Ahmadinejad's UN halo

He's a real budding Hitler megalomaniac. I hope we can rain on his parade before it's too late.

I just sent this comment to Dr. Rusty Shackleford (The Jawa Report) re a prior post of mine:

You got that right!

[...]

Just noticed the pun re my post yst on the Iranians attempting to block blogs [Dr Zin's - Regime Change Iran].

Rain on his parade and Mad Mullahs of Iran will melt away in the intense light of the free world just like the Wicked Witch of the East did when splashed with a bucket of water in the Wizard of OZ.

Regime Change Iran - comment

Ron

Boy oh boy. As if it were not enough to deal with the mullahs arrogance and obstinance of anything non-muslim, now we have to listen to semi-elected leaders anointing themselves with holiness and proclaiming divine intervention. Is this self serving or what?

Here's the excerpt, because the link will become unavailable:

"Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

"He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

"I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Where's the part at the end where he starts going "I'm kookoo for cocoa puffs! kookko for cocoa puffs! Helter skelter! Helter skelter!"

But you know, liberals think that folks liekwe this have a right to the atom bomb.

Recalling some of the fundamentalist end-of times Christian pronouncements from some of the White House Gang, why would it be so outrageous when a fundamentalist of another religion says what he experienced?
Another point of view would be that the same Gang is not listening to God anymore, and God clicked His remote and moved on to try a channel of other believers.

There is, of course, a difference between belief in G-d, belief in a personal relationship with G-d accessible to all believers, and even a belief in some level of divine providence - and a belief that one is gifted by Allah with supernatural powers that manifest during highly public situations wherein the rest of the world doesn't appear to notice them.

Tom Vikander, who supports the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, is probably hoping to be next on the channel-clicker....

There is also the (now-denied) issue of Ahmadinejad forcing his aides to swear allegiance to the 12th Imam and then dropping it down a well in Qom where they believe him to be occultation.

The issue, however, isn't merely that Ahmadinejad believes he gets a halo when he addresses the UN General Assembly. If that were all he believed, we could regard him as ineffectual loon the same way we do the great and all-powerful Turkmenbashi. The thing with Ahmadinejad is that if you throw that together with his other public statements (wiping Israel off the map comes to mind) you increasingly start to reach the conclusion that you are no longer dealing with a rational actor, which goes back to the whole issue of whether you want this man to have nukes.

"Bush’s closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush’s first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President’s religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said."

sneek preview from Seymour Hersh.

Also we know of Bush publicly stating that "god told me to smite the....and I did"

That's what makes Iran dangerous. Their government is headed up by someone who is as bat shit crazy as the guy heading up our government. With both "leaders" hearing the voice of god an receiving instruction from god about how to deal with enemies, we have a ptentially explosive situation on hand.

Ok, now you wingnuts can tell me that I am an agent of terrosists and, perhaps satan, because I can't recognize the obvious truth that Bush's god is the real God and that Ahmadinajad's god is a delusional false construct deriving from a deranged personality.

Has anyone here actually done any research into the Crusades and the crusaders? even watched the History channel special mini-series?

Just curious.

No, avedis, if you think that Bush and Ahmadinejad are substantially equivalent, you are either:

1 - A fool
2 - A liar

avedis, cherry-picking intelligence is one of the worst things you can possibly do.

As Joe notes, it is impossible to equate the degree to which Bush and Ahmadinejad have allowed faith into their decision-making processes.

But make no mistake that both leaders have acknowledged doing so. In Bush's case, furthermore, there frequently appears to be a concerted PR effort to link the two.

Given this, and acknowledging the differences in degree, why is it OK for Bush to cite divine inspiration but not Ahmadinejad? In both cases, leaders in control of military forces are appealing to faith, not reason, to justify their actions. And as such, they cannot be challenged by reason or logic.

And this, my friends, is a property that seems in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of a Democracy.

So, whatever the degree, it is both intolerable in America and dangerous in Iran.

And I don't think it is right to dismiss avedis or anyone else for pointing this out.

Perhaps this guy will decide to attack the America BEFORE he gets the Bomb. I mean, if he has divine protection, why not? One can only hope so....

And, I HAVE researched the Crusades. They were, at least in part, a long-delayed reponse to Islamic imperialism. Example: Edessa and Antioch, which became two of the most important Crusader states, had both been Christian-ruled within living memory, before falling to the Islamic onslaught.

Hmm, because Bush has not forced everyone in his administration to perform weird ceremonies dedicating allegiance to the 12th Imam? Because Bush has not called for the destruction of Israel and America as a holy calling? Because Bush does not have a clandestine nuclear program and ties to every Islamic terrorist organization on the planet?

I just dont have the outrage in me anymore to deal with this kind of idiocy. I'll let Lileks do it:

"I understand why some on the left loathe Bush; what I do not understand is why this is so often coupled with a reflexive desire to downplay the words and deeds of people like Ahmadinejad. It’s as if they fear that admitting the threat he poses means that the case for HATING BUSH 24/7 will be weakened, and there’s no possible way to justify such a thing"

avedis:

See #5-6 as to an explanation for why Ahmadinejad believing that he manifests a halo is a Bad Thing.

I think you may want to seriously reevaluate your moral equivalency if the only way you can fathom just how bad Ahmadinejad is is to compare him to Bush.

"Ok, now you wingnuts can tell me that I am an agent of terrosists and, perhaps satan, because I can't recognize the obvious truth that Bush's god is the real God and that Ahmadinajad's god is a delusional false construct deriving from a deranged personality."

My differences of religious opinion with respect to the nature of the Almighty with Ahmadinejad aside, I think it's nothing short of offensive to millions of Twelver Shi'ites to assert that in order to respect their religion we have to buy into the idea that a tyrant like Ahmadinejad can manifest a halo.

I know more than enough about the Crusades to know that attempted formulation of it is wrong. In a fair number of cases (particularly once Outremer got set up) the Crusaders and the Muslims alike had a fairly sophisticated understanding of one another's religions. That's why the Crusaders wrote such nice things about Saladin that were only later picked up by the Islamic world.

Walter's Ridge:

"As Joe notes, it is impossible to equate the degree to which Bush and Ahmadinejad have allowed faith into their decision-making processes.

But make no mistake that both leaders have acknowledged doing so. In Bush's case, furthermore, there frequently appears to be a concerted PR effort to link the two."

Because the issue at hand is not simply faith (unless you want a religious test for public office, which is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution) but rather in the case of Ahmadinejad an apparently sincere belief that he manifests supernatural phenomenon like halos that when put together for his other stated policy preferences (wiping Israel off the map, nuclear proliferation, and so on) are what make him such a worrisome actor. Bush's foreign policies, whether you like them are not, have been argued on the basis of secular terms regardless of whatever you feel the reason is for why he seeks to advance them. I don't think that you can make the same case with respect to Ahmadinejad on issues like his stated view towards Israel.

"Given this, and acknowledging the differences in degree, why is it OK for Bush to cite divine inspiration but not Ahmadinejad? In both cases, leaders in control of military forces are appealing to faith, not reason, to justify their actions. And as such, they cannot be challenged by reason or logic."

