Christianity, far from clear that he believes such alarming things even in secret.

But that's beside the point. We have a right to expect that a president of "all the people" will do his best to safeguard the political interests of all the people and to represent such interests to the rest of the world. We also have a right to expect that the president will personally avoid behaviors or actions which would tend to bring his office into disrepute. Yet if representing "all the people" has to do with downplaying areas in which you disagree with some of them, then our historical conception of the presidency will need to be radically overhauled.

It is absurd for Bill Maher to suggest that a president should not, as a rule, make public remarks about his religion merely because some of his constituents don't share such beliefs. By this logic, we should object even more strongly every time the president expresses a political conviction - after all, it's really in a political sense that he represents "all the people". If Bush says "No doubt in my mind that my Medicare reforms are the right thing for this country", does anyone suggest that the remark is inappropriate because some Americans have deep personal convictions (which might very easily be more important to them than religious convictions) that Bush's Medicare reforms are terrible for the country?

Bush never said it was the policy of his Administration that the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty. He was merely expressing a personal opinion, if one that reasonable people disagree about. There are plenty of personal convictions he could have expressed about political matters that would have been far more divisive than his personal religious statement. People are entitled to see Bush abide by his oath of office, not to see him give up his First Amendment rights.

 

[Brown]

Do you perceive any tension between your reasoning here and the reasoning underlying the Supreme Court's decision in McDaniel v. Paty?

McDaniel, of course, is a plurality decision, and the Court could not agree on an underlying rationale.

Also, McDaniel was an ordained minister, and the question was whether he ought to be disqualified from public office merely because of that fact. There is no indication that McDaniel would use his position to promote one religious view over another: "The essence of the rationale underlying the Tennessee restriction on ministers is that if elected to public office they will necessarily exercise their powers and influence to promote the interests of one sect or thwart the interests of another, thus pitting one against the others, contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its command of neutrality. [Authority.] However widely that view may have been held in the 18th century by many, including enlightened statesmen of that day, the American experience provides no persuasive support for the fear that clergymen in public office will be less careful of anti-establishment interests or less faithful to their oaths of civil office than their unordained counterparts."

In the present circumstances, little Bush has not held a job in the religious field (as have candidates such as Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson). Moreover, he is actively doing what the members of the Court said McDaniel would not do, namely, showing favoritism to religious interests.

As for my use of the word "supremacist," I stand by it as an accurate description of the attitude. I am fully aware of the negative connotation of the word. But the shoe fits.

Bush and the religious right do not see their beliefs as "opinion," or even as a "personal conviction." They see them as hard, immutable fact. They are right, and everybody else is wrong.

Kengor's column does not change that. Religious supremacism is not confined to fundamentalists, or even to Christians. There are Muslim supremacists, Jewish supremacists, Buddhist supremacists. And there are plenty of Christian supremacists, even among very "liberal" or "ecumenical" Christian churches. When push comes to shove, they take the position that they have a monopoly on the truth, and that those who don't believe as they do will be in very serious trouble with the Big Guy.

Moreover, Bush's religious views are not comparable to his political views. Religious views are within the realm of the unknown or unknowable.

Political views, on the other hand can be placed into practice, and their practical effects can be observed. Even if not placed into practice, the effects can be reasonably estimated, by checking to see whether the numbers add up or by evaluating the effects of similar strategies.

I have yet to meet any politician with whom I agree one hundred percent on every issue. I accept that politicians may push political views that are different from my own. But it is not the place of politicians to use their office to declare what they feel art the correct religious convictions, no matter how sincerely held.

This is not a matter of the First Amendment. It is a matter of good manners.

 

[ceo_esq]

McDaniel, of course, is a plurality decision, and the Court could not agree on an underlying rationale.

Also, McDaniel was an ordained minister, and the question was whether he ought to be disqualified from public office merely because of that fact.

Indeed, but your earlier comment ("If [Bush] wishes to be a clergyman, fine, let him resign and become one") lent itself to the interpretation that you were suggesting that the simultaneous holding of a public office and a religious vocation ought to be deemed a priori unacceptable.

In the present circumstances, little Bush has not held a job in the religious field (as have candidates such as Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson). Moreover, he is actively doing what the members of the Court said McDaniel would not do, namely, showing favoritism to religious interests.

