Looking Back – Bush
We have come to the end of the Bush Presidency. There are many ways to think about the last eight years. Like all presidents, things were mixed. Bush did some things well, others badly. Overall, with the exception of the war on terror, things went pretty much as I expected, or rather as I feared. The defining issue of the Bush Presidency will be the war. In fact, there were almost three Bushes, Bush the Commander in Chief leading the war on terror, Bush the domestic President, and Bush the leader.
In the end, I believe that serious and objective historians will have a hard time faulting Bush the commander in chief. While his detractors quibble about various missteps here and there, more sober historians know that no serious war is fought without problems and missteps, and that the current one is no exception. Yet while the attacks of the critics are much louder, often to the point of hysteria, than in past conflicts, in comparison to past conflicts, this one has really gone amazingly well.
The big point of disagreement will be over the invasion of Iraq. But I believe that as time passes people will see that Bush was right, for the choice was really not, as it is so often portrayed a choice between removing Saddam or containing him. It is very clear now to any who care look, that the sanctions were not working as they had been thoroughly corrupted by the oil for food program. While it is true that Saddam had no large stockpiles of WMDs at the time of the invasion, it is likewise true that he did not need them, as he had plans and mechanisms in place to create them in a little as a few weeks, once the sanctions collapsed, which they were close to doing. So the belief that we could have simply contained Saddam was at best an illusion, and illusions do not make for good choices in history.
Most important, Bush was completely successful in preventing further attacks in the United States, something no one thought was even possible in the months following 9/11. So as commander in chief, Bush gets a B. The reason for B instead of an A, will be explained a little later.
This brings us to Bush the domestic President. Here the record is much more mixed. When Bush first started running in the primaries, I did not support him. While more of a conservative than his father, he still was at best moderately conservative. In addition, he kept talking about “compassionate conservatism.” This was a phrase I first heard from Pete Wilson when he was running for Governor of California. Wilson, a liberal Republican, who won the election, went on to massively increase state spending, and to destroyed the Republican Party in California.
Now I did not expect Bush to be as bad as Wilson. He did after all seem firmly committed to tax cuts. Still I believed that he would increase social spending. Looking back on the last eight years, one of the biggest problems of the Bush administration has been his lack of concern about spending. I would normally write this as a failure, but failure would imply that Bush had attempted to restrain spending and while he did this to some extent, it was too little too late. Instead he was active participant in much of the spending increases.
In fact on a whole range of domestic policy issues from spending to illegal immigration to education, Bush has been much more of a moderate standing in opposition to his party than anything else. The biggest successes have been his solid appointment of Judges, particularly to the supreme court, and his tax cuts which, despite the claims of his detractors, resulted in solid economic growth throughout most of his presidency.
The current economic problems are a major failure for his Presidency. The Bush administration early on saw the looming problems that were resulting from the sub-prime housing market pushed by Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac. But all his attempts to fix these problems were blocked by the Democrats, the last major effort being in 2005. When the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, any possibility of averting the current crisis became impossible. So as domestic President gets a C-.
During the early primaries, I saw some of Bush’s father in him and this brings me to Bush the leader. The elder Bush struck me as a good executive but without vision. He was great when dealing with a particular problem once it landed on his desk, as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait demonstrated, but did not really have any clear idea of where to lead the country. George W seemed to have a little more of this “vision thing”, but still was more of a manager than a leader, and ultimately seemed more geared for getting along, rather than leading.
This, I believe, is Bush’s most serious weakness as President. A President is not just a good executive, someone who can make tough decisions and see them through. The President is the leader of the nation, and in a democratic government it is incumbent on Presidents to not only say what they are doing but to present a case and argue for it in the public square. Bush did not do this.
That he could do it was demonstrated in the election of 2000, and 2004. But following the election Bush for the most part abandoned the public square to his opponents, leaving his supporters often puzzled as to why While House was not even attempting certain arguments, or presenting certain information, or in some cases saying anything at all. This was particularly true following the 2004 election. With no more elections to win, in many respects the Bush Presidency went AWOL from the public square, and his low approval rating are the results.
