It has been claimed by the BBC that George Bush has said he was “instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan”, not “inspired by his Christian beliefs” mind you, actually “instructed”, presumably via some sort of celestial Red Telephone in the Oval Office. Now he may or may not have actually said that (the BBC is rather prone to run with whatever story fits its world view), but I can certainly believe he might have said those things.
As the guy is a practicing Christian, it is to be expected that the G word is something that might come easy to his lips. Now I am all in favour of the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan but I really do wonder if he has any idea how utterly bonkers that sort of thing sounds to non-believers such as myself?
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying he should deny his faith if he thinks he has a personal relationship with God. If that is how he sees things, why should he not say so? I realise than many of my utterances about liberty and the world generally strike many of a different bent as equally bizarre. But I am well aware how negatively my remarks are often received even though I may not actually care a great deal… but at least I know.
But I wonder if GWB actually has the slightest idea how he sounds to some people when he invoked his deity in such a manner? Is the President of the United States really saying he hears voices in his head and acts on what he hears?
Just curious.
Nabil Shaath & Abu Mazen are the BBC’s sources for the story. Needless to say, these sources are quite questionable.
Does it make you feel better knowing that no other attendee at that meeting, nor at any other meeting with GWB, corroborates this story?
Remember, the BBC was quoting a Palestinian foreign minister, not a rational human being….
Oh for sure, I am hardly holding this report out as (sorry) Gospel 🙂
However given the many other not entirely dissimilar things GWB says which have rocked me back on my agnostic heels, I thought the question was worth asking anyway.
God calls him ‘George’? He’s the President of the United States, for Christ’s sake!
The quote doesn’t sound like Bush.
I suspect ‘God’ would feel he outranks the President of the United States, so a little informality might be expected. Sorry, but this whole thing just cracks me up!
It doesn’t look good to me either but Bush may have been told to use this form of speech with Arab visitors. Some of the direct translations of MEMRI often have speakers who seem to add “if Allah wishes it” (or something like that) after every pronouncement.
Sorry that should be “on MEMRI” rather than “of MEMRI”.
I know of no mainstream church (certainly not the Methodist church, of which I believe that Mr Bush is a member) that deals with prayer in this way.
The voice of God (apart from in rather special circumstances inthe Bible) is the voice of ones God created conscience. It is not a sound wave, or some telepathy thing.
To us silly believers there was nothing odd about (for example) President Reagan insisting on going into a room alone to pray, when he was informed that the people sent on recon in Grenada had not returned (it turned out that they had drowned) and that, therefore, he should not go ahead with the 1983 operation.
President Reagan was not expecting to hear a voice saying “attack” or “do not attack”, he wanted time and SILENCE in order to collect his thoughts and to consult his conscience.
Call it a form of “meditation” if you like.
So unless President Bush has invented a new tradition of prayer off his own bat, I consider the story a bit unlikely.
Of course now that the “adventures” have cost over 200 hundred billion pounds (with the extra money voted by the Senate today) and about 2000 American lives a lot of people will say “yes the President is mad – he hears voices in the air”.
But there were a lot of people who thought the Iraq operation was a good idea. Some (such as Perry) have the guts to openly state that – but a lot have changed sides and now pretend they were never in favour of the operation.
I rather hope the operation manages to end well (for all my doubts about it), partly because I want to see if these people try and change sides again.
Paul, that is not really my point… it is how it sounds that I find so bizarre. Sure, unless he really is a few guppies short of an aquarium, I doubt he thinks he hears voices in his head, but if he did actually say those things, that is exactly how it sounds and an awful lot of his other pronouncements strike me that way too.
That such remarks come across that way to me does I suppose says as much about me (and other who react the same way) as the person saying them, but that IS how politicians talking about God sound to me.
And the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary either!!!
The White House has flatly denied the whole story. My guess is that this story, if it isn’t outright disinformation on the part of the Palestinian guy, is the result of a mistranslation.
Bush is a Christian and quite happy to talk about it, sure. But in fact he tends to be fairy PC in the way he expresses this. My guess is that Bush actually said something rather conventionally pious, e.g. “I’m sure the good Lord wants me to work for democracy in Iraq / peace between Israel and the Palestinians”.
