But this profile, 'though it provides specific examples, is consistent with what I've heard before. Gossipy? Then skip it.
But, I would just like to hear one evangelical Christian - any evangelical Christian - say, "I was so wrong about Bush." That would make my day.
The final minute of the interview is worth hanging on for:
Gross: In your estimation, people didn't pay enough attention to George W. Bush's religion in 2000 when he was elected the first time.In other words, Bush epitomizes those fundamentalist tendencies that Weisberg recommends, in the preceding question, avoiding among presidential candidates.
Weisberg: I think that what's most important about it, again, is not the theology, because there's not very much theology there, but the fact that religion is part of the way he decides things peremptorily.
Because he sees things very simply in terms of right and wrong, because he has a simple moralistic outlook on the world, I think he uses religion, one of the ways he uses religion unproductively is to avoid debate, discussion, deep thinking, reconsideration. It helps him jump to a conclusion.
And I think understanding the way his mind works and the way he uses religion as a kind of crutch for that, I think is something we should have understood better.
2 comments:
Just because a candidate says he's pro-life doesn't mean he's qualified to command the military forces that for better and for worse defend the free world.
My ideal candidate would be an orthodox Catholic and former infantryman who is conservative in thought and pragmatic in political experience, yet someone who has been an active member of a lay apostolate such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Our humanity doesn't fit in a box.
Who said Bush is pro-life?
Your other points, well-taken. Thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment