Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you know full well, lebell, that what is at issue in this kind of discussion is not what george w bush chooses to believe as an individual.
it is about the political implications of the way in which he chooses to deploy those beliefs.
these are seperate the one from the other.
but you know this.
the problems with bush's particular variant of christianity and its relation to politics are legion if you do not share that particular variant of christianity as a frame of reference and there are a wide range of possibilities for belief insofar as christianity is concerned--fundamentalist/pentcostalists in the baptist mode ARE NOT the only or even the dominant mode of being christian. this particular style of belief carries with is a whole series of correlates that run directly counter to whatever democracy the us has in place--and they are connected to a wider political agenda that is about intolerance in significant ways.
you cannot conflate the two and then talk about the need for tolerance. as if it applied equally to both registers.
it is both conceptually wrong and politically disengenous to do so.
|
I do indeed understand what you are saying.
Ironically, I have just ran into this once again in my personal life, this time with the issue of being a devout Christian and the playing of Dungeons and Dragons. (I'm sure you can construct the essentials of the issue if not the particulars.)
I also agree that Bush wants to change certain laws baised on his religious beliefs (most notably those on abortion).
But I would also argue that he is genuinely concerned with doing the right thing and how he should lead this nation in light of his faith, which ultimately I don't see as a bad thing (even while I disagree with some particulars).
In otherwords, we have a leader with very strong convictions which are based in Christianity. Most would consider the teachings of Christ to be good things, even if they don't believe in him themselves.
Likewise, if he were a devout Buddhist, I would consider his convictions a good thing, knowing something about Buddhists.
So yes, I disagree with some of his policies but I think it is a mistake to be offended by his
faith when it is a central part of what makes him who he is, and presumably, who we chose to elect.
If his policies and laws truly conflict with the first ammendment, then that is why we have courts.