March 26, 2004
ANTONYMIANISM, NOT ANTINOMIANISM:
The Faith-Based Presidency: You can question Bush's veracity, his grip on reality, and the rationality of his policies, but not his faith. (Jack Beatty, March 25, 2004, Atlantic Monthly)
George W. Bush has made rationality an antonym of Republican. His is the first faith-based presidency. Above the entrance to the Bush West Wing should be St. Paul's definition of faith—"the evidence of things unseen." [...]You can question Bush's veracity, his grip on reality, and the rationality of his policies, but not his faith. Turning to Jesus to escape from drinking was the turning point in his life. Sincerity, unreservedly giving your heart to Jesus, is the fulcrum of life-altering faith, say people who have experienced it. Reason, skepticism, critical thought, irony, argument—all threaten this sustaining emotional purity. You owe your life to a miracle, and it will go away if doubt creeps in.
All lives have the kind of soul-trying trouble that nearly cost George W. Bush his marriage. Some people see psychiatrists; others take medication; many turn to faith. And for many of this last group, I suspect, Bush's sins against reason, his privileging of his heart over his head, make up no small part of his appeal. Religiosity—intensity of faith and frequency of church attendance—now vies with race as a partisan predictor. Just as 9 in 10 African-Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000, so nearly 9 in 10 "high-commitment evangelicals" voted for George W. Bush. Altogether, evangelicals and white Protestant fundamentalists constituted 40 percent of Bush's vote. When Pat Robertson resigned as president of the Christian Coalition, in late 2001, Gary Bauer, a spokesman for social conservatism, said he knew why: "I think he stepped down because the position has already been filled..." President Bush "is that leader right now."
He's contemptuous of that faith and completely fails to understand how it translates into policy, but Mr. Beatty is right that this is the central fact about Mr. Bush and the partisan political divide in America.
You can't arrive at a belief in human dignity, inalienable rights, the necessity of freedom, and a basis for democracy without Judeo-Christianity. So George W. Bush can't use Reason to explain why the Iraqi people should be free. He's "reduced" to fundamentalist religious formulations, like this one:
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
just as the Founders--supposed Rationalists--could do no better than this:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Of course, Mr. Beatty can't use Reason to arrive at these things either. So, the choice is between faith, and American values, or Reason, and no values. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2004 4:58 PM
How can Mr. Beatty claim that President Bush is the first faith-based president? By reading the speeches of, among others, Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, do we not see a profession of faith? I suppose that Mr. Beatty would say that this was mere window-dressing; they could not really have been serious.
And when did they become self-evident?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 26, 2004 7:03 PMWhen we were Created.
Posted by: oj at March 26, 2004 7:30 PMFunny, the ancient Greeks weren't Judeo-Christians, yet reportedly they had some of that there "democracy".
In fact, "democracy" is a Greek word.
The Athenians had a great practice, that we would be wise to duplicate in America: Their Council of 500 was made up of people chosen by lottery.
The US House of Representatives should be filled in the same way: Anybody meeting the requirements for service, (age and citizenship), and who would like to serve, could fill out an entry. Every two years, we draw.
A modest entry fee of, say, $ 100, could fund the administrative costs, and keep the entrants restricted to people who were seriously committed. Actually, at $ 100 a head, in a lot of states such a lottery would generate a very nice surplus that could be used to keep taxes down. For instance, in California, if only 1% of the population were to participate in the lottery, it would bring in $ 35 million every two years.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 26, 2004 8:15 PM
Athens was a town. Communes work well too if you've a small enough group. Theocracy as well.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 12:52 AMFaith and reason are not mutually exclusive, so long as you don't apply the former to the worship of the latter.
Posted by: Chris at March 27, 2004 2:24 PMThe latter requires the former as a starting point.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 2:48 PMIf it's so darned self-evident, why didn't anybody notice it until the 1770s?
It isn't self-evident, and today, even after 200 years of publicizing it, not one person in five even believes it.
The conception was painfully developed by reason. It is not part of our basic mental package (because we don't have one) and no mere religious teacher ever enunciated it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2004 3:17 PMBecause why would the powerful concede it? No one willingly gives up power.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 3:25 PM"The latter requires the former as a starting point."
The latter requires a brain, and a common-sense education as a starting point. Freedom from coercion by dogmatic philosophies doesn't hurt either.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 27, 2004 3:27 PMReason is dogmatic though.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 3:33 PMReason is pragmatic.
Religion is dogmatic.
I'm sure you have heard the phrase "Religious dogma."
No one has ever heard the phrase "Religious pragma."
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 27, 2004 7:09 PMJeff:
You're certainly right that religion isn't pragmatic. However, reason is irrefutably dogmatic, requiring a faith in the material world which is not subject to reason itself.
Googling for "rational pragma" and "religious pragma" returns no hits for either.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 7:33 PMOJ, by your standard, all is dogma, since the material world is just the result of faith. Why do we even have such a word as "pragmatic"?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 27, 2004 8:26 PMRobert:
Because intellectuals/anti-religionists feel the need to think themselves above mere faith:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/745
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2004 12:33 AMOJ:
The former isn't there because it is redundant, the latter because it is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 28, 2004 7:52 AMJeff:
Ah, there's your problem: Pragmatism isn't rational. It's just a matter of the observer's feelings.
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2004 7:58 AMWalk out in front of any speeding trucks lately?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 28, 2004 12:16 PMJeff:
See, that's not actually a rational argument. Which demonstrates that Reason is overrated.
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2004 12:38 PMOkay, how's this.
At one time American Indians believed appropriate rituals and amulets protected them from bullets.
Those that changed their minds based on the evidence engaged in pragmatic reasoning.
Those that didn't, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, were religiously dogmatic.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 28, 2004 4:52 PMWhat Indians?
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2004 4:57 PMActually, Orrin, people do give up power voluntarily. That's the theme of Pirenne's "Early Democracy in the Low Countries."
Almost all social interaction involves giving up power.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 29, 2004 2:14 AMIt also uniquely doesn't occur in Christian societies.
Presuming, of course, that Orthodox Christians are Christian.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 29, 2004 6:43 PMJeff:
It was occurring in Orthodox Russia too, until the Bolsheviks intervened.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 8:38 PMYou'd better read the book, Orrin. It won't offer you much comfort.
Especially the part where the Christians label the capitalists "criminals."
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 30, 2004 1:18 PMCapitalists are criminals, unless restrained by Christian morality.
Posted by: oj at March 30, 2004 1:43 PMCapitalists are criminals, unless restrained by other capitalists.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 30, 2004 6:46 PM