Now with no more elections to win, low approval rating may seem irrelevant, but again we live in a democracy, and a democracy that will go on after Bush leaves. Part of the process of governing as President in a democratic system is making the case for your policies before the people. Bush’s failure to lead on the war on terror, for example, has allowed his opponents to define our actions, resulting in a lessening of support for our current efforts and virtually precluding future ones.
As a result, the leaders of dangerous regimes such as Syria and Iran can relax, as Bush’s failure to lead on the war on terror in the public square has made it far more difficult that any real action would be taken to stop them. This is the reason for Bush getting only a B on the war, instead of an A, for this too is an important part of being Commander in Chief.
While of far lesser importance, but important never the less, Bush’s failure to lead and resulting low approval rating have translated to the Republicans as a whole. Bush is not only the President, he is the leader of the Republican party. But what can an organization do when its leader will not lead? Thus on leadership I give Bush a D.
Bush 41’s lack of the “vision thing” gave us Clinton. Pete Wilson’s “compassionate conservatism” destroyed the Republican party in California. So as I considered Bush the candidate back in 2000, while clearly for me better than Gore, I was concerned that whatever positives a Bush presidency would bring, they would be wiped out by a resurgent Democratic party resulting from the weakness I saw at the time. Sadly, these fears turned out to be correct.
Hitchens – God Is Not Great XXVIII
Listen to the MP3
In my extended review of Christopher Hitchens book “God Is Not Great,” I have finally reached chapter 17. At this chapter Hitchens has finished his main arguments against religion, the vast majority of which were examples of religious people behaving badly. Of course this leads to a natural question of what about atheists who have behaved badly. So here Hitchens attempts to show that same standard he has used to attack religion, somehow does not apply to atheism.
He sums up the situation writing, “When the worst has been said about the Inquisition and the witch trials and the Crusades and the Islamic imperial conquests and the horrors of the Old Testament, is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are, in the scale of things, at least as bad if not worse?” (pg 229)
Hitchens begins his defense with one of his typically sarcastic and false, comments that “it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists.” (pg 230). Hitchens “inexpensive observation” (pg 230) makes a number of errors key to this entire discussion. The first is that the argument against secularism is not that the crimes of the secular regimes equaled those of religion, but that in a single century they far exceed those of Christianity in 20 centuries. The Spanish Inquisition one the classic examples of the crimes of Christianity resulted in the deaths of about 2000 people. While a terrible crime these number hardly even compare to the 11 million dead in the concentration camps of Hitler, whose crimes don’t even compare to those of Stalin and Mao who were responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million people.
More importantly whereas the crimes of Christianity were the result a mixture of corruption in the church and barbaric nature of the past, the crimes of these secular movements occurred in the enlighten modern times, and were much more inherent to these regimes, than corruptions within them. So there is hardly any equating going on.
Primarily such arguments against secularism are aimed at showing the problems with atheist attacks in two ways. First, even if everything atheists said were true and characterized correctly, this would not argue in favor or secularism as secularism’s record is far worst. Second it shows the inconsistency, and thus illogical nature of the secular arguments, for the same reasoning can equally be used against them. Thus in reality it is not so much an attack against atheism per se, but rather atheist’s reasoning.
Following his initial remarks Hitchens proceeds with his main line of defense by first attempting to link these secular regimes to religion, writing, “For most of human history, the idea of the total or absolute state was intimately bound up with religion.” (pg 231) There are a whole range of problems here, not the least of which are historical. But there is more fundamental problem with this whole line of argument, for no matter how one attempts to make it there are tremendous problems.
First is the question of whether these secular movements were religious. If these secular regimes which were strongly anti-traditional religion were in fact religious, then one must have a definition of religion that is broader than just a belief in one or more Gods, a definition of religion that would include atheism.
Now, as I discuss in my book , Christianity and Secularism, I believe such a broader understanding of religion to be more accurate, and that atheism is at least fundamentally religious. But if this is the case, then atheists are either arguing against their own views, or their arguments must only apply to some religions, not all. Either way there are problems. The only other option would be to try and claim that their brand of atheism was not religious like these other types of atheism, but that would certainly involve special pleading.
