ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 2397
Nov 25 14 3:56 PM
char: “The end of language is communication. I thought you knew that, Iowan. Using Biblical references in this society is eminently justified whatever one's political orientation if you want to get a point across. When the point is just "I'm a Christian like you" it's merely pandering. You seem determined to make more of these things than is warranted. I thought I was the one who was supposed to get upset on this subject, but apparently it's you.”
I'm not the slightest bit 'upset'. Pointing out your principle-less 'principle' is actually kind of invigorating.
char: “Let me explain to you the difference between what Obama said and what Bush said. The Exodus line reminded the Hebrews that they were once immigrants (foreigners), so they should not mistreat others who are in the same position they were once. That's a sentiment that can stand on its own, but the Biblical reference reinforces it with some people.”
Maybe the sentiment can stand on its own. But we’ll never know since Obama decided the sentiment couldn’t stand on its own and needed the invocation of the Bible (something he, as a self-proclaimed Christian, presumably believes is in some sense divinely inspired). If the purpose of Obama’s invocation was merely to ‘reinforce’ a sentiment that, according to you, needed no reinforcement, then he was deliberately MISUSING what he presumably believes to be, in some sense, divinely inspired for purposes of political expediency, not communication.
It seems to me that quite clearly Obama marshaled the Exodus passage to justify his decision, not make his decision clearer to those who, in addition to himself, regard the Bible as in some sense divinely inspired.
char: “ This is the Bush statement I referred to:
“Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'" Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.”char: So, either Bush is offhandedly saying "Don't blame me, blame God," or he really believed that the correct course of action in Iraq was revealed to him divinely. This does not seem healthy to me in any sphere, but especially when the lives of so many hang on the decision. The result of his decisionmaking process does not reflect well on that higher Father.
In invoking the Old Testament as justification for his policy decision, Obama likewise appealed to what Christians regard as divinely inspired, or more to the point, God’s word.
It’s not clear to me why hearing from God through prayer should be any more dangerous than hearing from God through the written word.
Further, the passage cited by Obama comes from a larger portion of Exodus, which begins in Exodus 20:22 with these words, “And the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven.”
So, you’re terrified that Bush makes (and justifies) decisions based on what he thinks God told him, but not the slightest bit bothered (and in fact, defend to the hilt) that Obama makes and justifies his decision based on what he thinks God told Moses from heaven. Which is the more mentally disconcerting: that a person thinks she has a direct pipeline to God and on that basis, in part, makes decisions or that a person appeals to the teachings of another person who she believes has a direct pipeline to the Almighty and on that basis, in part, makes his decisions?
char: “So, the difference here is that Obama made a decision for earthly reasons, some noble and some merely expedient, and justified them on policy and moral grounds, throwing in a line from Exodus in the process.”
Maybe. If you’re right about this, then you wouldn’t be the first person to suggest that Obama’s “faith” is feigned for political expediency only.
For this reason (and others), Obama gets a pass for his disingenuous and wholly unnecessary invocation of the Bible. Again, this confirms my earlier observation: For you, the end justifies the means.
char: “Bush made a decision based on what he thought God told him, and justified it with a bunch of convenient lies supplied by Uncle Dick. Perhaps you'll say you still can't see a difference, but I know you're not that dumb.”
Sure, on one level, there is a difference. Unlike Bush, Obama seems to have relied on his own lies as a basis for his decision, quite independent of others. After all, he’s a better speechwriter, policy director, campaign manager, . . . . . than those who hold those positions in his administration. Can we get our money back for these unnecessary federal employees?
char: “I'm not a Szasz fan; I just like the quote. Voices in our heads are not usually thought of as a good thing. Seriously, anyone who thinks Allah/Jehovah or Vishnu is speaking to him is deluded and bears watching. He might fly a plane into a building or start a war.”
How much less deluded is the person (Obama) who thinks that a divine being (Jehovah) spoke to another guy (Moses) and, in part, justifies his (Obama’s) decisions on what a divine being (Jehovah) told HIM (Moses)?
For the record, those who flew planes into a building in September 2001, were convinced that a divine being (Allah) spoke to another guy (Mohammed) and who, in part, justified their decision on what a divine being (Allah) told HIM (Mohammed)?
Whether one believes he has a direct pipeline to God as a basis of his decisions or one invokes the teachings of one who claimed to have a direct pipeline to God as the basis for his decisions, wouldn’t both be equally dangerous from your point of view? If not, why not? If so, why is your interpretation of and reaction to the former so different from the latter?
As best as I can tell, there are only two differences: 1) Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat and/or 2) you are convinced that Bush’s faith was (however misguided) genuine (that is, he really believed it) and Obama’s is only pretend.
If that’s the case, then you don’t really have any principled stand against the invocation of the Bible into politics. You condemn Bush for it and give Obama a pass.
The end justifies the means. If invoking the Bible leads to a political decision you favor, it’s just harmless ‘communication’. If invoking the Bible leads to a political decision you oppose, then it has the real potential to lead to terrorism and/or war.
Interact