Bush does not argue for military action on the basis of sectarian beliefs - everything he does can be supported or criticized on a purely secular basis even if you think he's wrong. Arguing to the contrary indicates more about the person making the claim than anything else. I don't think that you can make that argument with respect to Ahmadinejad.

"So, whatever the degree, it is both intolerable in America and dangerous in Iran."

Always nice to see people's willingness to shred up the constitutional guarantee against a religious test for public office ...

C'mon, Mark, that's weak.

First, neither I nor avedis are trying to downplay the words of Ahmadinejad.

Second, how we or anyone else feels about Bush is irrelevant to the argument, which should either stand or fall on its merits. If you want to address those, fine, but if not, and all you have to offer is "ignore the Bush Haters", then your contribution to advancing ideas that are worth discussing is of very narrow value.

It is frequently the case that one point raised in a commentary leads to connections being made to others, is it not? But when one reflexively tries to dismiss criticism of the President by claiming it is "reflexive 24/7 Bush Hating", you really have to wonder where the problem lies in this case.

Im not the one making the comparisons. Either you think Ahmadinejad isnt as dangerously psychotic as we do, or you think Bush actually is too. You seem to be claiming the latter, which in my opinion is in fact the more outrageous of the choices. I suppose I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your defense doesnt shield you from Bush Derangement Syndrome, it confirms it.

Dan D

I find it strange that one of your main lines of argument seems directed against the presumed idea that I or avedis or anyone else are defending or minimizing Ahmadinejad's statements or actions by trying to equate them to Bush's. Interesting parallels exist, and in each individual context are worrisome. This is an interesting point IMO. It therefore seems tangential to this that one should want to focus only on differences rather than similarities. Perhaps that reveals more about the person making the arguments than anything else?

"..Ahmadinejad an apparently sincere belief that he manifests supernatural phenomenon like halos that when put together for his other stated policy preferences (wiping Israel off the map, nuclear proliferation, and so on) are what make him such a worrisome actor."

Can you cite an example of other supernatural phenomenon that Ahmadinejad believes he manifests? Your statement is written so as to imply it is but one among others ("phenomenon like halos").

"Bush does not argue for military action on the basis of sectarian beliefs..."

I think you mean to say "only on the basis of sectarian beliefs", don't you? And I would caution you against trying to assert that there is no evidence that Bush has not invoked faith WRT military action.

"...everything he does can be supported or criticized on a purely secular basis even if you think he's wrong."

That's not really the point. See above. If leaders seek to intermingle their faith into their policies, it has the effect of insulating them from rational or secular inquiry. Has Bush resorted to this? Not yet. But, judging by his record to date, I certainly would not put it past him to resort to proclamations of faith if all else fails. After all, he claims to be a devoutly religious Evangelical Christian who appears to believe in the superiority of God's will over man's, does he not?

"Arguing to the contrary indicates more about the person making the claim than anything else."

I'd appreciate it if you would try to confine your comments to my statements, and ask directly, rather than presume, what you think my argument might be motivated by, if that is of interest to you above and beyond the main points.

"Always nice to see people's willingness to shred up the constitutional guarantee against a religious test for public office .."

This I don't get.

Walter's Ridge:

"I find it strange that one of your main lines of argument seems directed against the presumed idea that I or avedis or anyone else are defending or minimizing Ahmadinejad's statements or actions by trying to equate them to Bush's."

In avedis's case, he stated that Ahmadinejad was just as crazy as Bush, so that sounds a good deal like moral equivalence to me.

"Interesting parallels exist, and in each individual context are worrisome. This is an interesting point IMO. It therefore seems tangential to this that one should want to focus only on differences rather than similarities. Perhaps that reveals more about the person making the arguments than anything else?"

Not at all. Near as I can tell, both of you are attempting to conflate/compare/draw similarities between Bush's personal religious adherence and the outspoken religious fanaticism of the president of a bonafide theocracy.

"Can you cite an example of other supernatural phenomenon that Ahmadinejad believes he manifests? Your statement is written so as to imply it is but one among others ("phenomenon like halos")."

Not exactly. What Ahmadinejad was referring to wasn't exactly a halo per se as we understand it in the Christian sense, I don't know if there's a Shi'ite religious term for what he's referring to or not. It was a badly-worded statement in any case.

"I think you mean to say "only on the basis of sectarian beliefs", don't you? And I would caution you against trying to assert that there is no evidence that Bush has not invoked faith WRT military action."

No, I don't. Bush has never utilized religious-based arguments with respect to public policy as far as military action was concerned as a simple review of his public statements on both Afghanistan and Iraq will demonstrate. As far as the BBC link is concerned, the evidence in question is a second-hand anecdote from the Palestinian foreign minister concerning a comment that would have likely been relayed to him via translator in any event. In any case, whatever he believes behind closed doors is irrelevant to how he argues issues within a public context.

"That's not really the point. See above. If leaders seek to intermingle their faith into their policies, it has the effect of insulating them from rational or secular inquiry. Has Bush resorted to this? Not yet. But, judging by his record to date, I certainly would not put it past him to resort to proclamations of faith if all else fails. After all, he claims to be a devoutly religious Evangelical Christian who appears to believe in the superiority of God's will over man's, does he not?"

Indeed he does, though IIRC there is a whole school of thought among his critics that the whole religion thing is nothing more than a convenient veneer designed to woo the dumb masses into accepting him as being one of their own. I can't speak to the truth or falsity of his claims with any authority, but it's irrelevant so long as the entire debate around the policies in question are being framed in purely secular terms. I would also be exceeding wary at drawing a distinction between sincere religious belief and rational inquiry.

"I'd appreciate it if you would try to confine your comments to my statements, and ask directly, rather than presume, what you think my argument might be motivated by, if that is of interest to you above and beyond the main points."

It was intended more as a general statement towards those who adhere to this school of thought than referencing you either specifically or in particular.

"This I don't get."

You wrote:

"In both cases, leaders in control of military forces are appealing to faith, not reason, to justify their actions. And as such, they cannot be challenged by reason or logic.

And this, my friends, is a property that seems in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of a Democracy.

So, whatever the degree, it is both intolerable in America and dangerous in Iran."

Following that argument through to its logical conclusion, it would seem to reason that people who hold to such religious views should be removed from office. The result of doing so would be to create a religious test for public office, which is expressly forbidden under the Constitution.

"In any case, whatever he believes behind closed doors is irrelevant to how he argues issues within a public context."

I'll agree to a point, but also note that it might be very relevant (revelatory, in fact) to trying to understand those arguments.

Inquiring about the source of a politicians beliefs seems a fundamental goal of most voters or citizens, wouldn't you say?

I suppose I am liberated to do this because, as I've been told above, I "hate Bush", not because this is an interesting and important issue to explore. I'm not sure I can relate to the notion that a political viewpoint would constrain my basic curiosity about things. Or perhaps Bush supporters are curious too, but afraid to admit this for fear of giving up ground in a political debate.

Another reason to hate politics. Truth becomes relative.

Can I argue simultaneously that understanding my personal beliefs is irrelevant to my arguments, as I did above, but not to Bush's? Well, answer this: do my decisions and arguments affect the lives of millions?

But I digress.