On the other hand if these secular regimes were not religions, but only adopted a characteristic of religion, there are still major problems. For such characteristic to be found outside of religion would mean that these characteristics were not and of themselves religious but rather something that could be found in religious movements or non-religious movements, and thus could not be held against religion.
This in fact is a problem with most atheist arguments against religion, and is found throughout Hitchens’ book. That such evils can be found in religious people, in the end is little more than a confirmation of the biblical teaching that we live in a fallen world corrupted by sin, and that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)
However if this latter line is taken, the argument against secularism remains, for while these evils can be found in both religious and secular people, the secular regimes of the 20th century rejecting religious morality, and instead looking to science as there guide committed the greatest evils the world has ever know.
Based on Hitchens’ discussion, he seem to fall into the latter category, ultimately arguing, not so much against religion, but against “the totalitarian mind-set” that has “‘total answers to all questions.” While it allows Hitchens to distinguish his view of atheism from these other type of atheism, it likewise excludes all traditional religions that do not share such views. In short, we find that most of his arguments against religion have really been again something else.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Hitchens – God Is Not Great XXVII
Listen to the MP3
Chapter sixteen of Christopher Hitchens book “God Is Not Great,” deals with a question, one now routinely raised by the neo-atheists, of whether religion is child abuse. Hitchens starts with, “the imponderably large question. How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” (pg 217) Of course one could also ask the equally imponderably large question, how can we know how many children found comfort and joy in their faith?
I would suspect that it was far larger, but either way what Hitchens question once again reveals is the illogical nature of his approach, particularly how Hitchens attempts to jump from antidotal stories to grand universal conclusions. As a result the reader is often left agreeing with Hitchens condemnation of particular practices yet puzzled as to how this affects even Christianity in general, much less religion as a whole.
To see the problem consider the fact that all the hype surrounding Global Warming is causing many children to be worried some to the point of losing sleep and having nightmares. Now it would be quite reasonable to question the amount and types of information we are exposing our children to when it comes to the issues such as Global Warming. Yet if we were to apply Hitchens reasoning to this, we would conclude that we should not teach our children about science at all.
Still Hitchens argument get even stranger. As examples of immoral teaching inflicted on children Hitchens points to abortion. It is to his credit that Hitchens acknowledges the fetus to be an “unborn child” and not just a mass of flesh, and he is also correct that “this only opens the argument rather than closes it.” (pg 221) But from this he moves to justify abortion by pointing to the fact that there are miscarriages as if abortions were just another type of miscarriage. Frankly this would be like pointing to the fact some children die naturally before reaching adulthood and thus infanticide is just another form of infant mortality.
To make matters even worse Hitchens attempts to justify his view by pointing to evolution. Hitchens claims, “in utero we see a microcosm of nature and evolution itself. In the first place we begin as tiny forms that are amphibian, before gradually developing lungs and brains.” (pg 221) At first I did not fault Hitchens here. This myth was invented by Haeckel who deliberately distorted his drawing of the embryo to show a progress that in reality does not happen. While this has been known to be false for over a century, it continue to appear in textbooks, and so I was willing to give Hitchens a pass on this one.
But later in the book, Hitchens mentions Jonathan Wells and his book, Icons of Evolution, which details this fraud. Whether Hitchens’ rejection of Wells’ book is based on having read it, of if he just reflexively rejected it simply because it was critical of evolution is unclear. But either way he has no excuse for continuing to spread such a myth.
But things get even worse for Hitchens goes on to write concerning evolution, “the system is fairly pitiless in eliminating those who never had a very good chance of surviving in the first place.” When talking about natural processes, this is one thing but when this is used to justify family planning it comes dangerously close, if not to, eugenics. Ultimately there is a very strange paradox in this argument that Hitchens seems to be completely unaware of, for one of the major pieces of evidence that religion is child abuse that he gives is that religion opposes killing children in the womb.
From there he move to “the mutilation of infant genitalia.” While he attempt to equate the male and female circumcision, there is hardly any equation as they have different purposes and results. Female circumcision is really an attempt to eliminate any pleasure from sex. In addition, it is a social custom found in Northern Africa more than a religion custom, though it is often linked to Islam as that is the dominate religion in the area. But it is found among non-Muslims in the area, and is generally not practiced by Muslims outside of the area except among those who have immigrated. So the common link would be the culture for the area more than religion.