What is weird is that this two year old story, which I vaguely remember hearing about first time round, has no attention paid to it then and yet makes the front page of the Guardian and the Independent today.
It actually reads like a Palestibian would say it,not a Christian.The latter might say they prayed about it,but outside the nuttier sects “God told me” is thin on the ground.
For what it’s worth, I’ve run into a number of Christians who talk about what their god told them to do on the bus in LA. Usually at high volume early in the morning when people are trying to sleep on their way to work.
Mostly they seem to be the ex-drug addict “born again” type who go on about how “God told me to get off the drugs” and how their captive audience should all become religious fanatics too. I have no idea if Bush has ever really said anything like this himself, but as he’s an ex-drug addict “born again” type himself I wouldn’t be surprised if he had.
First, I seriously doubt GW said what they claimed. However, I have 2 points.
1. Regarding your question, “… but I really do wonder if he has any idea how utterly bonkers that sort of thing sounds to non-believers such as myself?” The answer is, “Yes.”
2. Regarding God telling you something. I once told someone who asked me why I was doing what I was doing, (no I won’t go into details, yes there is a story there) “God told me to.” Now, I know you just had the same reaction he had which is you had a picture of the room shaking and a voice from the clouds. In truth what I meant was that God in his revealed word, the Bible, gave certain principles which I was pursuing where wisdom and opportunity lead me.
President Bush is a practicing Christian, therefore you find it credible that he might have claimed that God told him to go forth to war? Do you think all practicing Christians believe that God directs them to war against “infidels”? Or is the missing step in your syllogism something subtler than that?
Good God, Perry! I daresay that if Bush were a Muslim, you’d be more temperate in your inferences!
I am a practicing Catholic. Is it therefore credible that I:
— bomb abortion clinics?
— think homosexuals should be imprisoned?
— believe I’m the second coming of Thomas Aquinas?
Or are all these things associated with a minuscule minority of fringe loonies who simply happen, along with being certifiable, to be Catholics by baptism and upbringing?
Other people have mentioned that this doesn’t sound like Bush. I’ll go one further and say this doesn’t sound like a (normal) Christian. We just don’t talk like that.
I’ve heard people at church say things like, “He is leading me to do such-and-such” or “I feel led to do so-and-so”, and maybe, on exceptionally rare occasions, “it is his will that I….”
I’ve been a Christian for over a quarter century, I’ve been to a variety of churches from charismatic to fundamentalist. I’ve talked to pastors and foreign missionaries and old-timers and new believers, and I’ve never heard anyone use that sort of explicit God-said-this phrasing. Maybe they do it that way in Texas, but this seems like (at best) a misqute and (more likely) a slander from one of his enemies.
I’m skeptical, to say the least.
The Palestinians are playing with fire. They are alienating the White House at a time when they need the support of the international community more than ever.
Sharon has put them on a tight spot: the ball is now on their court to deliver internal security in Gaza and an end to rocket attacks into Israel.
Finding themselves in that situation, with the eyes of the world on them and waiting for their move, the Palestinians choose to ridicule Bush.
My take is that this is not going to help their cause, to put it in mild terms.
Damian Penny has a good roundup here. He quotes a writer for the far left site Common Dreams who lists how many stages of translation and recall the story went through.
My guess is that GWB believes that by going about his daily business, acting as he sees fit, he is following God’s will. My atheistic sensibililties are not at all offended by this.
Er, no… however as a practicing Christian, he uses the ‘God’ word rather a lot regarding whatever he does, be that going to war or whatever Presidents do… which is hardly surprising because he is, as I said, a practicing Christian. I am unsure how you read the other inferences into what I wrote.
The point I was making (and obviously failed) was that to a non-believer like myself, all but the most retrained referenced to God in the public sphere make the person sound a bit wild-eyed and loopy. I also pointed out that it was not reasonable for a non-believer like me to object to Bush or anyone else referring to God, I was just pointing out how it sounded.
My article as sparked by this questionable report of what Bush may or may not have actually said, but my point was a bit broader and was as much about atheist and agnostic listeners as it was about Presidential turns of phrase.
