I haven't done any Bush-bashing in several days. I'm overdue and so...
But first, a disclaimer: I'm just joking about Bush-bashing. George is just another passenger on this planet, just like me, just like you. We're all imperfect human beings with our own shortcomings.
What I'm trying to do when I'm criticizing Bush or his supporters is not, in fact criticize them. I'm trying to look at the logic and justice or lack thereof of our policies and practices. This following screed is not a criticism at all of Bush, the man. This is a critique of our logic.
There's a huge difference.
Now, on with the bashing!
======
I've spent much time in conversation with Bush supporters debating the Iraq War. Our conversations have been at times tumultuous, but in the end, rather reasonable with give and take and room for growth and better comprehension. I actually think I'm beginning to understand them – their concerns, fears and reasons for supporting Bush.
My conclusion?
They're nuts.
They don't mean what they say. Or rather, they do, but they don't really.
They will agree that torture is wrong – it's certainly wrong for Saddam's supporters to engage in it. However, if Gonzales tells Bush that it's really okay – after all, the Geneva Convention is quaint and out-dated and this is a post-9/11 world – then it is okay for Bush. He has his reasons. It's necessary to save lives. To protect the innocent. It's only murderers that are getting the ill-treatment and it's not really torture.
Yes, they tell me, of course it's wrong for others to do it and we should avoid it ourselves, but there are terrorists out there wanting to do us harm.
What they're saying is that the ends justifies the means for us. That's not an acceptable argument for others, but, well, this is us we're talking about.
The problem with this is that if Bush is willing to lie, torture, kill to accomplish a good end result, how do we know if we agree with that end result? What if, just for argument's sake, Bush was insane and he believed that if he blew up the world, that we'd all get to heaven that much sooner. That'd be a good thing, right?
And so Bush lies about WMDs or about torture or human rights abuses in order to move us towards what he considers a good end. Do we want this?
No, we don't. But, say his supporters, Bush isn't for blowing up the world, he's just trying to protect us.
Ahh, but how do we know that? Well, because he's told us.
Exactly! But he's also told us that the ends justifies the means, that it's okay to lie to accomplish a good end. How do we know he's not lying now?
Well...he's just not. He's a Christian!
How do we know?
He told us.
The man who thinks it's okay to lie to accomplish his desired ends has told you he's a Christian?
But he's sincere about it!
How do you know? Wait! Don't tell me, it's because he told us, right?
Not just that. He looks sincere. I just have a gut feeling.
So, you think that Bush is going to do the right thing so you'll trust that his lies and torture and deceptions and death are all going to work out based on your hunch?
Faith-based logic. It's a magical, marvelous, maddening thing.
16 comments:
Weird, isn't it? The premier of our province, Ralph, is cut from the same cloth as George. He's a drunk, and once raided a homeless shelter during one of his midnight binges and screamed at them to get off their duffs and get a JOB! This is only one of the many stories - he's famous for his cronyism and selling us out to oil companies.
Yet because he's "conservative", the Christian right (including my parents) will vote for him over and over. This party has been in power for over 30 YEARS!!! My mother actually said, "Ralph wouldn't ever do anything to hurt us." The religious conservatives need to work harder on sequential logic, I think. And left-wing politicians need to stop harping on about abortions and find out what their constituents are really interested in.
Sorry to ramble, this gets me frothing at the mouth... good post, Dan!
Dan,
Ditto, ditto, ditto...
Amen, Aumen, So mote it be...
it's amazing how many people will vote for a "christian" regardless of how little the "christians" actions or words reflect Christ.
here in the midwest, farmers are great about voting republican/christian/conservative, regardless of the harm it does to the individual farmers. they hate the corporate farms that are killing them, but fail to see how their voting for bush helps the corporations more than themselves.
keep preaching dan!
Gee, do you suppose that there are folks of the Islamic tradition that think the same way? "Gee, ol' Muhommad so and so would hut any of us. Sure it's wrong to suicide bomb, but he has his reasons!"
It's the same logic. "I trust because it's easier than becomming aware of what is really going on and thinking for myself. It's easier towalk with the herd than to stand on my own."
Dan, you are speaking my language!
Peace,
Mike
Great post Dan!
BTW, have you ever checked out the Al Jazeera English website? If you scroll down to the bottom of the page there are eerily poignant animated cartoons that show another point of view.
I will preface my remarks by saying that when I use the term neutral logic the meaning is neutral in relation to the gospel. The challenges that I see for this article are as follows.
1. People who support the war in Iraq cannot arrive at that conclusion using faith based logic. In fact in order to support the war a neutral logic must be incorporated. The crazy thing is that most people who are opposed to the war in Iraq do not arrive at that conclusion through presupposing the gospel. It is very easy to find any position using a neutral logic. I would challenge Christians on either side of the argument to change their minds and motives and try thinking about the situation by first presupposing the gospel. I did this and it changed my mind about the war in Iraq.