OK, I've had enough of this nonsense.

"In both cases, leaders in control of military forces are appealing to faith, not reason, to justify their actions. And as such, they cannot be challenged by reason or logic."

Clearly, you've never sat in on a theological debate. Every statement of faith is open to debate, and most particularly prophetic statements always require scrutiny of the highest order to discern and divine what sort of spirit motivates the statement. If George W. Bush made a directly prophetic statement, believe you me, no one would be weighing his words more than the religious community.

"And this, my friends, is a property that seems in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of a Democracy."

Faith is in direct conflict with the fundamental princles of Democracy? Religion is in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of Democracy? What in the world do you consider to be the fundamental principles of Democracy? How can a foundational principle of Democracy exclude from consideration the ideas of the majority of the electorate, or even for that matter the minority of the electorate.

Does this statement sound familiar to you?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by thier creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is a statement of FAITH, not only or merely a statement of REASON. It is a statement of course like any other statement open to debate over its reasonableness, but the author of that statement did not even try to prove the reasonableness of such a statement. When you say things like 'self-evident', 'created' and 'endowed by thier creator' you are making statements of FAITH grounded in appeals to higher power, and you are not leaving them open for debate. You are taking it ON FAITH that men are created equal and have inalienable rights. You are taking it ON FAITH that governments and rulers owe thier authority to the consent of the governed, and not as some others argued solely to a higher power. You aren't opening a line of rational inquiry when you say that a statement is 'self-evident'. In other words, the fundamental principles of Democracy you are laying down as tenents of FAITH, knowing that without faith in those tenents that a government so founded would not endure long. The foundational principles of Democracy in this country are not laid down only in reason but in FAITH, and indeed couched in an appeal to the unnamed civic God of America (that unnamed and nebulous God in which we trust).

Nonetheless, there is no such thing as an unquestionable statement of faith. A statement of faith does not make the claim that you cannot question my claim, but rather only that I will no longer question the claim. You can make arguments over whether that is good or bad, but there is nothing at all undemocratic about that.

"So, whatever the degree, it is both intolerable in America and dangerous in Iran."

No, sir. It is you that wish to impose upon us an anti-Democratic religious test which seriously endangers the freedoms and principles upon which this country was founded. It's you who can't see the difference between theocracy and religious freedom. It's you who wish to impose a tyranny of secularism set up in opposition to the tyranny of Iran, and frankly I think even that is to attribute to you a better character than you have evidenced, because to be frank you seem more or less unmoved by the tyranny of Iran. You seem rather to fear more the fantasies, rumor, and innuendo you've created, than the plain and reality unfolding.

"But I digress."

Yes, you do.

Avedis/Walter, perhaps you are familiar with another evangelical Christian President who believed that God offered him guidance and openly talked of praying in his office?

And perhaps another well known evangelical Christian who was also of the same manner (talking of God's guidance and praying in the Oval Office)?

Do Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter ring any bells? Clinton spoke openly of praying with Jessie Jackson for guidance during the Monica Lewinsky crisis, and also during Desert Fox (bombing Iraq) in 1998-99. Carter prayed with Billy Graham for guidance during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Given that Bush has said over and over again that he does not view Islam as the "enemy" and has invited various Muslim clerics to the White House; and his Secretary of Transportation has specifically forbidden profiling of Muslims on airplanes (a sensible measure after 9/11 and even before it), only one conclusion can be drawn.

Both yourself and Sy Hersh have no objection whatsoever when LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are Evangelical Christian Presidents, but hate it when REPUBLICANS are Evangelical Christian Presidents, to the point of comparing them to people who wish to complete Hitler's final solution.

Because if your objection was purely religious, you'd condemn JIMMY CARTER and BILL CLINTON in the same statement as Ahmadinejad and Bush. Heck add FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ who all talked of their faith in God and the role of religion in their lives and the moral basis for decision making.

The only logical conclusion is BDS.

And would an aethist president such as Walter would wish automatically be comparable to Stalin or Mao in the same way a president of faith is comparable to Ahmadinejad?

Calling a 'shovel a shovel'

OK I'm done.

"This is a war of Good vs Evil. An yes I see parallels between our time and Tolkein's Ring Trilogy."

Ron sums up the reason I invoked Bush's religiosity.

I think Ron has the courage - or is drunk enough - to say what many many Americans (say, about 35% of them) have in the hearts. I also think that Ron succinctly sums up Bush's heart.

Dan, as you love to disect Islam into lemarkianesque categories, separating out the "good" islamic lines of thought from the "bad", I think we can certainly apply the same scalpel to christianity.

The christianity of Carter seems to be a different strain than that of Bush. Carter adheres to message of peace, love forgiveness of the New Testament (give it a name) and Bush to the end of time times type, smite thy enemies, punish the sinners passages (again, give it a name).

Yes, I am saying that there are parellels between the religion of Bush and the religion of Ahmadinejad. Both are dangerous men when placed in control of armies/countries. Both are sufficiently deficient in rational balance as to render themselves risks to global security. Neither has the right stuff to reposibly lead.

While this was originally a post about Bush, I am the kind of person who thinks that it is as important to see the board in your eye as it is to see the board in neighbor's eye.

You guys want wage war. Then be real warriors. A warrior must be as honest about his own deficits as he is about the enemy's.

Dan, you gloss disingenuously over the crusades and the admittedly subtle point I was making regarding them. The crusaders were ruthless killers. They even slaughtered christians (e.g. Armenians). All in the name of Jesus, of course. The name of jesus justified the slaughters and, somehow, the plunders and personal wealth enhancements.

Bush sounds an awful lot like the crusaders and, to the extent he does, he plays into Bin Laden's hand.

Finally, in response to Walter's ridge, Dan backs off the premise of his post which seems to be that Ahmadinejad is totally nuts. Dan concedes that the halo staement might have actually had different conotation than the English translation.

If you knew that up front, why did you not qualify as such in the original post?

The reason, of course, is that Dan and his handlers are agitating for war with Iran. His job is to get you all hot and bothered so you'll be gung ho when the time comes.

As Michael Ledeen (Dan's mentor) wrote in one of his bloviations...er um ...books, poor slobs are motivated to join the armed forces and fight and die by religion.

Dan's job is to to motivate you. Convince you that your GOD is good is theirs is twisted and evil.

Fundamentalism whatever the stripe is bad news and probably dangerous because it reduces everything into polar opposites, good and evil, black and white. It is basically the refuge of brain lazy dummies.
They'll come for you eventually, all of you who think you are on the right side of God.

What is it with this guy J_e who can't type "God" ?
And what's with his style of always commenting about what and who I am? I can do that myself, thank you very much.
If he doesn't want comments on what he initially posts why does he write at all here? Or is he only expecting lauditory fawning and mirroring of his views? Boring !
Fill me in fellas.

avedis:

The fact that you continually both assume and accuse me of speaking with another man's voice is one of the reasons why I often find myself wondering if there is any benefit to be had in such things before proceeding.

"Dan, as you love to disect Islam into lemarkianesque categories, separating out the "good" islamic lines of thought from the "bad", I think we can certainly apply the same scalpel to christianity.