The report is so peculiar and suspiciously timed that I would be rather relieved if this bizarre attribution was not a reasonable representation of what happened. I don’t want the guy with The Button to be literally heading voices in his head unless it is Condi whispering sweet nothings in his ear or some such triviality…
Ken Hagler,
Bush is also a politician who has reached the highest office,it is doubtful he would give a hostage to fortune to those who are not exactly allies?
Even if he believes this,he is circumspect enough to keep quiet at home is it likely he is going to drop his guard before a group of Arabs?
Lastly would you sneer at Zarqawi’s beliefs in the same way?
I am not ‘offended’ either, that sort of verbiage just makes anyone sound a bit bonkers, that is all.
I stand corrected Perry, I missed the thrust of what you were saying.
By the way, you may profit from reading my last comment on the “Mr Richards” posting.
I rather doubt that I will ever reply to anything that Mr Gray says again, but his interventions have set me thinking and I point out what I think is a real problem with the blog at the end of my “what is libertarianism” comment.
It might be sensible to have a direct link to a clear explination of what libertarianism is (rather than my off the top of my head stuff) – so that new readers of the blog are not misled by the disinformation of folk like him.
We all tend to assume that people know the basics – but most people simply do not (and they can just come upon the blog whilst using the internet), it would be irritating if people visit the site and come away thinking that a basic doctrine of libertarism is baby eating (or whatever).
The born-again style of God-talk makes me uncomfortable, and I took a minor in theology along with my B.S. in chemistry at a Jesuit college.
If he is speaking there is generally a mic on. He didn’t say it. Nice post but it’s based on mist.
Here is an instance where the exact words he uttered matter less than the sentiment behind them. In some fashion, Bush stated that his war on terrorism is divinely inspired. Mind you, it’s nothing to do with political reality, societies, history, or the capabilities and limitations of military power. It’s about divine inspiration. Whether he believes this twaddle is almost beside the point. What’s frightening is that he clearly expects it to be a master stroke of diplomacy and a call to arms.
Perry,
You’re asking us to speculate on what a man we’ve never met thinks about reactions to words he never said. This is pretty close to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (to use an on-topic analogy).
Mike
none – “Whether he believes this twaddle is almost beside the point. What’s frightening is that he clearly expects it to be a master stroke of diplomacy and a call to arms.”
What is frightening is that you believe he said it despite there being no record of it having been said and despite official denials. What is frightening is, you wrote your comment without reading the previous posts (which would have informed you of the above), in your haste to get your condemnation in while you were still red hot with self-righteous derison.
President Bush is the most powerful man in the world. He’s a fighter pilot. He distinguished himself at Yale. My hunch – he’s way ahead of you.
D Angelhone – Never mind. I got it and I thought it was funny.
Exactly. I am sure some of our readers come from cultural backgrounds more similar to GWB and may have interesting perpectives. I am not a Baptist nor from a Southern State in the USA.
Many politicos in the USA, by no means just the Religious Right, use ‘God’ in conversational ways that would get you consigned to a constituancy on some remote rocky island if they spoke that way in Britain.
Verity:
May well be he did not say it (as mentioned, it was the BBC after all), but maybe ‘it’ does not sound as crazy to everyone. Just asking.
The BBC for one,would seem to be backtracking on the story
What Nabil Shaath claims the President said doesn’t sound like the President. At all.
What Mr. Abbas says the President said:
… does sound precisely like what the President would say.
Could there possibly have been an translation error here on Nabil’s part at some stage? Or an interpretation error on his part at some stage at least?
Maybe Mazen read the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 and confused ‘God’ wth Bill Clinton
NS: “But in fact he tends to be fairy PC in the way he expresses this.”
Man, Bush is really catching it.
Well first of all Perry; Bush is not trying impress the likes of you but speak the langauge of the people who elected him twice. Secondly this bit of anti-Bush rhetoric is based on a lie spewed by the Palestinian authority taken as absolute by the BBC and the Guardian. (Known fans of GWB.)
BTW: just for the record GWB is not an evangelical he is merely a mainstream Prostestant. Nothing big.
