Archbishop attacks neocons over US threat to bomb Iran
The Archbishop of Canterbury has stepped into the war of words between the US and Iran and has criticised the neoconservatives of the Bush administration and accused them of "potentially murderous folly" for suggesting military action against Syria and Iran.
The interesting thing about Bush - the man of God - is how few other men of God, outside of the American Christian fundamentalists, see things they way he does.Speaking to the BBC, the archbishop, who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset, said: "When people talk about further destabilisation of the region - and you read some American political advisers speaking of action against Syria and Iran - I can only say that I regard that as criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly.
"We do hear talk from some quarters of action against Syria and Iran. I can't understand what planet such persons are living on, when you see the conditions that are already there."
He was famously opposed by the Pope before the invasion of Iraq, leading one to wonder why God - who Bush claimed had told him to invade Iraq - was giving different advice to Bush and the Pope.
Perhaps Bush is simply more holy than these men of the cloth. Or perhaps he is simply using his religion for political purposes. Even after all this time in office it is very hard to pin George Bush down on what he actually believes in. Oh, he gives lots of hints to his base, but that could simply be to nod to them that he is on the same wavelength, without actually giving them an explicit endorsement.
But despite the centrality of Bush's faith to his presidency, he has revealed only the barest outline of his beliefs, leaving others to sift through the clues and make assumptions about where he stands.This ambiguity even extends to whether or not Bush is a born again Christian:
Bush has said many times that he is a Christian, believes in the power of prayer and considers himself a "lowly sinner." But White House aides said they do not know whether the president believes that: the Bible is without error; the theory of evolution is true; homosexuality is a sinful choice; only Christians will go to heaven; support for Israel is a biblical imperative; or the war in Iraq is part of God's plan.
Some political analysts think there is a shrewd calculation behind these ambiguities. By using such phrases as the "culture of life," Bush signals to evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics that he is with them, while he avoids taking explicit stands that might alienate other voters or alarm foreign leaders. Bush and his chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, are "very gifted at crafting references that religious insiders will understand and outsiders may not," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical journal Sojourners.
Because he does not claim to have embraced Jesus in a single moment, aides said, Bush does not call himself "born again." Nor does he refer to himself as an evangelical, though evangelical leaders do not hesitate to claim him as one of their own.One thing is certain. Bush may have been claimed as one of their own by the evangelical leaders, even whilst he himself refuses to say one way or the other whether or not he shares their beliefs, but amongst the other religions of the world Bush is not regarded as a man of God.
"I think most of us recognize him as a guy who sure has the same orthodox beliefs we do," said Charles W. Colson, a Nixon White House aide who heads Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Indeed, noted theologian Father Alvin Freedkin goes as far as to label Bush's religious stances "phony", although he admits the term might be too strong.
Q: In Chapter 3 of Jumbotron Jesus you call President Bush a phony Christian. What do you mean by that?Is he a man of God or is he using religion for political purposes? I have no way of knowing. However, I do know this. Both Bush (and in his time, Blair) displayed a propensity for killing and a laissez-faire attitude towards other people's deaths that undermines the sanctity of life that they claim to hold so dear. And by this I am not simply referring to the Iraq war. Bush, the man of God, pointedly refused to call for a ceasefire during Israel's aerial bombardment of Beirut. Refusing to call for peace is about as irreligious as one can get.
A: Phony may be strong but not totally inaccurate. One of the concerns I raise in this book is the apparent ease with which cooption of the Evangelical movement may occur for personal political gain. Almost anyone can say, in effect, "I am one of you; therefore you can believe anything I say." President Bush is dangerously close to this type of behavior.
So, for me, Bush cuts a strange religious cloth. I am far more at home with traditional religious leaders like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. People who are gloriously old fashioned enough to believe that killing is wrong and wars are bad things.
For instance it would be impossible to imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, not only refusing clemency, but mocking the person who is being sent to death. And yet that is exactly what Bush is said to have done:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed.If he's a man of God, I am very pleased to be an Atheist.
"I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
2 comments:
Let's get a few things straight:
1. Jim Wallis is left-wing. That's fine as it goes, but he certainly does not represent most evangelical Christians. For Wallis to criticize Bush is about as surprising and newsworthy as Chuck Schumer criticizing Bush. It's meaningless.
2. Bush is a member of the United Methodist church. United Methodists are not evangelical; rather, they are definitely one of the core mainline denominations, and a majority of Methodist seminary professors do not believe in the inerrency of Scripture or even the virgin birth, not to mention the resurrecion from the dead or the second coming.
3. The Archbishop is part of the Anglican church, and the American version of Anglicanism is the Episcopal church. Naturally, they would rip Bush, as would every denomination in the National Council of Churches, which is a poltically liberal organization. So what.
4. What is so surprising about liberal Christians ripping a conservative?
5. Since when would the Pope be expected to agree with a conservative President on anything other than the abortion issue?
Basically, the differences between liberal Christians and conservative Christians are about the same as the difference between Hindus and Buddhists. They interpret Scripture much differently, and the only thing they share is the name "Christian", and both groups are trying to define what a "true" Christian is, much as Muslims claim that they know the "true" God and that the rest of us are infidels. Using the comments of liberal Christians to rip a conservative is like using the words of a vegan to rip a carnivore - it's so obviously biased that it provides no new insight whatsoever.
I broadly accept a lot of what you are saying. However, my point is that Bush is very hard to pin down as he attempts to be all things to all people when it comes to his religion, sending subtle signals to many Christian groups - some of whom are very diverse - that he shares their concerns. I actually think he's screwing them over. He's letting them think he's going to tackle things that he has no intention of ever taking on and he's using religion to secure their vote and bugger all else.
As for your point that the Pope and the Conservative Bush would only ever agree about abortion, you appear to be forgetting that the Pope who opposed him was one of the most Conservative Popes for decades, with the obvious exception of the current holder of that office.
Post a Comment