The christianity of Carter seems to be a different strain than that of Bush. Carter adheres to message of peace, love forgiveness of the New Testament (give it a name) and Bush to the end of time times type, smite thy enemies, punish the sinners passages (again, give it a name)."

I believe it was another poster than myself that brought Carter into the discussion. I would also note that you are attempting to create artificial theological distinctions between the two men on the basis of their politics rather than their actual theological denominations - a distinction I suspect both men would find highly offensive were you to assert that Carter rejects the eschatological passages of the Bible or that Bush rejects the Gospels section of the New Testament - it simply isn't true. One of the reasons that I think it's productive to differentiate between the different aspects of Islam is because they actually exist - Salafists, Khomeinists, Wahhabis, Sufis, Hambalis, Malikis, Twelver Shi'ites, and so on exist as bonafide theological schools and actually describe themselves such, which is why I differentiate between them on that basis. If you want to distinguish between Bush and Carter on the basis of their very real theological differences (Methodist vs. Baptist, if I recall correctly), then you can go somewhere with that, but I think that even a passing glance at the two denominations would tend to indicate just how unwieldy such a model would be as they relate to the real world.

"Yes, I am saying that there are parellels between the religion of Bush and the religion of Ahmadinejad. Both are dangerous men when placed in control of armies/countries. Both are sufficiently deficient in rational balance as to render themselves risks to global security. Neither has the right stuff to reposibly lead."

I'd be fascinated to hear the parallels between Ahmadinejad's Twelver Shi'ism and Bush's own Methodism, myself. And lest you worry too much about Ahmadinejad, he has a whole group of unelected folks he has to go through before he can actually do anything, which I guess would fit along with your view that Bush is the more dangerous of the two.

"While this was originally a post about Bush, I am the kind of person who thinks that it is as important to see the board in your eye as it is to see the board in neighbor's eye."

I missed the part where this post was originally about Bush.

"You guys want wage war. Then be real warriors. A warrior must be as honest about his own deficits as he is about the enemy's."

Uh-huh. So we're being actively dishonest if we reject your conflation of Bush's religion with Ahmadinejad? Disagreement is now conflated with dishonesty?

"Dan, you gloss disingenuously over the crusades and the admittedly subtle point I was making regarding them. The crusaders were ruthless killers. They even slaughtered christians (e.g. Armenians). All in the name of Jesus, of course. The name of jesus justified the slaughters and, somehow, the plunders and personal wealth enhancements."

The Crusaders certainly did slaughter a lot of people, many of them Christians (a rather large number of whom, as I recall, were Eastern Orthodox or Arab Christians) and Jews and many of them civilians. Of course, their Seljuk Turkish opponents weren't exactly paragons of virtue in and of themselves - probably because the entire ordeal occurred long before any serious concepts as far as the laws of war were drawn up on an international level, particularly with regard to civilizations other than your own.

"Bush sounds an awful lot like the crusaders and, to the extent he does, he plays into Bin Laden's hand."

I must have missed all of the "Deus Vult!" battlecries and arguments that killing for Christ is malecide rather than homicide. Feel free to compare our own capture of Kabul, Kandahar, Baghdad, and Tikrit to the Crusaders' own exploits when they captured Jerusalem and you'll get some idea as to how far out of whack your moral equivalency is on that one.

"Finally, in response to Walter's ridge, Dan backs off the premise of his post which seems to be that Ahmadinejad is totally nuts. Dan concedes that the halo staement might have actually had different conotation than the English translation."

Actually I didn't think that the post needed any premise and that Ahmadinejad's nuttiness was already self-evident by his earlier call to annihilate Israel. Interestingly enough though, I did e-mail a Bohra (as opposed to Twelver) Shi'ite before posting this to see whether or not there was any kind of theological basis for Ahmadinejad's remarks. He said that it was utter nonsense, so I proceeded as normal. You want to argue that what Ahmadinejad is saying should be interpreted as perfectly normal for a Shi'ite leader to do then you can take that up with him, not me.

As far as the halo thing goes, halo is a Christian/artistic term, it doesn't exist in Islam. Ahmadinejad said there was a bright light around him while he was talking, so I describe that as a halo or an aura unless somebody wants to provide me with the Shi'ite equivalent, something that my earlier correspondent had described as nonsense.

"If you knew that up front, why did you not qualify as such in the original post?"

See above for explanation. Not that it'll likely stop you from attributing the worst possible explanation to my motives.

"The reason, of course, is that Dan and his handlers are agitating for war with Iran. His job is to get you all hot and bothered so you'll be gung ho when the time comes."

I must have missed the part where I called for war with Iran (in opposition to my earlier view on the subject). It's nice to know that anything I say that's even remotely critical of the Iranian regime will be understood in that context, though. Do I get paid for this work or is it done pro bono?

"Dan's job is to to motivate you. Convince you that your GOD is good is theirs is twisted and evil."

Presumably if somebody worships God they already believe Him to be good. And given that I'm a Catholic who holds (in accordance with the Magisterium) that Muslims worship the same God I do, that would be an exceedingly odd position for me to take.

What mostly strikes me about the position of the Bush=Ahmadinejad people is, whatever degree of expertise they might have in particular areas, there complete lack of religious knowledge. It would seem to me that a degree of religious fluency would be a prerequisite before bluttering out any strong statements about religion. I can't help but feel that to some here, religion is a blind spot and everything that happens in it is mysterious and necessarily therefore feared.

Thus statements like arguments based on faith being anti-democratic, and the inferance that Bush has in fact based his arguments on religious faith (or even could base his arguments on religious faith).

The only way I can make the Bush=Ahmadinejad argument is through a combination of complete ignorance of religion and an irrational fear of what Bush is going to do in the future (some people literally believed for example that Bush would cancel the 2004 elections or at least found such rumors credible). I can't deal with the irrational fears, but I can deal somewhat with the ignorance.

To the ears of a Christian, Bush's public professions of peity sound extraordinarily ordinary. Even the insubstantiated rumors of what Bush is said to have said (but denies saying) don't paint a picture of a particularly radical believer. So far Bush's public professions basically ammount to the fact that Bush prays. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about this. Lots and lots of people pray. Most of them believe that from time to time they recieve answers and intervention, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So, when Bush says that he seeks, 'God's advice' or when Bush says that he 'feels God's guidance' or even that he believes 'God wanted this to occur', to the majority of Americans these are not extraordinary statements.

And the important thing for a non-Christian to understand is that since they aren't extraordinary statements, they confer upon Bush no special or extraordinary authority - even to other pious believers. Just because Bush says he prays to God, or says he recieves guidance from God doesn't make him in the eyes of Christians to be a messenger from God carrying divine authority. They just make him normal. In fact, what would be extraordinary to the majority of the American public is if Bush claimed to be a Christian but in fact did not claim to pray. If Bush says that he believes that God wanted him to be President of the United States, my responce is always, "Well, I should certainly hope so." Imagine what the alternative is - Bush believes in God but he believes God did not want him to be President and yet he did it anyway! So when Bush claims that God wanted him to be President of the United Sates, he's not making to the ears of Christians an extraordinary claim, but rather the perfectly ordinary and expected claim of a believer.