2. No one that I know or read trusts the President’s word on the basis that he is a Christian. To do so is not only neutral logic it is also gullible. They trust his word because there is, in their opinion, no credible evidence to prove otherwise. The weight of evidence, as we have seen in high profile court cases, is in the eye of the beholder. It is easy for people who are using a neutral logic either to believe or disbelieve evidence that is before them based on their own agenda. It would be equally as gullible to believe that the President is a liar based solely on the “good Christian word” of obviously prejudiced organizations or people.
Example of gullible and neutral: Bush says he is a Christian therefore, he can’t be lying.
Example of gullible and neutral: Christian (insert your source here) say Bush is lying therefore, he must be a liar.
Example of gullible and neutral: I read or watched it in the news therefore, it must be true.
There you go with my two cents.
Thanks,
DK
Here is the logic for voting conservative in our province, compliments of two Alberta bishops:
The conservative party is not pro-abortion. (They also aren't pro-life, but that doesn't count. Alberta's abortion rate keeps pace with all other provinces, but that doesn't count either.)The other three parties all support legal abortion, to a greater or lesser extent.
The Catholic (insert favourite denomination) Church opposes anyone who supports legal abortions.
Therefore, conservative is the only voting option, regardless of any other policies.
Most of the letters to the editor in the local Catholic paper support this position. I wouldn't say that everyone voting conservative in Alberta is doing so because of the abortion issue, but certainly many religious people do. Would this count as faith-based logic?
I'm not American, but I do know a handful of people down there, and for sure they ARE voting for Bush because he's a Christian. They told me so. (And I went and banged my head against the wall.) I'd extrapolate from that that there must be others.
Thanks again for all the interesting comments and thoughts.
David, thanks especially for taking time to write. I don't have much time or space, but to briefly clarify my "Bush believes in lying" statement:
Bush has hired convicted felons (E. Abrams and J. Poindexter, maybe others). They were convicted of lying to congress about Iran Contra. They haven't repented or apologized for these lies. They (and others such as Ollie North and Colin Powell) are glad of their part in that illegal war (did you know the US was found guilty of War Crimes as a result and fined $17 billion, I think, by an international court? - we ignored the court).
This indicates that they believe if the cause is just, lying is appropriate. Do you think I'm interpreting this wrongly?
Dan,
Thanks for entertaining my remarks.
To your question, “This indicates that they believe if the cause is just, lying is appropriate. Do you think I'm interpreting this wrongly?” my answer follows.
No, I don’t think you are interpreting the information wrongly. I do think the information is incomplete. For instance you left out that J. Poindexter’s convictions were overturned in 1991 by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. O. North’s convictions were also overturned, although I am not sure what bearing this has on the President. Abrams was pardoned by Bush I. As much as we may not like it a pardon is legally binding. In the eyes of the law these men are innocent in their current standing. Regardless none of this says anything as to whether the President himself is a liar. I would submit that like all mankind he was born in a fallen state and without Gods sovereign grace he would and will lie and much more.
A new question that I will pose is: does God use corrupt men in leadership to carry out His purpose?
After taking a good examination of Jacob in the Bible I must conclude the answer to be, yes. This is a man who swindled away his brother’s birthright, lied to get his father’s blessing then later put his family on the front line of battle to save himself. Yet, God blessed him and perpetuated His chosen people through him.
There you go with two more of my pennies. Thanks again for entertaining my remarks and ideas.
DK
Glad you had time to return the conversation, David.
As to your question: Does God use corrupt people to carry out his purpose? I think we agree that God can take any situation and work it out to some purpose. The bible says God used pharoah's leadership, I assume that means God could also use Hitler or Bush's leadership and turn something good out of it.
The thing is, I wouldn't vote for pharoah, hitler nor Bush. I wouldn't advocate their leadership or support them in their ungodliness, even if God does use it to some good end.
As to Bush being or not being a liar, I'll avoid the argument that he lied to get us in to this war (I think it's obvious he did, you probably think it's obvious he didn't) and say instead that the reason I pointed to the fact that he hired convicted and unrepentant liars is because this beyond a shadow of a doubt means that he thinks lying in the course of what he considers a good cause to be acceptable. EVEN if people will die as a result.
As to the fact that these convicted felons were pardoned or had their convictions overturned does not alleviate the moral culpability nor the moral reasoning (lying can be just) and that's what I'm talking about. And if you agree with that, then my original essay stands correct: You can't trust someone who believes in the moral righteousness of lying.
One caveat: I think probably most of us believe there is a some room for lying, ie, we probably wouldn't fault the father who lied to get food for his children. The difference is, I don't believe you can ever justify lying that leads to people getting killed. And that is one (of the many) reasons I don't trust Bush and think he must go.
One follow-up, you said:
No one that I know or read trusts the President’s word on the basis that he is a Christian...They trust his word because there is, in their opinion, no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
=======
I again refer you to the fact that he has hired two men (or more) who are clearly liars. That is evidence that Bush believes lying for a just cause to be legitimate.
Therefore, Boot Bush!
Dan,
I appreciate the respectful tone of our debate and thank you for the opportunity to volley. I have had some less cordial experiences elsewhere. I will make this my last volley as I have homework waiting.
“I think we agree that God can take any situation and work it out to some purpose. The bible says God used pharoah's leadership, I assume that means God could also use Hitler or Bush's leadership and turn something good out of it.”
”The thing is, I wouldn't vote for pharoah, hitler nor Bush. I wouldn't advocate their leadership or support them in their ungodliness, even if God does use it to some good end.”
I would say that God makes every situation and that every situation is for His purpose. I would not agree that God is somehow subject to our situations and must make the best of them. God’s purpose is good because it is God that has done it not because people approve with neutral logic.
“As to the fact that these convicted felons were pardoned or had their convictions overturned does not alleviate the moral culpability nor the moral reasoning (lying can be just) and that's what I'm talking about. “
The fact that the convictions were overturned means that the charge of moral culpability was proven to be false. Does this mean that they were not guilty? No, it means that our court system can not prove that they did. I don’t believe that we, having not directly examined the evidence physically, can pass judgment beyond that of the court in this situation. Even more so, we cannot know their hearts as to their guilt or innocence. To know any man’s heart is to know guilt because we are fallen.
“One caveat: I think probably most of us believe there is a some room for lying, ie, we probably wouldn't fault the father who lied to get food for his children. The difference is, I don't believe you can ever justify lying that leads to people getting killed.”
Ah, situational ethics.
In my understanding sin is a product of man’s fallen nature. Therefore, a person is no more or less guilty as a result of “greater” or “lesser” sins. And this is a good thing because it is very convenient for man to classify the level of sins according to the situation.
As an example: The staunch Bush supporters probably thought that lying was a much greater sin back when it was B. Clinton lying. As well, I am willing to bet that when H. Clinton runs for office again, whether for the senate or presidency, the folks who hate Bush will soon forget what a great sin lying is. In the light that she proclaimed, on record, the great danger that Iraq posed due to WMDs.
As the situation changes so does our estimation of sin. This is why I will go back to my original line of thought and say that neutral logic that does not presuppose the gospel can come to any situational conclusion.
Again I say thanks for the thought provoking debate.
DK
And thank you, again, for taking the time to comment.
We largely disagree and that's okay (we seriously disagree if you think God is ordainining Hitler's et al immorality).
One factual note, though, on the Contra criminals.
I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest the crimes committed didn't occur. I don't know specifically about Abrams and Poindexter, but I know that Ollie North and Colin Powell have both owned up to the crimes committed. Further, they have stated they're proud of their part in it.
The crimes occurred. The men were pardoned and/or had their convictions overturned because of base political pressure. I would think that Christians concerned about "situational ethics" would be outraged that it happened in the first place and doubly outraged that some of these men were returned to office. Where's the sense of holy outrage?
And for the record, I thought Clinton should have stepped down. He lied in front of Congress and to the American people. Admittedly he lied over a less than life-or-death matter, but he lied nonetheless. Again I ask, where is our sense of shame? Of outrage?
Let me weigh in about the Abrams, Poindexter, etc. matters. Their convictions were overturned because Congress foolishly granted them immunity for their testimony! The courts did not find them not guilty or find new evidence to exculpate them. Rather the court said (rightly) that if Congress wanted them to go to jail for their crimes, they shouldn't have granted them immunity from prosecution, first! They were pardoned by George H.W. Bush as a deal to keep them from being re-indicted on the basis of new evidence not covered by the previous deal. Why did George I do this? Obviously to keep Abrams and Poindexter from implicating HIM in legal testimony--Congress hadn't granted him immunity from prosecution!
I also thought Clinton should have resigned, but maybe for different reasons than Dan. I didn't think Clinton's sordid affair, sinful as it was, fell within the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for an impeachable offense. I didn't think Ken Starr had any right to ask the question under oath--it had nothing to do with Whitewater! (A Russian immigrant friend said at the time, "It was not a gentleman's question!") I don't know whether Clinton's clear lie fell under the legal definition of perjury or not. But I thought that Clinton should resign for the good of the country and his family.
By resigning, he could have put healing his marriage as his highest priority. He could also have left the nation in the hands of a very capable VP in Al Gore--and probably paved the way for a Gore victory over Bush. Bush II would not have been able to campaign against Clinton's scandals but would have had to deal with 2 years of solid Gore record.
Clinton got very little accomplished post-Lewinsky. He sinned, he lied about it, and he was caught. Regardless of the hypocrisy of his pursuers, he owed it to his family and the nation to resign so that both could have begun to heal. His refusal to do this made me angry.
And then, of course, Clinton started bombing Kosovo without Congressional declaration of war and using the military without Congress' permission beyond 100 days, in violation of the War Powers Act passed in the wake of Vietnam. That WAS an impeachable offense and he should have been removed for it, but the Lewinsky matter sucked out all energy for impeachment.
Post a Comment