If Bush has exercised his office to favor religious interests in any unconstitutional way, I am not aware of any findings to that effect. Not yet, anyway. Nor do I see that his religiosity has made him less faithful to his oath of civil office.

(Did I actually just defend the guy's conduct as president?)

As for my use of the word "supremacist," I stand by it as an accurate description of the attitude. I am fully aware of the negative connotation of the word. But the shoe fits.

I meant to point out not so much that it's negative, as that, strictly speaking, the same shoe fits in the case of any sufficiently strong conviction. I daresay most people will admit, in some sense, the superiority of truth over error, so regardless of what it is that one is convinced is objectively true, "supremacist" is one way of describing that position. I see no objective reason why Bush's aforementioned belief (that the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty, as he put it) is more susceptible to the negative connotation of "supremacist" than, say, my belief that that a physical world exists outside of my mind and that my detractors on this point are sadly deluded.

Bush and the religious right do not see their beliefs as "opinion," or even as a "personal conviction." They see them as hard, immutable fact. They are right, and everybody else is wrong.

We needn't get bogged down in an epistemological discussion, but how do you distinguish a proposition with regard to which one is sufficiently convinced from a fact. Everyone makes suppositions about which one is so strongly persuaded that one has "no doubt in one's mind" of their truth (which is what Bush said). What you take to be facts are the set of all such propositions.

We recognize some opinions as being matters on which there probably cannot be said to be an objectively correct view (indeed, that's what "matters of opinion" is sometimes used to mean). But as to other matters, we treat our most deeply held opinions as facts. Bush is no different from anyone else on this point.

Kengor's column does not change that. Religious supremacism is not confined to fundamentalists, or even to Christians. There are Muslim supremacists, Jewish supremacists, Buddhist supremacists. And there are plenty of Christian supremacists, even among very "liberal" or "ecumenical" Christian churches. When push comes to shove, they take the position that they have a monopoly on the truth, and that those who don't believe as they do will be in very serious trouble with the Big Guy.

I've pointed out that anyone holding any sufficiently strong conviction, about a proposition that is clearly either true or false, takes exactly this position. We probably don't even realize it. Everything else comes down to corollaries of the perceived truth of the proposition in question. There's nothing reprehensible about that per se; it's actually a function of intellectual consistency.

For propositions which are either true or false (which is most of them), you could say that a "monopoly" on the truth exists among those who, coincidentally or otherwise, correctly believe that a true proposition is true. Whether one is right or wrong about belonging to that monopoly, this doesn't strike me as "supremacism" in the political sense, which is what we ought to be more concerned about.

Moreover, Bush's religious views are not comparable to his political views. Religious views are within the realm of the unknown or unknowable.

Political views, on the other hand can be placed into practice, and their practical effects can be observed. Even if not placed into practice, the effects can be reasonably estimated, by checking to see whether the numbers add up or by evaluating the effects of similar strategies.

And this distinction impacts the propriety of Bush's remarks... how?

Reasonable philosophers, I suppose, will disagree over the extent to which religious truths are unknowable - and I don't really care to go there. Perhaps, though, my Medicare example was too concrete. There are many political views that are hardly less unknowable than religious ones. The fact that there are entire branches of philosophy devoted to each area should be a tip-off. What is the ideal form of government? By what criteria can a society be judged good? Am I my brother's keeper? The more I think about it, the more I see an overlap, in fact. This might explain why throughout history it hasn't been uncommon for philosophers of religion also to be political philosophers.

I have yet to meet any politician with whom I agree one hundred percent on every issue. I accept that politicians may push political views that are different from my own. But it is not the place of politicians to use their office to declare what they feel art the correct religious convictions, no matter how sincerely held.

This is not a matter of the First Amendment. It is a matter of good manners.

Bush didn't exactly go out of his way to "use his office" to do that, in my view. But at any rate, I still don't feel the relevance of the distinction between political views and religious views has been established.

On the other hand, the fact that some people are offended by this is clear, and I can appreciate that. To my mind, though, there is nothing Bush could say about religion in his individual capacity as a Christian that is necessarily more potentially offensive than what he could say about politics in his capacity as a politician.