Now so far it is admitted even by his detractors here that Bush has not made a argument solely or even primarily on religious grounds (except for perhaps his statements on abortion). Yet, there is a strange fear of what would happen if he did. Let's examine what such a claim would be like, and what the responce of the Church in America would be. Suppose Bush gets up on national TV, and says, "God told me that the United States should invade Tunesia and establish a democracy there." Full stop. It's completely ludicrous to suppose that the Christians in America would in mass or even in large part go along with such statement unquestioningly.

It's not that the Christians wouldn't believe that such a thing is possible. They would. But merely believing something is possible is not the same as putting faith in it. In responce to such an extraordinary claim, the Church's responce would be essentially, "Prove to me that you have the authority to deliver such a message." Bush is not the Pope. He's an elected magistrate. For that matter, even if he were the Pope, he'd still have to make an argument which would convince the Protestants - many of whom think that the Papacy is the tool of the devil. His argument could take one of several forms:

a) Bush could make a rational reasoned argument for invading Tunesia. However, if he did so, Bush's claim that 'God told me too', would not add any strength to his argument because for all the rest of us know Bush just thinks God told him to do it. Bush's argument would then have to rest on its own merits.
b) Bush could make a convincing theological argument based on the text of the Bible. This is however, for a specific action like invading Tunesia, very very unlikely. Essentially, Bush would have to convince a significant number of theologians that his interpretation of certain prophetic passage is clear and certain. That is almost certainly not going to happen, and more than likely any attempt to do so would anger far more people than it would convince. Prophesy is taken very seriously by the Church, and prophets require extraordinary proof to back up thier claims. Which brings us to the next point..
c) Bush would be asked to show a miraclous sign demonstrating that he was in fact a messenger from God. Without a demonstratable sign or wonder, no one is going to accept any extraordinary claim by Bush.

And this is the VERY VERY VERY important point, which you must understand if you don't understand anything else about what I've just said. Bush has made no such attempt to produce or claim to produce such a sign or wonder. This is VERY VERY VERY important. So long as Bush isn't claiming to produce miracles, signs, and wonders, Bush's own spiritual experience remains not only ordinary in the eyes of the Church, but presumably ordinary even in his own eyes. Bush hasn't claimed anything which would give him special religious authority.

And that, other than the deep differences between Christianity and Islam, is the essential difference here between the spirituality evidenced by Bush in public, and the claim by Ahmadinejad under discussion. Ahmadinejad is claiming to have been the focus of a sign and wonder. He is beginning to spread or try to spread the belief that he is a specially chosen prophet of God. In doing so, he is setting the stage for making an extraordinary claim. Ahmadinejad, by professing that he has been the focus of a sign from heaven, and if you don't understand what that means I assure you that religious people (and especially Iranians) do. If Ahmadinejad can back his claim that he is a specially selected messenger of God with sufficient signs and wonders, then he can claim that his word ought to be accepted without question regardless of what he says. So by claiming that a miracle has taken place, he's take a really REALLY big step.

And to understand how big of a step, you have to know abit more about Islam. In Christianity, miracles are almost ordinary. Christianities founder and his immediate disciples are said to have performed alot of miracles. Christians expect miracles to take place alot of time. If you tell a Christian that such and such pastor was present at a miraculous healing (or some such), its not nearly as extraordinary of a claim as you might think. To a certain extent, I think that most Christians in America would think at some level, "Well, I should hope so." In other words, Christians tend to believe that pretty much any ordinary believer ought to experience miracles. It takes some pretty extraordinary miracles to demonstrate extraordinary authority.

But the same is not at all true of Islam. Islam's founder didn't perform any miracles at all (and other than the claim of the Koran didn't even claim to). Miracles are extremely rare in Islam, and claims to performing miracles are generally taken with great skepticism. Islam doesn't have anything like 'the Holy Spirit' infusing the average believer with special divine power. So when Ahmadedinjad claims to have been surrounded in divine light, its a far more extraordinary religious claim than even if George Bush were to publically claim to have been surrounded and suffused with divine light (which by the way would make me terribly upset if he did). Ahmadedinjad is making a religious claim that borders on heresy in Islam, and it would be a claim suitable only if he is himself an extraordinary 'End Times' (Islam's version) leader.

My prediction is to expect more of this. Expect Ahmadedinjad to basically begin mythologicizing himself. Once made, whether he believes his own claims or not, he can't back down from them.

Actually, Celebrim, I am quit fluent in the language of several religions. Comparative religious studies is sort of a hobby of mine.

The faith of the two men is comparable because both men are lieralists. Most people, when they come to a personal understanding of their god/faith/spirituality, etc arrive there via one or another traditional religions with written sacred texts, rituals, etc, but ultimately their understanding is personalized. To some degree they have transcended the written word - the symbol - and have realized their faith in hearts; where words have no meaning. At this point, whether the believer realizes it or, the written word is relegated to mere metaphor.

But, for a literalist, religion is still something that happens out there. It is concrete, not metaphor. God really did create the world in six days about 5,000 years ago (time span as traced through the generational evidence in the bible). Gos d really does love Jews more than anyone. There will be end of days and Jesus will come out of the sky and our moldy skeletons will climb out of the grave....etc, etc, etc

For the literalist Christianity (or Islam.....fill in the balnk) really is the one and only path to salvation. Non-believers are doomed to hell for all eternity. Alternative religions are evil. Their adherants are sinnful and dangerous.

The christianity of Bush is particularly treacherous because of all that end of times/armegeddon stuff. If you're a literalist then you don't necessarily see the amegeddon as a bad thing.

Similarly, a literalist islamic sees rewards in heavan for death in Jihad.

Same shit, different book.

Only the Buddhists seem to have come relatively close to living up to religion's stated goal of peace and love and brotherhood of man, etc.

Oh, i almost forgot to address your important point.

No. bush doesn't come out on national tv and proclaim that he's doing x, y, and z because god told him to. There are too many people like me who use our rationality and freedom of speach to make minced meats out of any public figure who acted like that.

However, Bush does have other ways of playing to his evangelical base. There is a tight network that gets Bush's religious work done for him.

I mean come on, Bush doesn't come right out and say, "the world was created in six days, five thousand years ago, by the hebrew god. Ignore all geological evidence to the contrary. It is the work of Satan".

Yet, there we here, still publicly and politically debating teaching "creationism" in schools.

And what's wrong with teaching creationism in schools? It's just another theory like evolution. I can see both sides of this argument and brings to mind an underlying question to all. Do we need to believe in God to have morality? I would hazard a guess that those who are afraid of Bush thinks not. Those who are pro-Bush believe that he has not received any sort of divine word doing anything contrary to what the Christian principles are. Yes, he's made mistakes but they're not attributed to religion but rather poor judgement (that is subjective, of course). I'm not American, and I see Bush's foreign policy as a normal American foreign policy. In other words, it is not some divine intervention that caused a change. It is a continuation. As for Ahmadinejad, well, he's following what his good book tells him.
The danger of this is if these two leaders interpret their faiths out of context for their own end. I don't think Bush has done that. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is still not that known to me. One can only hope that he doesn't take certain examples in the Quran to apply them to his leadership. As all of you know, there are some things there which can be interpreted to disastrous effects.

avedis:

Ahmadinejad actually isn't a literalist as you would understand the term, at least not in the sense of a Christian fundamentalist or Evangelical that would be. To equate literalism or belief in a real eschatology with the kind of religious fanaticism adhered to be Ahmadinejad and others is nothing short of slander, IMO, because, even aside from the fact that there are tens of millions of peaceful and productive fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians in our own country, almost all Twelver Shi'ites accept some variation of a real eschatology in the form of the return of the Twelth Imam. It is ironically enough that belief that leads many of them to accept some variation of church-state separation, since only the Imam Mahdi is supposed to exercise temporal power on behalf of God.

Moreover, there are tens millions of Islamic literalists (to use your term) who don't see a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran as consistent with death in jihad. And many non-literalists like most Twelver Shi'ites who do. Just some food for thought.

I also think you're projecting a fairly romanticized view of Buddhism there. Take a look at some of the forms of it that were adhered to by the Japanese samurai and you'll get some idea of what I mean.

Going back to your point about Bush, the fact that you think that he's one and the same as Ahmadinejad is very difficult to prove except a priori, since that isn't the way that he argues in support of policies. As far as public and political debates over creationism (which I don't agree with, incidentally), it's apparently adhered to by a fairly sizeable number of the population, which is one of the reasons we're discussing it as far as a democratic society goes. Isn't one of the virtues of democracy supposed to be that we're able to discuss any subject no matter how controversial? Or should some topics simply be considered beyond the reach of the dumb rabble as far as public and political discussion as far as the dumb rabble are concerned?

"...But, for a literalist, religion is still something that happens out there. It is concrete, not metaphor..."

That was a very instructive post. I'm glad you've finally made your opinions clear. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. It was pretty obvious to everyone where you were coming from, but I'd rather have you say it than merely make an accusation.

"I also think you're projecting a fairly romanticized view of Buddhism there..."

No kidding. But then, I think he's created quite a bit of fantasy constructions in his mind that have little relation to the real world. I have the same creepy feeling that you get when your talking to someone who leans over and decides to let you in on 'the conspiracy'. That was one of the creepiest statements of belief I've heard since a former high school teacher of mine told me how abortion needed to stay legal so that 'we can kill off all the brown people'.

Whatever are we going to do with all these people - these literalists - that actually believe words have meaning and that what they have faith in is true?

Since he claims to be well versed in the language of religion, I can't imagine that his broadening of the special term 'fundamentalists' is accidental.

The faith of the two men is comparable because both men are li[t]eralists

Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, which is not a literalist congregation. Methodists, and I am one, adhere to what is often called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, meaning that our faith is based upon (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. Rev. Donald Sensing is with the UMC and does not espouse literalism.

PD Shaw: I think you mean that the UMC is not a fundamentalist church, which is true.

But avedis defines and uses the term 'literalist' in a much larger sense than the term fundamentalist, and you shouldn't confuse the two.

Rev. Sensing does not espouse fundamentalism, but I would hazard a guess that Rev. Sensing does espouse that there is a literal God, and very likely I would guess a literal virgin birth and a literal resurrection. One does not have to believe that scripture is both inerrent and infalible in order to believe in a literal and concrete higher power with which one literally and concretely has a relationship. Afterall, presumably ones tradition, experience, and reason can lead one to the same conclusions as scripture, and presumably if one can be called a believer at all this is largely the case.

Dan,

I would agree that "Ahmadinejad actually isn't a literalist as you would understand the term, at least not in the sense of a Christian fundamentalist or Evangelical that would be......."

However, the difference is moot in real world application. Both sides use their faith as an excuse to kill the non-believer.

Both sides have an appocoliptic vision.

Both sides rally "the faithful" to war under the banner of their "god".

All snark aside, I do suggest you refer to M. Ledeen on this one. I find him reprehensible n his suggested applications, but entirely accurate in his accounting.

As for the rest of you, no I am not adherent of your faith (though I am not a Muslim either). Is that supposed to make a difference? You are only serving, like good drones, to prove a point.

As for "..projecting a fairly romanticized view of Buddhism.." the shinto buaddhism of Japan during WW2 - a religion that helped contribute to, but was not the sole support for, banzai charges and kamakazis - was one of the reasons I qualified with the word "relatively".

Men, being what they are, will twist anything to suit their most depraved motives and objectives.

that should read apocalyptic vision.

No way to get a spell checker on this thing is there?

".....almost all Twelver Shi'ites accept some variation of a real eschatology in the form of the return of the Twelth Imam....."

I almost missed that one. I found it because I was re-reading as I pondered whether or not my abyssmal spelling and grammar might not be due in part to some truncating caused by the software. Hope springs enternal.

Anyhow - to the point - how can you, Dan, present the above as, presumably, evidence for the strange and dangerous nature of 12'er Islam, when hardcore christians (BUsh among them) literally believe in the anti-christ and the the second coming and all of that????

Can't you see that's it's all the same stuff packaged in a different wrapper?

If you can't, it's a little frightening to think you are taken seriously in some circles.

avedis:

"However, the difference is moot in real world application. Both sides use their faith as an excuse to kill the non-believer."

Actually, the difference is rather important insofar as it refutes your earlier attempt to classify the two of them as literalists and then to project certain implications from that classification. Your basic charge that they use religion as an excuse to kill those who don't agree with them (which I think is quite demonstrably false in the case of Bush given the amount of religious diversity in the people working under him to achieve his aims, but okay) is something that goes far beyond any particular religion. As history has shown, people with deeply held beliefs, whether they be religious, political, or cultural are quite capable of killing those who disagree with them - a point you seem to acknowledge below.

"Both sides have an appocoliptic vision.

Both sides rally "the faithful" to war under the banner of their "god"."

Here again, I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find demonstrations of Bush doing this. The kind of Evangelical Protestant eschatology that is usually cited, i.e. that demonstrated in the "Left Behind" novels, is almost entirely passive in that there is really nothing that happens until the Rapture occurs, an event chosen by God rather than men. I also think that you would be extremely hard-pressed to find examples of Bush rallying either US troops or his political followers to war on the basis of religion. Instead, he normally uses a kind of Wilsonian rhetoric (which is the origination of "Jacobin" label that you and others use to deride the neocons) that is a political rather than religious philosophy.

"All snark aside, I do suggest you refer to M. Ledeen on this one. I find him reprehensible n his suggested applications, but entirely accurate in his accounting."

Religious motivations for fighting out of a desire to defeat evil on an individual basis are one thing, but that's quite a different thing from the kind of explicit appeal to a sectarian apocalyptic agenda that you seem to be advocated.

I'll certainly agree with you that Shinto Buddhism was by no means the only cause for Japanese imperialism, but then adherents of that religion killed far, far more innocent people from 1932-1945 than have American Christians of any stripe, yet you see no problem in labeling Buddhism as a fairly peaceful religion while being apparently unwilling to extend that definition to tens of millions of your fellow countrymen as such?

"Men, being what they are, will twist anything to suit their most depraved motives and objectives."

That is sort of my view as well, which is what I noted above.

