Since I'm at work and I can't watch TV, I'll have to miss this PBS documentary about GW Bush and the vagaries of his Christian faith. Maybe one of y'all will see it and let me know how it is. Sounds really interesting, and I think we're about due for an analysis of this matter that goes beyond the standard assumption that Bush is disingenuously "pandering to the religious right" for some sort of political gain.
I'm sure that there's an element of truth to that accusation, but I think that the big picture might be a bit more complex. For instance, is it possible that Bush wholeheartedly believes the religious rhetoric that he uses? I think that's entirely possible, given some of the things I've read about his "conversion experience" and his rather shrewd understanding of religious conservatism. Or, his he just another hopelessly confused evangelical who can't separate the tenets of his 2000-year-old religion from the tenets of the 200-year-old political philosophy on which his country was founded?
Ultimately this discussion gives rise to larger questions regarding the separation of church and state. Does that phrase still have any coherent meaning? We toss it around in our political conversations as if we all know what we're talking about, but I'm not sure that we do. For example, I think that many folks use the "separation of church and state" bit when it is most useful for their political cause, but don't advocate it as a truism that applies to all parts of the political spectrum. We've all heard lefty-liberal people use that phrase when condemning the actions of right-wing religious conservatives, but I've never heard any of them use it to condemn the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, who were users of very heavy religious rhetoric. Then there's the right leaning people who condemn the oppressive theocratic leanings of certain muslim folks around the world, but don't seem to notice how their own religious zeal supports policies in their own countries that are decidedly totalitarian. Also, why do some atheistic folks (at least one I knew last year) insist that "separation of church and state" implies some sort of "freedom from religion," insofar as all religious thought, speech and action must be confined to some nebulous "private" sector of one's life? I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that supports this rather totalitarian and arbitrary position.
I'm sure that there's an element of truth to that accusation, but I think that the big picture might be a bit more complex. For instance, is it possible that Bush wholeheartedly believes the religious rhetoric that he uses? I think that's entirely possible, given some of the things I've read about his "conversion experience" and his rather shrewd understanding of religious conservatism. Or, his he just another hopelessly confused evangelical who can't separate the tenets of his 2000-year-old religion from the tenets of the 200-year-old political philosophy on which his country was founded?
Ultimately this discussion gives rise to larger questions regarding the separation of church and state. Does that phrase still have any coherent meaning? We toss it around in our political conversations as if we all know what we're talking about, but I'm not sure that we do. For example, I think that many folks use the "separation of church and state" bit when it is most useful for their political cause, but don't advocate it as a truism that applies to all parts of the political spectrum. We've all heard lefty-liberal people use that phrase when condemning the actions of right-wing religious conservatives, but I've never heard any of them use it to condemn the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, who were users of very heavy religious rhetoric. Then there's the right leaning people who condemn the oppressive theocratic leanings of certain muslim folks around the world, but don't seem to notice how their own religious zeal supports policies in their own countries that are decidedly totalitarian. Also, why do some atheistic folks (at least one I knew last year) insist that "separation of church and state" implies some sort of "freedom from religion," insofar as all religious thought, speech and action must be confined to some nebulous "private" sector of one's life? I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that supports this rather totalitarian and arbitrary position.