 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 21, 2007 at 09:01:32
by Scott O'Reilly Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Is George W. Bush proof that we live in a universe devoid of intelligent design? Bush, of course, is famous for asserting that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. He has also claimed that God wanted him to be president. Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor, because it looks increasingly certain the George W. Bush will go down in history as presiding over the most incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous administrations in U.S. history. We now know that the Bush administration’s missionary zeal to spread democracy across the Arab world, beginning in Iraq, was just part of a larger effort to export its libertarian ideology and Christian values into the heart of the Middle East. God knows, the Saddamists and Islamicists could do with a little more capitalism, but more religion? Seriously, though, the fact that the Bush administration used a litmus test to select the diplomats and officials that would oversee our nation building crusade in Iraq proved to be a fatal mistake. Put simply, the administration vetted State Department officials and other relevant personnel according to the following criteria: are you pro-life? That is, those espousing a pro-life philosophy would be sent to rebuild Iraq while those possessing expertise in Middle Eastern and Arab affairs (but not hewing to the president’s pro-life agenda) were relieved. It’s a little ironic that so many in the pro-life movement were so gung ho about an invasion that failed to meet the standards established by Christian philosophers for a “just war.” For instance, according just war theory the use of force must meet four criteria: 1) it can only be waged by a legitimate authority, 2) it must be in self-defense only, 3) it must be a last resort, and 4) it must be proportional (the good achieved must outweigh the injuries inflicted). 
Leaving aside the question of Bush’s legitimacy, momentarily, it is abundantly clear that Bush’s invasion of Iraq failed to meet three out of four criteria the just war theory requires. For instance, it is evident that Iraq posed no serious, direct, or imminent threat to the United States. Second, Bush unilaterally withdrew the U.N. weapons inspectors just weeks before they were due to complete their mission, thus precluding the possibility of a peaceful outcome. Further, the invasion has “succeeded” in spawning a civil war in Iraq, which means Iraqis are far worse off now than they were under Saddam.
Questions regarding Bush’s legitimacy are worth raising. Bush asked for and got a blank check from Congress authorizing the war, but the wording of the resolution called on the president to exhaust all means short of war first. Bush failed to do this, just as he failed to get a second U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion. Put simply, Bush used the vaguely worded U.N. resolution he obtained earlier as a blank check, though most international law experts believe Bush acted illegally. It is also worth noting that Bush’s path to the White House was extremely dubious. His ascension to the Oval Office owed more to legal sophistry and a partisan Supreme Court, which essentially nullified the will of the American people (as expressed by the majority of Americans who voted for Al Gore and the majority of Floridians who cast their ballots for Gore as well).
Bush is a throwback to leaders who operate according to the discredited theory from the Dark Ages known as “the divine right of kings.” According to this deeply irrational idea the monarch is acting as God’s representative on earth and his decisions are divinely guided. Bush’s disastrous reign is a reductio ad absurdum argument against this theory. However, Bush has brought great credit to the sole political teaching of his favorite political philosopher, Jesus: Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. In other words, George has proven that Jesus was right about keeping religion out of politics.