"Anyhow - to the point - how can you, Dan, present the above as, presumably, evidence for the strange and dangerous nature of 12'er Islam, when hardcore christians (BUsh among them) literally believe in the anti-christ and the the second coming and all of that????"

Re-read what I said and you'll note that I don't regard Shi'ism (Twelver or otherwise) as being either strange or dangerous per se - indeed I cited their belief in the 12th Imam as a belief that should theoretically make it a lot easier for their beliefs to something resembling a separation of mosque and state. I do, however, regard Ahmadinejad as being extremely dangerous because of the near-fascist ideology expoused by he and his neo-fascist allies in the Abadgaran movement. If they want to believe the Twelth Imam in occultation, the coming of al-Dajjal, ad infinitum that's fine by me, I really don't care one way or another. It is their political beliefs, however, that concern me far more than their philosophical ones.

Moreover, tens of millions of peaceful and law-abiding American Christians of a variety of denominations believe in both literal Antichrist and a Second Coming as far as their eschatology is concerned. My own faith, Catholicism, is one of them, and you can read the relevant beliefs on either topic right there in the plain text of the Catechism. That may be one of the reasons why I view these views as not particularly alarming. To conflate them with the type of extremism that one associates with Ahmadinejad based on what I regard as superficial or misleading comparisons strikes me as an exceedingly bad exercise in moral equivalence.

"If you can't, it's a little frightening to think you are taken seriously in some circles."

I'm sure that it is to you. But then so are a lot of people of wide varieties of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths who occupy positions of power in our world today, so I would advise you that what I think should be the least of your concerns in this regard. Do you think that Jimmy Carter doesn't believe in a literal Second Coming, for instance?

Dan,
You do gloss over manifest destiny and the death of who many Indians at the hands of christian european imperialists circa 1492 to _____what? wounded knee? Current day?

How many "heathen" negro slaves died as a result of their enslavement and treatment at the hands of christian slave holders in the south? To what extent is that legacy still takinga toll to this day?

Japanese killed more? Maybe. It's a macabre accounting and I think there is a certain point at which volume becomes a bit irrelevant.

Come on Dan, let's be straightforward here. A lot of killing is done in the name of religion, all religions. Only a totally ignorant fool could say otherwise. This tallying of which religion killed who and how many is pretty juvenile.

True, one would would be hard pressed to cite a specific instance of Bush calling upon christian soldiers to enact a bloody crusade. I would say that he doesn't have to publically do this. Religiosity is a core element of Bush's base. It's self activating and self perpetuating. Whatsmore, the Bush base has a well dispersed plethora of religious activists and preacher types who say what, for a politician like Bush, would be unspeakable in a public venue.

I can't believe I'm arguing this with you. It's stupid because I know that you know I'm correct. You are impelled to argue otherwise because that is what you have to do (politics).

Sure, Ahmadinejad is dangerous.

Again, due to your political affiliations (and certain aspirations?) you are compelled to play up the religious nature of his unstable nature.
I am merely pointing out that there is either an element of hyperbole and/or an element of one sidedness at work in your analysis.

I do this by presenting the equivalent example of george bush the holy roller and his friends in the holy roller community (e.g. Pat Robertson, etc).

No different in their religious delusions than Ahmadinejad.

You have failed to clarify how one's religiosity is different than the others. You simply link Ahmadinejad's loose statements and threats to his religion. Christian readers will absorb this message as you intended them to. I will not. Not that you care. And I really don't either.

I am always curious in the thought processes of those I strongly disagree with. Not because I think there's a chance we'll learn to agree. We won't. You have certain ambitions and work within certain structures that will prevent you from engaging in free and open thought.

avedis:

Manifest Destiny is a political (and to a certain extent, racial) philosophy. Similarly, many of the Native Americans who died at the hands of the US were themselves Christians, having been previously converted through the efforts of British, French, and American missionaries. Moreover, it's worth noting that while the vast majority of Americans who killed Native Americans were Christians, in many cases they were killing them in the name of a political/racial philosophy, rather than a religion, as can be seen from the fact that many non or less than devoutly religious individuals also supported Manifest Destiny. And since we're talking about American religion here rather than Christianity in general, bringing European religion into the fold is something of a category mistake.

"Come on Dan, let's be straightforward here. A lot of killing is done in the name of religion, all religions. Only a totally ignorant fool could say otherwise. This tallying of which religion killed who and how many is pretty juvenile."

Sounds like a fair assessment to me. But I wasn't the one who tried to single out Buddhism as a "good" religion as opposed Christianity or Islam, which is why I brought Japanese atrocities into the mix to begin with.

"True, one would would be hard pressed to cite a specific instance of Bush calling upon christian soldiers to enact a bloody crusade."

At least we're agreed on that.

"I would say that he doesn't have to publically do this. Religiosity is a core element of Bush's base. It's self activating and self perpetuating. Whatsmore, the Bush base has a well dispersed plethora of religious activists and preacher types who say what, for a politician like Bush, would be unspeakable in a public venue."

Indeed, religiousity is a core component of Bush's base. However, the vast majority of support for Bush's foreign policy, particularly as it relates to military action, does not stem from religious argumentation, nor is it framed as such by the overwhelming majority of individuals you reference above.

"I can't believe I'm arguing this with you. It's stupid because I know that you know I'm correct. You are impelled to argue otherwise because that is what you have to do (politics)."

Here again, you argue that I specifically (as opposed to other posters who have made similar arguments to my own) am making arguments in bad faith because they disagree with your own. It also somewhat raises the question of what point can be served from further dialogue, since according to your own statements I argue in bad faith and speaker with another man's voice.

"Again, due to your political affiliations (and certain aspirations?) you are compelled to play up the religious nature of his unstable nature."

Not at all. The original post was simply a link to a news story without further any commentary, which I don't think was the case when I noted his call for the annihilation of Israel. The problem is, you seem to conflate anything remotely critical of Iran that I write as part of a disinformation campaign designed to trump up support for military action with Iran and hence choose to read sinister intentions where none in fact exist.

"I am merely pointing out that there is either an element of hyperbole and/or an element of one sidedness at work in your analysis."

To which I answer that I disagree with your conclusions because I don't accept that in order to be balanced or objective I have to accept that Bush is just as bad, unstable, or fanatical as Ahmadinejad - in other words, that I have to state a conclusion I do not believe to be true in order to conform to your standards of objectivity, a position I reject. As for hyperbole, it's extremely hard for me to take that charge seriously unless you want to argue that my identification of him having a halo is untrue, in which case feel free to supply a term you feel is more appropriate.

"I do this by presenting the equivalent example of george bush the holy roller and his friends in the holy roller community (e.g. Pat Robertson, etc).

No different in their religious delusions than Ahmadinejad."

That is your assertion, however, to which you have yet to provide a persuasive argument. Had you brought Pat Robertson into this at the beginning rather than Bush, you would have probably made a better argument.

"You have failed to clarify how one's religiosity is different than the others. You simply link Ahmadinejad's loose statements and threats to his religion. Christian readers will absorb this message as you intended them to. I will not. Not that you care. And I really don't either."

