Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush & God

  1. Feb 6, 2005 #1
    Perhaps because it is Sunday, I have been thinking a bit about the relationship between Bush and God. It seems accepted that 9/11 seems to have triggered something: "Those close to Mr Bush say that day he discovered his life's mission. He became convinced that God was calling him to engage the forces of evil in battle"

    Not everyone is convinced that the Bush's claims to represent goodness are very reliable:
    "Messianic, triumphalist and arrogant," is how Spain's El Periodico assesses the tone of Mr Bush's [2nd inaugural] speech. The paper says Mr Bush's "abuse" of the word "freedom" and "his invoking of God's will" are a "bad omen" in view of "how such ideas have been manipulated and applied in relation to Iraq".

    "In fact, nearly all the mainline churches in America oppose this war [invasion of Iraq], including Mr Bush's own church, the United Methodists" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

    Blair - himself a devout Christian - doesn't escape criticism either. At the funeral last July of a Scottish soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, the minister said:
    "I want to believe that if there is a God in heaven then there will be justice because I want someone to pay for Gordon's death. And only God may judge who is ultimately responsible. ...If I were to point them out I would say to President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair I have only three words of admonishment. ...And those three words are 'shame on you'."

    The above are just a few thoughts and quotes, but does anyone else think that the world would be a lot safer if GWB was a little less unshakable in his faith in his actions?
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 6, 2005 #2
    I think the 'religion' card is played to strategic political ends and the whole thing is an ad hominem ploy. These people have no regard for anything except there own little hides. Now as a means of reading between the lines you can pick out their intents and ambitions. Here is an article that is creepy and disturbing by it's use of GAWD! From the Washington Times:

    'U.S. should be open to God's priorities'

    If they can dictate GAWD's priorities then they can dictate policy with that segment of the population that falls for this garbage. The sick part is if Jr. is the evangelical he portray's himself to be, then we are in for 'the end times'. Makes one wonder what they really are up to!
  4. Feb 6, 2005 #3
    *whispers:42, you have exceed your PM storage, I can't pm you*
  5. Feb 6, 2005 #4
    Do you think maybe Junior is just playing the 'God-fevered simpleton weilding a sharpened crucifix' so that Iran etc will back down because they think him capable of anything? That would take cunning, and he probably has some of that.
  6. Feb 6, 2005 #5
    Sure would be, but I think that the plan for the Caspian Sea oil pipeline is a done deal and they are just looking for the right time and excuse to implement the plans of the special interest groups that pay their checks. Never underestimate the monetary motive and factor in any politics, it seems to superceed all else! Everything else is just for show! :yuck:
  7. Feb 6, 2005 #6
    I see what you mean. But playing to the Christian gallery for profit is surely a dangerous tactic when playing war games with the Islamic countries of the world. Couldn't he appeal to the Christian wallet on some other level e.g. keep the 'freedom' bit, but drop the 'mission from holy-moley' routine?
  8. Feb 6, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The problem is that Bush is looking more and more like a crazed religious fanatic, the same sort (but differently dyed) that he's ostensibly trying to defeat. There have been too many rumors and whispers circulating about his private behavior for me to be comfortably assured that he's a 100 % sane and rational. I think he really does have a messianic complex and people like that are BAD NEWS.
  9. Feb 6, 2005 #8
    Agreed. But can you be sane & rational and have a messianic complex? Or is it that he is rational in private but Rasputin in public?
  10. Feb 7, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    *That* would be OK, because I understand that politicians have to pander to their public in their appearances. But the problem is that by many accounts, Bush actually tempers/controls his crazy religious utterances in public, and his private persona is far scarier.

