"Decoding Bush's God-Talk"; and, article by Bush's speechwriter

[wildflower]

At beliefnet.com tonight they have two articles on the front page about the inaugural address.

The first is an examination by beliefnet of the hidden religious messages in Bush's speech. The second is an article by Bush's speechwriter, wherein he "explains the president's use of faith language." Both are too long too post here, but worth looking at.

Decoding Bush's God-Talk

Beliefnet provides an annotated guide to the president's inaugural speech.

President Bush delivered his second inaugural address Thursday after being sworn in for a second term. This is a transcript of his remarks, with annotations by Beliefnet senior editor Deborah Caldwell, who examines the speech's "God-talk."

more at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15968_1.html

'The Danger for America Is Not Theocracy'

Bush's reclusive, evangelical speechwriter says religion is part of our culture and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it.

By Michael Gerson

more at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15943_1.html

[StephanieMarie]

1. How about the "human dignity" of the "detainees" ?

[Somawas]

2. Maybe the "danger for America is Not theocracy"

because theocracy is a done deal. When the combined armed forces bands were playing a rather lengthy prelude to "God of Our Fathers" the crowd was going berserk with chants of USA! USA! At that moment I felt that theocracy was now a done deal.

[Duncan Grant]

3. Bookmarking for future reference.

I can't read this stuff at night, it makes me lose sleep.

Good catch, I hope DU can discuss this more in the next few days.
:kick:

[Ranec]

4. Listening to his speeches make my skin crawl.

Maybe it is because of all the biblical/pseudo-religious coding that makes me mistrust him.

Or it may be the fact that he makes no sense. :-(

[K-W]

5. Can we please officially declare this a cult?

I mean seriously, theyve got them taking coded messages out of speeches. They might as well be following a damn comet.

[Duncan Grant]

6. Gerson's thesis is buried deep within his speech/article:

I'll try to do a brief summary with the hope that more DUers will read the article and comment. The topic is framed first within a structure of 'rhetoric and religion' and the 5 specific situations in which * 'employs religious language':

1) Comfort in grief and mourning
2) Historic influence of faith on our country
3) Faith-based welfare reform
4) Literary allusions to hymns and scripture
5) Reference to providence (meaning the divine guidance or care of God or the supernatural power which guides and sustains human destiny. Remember that 'destiny' is also a concept predicated upon FAITH not SCIENCE; meaning that there is an irresistible and unseen power influencing a nation, person, or idea -- it was their destiny...)

Now, there's a lot to wade through before you get to the section I've snipped below. In my opinion, this is the real 'meat and potatoes' of his assertions:

'The Danger for America Is Not Theocracy' - Michael Gerson
***<snip>
Every society, it seems to me, needs a standard of values that stands above the political order, or the political order becomes absolute. Christianity is not identical to any political ideology. It has had great influence precisely because it judges all ideologies. It indicts consumerism and indifference to the poor; it indicts the destruction of the weak and the elderly; it indicts tyranny and the soul-destroying excesses that sometimes come from freedom. And that leads me to certain conclusions. When religious people identify faith with a single political party or movement, they miniaturize their beliefs and they’re reduced to one interest group among many. When society banishes the influence of faith, it loses one of the main sources of compassion and justice.

And my view is summarized best by Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that the church should not be the master of the state or the servant of the state; it should be the conscience of the state. There are clearly some dangers here at the crossroads of religion and politics. The danger for America is not theocracy. Banning partial birth abortion and keeping the status quo of hundreds of years on marriage are not the imposition of religious rule. But religious people can develop habits of certainty that get wrongly applied to a range of issues from economics to military policy. The teachings of the New Testament are wisely silent on most political issues, and these are a realm of practical judgment and should be a realm of honest debate.

The deeper danger of course is the faith itself. A political and politicized and judgmental faith seems to miss the point. I’ve been a Christian all my life, but I still don’t feel competent to define it for others. I think, however, it has something to do with forgetting yourself and seeking the interest of other people. It has something to do with getting beyond petty fears and selfish ambitions and seeing God’s kingdom at work – a kingdom that’s not of this world. And when those kingdoms are confused, it is faith that suffers the most.
***<snip>

Mind if I ask, what are the "soul-destroying excesses of freedom"?! It must be abortion or gay marriage because there has been no condemnation of *'s illegal war in Iraq or the violations of the "10 commandments" by * and his corrupt administration. If past behavior predicts future behavior, we have a lot to dread from the GOP. That anyone could interpret *'s policies as grounded in Christianity amazes me! And do the oppressed have a vote in determining "a standard of values that stands above the political order"? Obviously not.

I am most alarmed by the last paragraph which I interpret as a nebulous statement which claims the superiority of GOD in the governance of mankind and that government must submit to His authority ("And when those kingdoms are confused..."). The danger of theocracy is right there in the confusion - and I have no doubt that there are religious men salivating over the prospect. Anyone who is familiar with fundamentalists theology will tell you that GOD trumps all - including American democracy.

Also alarming is the cultural superiority Gerson assigns to 'Christianity' in American history. I think any student of Western Civilization could refute most of his argument through simple citations of Greco-Roman history and culture.

I would also encourage Mr. Gerson to study more cultural anthropology. For untold generations, cultures have sought divine intervention to control the uncontrollable - that Christianity should succeed where others have failed seems delusional at best. Finally, that Gerson makes no acknowledgment of the horrors perpetrated upon humankind in the name of religion is an unbelievable conceit. He (and people like him) should know better.