George W.

[mattp]

Our last two Democrat presidents were evangelical Christians - both were Baptist. Would you argue that your hatred of Bush really has anything to do with his religious beliefs and its effect on his politics considering that the Baptist sect is at least as evangelical as the Methodist sect is, and could hardly be any less inimical in your eyes?

 

Carter's expression of how is faith influenced his politics was in many ways opposite that of Bush: he spoke of his faith as a basis for showing compassion at home and pursuing cooperation with outher nations in our foreign policy (well, sort of). By comparison, GW Bush has spoken of his faith as a basis for marginalizing drug addics and gays, transferring resources from public to private schools, and as a guidance in a crusade against Moslem's and a justification for how the U.S. should rule the world (again, well sort of). So, in a word, yes. I do hold GW's faith against him. And, no, I did not hold Carter's against him. Bubba spoke of his faith largely as a political tool to try to reach out to a segment of voters, but I don't think he spoke as much about it as a policy influence.

 

But you didn't answer my question (maybe you don't want to): do your religious beliefs influence your politics? How.

 

[archenemy]

The comparison between Bush and Carter is an easy one--they are very different characters. But let's remember that Carter didn't have Muslims attacking when he was in the Oval office.

[ashw_justin]

Humans and religion go hand in hand; it's endemic to specific levels of consciousness. It's not bad or good, it's the way it always has been and, probably, the way it always will be as long as the those levels of consciousness are present.

I agree that's a good way to look at it. "Religion," or whatever word you want to put on the mechanism of using symbolic belief systems to impose more fact on reality than can be proven or directly experienced, may be a natural characteristic of humans. Our brains are wired for imagination on a level far beyond the simple acceptance of mere objective experience. Humans will go out on a limb to theorize about anything and that's what has allowed us to make the kinds of discoveries and advances that we have. We are born guessers. What's disappointing is the antisocial pathology exhibited by some to assume that their guesses are better than everyone else's, or that everyone is required to believe their guesses, or that it's okay to conclude that one's guesses are correct even though they are unprovable. Generally (and perhaps unfairly) we don't start using the word 'religious' until we're talking about one of these pathologies.

 

But the guessers, in fact, knew no more than the common people and sometimes less, even when, or especially when, they gave us the illusion that we were in control of our destinies. Persuasive guessing has been at the core of leadership for so long, that it is wholly unsurprising that most of the leaders of this planet, in spite of all of the information that is suddenly ours, want the guessing to go on. Some of the loudest, most proudly ignorant guessing in the world is going on in Washington today. Our leaders are sick of all the solid information that has been dumped on humanity by research and scholarship and investigative reporting. They think that the whole country is sick of it, and they could be right.

And yet, even Vonnegut himself can't help making assumptions in the same paragraph in which he ridicules it...

[mattp]

Archy, I think those evil Moslems were attacking. Are you forgetting what happend to our man, the Shah, in Iran? Remember the hostage crisis?

[archenemy]

I am old enough to remember that, yes. A little different than coming over and killing thousands of us on our own soil, don't you think?

[mattp]

Of course. So what? Does this justify or otherwise suggest a greater influence of religion in our foreign policy?

[archenemy]

I don't know how you drew this conclusion--I can't follow your logic here.

 

What I do see is that when people are under extreme stress,(and I think you can agree that 9/11 was far more stressful for everyone, including the President, than the hostage situation) they often respond more strongly than when under less stress. We have no way of knowing for sure, but we at least should keep open the possiblity that Bush may not have done the religiouso freakout if 9/11 hadn't occurred.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[ashw_justin]

The comparison between Bush and Carter is an easy one--they are very different characters. But let's remember that Carter didn't have Muslims attacking when he was in the Oval office.

 

I realize that may have been joking, but Bush did not 'have Muslims attacking.' Some creeps flew planes into our buildings. So what if they happened to be Muslims. If Bush 'has Muslims attacking' now, it's because he declared a war on Muslims, which for lack of a better explanation (like propagandizing us into bewildered fear and support) sounds like the very dumbest response to 9/11.

[archenemy]

Maybe a class in religious history will help you out here. This is a religious war that has gone on for thousands of years, and we are the new kids on the block.

 

 

They didn't "happen" to be muslims. They chose to be. And they didn't "happen" to be flying the planes into the buildings, they chose to. This is not my opinion nor is it a reactionary kneejerk response. This is information clearly apparent to even the minimally observant individual.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[JayB]

The comparison between Bush and Carter is an easy one--they are very different characters. But let's remember that Carter didn't have Muslims attacking when he was in the Oval office.

 

I realize that may have been joking, but Bush did not 'have Muslims attacking.' Some creeps flew planes into our buildings. So what if they happened to be Muslims. If Bush 'has Muslims attacking' now, it's because he declared a war on Muslims, which for lack of a better explanation (like propagandizing us into bewildered fear and support) sounds like the very dumbest response to 9/11.

 

Yes, and the guys who were stuffing the Jews into gas chambers just "happened" to be Nazis....

[chucK]

What I do see is that when people are under extreme stress,(and I think you can agree that 9/11 was far more stressful for everyone, including the President, than the hostage situation) they often respond more strongly than when under less stress.

 

I won't easily agree that 9/11 was far more stressful. What is more stressful now; when 10 GI's get killed in an ambush or when 3 are missing and presumed taken hostage? I think you can agree that it's the latter.

 

The Iran hostage crisis was a big deal. They held over fifty people hostage for more than a year. Every night the tv news started with "Day xxx". It destroyed the Carter presidency.

 

Maybe not quite as immediate and gory as the one-day slaughter of thousands of people, but you draw it out for a year and a half, and can see how it could be very stressfull for a president.

