Just the Right Amount of God

The Weekly Standard ^ | 01/131/05 | Joseph Bottum

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes, I think this is a very accurate analysis, really well put together and researched.

[adiaireton8]

bump

[OldFriend]

The chattering america hating media is still at it.

He doesn't read, he isn't curious, he's never even been out of the country so he couldn't possibly have a good foreign policy.

Only the other day I heard an 'expert' saying that because Bush hadn't travelled outside the country he was less fit to be the President than Bill Clinton who had travelled abroad.

No sense going into that ridiculous statement.

They still don't get it and the saddest thing of all is to see some of our own media types bashing the President for his faith in the future.

[whee0071]

The issue remains, is God using Bush, or is Bush using God? Certainly Christ's glory will not be denied, but it's also much better to be on His side when the glory is being made manifest.

Are we discerning truth, or are we just seeing what we want to see since the alternative (Kerry, Democrats, Liberalism) is so awful anyway? Can a man yielded God describe Islam as a great religion? Well, yes, in the context of it being a popular religion of vast system and scope...but is that the context? What do you make of this inclusion of the Koran in his inaugural address:

"In Americas ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."

I may be entirely off-base, I don't pretend to have any answers, and I certainly don't want to contribute undue division. However, I do think that we need to take a more critical look at this man, because--like it or not--he has in many ways become a figurehead for modern Christianity in our country.

[livius]

Incredibly good analysis. I hadn't thought of it in terms of Natural Law (something we were discussing a few days ago on the religion forum, oddly enough), but Bottum is absolutely right.

[i_dont_chat]

You said:
"However, I do think that we need to take a more critical look at this man, because--like it or not--he has in many ways become a figurehead for modern Christianity in our country."


President Bush is like a breathe of fresh air to me!

[livius]

Ping! IIRC, we were among those discussing the Natural Law question a few days ago. What do you think of this?

[RhoTheta]

The speech was tremendous. I think Bottum is right on. I was surprised at Noonan's response, but I think that what Bush decided to do instead of the usual inaugural address was to get a jump on the work of his second term by laying out a major change in foreign policy direction for the United States. When I heard the speach, I sat there thinking, "Say, What? I can't follow this; I'm going to have to read it." The wording is so compact that it is hard to absorb all that is there when spoken. It is in the reading that you can pick up what he is doing. Peggy Noonan is a poet, as my wife pointed out, and she was expecting a more traditionally "inaugural" kind of speech. Upon reading the speech myself, and just coming from finishing John Adams, by David McCullough, I didn't perceive this inaugural address as "God-drenched" at all. Everything written by any of the founders seemed more so than this.

Consider that George W. has just been re-elected with a much larger mandate than Clinton had and that his Natural Law philosophy, as magnificently analyzed by Joseph Bottum, is subscribed to by a large portion of the electorate. This address not only puts on notice tin pot dictators, and monarchies such as the Saudis, but our State Department, that a major course correction is coming. Add the appointement of Dr. Rice, another Christian, and you have the possible start of a realignment of our foreign policy to drop the hypocritical backing of any government, no matter how dismal its human rights record, just for the expediency of the short term goal. It will be exciting to see how that body responds to having its paradigm shifted away from all its cynically pragmatic old accomodations with evil.

[spycatcher]

The speech sounded like it may have been written in consultation with "Christian Philosophist" Rick Warren or the local Masonic Lodge.

Nice religious language...but too bad it wasn't Christian.

[Taggart_D]

However, I do think that we need to take a more critical look at this man, because--like it or not--he has in many ways become a figurehead for modern Christianity in our country.

Eh? Any Christian knows that Christ is the head of the church; Bush a figurehead? To who? This is the BOLDEST speech I've heard since Reagan said "Tear down this wall."

Bush's speech addresses the moral direction of this country and reminds us that as Americans we will stand for what is morally right. I think Noonan and the like don't enjoy hearing that because they know that taking this kind of stand comes with a cost....and I think deep down in Noonan she does not believe that Americans can do it....so she blames it on God.

[wizardoz]

Say, I like this.

We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul."

