[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by HelenM

Wrong. There is reason - the quote I supplied which says he does!

I've explained that this sort of PR image-building means very little -- which is not a selective comment about Bush, but a general truth about the media spin that handlers create around political figures. Remember the Newsweek story of Bush and Evans' two-year intensive study of Luke and Acts, in contrast with the report that Evans couldn't subsequently say what Acts was about?

Anyway, it's not true that he shows no interest in Scriptural themes. The key scriptural theme is God and clearly he talks about God more than most Presidents have.

"Clearly" is one of those words we all have to watch; it's so easy to substitute it where research and argument are lacking. You should look into the question of sheer number of references to God by presidents. You might be surprised by how often Clinton "talked about God".

In any case, you are again badly misdescribing the worry that has been pretty carefully expressed more than once now. It's how, and not how often, Bush refers to God that is a cause for concern.

I think you're confusing "he doesn't seek God's will" with "I object to how he seeks God's will".

Well, I am assuming that there are some behaviours that you would agree do not count as defensible on the grounds that one is seeking God's will. Am I right?

Compare:
-- What about when Bush ritually murdered those toddlers and used their entrails to scry the details of the Patriot Act? Was he just seeking God's will?

-- Oh, you're confusing "he doesn't seek God's will" with "I object to how he seeks God's will".

Uh-huh.

Now, legitimizing racist Bob Jones III is not as evil as murdering toddlers. But it is still grossly immoral. Where do you draw the line for those cases that can be vindicated as non-pathological on the grounds that one was just seeking God's will? That I'm objecting to how Bush seeks God's will has been obvious from the outset. The question is, shouldn't you be objecting too? Shouldn't all decent people?

I think that's exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the statement that he reads the Bible every day.

"Dismiss" is yet again a careful under-description of what I've said about such statements.

If you're going to dismiss quotes about what GWB does with "I don't believe it" then I agree that it's a pointless discussion.... I think it's highly likely you've misjudged him to some extent since you selectively dismiss things written about him simply because you don't believe them.

If you're unconvinced by the analysis and countervailing evidence regarding such reports, that's fine. If you can't be moved to address them directly, that's your business. But to pretend they have not been given, as if all I had said was "I don't believe it", is, I would have hoped, beneath you.