 

 

[archenemy]

Yes, I remember that. But there was hope for the hostages. There was no hope for the THOUSANDS of people here at home who were killed at their desks. I don't think most people picture getting abducted in Iran as a very likely event in their lives. However, suddenly, everyone could picture getting murdered at their desk, in their home, at school, etc. by a bunch of religious jihadists.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[chucK]

No question 9/11 was more scary for the average Joe on the street. But I thought you were talking about stress on the president.

[kevbone]

No question 9/11 was more scary for the average Joe on the street. But I thought you were talking about stress on the president.

 

Stress on the president???? He does not even wear his seatbelt in national seatbelt awareness week.

[archenemy]

No question 9/11 was more scary for the average Joe on the street. But I thought you were talking about stress on the president.

This applies to both.

Don't you think you would be more stressed out if you had a country full of scared people that you were expected to lead through this nightmare?

Hell, the banks took over negotiations for Carter. Not that this was not extremely stressful, but to say that the hostage situation was more stressful than 9/11 (for anyone except the hostages and their families of course) is preposterous.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[mattp]

Maybe a class in religious history will help you out here. This is a religious war that has gone on for thousands of years, and we are the new kids on the block.

 

Nope. Our role in Iraq, and the Middle East in general - for 75 years or more - has been to play one state against another, or one faction against another, in the interest of maintaining access to oil. American oil got involved in Saudi Arabia in the 1930's and the President formally announced that defense of Saudi oil was important to U.S. interests in World War II. Our desire for access to the oil was a larger part of the reason for our support of the Shah, in 1941 and again ten years later. It was also behind our support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And on and on. Some say our invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with oil than with Bin Laden, and it sure looks as if we weren’t really trying to capture the bad guy so much as to replace an unfriendly government with one more pliable.

 

Go back to history class. The collapse of the Muslim empire happened in several stages starting nearly a thousand years ago and sure there are many Islamists who would like to see a return to the glory days. It is also true that we helped set up Israel as a Jewish state. But the major drivers behind our foreign policy in the region have been related to the oil found there.

 

George Bush and buddies did not decide to invade Iraq because they wear turbans - they played up the significance of that attire in order to derive the support of a racist and nationalistic American public. When 22 hijackers from Saudia Arabia killed 3,000 of "our own," they responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, where governments were not so willing to go along with American oil money interest. They did not attack or even really sanction Saudi Arabia.

[archenemy]

I think you can make your points well enough without being condescending to me.

 

It so happens that history is part of my Arabic classes. And although you and I may see our role in the ongoing war in the Middle East as monumental, many of them do not.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[mattp]

Sorry to offend you, Archie, but I read where you wrote that "maybe a class in religious history will help you out here...." and I figured that maybe a broader look at history might be useful.

 

Anyway, my point is not that there are no religious elements at play here, but that the Bushies have played up this aspect of the situation for propaganda purposes and in my opinion this has been a disaster and will prove to be an ongoing disaster for the U.S. national interest.

[archenemy]

Sorry to offend you, Archie, but I read where you wrote that "maybe a class in religious history will help you out here...." and I figured that maybe a broader look at history might be useful.

That was not directed at you--sorry you took it that way.

[mattp]

No. You're not sorry. I am.

[archenemy]

Well we're just a bunch of sorry fuckers, aren't we?

[mattp]

Yup. But at least god is on our side.

[Dechristo]

It so happens that history is part of my Arabic classes. And although you and I may see our role in the ongoing war in the Middle East as monumental, many of them do not.

 

Would you elaborate on this?

[archenemy]

Yeah, that wasn't very well stated, was it?

 

In a roundabout way I'm saying I get the feeling like the religious war thing has gone on forever. Although we may be the front runner in this confrontation lately (less than two hundred years obviously), we haven't been a big player in the overall history of their conflict.

 

That is garbled, but do you get where I am heading with this?

[JayB]

Maybe a class in religious history will help you out here. This is a religious war that has gone on for thousands of years, and we are the new kids on the block.

 

Nope. Our role in Iraq, and the Middle East in general - for 75 years or more - has been to play one state against another, or one faction against another, in the interest of maintaining access to oil. American oil got involved in Saudi Arabia in the 1930's and the President formally announced that defense of Saudi oil was important to U.S. interests in World War II. Our desire for access to the oil was a larger part of the reason for our support of the Shah, in 1941 and again ten years later. It was also behind our support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And on and on. Some say our invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with oil than with Bin Laden, and it sure looks as if we weren’t really trying to capture the bad guy so much as to replace an unfriendly government with one more pliable.

 

Go back to history class. The collapse of the Muslim empire happened in several stages starting nearly a thousand years ago and sure there are many Islamists who would like to see a return to the glory days. It is true that we helped set up Israel as a Jewish state. But the major drivers behind our foreign policy in the region have been related to the oil found there.

 

George Bush and buddies did not decide to invade Iraq because they wear turbans - they played up the significance of their attire in order to derive the support of a racist and nationalistic American public. When 22 hijackers from Saudia Arabia killed 3,000 of "our own," they responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, where governments were not so willing to go along with American oil money interest. They did not attack or even really sanction Saudi Arabia.

 

The fundamental thesis behind your "broader view of history" is that all of history that predates direct American involvement in the Middle East actually had no effect on the Islamic world, and that all developments that have transpired since that time owe their genesis to American foreign policy initiatives. They have no sense of history that eclipses America's rise as a world power, and have no active agenda of their own that they would pursue in the absence of American intervention in their affairs.

Broader view of history indeed.

 

 

Can you discuss the significance of the Sykes-Picot agreement, Sayyid Qutb, or Muhammad Ali (hint, not the boxer) without recourse to Google?