Bush's Faith Worries Albright
From Reuters
Monday, May 22, 2006
LONDON - U.S. President George W. Bush has alienated Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says.
"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians. "President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us." Bush, a Republican, has openly acknowledged his Christian faith informs his decisions as president. He says, for example, that he prayed to God for guidance before invading Iraq.
Some Muslims have accused him of waging a crusade against Islam, comparable with those of the Middle Ages. The White House says it has nothing against Islam, but against those who commit terrorist atrocities in its name. But Albright says Bush's religious absolutism has made U.S. foreign policy "more rigid and more difficult for other countries to accept." In her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty," Albright recalls how Bush, while he was governor of Texas, told Christians he believed God wanted him to be president. She quotes from his speech to his party convention of 2004, when he told Republicans: "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. Some of his language is really quite over the top," Albright told Reuters on Sunday during a trip to London to promote her book. "When he says 'God is on our side', it's very different from (former U.S. President Abraham) Lincoln saying 'We have to be on God's side.'"
The 69-year-old, who worked for Carter in the late 1970s and was Clinton's secretary of state from 1997-2001, says the war in Iraq "may eventually rank among the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. history." She describes it as arguably worse than the Vietnam War -- not in terms of the number of people killed but because the Middle East is a more volatile region than southeast Asia. She also bemoaned "the growing influence of Iran" in the region and warned sectarian violence between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims could escalate into an all-out ‘Arab-Persian conflict.’ "We should not be contributing to what is a long historical struggle between the Sunni and Shia," she said.
Asked about her own beliefs, Albright said she had "a very confused religious background." Born and raised a Roman Catholic in Czechoslovakia, Britain and then the United States, she converted to Anglicanism when she married and only later in life discovered she had Jewish roots. It is this legacy which makes her wary of any religion which claims a monopoly on truth, she said. These days, she describes herself as "an Episcopalian (U.S. Anglican) with a Catholic background", recalling how she used to pray to the Virgin Mary as a child and still does. "I know I believe in God but I have doubts, and doubt is part of faith," she said.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
11 comments:
Albright's comments illustrate the problems with someone who believes there is some finite, single absolute truth being in politics. Politics is about compromise and considering multiple points of view. But how can Bush do that when he believes that his singular, faith-based world view is THE only correct one? He can't. And that's why he's dangerous.
Laura, it sounds like no Christian should be the president unless they can put their faith aside while making important choices?
Religion and politics are very dangerous bed-fellows. If the religion is absolutist and the politics is extreme enough its positively explosive. That's when you get statements being issued to the world that "you're either with us or against us".
Once a leader starts thinking that he has been 'chosen' and that his party or his country has been 'chosen' to do great things in the world you're going to have problems. Because understandable opposition becomes an act of defiance in the face of divine intention. In that way all opposition is evil and we all know you can't compromise with evil - right?
Having a leader with strong religious views inevitable leads to a strict polarisation between the righteous and the damned. It's the thinking that leads to putting everyone either into the 'friend' or 'enemy' camp. There is no room for dissent in this world view. No room for reasonable opposition. That makes it dangerous.
I saw an interview with Ms. Albright on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I've always admired her intelligence and political savvy. I think she hit it right on the money about the religious absolutism. No matter how good a Christian you are, when you believe you and your faith are absolutely right, it naturally says, everyone else is wrong. That's very antagonizing. I have studied enough religions and watched enough battles between people with differences, to follow a more Bhuddist train of thought, "there are many paths to heaven." We don't have to believe we've cornered the market on truth and that everyone else is wrong. There should be room to consider that maybe our Creator speaks to many people in many ways, and they will all be called to the Divine in the way that is right for them. As for mixing religion in with politics, that's like mixing oil and vinegar, they just don't blend well.
Very interesting.I had read most of this somewhere and then I saw her on Bill Maher and I think she said a lot of these things on his program on HBO...I like that she has spoken up about this, don't you? We need more people of faith to speak up...the way Jimmy Carter did at Coretta Kings Funeral..(Or was it Rosa Parks???..whichever--he was really strong.)
Sadie: CK said what I was going to say. It's not just Christians. Think about the reason why there are no democracies in Muslim countries... because the laws of God supercede any laws that humans can create (excepting the fact that most Muslim "laws" are based on human interpretations anyway - but that's beside the point).
You can't have anyone who is an absolutist in that type of public office. It just so happens that most absolute world views come from religion.
CK and VV hit the nail on the head.
If I believe that MY way is the ONLY way - then there's no reason for me to listen to anyone else's point of view or consider any evidence that contradicts my world view. But being able to do just that is what politics and legislation is all about.
Be it on Iraq, abstinence only education, stem cells, or whatever.
Politics and legislation are finding a compromise between multiple points of view on an issue that comes as close as possible to making everyone happy - and also allowing for future changes to be made to those decisions. Someone who believes that their way is the only right and true way has no incentive and no reason to compromise - in fact compromise goes against the very core of their beliefs.
So yes, no one like that (no matter what the basis of their beliefs - be it God or whatever) should be in an office that presides over the whole of so diverse a country as this.
Religion (is for once) not really the issue - its external justification of an extreme view. Its believing you are chosen in some way and that your power rests on some wider/higher authority, God's will, racial purity, Eternal revolution, vengance - pick your poison... its justifying any and all actions against a 'force' while you put aside personal responsibility for the consequences. No fanatic should ever rule, regardless of the nature of that fanatisism.
I can't believe I'm going to say something good about the French, :-) but their secular government even though it is quite a firm RC country seems to me to be spot on.
As has been said before - 'religion and politics don't mix'.
So then a Christian could be the president as long and God could govern his choices and convictions but the rest of the population wouldn't have to know this.
Sadie: Let's put it this way... ALL our Presidents have been Christians (with the debateable exceptions of Jefferson and Lincoln whose faith is often debated as Deist).
None of them felt the need to say God chose them to be president. What makes Bush different? Most past presidents could entertain and even encourage viewpoints that didn't match their own. What makes Bush different?
Personal convictions guide everyone's choices and morals - whether they come from God or not. The difference between Bush and a rational president is being able to appreciate the validity of a viewpoint other than your own. Being able to accept diversity of opinion and worldview.
Bush pushes his personal interpretation of Christianity onto every policy he creates - thus forcing it on all of us. He disregards dissenters and is dismissive of any point of view except his own. He treats dissent with a cavalier, pompous disregard. He has basically claimed a divine right to truth and law and thinks he has divine approval to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree.
That's no way to run a country - wouldn't you agree?
Yes. I agree.
:)
Post a Comment