Bushology 101: Practical Rightwing Theology for 2004
[4-17-04]

Brian "BJ" Jordan - a resident of Florida and a member of Witherspoon - has sent this note with a sharp - and theological - analysis of President Bush's recent press conference.

Did you see Bush's press conference the other night?

There was a pretty chilling exchange from Bush where he began answering a question on the FBI and ended up expounding on his theology.

Here is the scary piece,

I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned. And my job as the president is to lead this nation and to making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing.

So God has called the United States and wants us to Feed the hungry, Heal the infirm and Kill people (Wage War). Clearly, our government is also chock full of clairvoyance because its been able to discern God's plan to the point of just where to spend our money - God must think the War is more important than the hungry or sick. And of course, we know - from a rightwing angle - that spending money to fight AIDS is akin to supporting Israel - in that it's a political necessity for security/popular opinion but in the end game (eschatologically) these are folks that the Religious Right sees as 'bound for hell anyway.'

In a rightwing Christian Context (if there is such a universal context for independent theological fascism) one acknowledges that before one can be 'called' one must be anointed or ordained by the Spirit. So the assumption has got to be what progressives have assumed all along: that Bush sees himself as the anointed leader, as the Messiah of a chosen people - the Americans. General Boykin was merely articulating the standing position within the administration and the neo-con movement. This war IS a crusade mandated by God, executed by His Messiah, against the heathens.

So...

1) America is the chosen nation.

2) Bush has been anointed and ordained by the Spirit to lead such.

3) God has called his chosen nation to impose its version of government and culture on the rest of the world.

4) To accomplish this, God given us 3 priorities: Wage War, Feed the Hungry, Fight AIDS.

5) Our Messiah has come down from the White House to impart this wisdom to the rest of us.

In light of the Bushology - Let's revisit Mel Gibson.

Why do Neo-cons "Love" the Passion by Gibson? It reinforces the black and white world view, it reinforces the necessity of suffering as we embark on our Crusade, it plays into the hand of Karl Rove to communicate Sacrifice as THE core message (not Love) of the Bush Communication Agenda. Gospels are representative of the times, places, people and culture of the world in which they originate. Gibson's gospel is no different: it arises out of a neo-con world view to justify the atrocities we commit, by pacifying God-fearing masses by assuring them that the sacrifice of their sons and daughters to the Crusade is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the suffering of Christ on the cross.

So comforting. Freedom of Religion? Religious Pluralism? Ha. Just don't get in the way or we will crucify you.

In the end - how different has the U.S. become, REALLY, from the Muslim extremist groups we seek to exterminate? When we talk about the psychological/theological subjugation of our own people, through the media and our leaders, so they accept the sacrifice of their sons and daughters for our leaders' god? Isn't THAT what Hamas, Hezbollah, Bin Laden, and other do and then strap their folks full of explosives before sending them to a downtown shopping mall? The Sacrifice message uses different words, but remains intact. The Religious Right isn't putting a harem of vestal virgins on the table for their Nirvana, but a closer walk with Thee. What we end up seeing is a difference merely predicated on the weapon "strapped" to the back of the innocent before they are sent to murder others and kill themselves. By virtue of our Capitalism we can afford Tanks, Smartbombs, and Howitzers, whereas our "enemy" can afford sticks of dynamite, Molotov cocktails, and their own bodies. Yet we decry the inhumanity of the use of untechnological weapons such as these. Isn't this indignation over weaponry indicative of the societal elitism trickling down from the top? In the end, regardless of how you slice it - with anyone's knife -the innocents of the world die for the closed minded theology of elites.

There's gotta be a better way. There's gotta be a liberal out there who is unafraid of a label and unafraid of taking a stand on religiously pluralistic theology.

Where have all the leaders gone?

The American people seem willing to "stand firm," as the President urges. But why?

[4-17-04]

Micah L. Sifry, a senior analyst with Public Campaign and the author of Spoiling For A Fight: Third-Party Politics In America, (Routledge, 2002), explores the question of why, in spite of so much evidence that the occupation of Iraq has been a terrible mistake, a majority of Americans continue to support the policies of President Bush.

He points to three major reasons for this support:

1.   The American people "believe Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11, and thus our invasion of Iraq was justified as self-defense and as an integral part of the war on terror."

2.   "They believe the Bush administration-Pentagon spin that things are just getting better and better for the Iraqi people, a message that is reinforced by our generally complacent media."

3.   "They think removing Saddam from power and helping the Iraqi people toward democracy justifies the costs."

But behind these reasons he sees a far deeper root for this "standing firm" attitude:

Many Americans believe that the United States can be a positive force in the world. It's part of our founding mythology----manifest destiny, the city on the hill----which was updated during the Cold War to include being "the leader of the free world." These myths die hard, and arguably they have a positive side: Americans do express strong support for universal human rights in the abstract, and for humanitarian intervention to aid suffering people in the particular. Of course, it's extremely rare for American policymakers to act in a purely humanitarian manner overseas. But once invoked by our leaders to dress up their foreign interventions, the human rights justification can take on a life of its own.

[4-17-04]

Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, suggests after President Bush's "stumbling performance at this week's press conference" that a healthy dose of the Christian virtue of meekness.

Since the President Bush "credits Jesus with changing his life, confesses a personal piety and discloses that he reads the Bible daily ... what he needs to do now is to read anew the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), focusing on one of the beatitudes in particular: 'Blessed are the meek.' "

Noting that the Biblical meaning of "meek" has little to do with weakness, but points rather to gentleness, mercy, and humility. Such meekness, he adds, "relates to a subdued strength of character, that ability to see one's own limitations of knowledge and action. Meekness is not passivity or defeatism. Meekness means being willing to express humility and to act humbly."