    This guy is a nut. The last place he should be is leading the most powerful country in the world...and for a second term ! :surprised
  11. Feb 7, 2005 #10
    Some Quotes:

    I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
    -- George W. Bush, quoted from Aaron Latham, ç
    "How George W. Found God," George Magazine, September, 2000

    I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
    -- George W. Bush, interview, U.S. News, "George W. Bush: Running on his faith," December 6, 1999

    Our priorities is our faith.
    -- George W. Bush, Greensboro, North Carolina, October. 10, 2000, quoted from Jacob Weinberg, "The Complete Bushisms"

    Our new faith-based laws have removed government as a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call.
    -- George W. Bush, quoted from Aaron Latham, "How George W. Found God," George Magazine, September, 2000

    "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."—Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 (Thanks to Tanny Bear.)
  12. Feb 7, 2005 #11
    I found this stuff in the Washington Post (Sep 16th 2004):

    "...despite the centrality of Bush's faith to his presidency, he has revealed only the barest outline of his beliefs, leaving others to sift through the clues and make assumptions about where he stands".

    "In 2000, he suggested that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools since "religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism." But he avoided stating his choice between the two positions. "I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened," he told U.S. News & World Report".

    But this is a classic: "Bush himself said in a 2000 interview with Beliefnet.com, a religion Web site: "To be frank with you, I am not all that comfortable describing my faith, because in the political world, there are a lot of people who say, 'Vote for me, I'm more religious than my opponent,' " he said. "And those kind of folks make me a little nervous."
    :surprised Isn't he more religious than his opponents, and therefore describing himself? How much more nervous could he possibly make me? What beliefs is he holding back? :uhh:

    I think this guy has hit the nail on the head:
    "It's a good thing, and a normal thing, for religious people to have a sense of calling as a pastor or a teacher or a journalist or a politician. But I think this goes farther," Wallis [editor of Sojourners] said. "It's almost a sense of divine appointment for this president and this war on terrorism. . . . When it comes out as 'They're evil and we're good,' and 'If you're not with us on all issues, then you're with the evildoers,' I think it's bad foreign policy and dangerous theology."
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  13. Feb 7, 2005 #12
    Right. And evolution had nothing to do with it.
  14. Feb 7, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  15. Feb 8, 2005 #14
    http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html [Broken]suggests that Bush the less than right thinking man shows most of the tell tale signs of a "dry drunk" , although I would add Christianity as an authoritarian religion also plays a part in his "complex". I have some sympathy for him after reading the article.

    "Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.


    "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

    Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
    Grandiose behavior
    A rigid, judgmental outlook
    Childish behavior
    Irresponsible behavior
    Irrational rationalization

    Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance.

    ....there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

    Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

    Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

    Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

    Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack.....I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

    ....Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

    Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme reluctance.

    Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

    In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.


    Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."


    To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking .....are here:

    the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

    a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
    "I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
    the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
    His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically.
    If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Feb 8, 2005 #15
    :rofl: Funny. But as for the rest of it, very disturbing indeed. I was wondering how credible the source of this is, but Katherine van Wormer is Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa, so she ain't no fool. I'm reminded of the concerns over Reagan's forgetfulness in his last years in office. People who said he was going senile were put down, but it turned out he was showing the early signs of Alzheimer's.

    Well, I'm glad God is working through Junior, because if it was Junior working through Junior we'd all be in serious trouble.
  17. Feb 9, 2005 #16
    "According to Iran's constitution, its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei... holds the majority of the power. Elected leaders, including President Mohammad Khatami and members of parliament, hold much less authority".
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iran/structure.html [Broken]

    Say there was reform in Iraq so that the only elected leaders had political control, as in the West. And say the people voted for the Ayatollah. Wouldn't having a religious leader at the helm with total political control offer even less to people who want the country run on a secular (or humanist) non-religious grounds?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  18. Feb 9, 2005 #17
    :grumpy: Hate to admit it but you are sharp :biggrin: . http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020805I.shtml [Broken] is an echo of your view:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  19. Feb 9, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Elected leaders in a democracy are not supposed to have "total political control," not if the consitution is set up properly. Furthermore, Saddam was not deposed to install a secular regime. Saddam's already was a secular regime.
  20. Feb 9, 2005 #19
    Sorry everyone, I meant Iran, not Iraq. :redface: Would you all mind reading my post again with this in mind? (Sorry).
  21. Feb 9, 2005 #20
    I think I've just proved I'm about as sharp as Junior's plumbs :frown:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook