Apoccalyptic President

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Apocalyptic President
By Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian UK

Thursday 23 March 2006

Even some Republicans are now horrified by the influence Bush has given to the evangelical right.

In his latest PR offensive President Bush came to Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday to answer the paramount question on Iraq that he said was on people's minds: "They wonder what I see that they don't." After mentioning "terror" 54 times and "victory" five, dismissing "civil war" twice and asserting that he is "optimistic", he called on a citizen in the audience, who homed in on the invisible meaning of recent events in the light of two books, American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips, and the book of Revelation. Phillips, the questioner explained, "makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this? And if not, why not?"

Bush's immediate response, as transcribed by CNN, was: "Hmmm." Then he said: "The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way. Here's how I think of it. First, I've heard of that, by the way." The official White House website transcript drops the strategic comma, and so changes the meaning to: "First I've heard of that, by the way."

But it is certainly not the first time Bush has heard of the apocalyptic preoccupation of much of the religious right, having served as evangelical liaison on his father's 1988 presidential campaign. The Rev Jerry Falwell told Newsweek how he brought Tim LaHaye, then an influential rightwing leader, to meet him; LaHaye's Left Behind novels, dramatizing the rapture, Armageddon and the second coming, have sold tens of millions.

But it is almost certain that Cleveland was the first time Bush had heard of Phillips's book. He was the visionary strategist for Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign; his 1969 book, The Emerging Republican Majority, spelled out the shift of power from the north-east to the south and south-west, which he was early to call "the sunbelt"; he grasped that southern Democrats would react to the civil-rights revolution by becoming southern Republicans; he also understood the resentments of urban ethnic Catholics towards black people on issues such as crime, school integration and jobs. But he never imagined that evangelical religion would transform the coalition he helped to fashion into something that horrifies him.

In American Theocracy, Phillips describes Bush as the founder of "the first American religious party"; September 11 gave him the pretext for "seizing the fundamentalist moment"; he has manipulated a "critical religious geography" to hype issues such as gay marriage. "New forces were being interwoven. These included the institutional rise of the religious right, the intensifying biblical focus on the Middle East, and the deepening of insistence on church-government collaboration within the GOP electorate." It portended a potential "American Disenlightenment," apparent in Bush's hostility to science.

Even Bush's failures have become pretexts for advancing his transformation of government. Exploiting his own disastrous emergency management after Hurricane Katrina, Bush is funneling funds to churches as though they can compensate for governmental breakdown. Last year David Kuo, the White House deputy director for faith-based initiatives, resigned with a statement that "Republicans were indifferent to the poor".

Within hours of its publication, American Theocracy rocketed to No 1 on Amazon. At US cinemas, V for Vendetta - in which an imaginary Britain, ruled by a totalitarian, faith-based regime that rounds up gays, is a metaphor for Bush's America - is the surprise hit. Bush has succeeded in getting American audiences to cheer for terrorism.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of The Clinton Wars.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Even Bush's failures have become pretexts for advancing his transformation of government. Exploiting his own disastrous emergency management after Hurricane Katrina, Bush is funneling funds to churches as though they can compensate for governmental breakdown. Last year David Kuo, the White House deputy director for faith-based initiatives, resigned with a statement that "Republicans were indifferent to the poor".
---------------------article posted by Darkbeaver-----------

Actually many Republican voters are indifferent
to the poor. That's true.

Even Bill O'Reilly of Fox, much hated by the moralistic
left, remarked after interviews with Bush, that he Bill
O'Reilly felt Bush had no burning passion for the
plight of the poor.

Well duh.

But it's long been a fact that Churches and religious
groups have performed excellent help for the poor,
and the natural inclination would be to ask, hey, why
not dump some tax money into those great programs
that work?

A lot of churches don't want to deal with government
bureaucracy paperwork if they accept the money.

And I'll bet some of the transfer of govt.money to
these private charities and churches ruined their '
programs.

Some may have done well, but temptation to screw
it up comes with tax money handouts.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Re: RE: Apoccalyptic President

jimmoyer said:
But it's long been a fact that Churches and religious
groups have performed excellent help for the poor,
and the natural inclination would be to ask, hey, why
not dump some tax money into those great programs
that work?

Because its innapropriate for the government to grant money to any religious organization. Doing so tends to lead to preferencial treatment of one religion over the others. Or, at the very least, withholding monies from those organizations who do not necessarily hold the same views, to the same extent, as the current administration.

Heh, ST Enterprise just came on. Main theme, "I've got, I've got faith of the heart..." :lol:
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Well I tend to think government funding tends to
ruin any organization, be it a private charity or
an excellent church aid group.

Preferential treatment doesn't worry me, because
whether you do it right or wrong, you cannot fund
everybody and of course someone is going to feel
slighted.

You see that problem everywhere by the advocates
of noble causes, complaining why another group got
it and they didn't get it, be it about attacking a disease
or helping one group of poor in one town and not another or aiding pancreas cancer one year over
heart disease prevention another year.

I don't find the aid given to church groups who
excel at what they are doing a nefarious situation.

I only worry that inevitably that kind of money
might corrupt and ruin that church group.

And after having pointed out some of those matters
I do understand your point, but I don't view it as
some insidious attempt at control, because that's
what defines all politics.

Also conservatives have long admired how well
some of these church groups meet their objectives
while most government programs don't.

It's been looked at for a long long time and
discussed openly.

No conspiracy there.

Nor does it defile the hallowed church and state
separation.

Germany requires all its students to take religious
history every year until graduation and there's no
earthquake about church-state lines.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Re: RE: Apoccalyptic President

The problem is that there is a Director of Faith-Based Initiatives in the first place. There is no reason to give preferential treatment to religious charities over secular ones, especially in a country in which that violates its constitution.

Although, I'd have to agree that government funding should be kept to a minimum.

Germany requires all its students to take religious
history every year until graduation and there's no
earthquake about church-state lines.

There is a vast difference between teaching the history of religion, and teaching a religion class. One is secular, the other is prostelysing.

Anyway, I really don't want to get into a debate over the relationship between church and state. I have another forum for that, and I have a habit of being condesending towards peoples' religious view online. Bad online habit. :oops: I just wanted to give a quick thought on what you said.