(no subject)
Oct. 24th, 2004 09:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
"Real faith leads us to deeper reflection, not to the thing which humans most want - easy certainty."
This quote embodies why I'm nervous about Bush. He uses his faith as a crutch to create a level of surety which no adult ever really feels about anything. The deeper reflection, the analysis of facts leading to a change in outlook - that never seems to happen.
My question to the (few) republicans on my list is: what if Bush isn't really communicating with God at all? (Please note that I'm not saying one can't communicate directly with God; I'm saying, rather, that it is possible to convince oneself that one is talking with God, when the truth is more subtle than that.) What if Bush's talks with God are the result of mental illness rather than being used as a vessel for His will?
This, too my mind, is the crux of the matter. God gave us brains. He expects us to use them, rather than turning to him for answers we should be able to come up with ourselves. Bush rarely uses his brain for the kind of analysis his country deserves. He is unwilling to change his opinions even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I would submit that his makes him a very poor candidate to be a vessel of God's will.
Comments welcome. In fact, give me something to debate, here. :)
This quote embodies why I'm nervous about Bush. He uses his faith as a crutch to create a level of surety which no adult ever really feels about anything. The deeper reflection, the analysis of facts leading to a change in outlook - that never seems to happen.
My question to the (few) republicans on my list is: what if Bush isn't really communicating with God at all? (Please note that I'm not saying one can't communicate directly with God; I'm saying, rather, that it is possible to convince oneself that one is talking with God, when the truth is more subtle than that.) What if Bush's talks with God are the result of mental illness rather than being used as a vessel for His will?
This, too my mind, is the crux of the matter. God gave us brains. He expects us to use them, rather than turning to him for answers we should be able to come up with ourselves. Bush rarely uses his brain for the kind of analysis his country deserves. He is unwilling to change his opinions even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I would submit that his makes him a very poor candidate to be a vessel of God's will.
Comments welcome. In fact, give me something to debate, here. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 12:00 pm (UTC)Of course he might be getting supernatural advice (ie he does indeed hear voices in his head) but it doesn't follow that it's the Almighty....after all there are others who have an interest in the souls of the mortal realm.
My own view is that he is too foolish to realise that he is foolish, that we all are. That and he has begun (as Blair has) to believe his own infallibility myth. Thus he never says sorry because if we were as clever as him, we'd see he had no reason to be.
Don't you just love it when a megalomaniac with a messiah complex has his fingers on the last remaining superpower class weaponry?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 12:37 pm (UTC)Secondly, there's the one that says "God will make me want the same things He wants, if I just listen closely enough." In this scenario, every inner impulse becomes the "still, small voice of God".
Thirdly, it absolves the faithful of this particular stripe from searching out God's will in the Bible - or, alternately, allows them to pick and choose what inspires their actions by claiming to be "led" to read certain passages. Since the Bible was written in bits and pieces over twelve hundred years or more, there are areas which contradict each other, so this kind of picking and choosing can be done to support whatever inner impulse they're leaning towards at the moment.
The end result is a faith that bears only a vague resemblance to the Christianity I know and practise. Basically, this type of fundamentalist can decide on almost any course of action they choose and manage to justify it. Witness the number of executions in Texas under Bush, the treatment of Afghani detainees denied the basic right of legal representation and any pretense of the rule of law, and a host of other anti-Christian and anti-American issues which Bush feels were perfectly justified.
Megalomaniac, indeed.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 12:45 pm (UTC)Had I found British... no, "British" subjects fighting alongside enemy forces against British troops in Afghanistan I would have left them there...under 6 feet of their beloved Afghan soil.
To fight against your country's troops on behalf of an enemy is the act of a traitor.
There's a nice bit of Black & White thinking by me! However: they did hang William Joyce aka Lord Haw Haw after WW2...and I don't think he was even British. He certainly wasn't German...I think he was Irish. - his nationality didn't save him from the noose tho'.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 12:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 01:35 pm (UTC)I reckon the rough "justice" of the battlefield would have been quite appropriate.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-24 04:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-25 05:14 am (UTC)Given that Guantanamo Bay exists, I agree that it should be open to independent inspection, and that what goes on there should be public knowledge. If they were considered worth bringing back to "justice" (and I admit that I wouldn't have done so, yet they were so considered by somebody) then justice under due process of law is what they ought to get. Justice done, seen to be done, and agreed by disinterested parties to have been done. Perhaps monitoring by UN inspectors?
The Governments of the US and UK have a vested interest in encouraging fear and paranoia in order to gain our willing consent in the erosion of our civil liberties. It should be safer living inside an official cage; but if we go that way we will end up with the equivalent of the Stasi, the Gestapo or Stalin's secret police monitoring our every action. And who defines what is "anti state"?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-25 07:02 am (UTC)That said, the States are in considerably worse shape than Britain, primarily because the British are very unhappy with the whole state of affairs and are showing it. The U.S. has a fifty percent chance of reelecting the tyrant. That's so incredibly dumb, it boggles the mind.
I love debating with someone who agrees with me. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-25 02:17 pm (UTC)SSDD tends to have some fruity language but the church of the poisoned mind has something to say....on the subject of voting for the best hair...
http://www.poisonedminds.com/
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 03:36 am (UTC)It's a logical next step, isn't it? Track those you consider a threat, then realize that everyone is a potential threat and start tracking them too. Police state, here we come.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-26 04:00 pm (UTC)Oh, and Stanford (http://www.stanford.edu/group/predict2004/) is currently predicting a 75% likelyhood of a Bush victory.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 04:15 am (UTC)Interesting to see how this will pan out!