[Dialogue] Gloriosky!! A real, meaty dialogue: Fundamentalists court disaster

[Bill Schlesinger]

Haven't had this much fun since we got 7.75 inches of rain in one day this
week (which for us is a year's worth).

 

My read on the original article (folks can find it backwards somewhere if
they haven't read it) was that it lumped Bryan et. al. with Bush in such a
way that argued for an overtly triumphalistic fundamentalism as the secret
motive explaining all neo-conservative behavior (try reading THAT statement
in one breath!).   I did not intend to 'laud' Bush's activism, simply to say
that he does have some (as opposed to withholding any aid or peacemaking
efforts and thereby intending to drive the world to disaster so that it
brings in the Second Coming more quickly).  Nor am I arguing that Bush's
'rational' reasons are in any way correct - simply that the original article
doesn't challenge the Bush I see.

 

 

 

Bill Schlesinger
Project Vida
3607 Rivera Ave
El Paso, TX 79905
(915) 533-7057 x 207
(915) 490-6148 mobile
(915) 533-7158 fax
pvida at sbcglobal.net

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of jim rippey
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:23 PM
To: Dialogue
Subject: [Dialogue] Gloriosky!! A real,meaty dialogue: Fundamentalists court
disaster

 

 

Gloriosky!! A real, meaty dialogue  worthy of the Dialogue mission

Typically, I came at this backwards, read Bill Schlesinger's comment first.
(Re: [Dialogue] Bush's Fondness For Fundamentalism Is Courting Disaster)

As a Nebraskan, I am troubled by William Jennings Bryan's animus toward
evolution. But I am also aware of progressive stands he took on social and
economic issues and his courageous resignation as Secretary of State from
Pres. Wilson's cabinet. He did so in principled opposition to certain of
Wilson's foreign policy statements. So I began with mixed feelings.

I was particularly puzzled by Schlesinger's initial statement, "The argument
here does not hold full internal consistency." As I read on, I realized how
suspicious I am of Bush's motives in his charitable initiatives, which
Schlesinger applauds. Apparently I was distracted at that point by an
important personal message and it was only later that I noted George
Holcombe had written on the topic. And then, finally I read Harry's original
posting and saw that it was by Karen Armstrong, an author whose writings and
life I deeply admire.

So I read Armstrong's piece carefully, then reread both Holcombe and
Schlesinger. Now I am even more puzzled by the statement that Armstrong's
"argument" isn't internally consistent. Armstrong does ask, "Is there a
connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science, glaring
social injustice, and a war in the Middle East? Bush and his administration
espouse many of the ideals of the Christian right and rely on its support."
Then later Schlesinger states, "His (Bush's) actions in Israel and Iraq are
more closely linked to oil and other 'rational' values than we admit." At
least he puts "rational" in quotes.

But, if as president you feel a necessity to go to war for oil in the Middle
East, and you realize you must mobilize popular support, then whether or not
you share the "fantastic" beliefs of influential Fundamentalists, it's to
your advantage to motivate them to lobby Congress for your war. That's not
irrational or inconsistent, it's just cynical. Don't forget that Tom Delay
led a significant coterie of rapture believers and he did have Congressional
clout. Yes, Karen, I believe your suggestion that there was a connection, I
see no inconsistency. 

In the end, Schlesinger quotes Armstrong's statement again: "Is there a
connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science, glaring
social injustice, and a war in the Middle East?" Then is says, "The Catholic
Church is no friend to the latter two, but shares a sense of the question of
the first. Science says what we can do. Religious values argue for what we
should do - including caring for the poor and weak, seeking peace, and
acknowledging the complexities of the human condition."

Is Schlesinger arguing that the Catholic Church believes there is no
connection between any religiously motivated mistrust of science that helped
Bush build support for war in the Middle East? I'm aware that Armstrong
notes that "Thomas H. Huxley, who popularized the Origin of Species,
insisted that people had to choose between faith and science; there could be
no compromise" But it seems obvious that she is explaining how this all
started, not stating her own belief.. From everything of hers that I have
read, I cannot believe she lacks faith or that she would argue with the
proposition that "Science says what we can do. Religious values argue for
what we should do." 

Finally, I agree with George that "Politics majors in inconsistencies." I do
not believe that Bush is incapable of a kind, charitable act, one that is
totally uncynical.  I believe that all humans have a shred of decency in
them and will occasionally surprise us by acting charitably.  I remember
some years ago when the New York press had a field day telling how a group
of notorious gang members rushed into a burning building and rescued people.
"We just did what any red blooded American guys would have done," one said.
(It was the Gallo gang if my memory is correct.) 

Unfortunately, our world needs leaders who act decently, charitably and
responsibly consistently. Occasional acts of decency aren't by any means
enough. 

Jim Rippey, Bellevue, NE 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060802/4ca484e8/attachment-0001.html