When it comes to male circumcision, there things are hardly as clear as Hitchens states. While there is a clearly Jewish injunction to be circumcised, there is no such Christian injunction as Acts 15 makes clear. As for the secular reasons for circumcision, the best one can really say is that this is a hotly debated topic. While Hitchens writes concerning the secular reasons for circumcision that, “Medicine has exploded these claims” (pg 226), a quick web search took me to the Mayo Clinic and a page to help parents with the pros and cons.
In the end Hitchens’ claim that Religion is Child Abuse like the previous claims is seriously flawed. However, his use of myth as if it were science, his flirting with eugenics type reasoning, and his strange claim that opposing abortion is an example of child abuse make this chapter one of his worse. If this chapter were indicative of secular rational thought, it would itself be a strong argument for religion. But in the end he simply fails to make his case.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Hitchens – God Is Not Great XXVI
Listen to the MP3
In Chapter fifteen of his book “God Is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens tries to make the case that “Religion is not just amoral, but positively immoral.”(pg 205) Last time I examined his claims for the first three of his points and ended by pointing out that, while I can see why Hitchens might see the atonement of Christ as a myth, he does not say why it is immoral? Strangely, he does somewhat address this point, not in the section on the atonement, but in the beginning of the next section which he labels as dealing with his final two points, eternal reward and the imposition of impossible tasks.
Pointing to the example of Sidney Carton in “A Tale of Two Cities,” Hitchens says that while he could “serve your term in prison or take your place on the scaffold… I cannot absolve you of your responsibilities. It would be immoral of me to offer, and immoral of your to accept.” (pg 211)
Two issues immediately came to mind upon reading this. The first was the ever present question of the basis on which Hitchens would say this was immoral? However, there is a deeper problem for when it comes to the major views of the Atonement, none are focused on the absolution of responsibility and several are focused on the payment of the price for sin, something Hitchens seems to be ok with. So, just exactly what Hitchens means by this, is at best unclear.
From there Hitchens moves on to address religious laws that are impossible to obey. There are a couple of problems with Hitchens complaint, not the least of which is Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees and how they “abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition” (Mark 7:8 ISV) which would seem to fit many of Hitchens examples.
But even beyond this there are problems. Several of Hitchens examples deal with how some religious groups make allowances for prostitution, such as the practice among some Muslim clerics to sanction short term marriages that will last just a couple of hours. Does Hitchens really believe that it is impossible for men to avoid availing themselves of the services of prostitutes? If not, then why is this included in his discussion of commandments that are impossible to follow?
At first Hitchens seem to be on somewhat better ground when he complains about the 10th commandment which he describes as forbidding “people to even think about coveting goods in the first places” (emphasis in original). But comparing Hitchens claim to that actual command quickly reveals problems. The commandment is not about coveting goods, but coveting that which belongs to someone else. Again is this so impossible?
Part of the problem here is Hitchens is never very clear by what he means by impossible to follow. Impossible to follow for everyone, in the sense that while not everyone will use the services of a prostitute, some cannot seem to resist the temptation. Or by impossible does he mean impossible for individuals to follow all the time? Then there is the problem that even if this was clearly defined and it was impossible, it would not automatically follow that the rule is itself immoral. For example, everyone has at some pointed has lied, and therefore one of the most obvious candidates for Hitchens’ category of rules that are impossible to keep would be the rule against lying. Yet few would want argue that it is immoral to have a rule against lying.
Now while Hitchens does not make the case very well, there is the issue that given our sinful nature, as the Bible clearly states in Romans, 3:23 “all have sinned and continue to fall short of God’s Glory.” (ISV) But the problem here is not in the laws, but in our in our sinful nature. Hitchens see this as itself a problem claiming “nothing could be sillier than having a ‘maker’ who then forbade the very same instinct he instilled,” (pg 214) though this argument somewhat ignores the fall.