This is hard to explain, but I've been struggling to figure out how to describe why I, a complete and utter atheist, have a fair amount of faith in Bush. I disagree with him on certain issues, but overall, I am happy as a clam that he won. And this quote makes me feel like, although his faith and my atheism place us quite a ways apart philsophically, I feel like we are just close enough to reach out and touch fingertips, E.T. style. And the place where the fingers meet is this quote.

[keats5]

"What do you make of this inclusion of the Koran in his inaugural address"

I bristled when I heard the Koran mentioned as an "edifice of character." It seemed like he really compromised his beliefs to be PC, like when the Pope kissed the Koran.

However, I'm also reminded of Paul's Mars Hill address (Acts 17; 22-33), where he used the Athenians' alter "to an unknown God" to teach about the one true God. I've also heard of Christians who have reached Islamic believers by starting with the Koran. One can say that the Koran has some teachings about integrity and character, even though the book has fatal flaws.

Still, I wished he hadn't even mentioned the Koran.

[livius]

I saw it also as a sort of revised Monroe Doctrine: that is, because the fundamental interest of the US is freedom (which it actually is, even if people are only thinking of it in an economic sense), any place in the world that threatens this interest is now threatening us.

I thought it was a pretty breathtaking concept, and like you, I could scarcely believe that I was hearing something so momentous in an Inaugural Address, which is normally the time for meaningless platitudes (I guess that was what Peggy Noonan was expecting!).

[livius]

Actually, if we go back to the Natural Law concept, we can see why he mentioned the Koran. Natural Law was used by Christian philosophers to explain why even pagans could develop concepts of the good, right and wrong, etc. That is, all men are created in the Image of God, and they can recognize the law of their beings, even dimly.

That said, I have no use for the Koran and think it was the ravings of a lunatic who plagiarized some bits of the Old Testament and used them for his own purposes (banditry and mayhem). However, the millions of people all around the world who follow this cult, mostly because they have been born into it, are not to blame for that and many of them probably seek in it the principles of natural law that we are all created to seek.

It's unlikely that they're going to change their beliefs right away (although I do think we Christians should go back to evangelizing and trying to make converts), but they could certainly arrive at national states that are at least politically free. And I think Bush had to add the Koran, or otherwise the large constituency of folks in Iraq and elsewhere whom we are trying to encourage to accept freedom would simply shut out the entire message that he was sending.

[keats5]

I completely agree with everything you said.

I believe C.S. Lewis said something about how all religions have a bit of the truth, because we are all still made in God's image, no matter how flawed.

[whee0071]

Bush is a figurehead to the extent of his portrayal by the media. He also enjoys a sort of hyper-adoration by many professing Christian individuals and congregations. The danger is that he, a fallible man, may be carrying way too much on his shoulders. Some sort of "fall" by Bush might cause far more harm to American Christianity than it might otherwise be allowed if we were a bit less charismatic (not meaning "charismatic" in a denominational sense).

Regarding Ms. Noonan, I have always gotten the impression that she is chiefly concerned about her own views and publicity. The subjects of her commentary seem to run a distant second, being useful only to the ends by which they might allow her to demonstrate her alleged expertise and "insider" perspective.

I will say that I had a bit of discomfort of my own, but only with the sort of "heaven-on-earth-in-our-time" mentality that seemed to be implied throughout the speech. Yes, we are charged with the responsibility of living for the glory God, and we should work toward that end....but let us not forget that His glory, joy and goodness will ultimately come, but it will do so in spite of us, not because of us.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It is not religion and it really has little to do with his Christianity. It is pure political philosophy. That is why he could so easily include the Koran. He is just saying that religion and morality are the supports of free government, public interests DEPEND on private morality. This has been said many different ways throughout our history. It is THE crux, the crucial point, of our liberty. It is not about his personal religion. He included the Koran so that everyone would know IT WAS NOT ABOUT HIS PERSONAL RELIGION.

[BibChr]

What a thoughtful analysis.

[demkicker]

It will be exciting to see how that body responds to having its paradigm shifted away from all its cynically pragmatic old accomodations with evil.

You can bet Putin and Chirac are beside themselves with rage. Once more, they've been trumped by Bush, and Condi hasn't even paid them a visit yet!