Here again, that is your assertion, though I find it interesting that you think that I am writing this in the hopes of persuading only Christians when I was told by a devout Shi'ite that Ahmadinejad's statements were nonsense. As for clarifying the difference between Ahmadinejad and Bush, there is quite a lengthy bloc of text addressing all of that above for you to read through if you want to. Thus far, you seem to have deliberately refrained from addressing any of these distinctions.

"I am always curious in the thought processes of those I strongly disagree with. Not because I think there's a chance we'll learn to agree. We won't. You have certain ambitions and work within certain structures that will prevent you from engaging in free and open thought."

Disagreement in a case of diametrically opposed philosophies or positions is no vice. In any case, you seem to be convinced that I write in bad faith for the benefit of a hidden (in the sense that I do not reveal what I really think, clearly you think you know what my real motives are) agenda, which sort of cuts into the idea of having a real discussion since one of the prerequisites of doing so are that both parties are assuming that the other is speaking on a good faith basis. If that's what you think, then that's far more your problem than it is mine.

"I can't believe I'm arguing this with you. It's stupid because I know that you know I'm correct. You are impelled to argue otherwise because that is what you have to do (politics)...You have certain ambitions and work within certain structures that will prevent you from engaging in free and open thought."

LOL.. HEEHEE HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA HEE HEE HA HA HO HOHOHOHOHOHO I'm I'm HAHAHAHA HOO HEEE HEEE HE I can't I can't catch my breath. That was priceless. That was one of the funniest rants I've ever read in my 15 years on the internet, the more so because it was completely unintentional. TEE HEE HEE

You're killing me here. I'm going to be breaking out in chuckles for days.

Let me let you in on something. The accusation that someone else is close minded proves absolutely nothing about the accused. It is however very revealing of the personality of the person making the accusation. You see, if a person is actually open minded then they will always assume that other people disagree with them for what are compelling and legitimate reasons. Only close minded people imagine that all reasonable people believe as they do and so must invent reasons why the person who isn't agreeing with them is dysfunctional. Only close minded people are unable to entertain the notion that they are wrong. Therefore, invariably, the first person in any debate who makes the accusation that someone else lacks an open mind, is actually the person who is hidebound and unable to engage in free and self-critical thought.

Simply yelling 'You're close minded' is pretty normal fare. It's a fashionable insult, particularly amongst a certain crowd. I hardly even break into a chuckle over the irony of it anymore. I've seen people losing a debate and unable to muster any facts turn to the close minded insult all the time over the years. What I have never seen in the 15 years I've been posting on the internet is someone do it with such a complete lack of class and self-awareness as you. If you were only someone more famous, I'm sure you could win the idiotarian seething of the week.

All I can say is, "Wow. What a rich fantasy life you have."

As for the rest of you, no I am not adherent of your faith (though I am not a Muslim either). Is that supposed to make a difference? You are only serving, like good drones, to prove a point.

No, but when you repeatedly make unsupported claims about Bush's faith, you should at least be able to converse knowledgably about it. Comparative religion being a "hobby" of yours and all.

I've been a lifetime Methodist and I have not heard a sermon on the Last Days, Rapture, Appocalypse, etc. That is not what the denonomination is really about. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that the "christianity of Bush [has] all that end of times/armegeddon stuff." I've attended one Southern Baptist service (during the Carter Presidency) and they showed a film on the rapture that had people crying and gave some of the kids I was with nightmares. Certainly if end times was an important part of Bush's theology, he would be parking his car somewhere else on Sundays.

The New York Times, “How a War became a Crusade” (3-11-03), suggests a reason why Bush is so cavalier about the possibility that war in Iraq will have unintended consequences. Bush, according to the author, Lears, “denies the very existence of chance.” “Events aren’t moved by blind change and chance,” Lears quotes Bush as saying; rather, events are determined by “the hand of a just and faithful God.”

The depth of fundamentalism in the Bush administration is the subject of a book by one of Bush’s key speechwriters, David Frum, the man who coined the phrase “axis of evil.” According to his book, The Right Man, Frum, Bush, and others who worked on the notorious Axis of Evil speech, desired very much to create an enemy the equivalent of Reagan’s Evil Empire. Julian Borger, a journalist for The Guardian, discussed these matters with Frum in an article published January 28, 2003. In the interview, Frum “talks about the disconcerting grip evangelical Christianity has on the White House.”

How did the “axis of evil” line come about? According to Frum, during the weeks leading up to Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address, Gerson came to Frum with this challenge: “Can you sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq?” This was in late December 2001. Frum came up with “axis of hatred.” He felt, according to Borger, that the phrase “described the ominous but ill-defined links between Iraq and terrorism.” Gerson replaced the word “hatred” with “evil” because the latter sounded more “theological.” Frum really liked the phrase. He says, “It was the sort of language President Bush used.”

On Frum’s first day in the White House, one of Bush’s aides chastised his mentor Gerson for missing Bible study. “Attendance at such sessions was ‘if not compulsory, not quite uncompulsory either,’” Frum is quoted as saying. That Frum is Jewish, but was nevertheless expected to wade through the New Testament with the President and his advisors, speaks volumes about the extent and degree to which the Bible organizes Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. Frum, who worked with the President for 13 months, says that Bush “believes that the future is in ‘stronger hands than his own.’”

I could spend my entire morning (and probably afternoon) collecting such quotes.

But the sun is out today (finally) and I'm goin to enjoy it. Besides, you poeple will just weasel by a truth that you cannot bring yourselves to face.

"I could spend my entire morning (and probably afternoon) collecting such quotes."

None of which however do anything to support your primary accusations. In fact, yet again you've taken what are basically ordinary statements of faith as would be made by any believer, and - through the alchemy of an article in the Guardian or the NYT - tried to make those statements seem alarming in some fashion or tried to insinuate that there is some sort of secret Evangelical conspiracy going on. Yet as far as I can tell, they are alarming to you only in so far as they are religious. You've yet to show a connection between those statements and any Bush policy. In fact, you've made alot of really juvenile associations which no real student of religion would make. You've claimed that any Christian which believes in a literal second coming 'hard core'. You've confused belief in a literal anti-christ with being a pre-millenial dispensationalist - which is not a Methodist teaching by the way - and you've done nothing to show that Bush is a pre-millenial dispensationalist or even how that would necessarily effect his policy even if he was. All of which shows you know nothing on the various debates about millenialism or the anti-chirst. And you've back-pedaled from just about every historical assertion that you've made, yet you continually insist that not only could your opponents in the debate not possibly be right, but that they know that you are right and are arguing only in bad faith in order to trick people.

I'm increasingly convinced that you know about as much about Christianity, as a guy who has read 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' knows about Judaism.

avedis:

So from your statements above I gather the following substantive charge concerning Bush's theology:

• Bush believes that history is guided by God.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a belief held by the vast if not overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The sources you cite claim that there is a strong Evangelical component in the White House, something that I doubt anyone here actually disputes. The difference, which maybe you're not seeing, is that just because there are Evangelicals in the White House does not mean that policies and in particular foreign policies are being enacted simply due to their theological opinions.

"Besides, you poeple will just weasel by a truth that you cannot bring yourselves to face."

Given your inability to substantively respond to any of the assertions you've made in this thread, I think that this is more a case of projection than anything else.