Presidents and religious talk

Remove all ads!

Here's an article by a Paul Kengor (I don't recognize the name, maybe he's a crazy ideologue) comparing the Christian-speak of Presidents Clinton and Bush. Interesting contrast, non?

Maybe the difference is that Clinton's religion was safely within political boundaries, but with Bush, one worries that the politics are within religious boundaries. Kerry's already sworn off obeying the Pope, so he's safe - but how much scarier if Bush hasn't even sworn off obeying Christ!

 

It have always bugged me that almost all American politicians I have heard speaking have brought up quite a lot of religion and god talk. Doesnt really matter what party they are, the simplest reason for this I think is that you are dead politically if you would even hint at a lack of faith. The non-believers can mostly deal with a religious politician but the believers would never ever support an athiest politician ever. Atleast that is the impression I have got.

The difference between the democrats in the republicans is that the republicans have the support of the nutty religious right which tries to influence politics and society in all ways possible so atleast for me it sounds a bit more omnious when Bush II talks about that god fella than when Clinton does the same.

[ September 09, 2004, 19:06: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

Well, maybe the deeper difference is something along the lines of that Clinton never found himself put in place by God, and claimed or felt doing HIS will in all his deeds - like when attacking Iraq or Al Quaeda, setting up Gitmo or when re-starting nuke-research and killing Kyoto.

Personally, I feel that my perception of a loving god differs with Bush's eye-for-an-eye old testament version.

I'm not implying that Bush isn't convinced of what he does, but arguably he's the most ideological US president ever, and IMO he challenges a major achievement of modernity - the separation of church and state.

IMO the invocation of god for politics is a silly idea. "Gott mit uns!" on Wehrmacht belt buckles didn't make Hitler's crusade against Jews and Bolsheviks in the east right or justified, so invoking the name of Allah didn't make 9/11 right or just. Or how about the Israeli settlers (or US Christian Zinonists) invoking the lord giving them, that is King David, this land some 3.000 years ago when settling the west bank or Gaza. Halleluja, and nevermind what happened the last 3 milennia ... ... space and time and reason are irrelevant.

Whenever Bush invoces HIM in and for his election campaign or foreign policy it gives me a foul taste. Bush seriously argues along the line (a little more pointed) "because god is with me he is with my GOP and my policies and when you don't join me you're a heretic and sinner and don't do HIS will (and will burn in hell, and, of course, vote Democrat) !" Amen.

Clinton never went that far. Not that the author would care - why should he - the article IMO is mirror imaging propaganda:
Like with the alleged and elusive liberal media bias justifying the US right to be as biased and unfair as they ever wanted pointing fingers to the dems - we're just firing back - this goon points his finger at evil Clinton and claims Clinton invoked the name of the lord too, so Bush can do it as well ... errr.

He somehow overlooks or is entirely unaware of the fact that this is a US pheneomenon that transcends party lines of Democrats and Republicans because it is part of the US national identy and culture - to praise the flag and the name of the Lord in the same breath - is the US civil religion.

Edit: The problem with Bush in this respect is that he refers to religion and instrumentalises religion to an unparalleled extent, even for US politics. Bush is a quantum leap away from Clinton in this respect.

/weird, weird to listen to good ol' acid house music when sober - long live the Shamen ... ... when ending I'm appoaching The Smiths on my playlist.

[ September 09, 2004, 13:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Grey,

His statistics are probably accurate in terms of usage of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and Christ. However, the author, towards the end of the article, uses the term "Jesus" and "God" interchangably. If you count the number of times Clinton and Bush use "God" in their speeches, Bush has to come out on top, seeing as how he has used it at least once every single time that he makes a public statement, because all of his public statements end with, "God bless America".

Furthermore, comparing the number of times a particular word is used by Clinton versus Bush is hardly a fair comparison either. For starters, Clinton was in office for eight years, and Bush only four (at least so far). Additionally, Clinton made far more public appearances and addressed the country far more often than Geroge Bush has. If Clinton spoke more often than Bush every year, and had twice as many years to make those appearances, then chances are any word chosen at random in the English language was probably used more by Clinton than Bush.