neuroscott.blogspot.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 3 comments |
|
Religion is not about philosophical ethics
Tim, I’ve got to challenge or question a few of your comments: “Is George W. Bush proof that we live in a universe devoid of intelligent design?“ No, but he’s proof that there is no invisible man in the sky looking out for us. He’s proof that no invisible, magic man is stopping any charlatan or schizophrenic from making false claims about magic and that such claims should NEVER be believed. And he’s proof that not only was P.T. Barnum was right about suckers, but that when it comes to Americans, he was right in spades “Bush, of course, is famous for asserting that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. “ That’s hysterical. Who was Flipper’s favorite philosopher? Bush knows nothing of philosophy, even of the only philosopher that he has been influenced by, Machiavelli. “He has also claimed that God wanted him to be president. Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor, because it looks increasingly certain the George W. Bush will go down in history as presiding over the most incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous administrations in U.S. history.” That’s not a sense of humor, just like a firecracker up a cat’s rectum is not humor. It is cruel, like Bush. Either this deity doesn’t exist, or it is malicious. “We now know that the Bush administration’s missionary zeal to spread democracy across the Arab world, beginning in Iraq, was just part of a larger effort to export its libertarian ideology and Christian values into the heart of the Middle East.” The Bush administration has no missionary zeal for democracy, thus it is not part of anything. Au contraire. They are contemptuous of freedom and democracy. It’s libertarian values? You mean it’s fascist values, don’t you. Ron Paul has libertarian values “It’s a little ironic that so many in the pro-life movement were so gung ho about an invasion that failed to meet the standards established by Christian philosophers for a “just war.” For instance, according just war theory the use of force must meet four criteria: 1) it can only be waged by a legitimate authority, 2) it must be in self-defense only, 3) it must be a last resort, and 4) it must be proportional (the good achieved must outweigh the injuries inflicted). “ Religious philosophy is an oxymoron to me. Dogma is antithetical to philosophy. The Greeks, who invented philosophy, did so by evicting the gods from their metaphysics. Plus, none of the ideas advocated by Christ (or attributed to him) that were philosophical were original with him. You help make my point with your comment about “pro-life” people being “pro-war” (and “pro-death penalty”). They don’t have any problem with the glaring inconsistencies of that because THEY’RE NOT DOING PHILOSOPHY – they’re doing religion, which is societal management codified as dogma justified by tendentious, tortured arguments of logic. The concept of just war, although tackled by Christians, antedates Christianity as well, and actually, for Christians, is the justification of war, as the name implies, to more pacifistic Christians that took the turn the other cheek thing seriously, like the Quakers of modern times. We who are not religious are frequently astonished by the unquestioned assumption that any of the three main western religions have anything to do with morality, let alone are the self-appointed seat of it. Christians are not more moral. Jesus was moral, but his teachings are irrelevant to the religion. That’s why we have the Christian interest in a doctrine of “Just War”. by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 22, 2007 at 7:54:16 AM  (0+)
|
|
George and his followers
Although, I have read from people who have met him that GW Bush's conversion experience is sincere, I find it remarkable that it is so much a part of the man's political persona. In fact, Bush's Christian persona is so strong that the Religious Right is virtually alone in supporting his administration. So my question is this, what the heck do those religious people see in Bush? Clearly he is man who serves Mammon as his main master. How is it that Bush has been able to so hoodwink and captivate millions of God fearing, church attending Christians. How do we keep someone else from doing the same thing? by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 22, 2007 at 4:17:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Because they're children (intellectually) in adult bodies
I don’t know if you consider yourself a religious man or not – I do not – but to a freethinker, this isn’t a mystery. Unfortunately, to be accurate, I have to disagree with the believers, which cannot be done without offending them. So, I’ll digress a moment. It is not my purpose to offend, but it is inescapable. Why? An unfortunate double standard: the believer is free to tell me that I am wrong (and will burn in hell for it, forever shunned by God!); but the nonbeliever is not free to assume that he may be right and call the believer gullible and irrational, which, of course, he is, if he is believes in something nonexistent. So, from my cynical (but not inaccurate) perspective, both Bush and his evangelical faithful are mentally defective – not because they believe, but because their beliefs are a guess on which they are willing to risk the world even in the face of evidence that they are wrong. This is only possible for people who don’t understand what they see. Who could still support George Bush today, an incredibly self-destructive and maladaptive thought, except “people of faith” – a term that they use with pride and that I do not. “Faith” isn’t too damaging when it’s about times after your life (afterlife, eternity) and places outside of our universe (heaven, hell) – who cares what people do with those beliefs. But when your “faith” is in the apocalypse and the end of times in our lifetime and on our planet, and you behave in a way that is destructive if you are wrong, then you’re delusional in a way dangerous to all. That’s the faith of the 30% that still support letting Bush run the country. When applied to reality, faith is not so beautiful or so wonderful. And who does this? People who are pathologically nonanalytical – unable to understand what their senses show them, therefore, free of cognitive dissonance however ridiculous their and contradictory their beliefs. The smart believers don’t do that. They reason, analyze. When common sense tells them that their preacher may be stretching, they are skeptical. But there are tens of millions of the other kind. They’re as discerning as newborn goslings. That’s what they see in Bush. They have faith in him. Thinking done until about a quarter second before death. The entire US could be devastated in nuclear ruin and coast to coast anthrax and smallpox, and these faithful will be more convinced than ever that they’ve got it right. Reason with them and you’re the devil. Religion is not a good thing with such people. by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 22, 2007 at 8:32:57 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