Hitchens ends with a somewhat muddles discussion of the golden rule, and how we act out of self -interest. In all this confusion, distortion and rambling, Hitchens never quite gets around to addressing the immorality of eternal reward and punishment. But then that is part of the problem. Hitchens is not presenting a well thought out and reasoned argument. He just makes bold claims and then used them as an excuse to launch attacks on religion, or at least what he describes as religion as most of the time he is really only attacking a distorted strawman of his own creation, and thereby frequently leaving the reader puzzled as to what his actual argument is really trying to say, other than that Hitchens does not like religion.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Hitchens – God Is Not Great XXV
Listen to the MP3
In my extended review of Christopher Hitchens’ book “God Is Not Great,” I have reached chapter fourteen, “There Is No ‘Eastern’ Solution.” That Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism and all other eastern religions get but a single chapter, and relatively small chapter at that, demonstrates that Hitchens main concern is with the three monotheistic faiths. I am confident that the adherents of eastern religions will find much to object to in Hitchens brief critique, but I will leave it to them to defend their own faiths and will move on Chapter fifteen, “Religion as an Original Sin,” where Hitchens’ tries to make the case that “Religion is not just amoral, but positively immoral.” (pg 205)
Based on some of the criticisms addressed last time, this immediately raises the question of what foundation is Hitchens using as a basis for his moral claims, and why should his foundation be accepted? But these are questions that atheists rarely answer.
I will come back to the question of foundations in a moment, but first Hitchens list five points he finds immoral.
- Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous
- The doctrine of blood sacrifice
- The doctrine of atonement
- The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
- The imposition of impossible tasks and rules (pg 205)
Hitchens does not spend much time on the first point as he has addressed it earlier. But his claim that this is not just wrong but immoral deserves a reply and it immediately brings us back to the question of moral principles. I can understand why Hitchens would think that the Christian view of creation might be incorrect, but why it is it immoral?
It cannot be simply in the fact that he thinks it in error. This is because many of the things that have been taught under the heading of science have also turned out to be incorrect, and no doubt some of the things currently taught will likewise be shown to be in error as new discoveries are made. So if it were simply a question of teaching things that turned out to be incorrect all human inquiry would need to be considered immoral as all human inquiry is error prone.
For most, morality is not so much in the acts themselves, but in the choices behind those acts. The act of being correct or incorrect is an issue of fact, not morality. For morality to enter in, one must choose to be correct (i.e. honest) or incorrect (i.e. dishonest). But once again there is a problem for Hitchens as those who teach that God created the heavens and the earth do so because they believe it. So again they may be wrong, but why is this immoral? As with so many of the moral claims made by atheists, in the end, about the best you can say is that it is immoral because they said it was immoral.
When Hitchens moves on to blood sacrifice, things are not much clearer. The core of this section is spent on Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, and not really on blood sacrifice itself. The last half of the section is on religious violence, which while tragic and evil, does not really say anything about blood sacrifice.
From there Hitchens moves on to Atonement, and again his initial argument is at best confused and muddle, at least from the Christian view of atonement. For example, Hitchens will have no trouble finding Christians to stand with him to condemn the Aztec practices of human sacrifice.
At least Hitchens does spend the center of this section on Christ’s death as atonement for our sins. The core of his objection seems to center around questioning how he could in anyway be responsible for the death of Christ, or for Adam’s transgression as he “had no say and no part.” However, few Christians would agree that his rhetorical questions reflect an accurate depiction Christian teaching. Instead of dealing with the complexities of the issue Hitchens simply gives a distorted stereotype which he then mockingly knocks down.
He spends the last quarter of the section on anti-Semitism. Here at least Hitchens is dealing with real immorality for which the Church is at least to some extent responsible. However, there is a strange irony in his argument. Hitchens correctly argues that even if the Jews at the time of Jesus’ death where as a group uniquely responsible, (which by the way I believe would be an incorrect understanding of New Testament), it would be wrong to hold future generations liable as well. And yet he uses the crimes, and they were crimes, of some Christians in earlier generations, as a reason to attack the beliefs of those who had not part, no say and would and do condemn those crimes.
In any event, the corporate guilt of the kind that fueled anti-Semitism, is something quite different than atonement or even original sin. In the end once again I am left with the question that, while I can see why Hitchens might see the atonement of Christ as a myth, why is it immoral?
Hitchens does touch on this, in the his final section of the chapter where he addresses his last two points, and that is will I will pick up next time.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