Peter asked, “Lastly would you sneer at Zarqawi’s beliefs in the same way?”
I assume you mean Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, so the answer is, “yes, of course.”
If you speak to god. Well that’s called praying.
If god talks back. That’s psychosis.
Just as well you put a time limit on Presidents , you Yanks, they all go barmy in the end.
Just witness what we have to put up with over here.
His Holiness and Her Cherieness the Blair are well past their “Jesus what is that smell at the back of the fridge” sell by date, but we’re stuck with them for 3 more years.
The born-again style of God-talk makes me uncomfortable, and I took a minor in theology along with my B.S. in chemistry at a Jesuit college. ?
I also find it has a very strong sense of “I see dead people” to it.
Shamus;
I’ve been a Christian for over a quarter century, I’ve been to a variety of churches from charismatic to fundamentalist. I’ve talked to pastors and foreign missionaries and old-timers and new believers, and I’ve never heard anyone use that sort of explicit God-said-this phrasing.
I’ve not been a Christian for a few years now, I’ve only been in the U.S. for a year, and I’ve been to no churches, but I’ve seen plenty of occasions of people using this kind of phrasing.
I think part of it comes from the fact that as non-believers, we become far more aware of this kind of thing, more sensitive. When I was a Christian and I heard people talk that way it simply didn’t register with me. But when I was no longer a believer, I noticed and remembered it instantly. I think Christians are simply desensitized to it to a large extent. The possibility is you’ve actually heard people talk this way, but it wouldn’t register with you. I know I can pick it up in a crowded room. Survival mechanism, I guess.
On my list of reliable sources, Dubya’s press officers compete for last place with anyone associated with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, this moonbat quote does in fact sound like something Bush would say. Perhaps not worded just so; but precisely what he said on this or any other occasion doesn’t really matter. Nor does it really matter whether his comments are taken as metaphor or as literal truth. What matters is that in many, many instances Bush has used religious “arguments” to explain his policies.
I’ve never believed that Dubya’s religious utterances are anything but the most patronizing and cynical pandering. The wannabe theocrats in the U.S. are starting to see it that way, too, by the way. They were promised committed anti-abortionists on the Supreme Court, and they got Roberts and Miers. They’re not happy. Stay tuned.
Here are the full “quotes” (courtesy of Tim Blair) :
Sounds like a crock of shit to me. It also sounds like the BBC are a bunch of credulous fools with an axe to grind.
Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, it’s been widely noted that Bush is extremely careful not to justify any of his actions with a heavenly mandate.
I just want to say a thing or two to you Euros out there. I am an American living in Georgia right now. I have had some German Euro-leftie cousins come to visit recently, and they spoke about Americans being “religious” as if it were a dirty word. So much for them being “liberal”.
Anyway, I just want to state for the benefit of those operating under misconceptions, people may well be religious here, but I have to say that growing up here I can probably count on one hand the number of times that someone spoke about religion. I barely even know what religion my friends are. Religion is something you do in church on Sunday. The rest of the week, it’s your own private business. Perhaps that’s why we never have the religious wars ya’ll have over there.
An example of Georgia’s point is that here we take seriously (if tolerantly) rather large distinctions between Methodists & Baptists, Fundamentalists & Charismatics, Old line (Presbyterian, Anglican) and Evangelicals. (Bush is a Methodist.)
This comment thread is amazingly tolerant, interesting and mature for a European take on this, but still some appear to be bothered by the fact that another has a religious faith. Generally speaking, we take that in stride here.
Bush is quite circumspect in what he says. He speaks of faith in his personal life; he speaks of “natural rights” as given by God (a position that may not work well with some but seems to me to be quite preferable to believing that the government grants them or that we need to assert them); he concludes speeches with the conventional but clearly heart-felt prayer, God bless America. These are his beliefs and his idiom.
Do the Palestinians feel it is necessary to shoot themselves in the foot every day to prove they exist? Does the BBC feek that no news day is complete without proving itself credulous & bigoted?
I live in the southern U.S., and am an atheist – no imaginary Sky-Dad(s) for me! There are fairly rare occasions when a believer references God or Christ guiding or influencing them, and I am not bothered.
Look, if you believe in God, then He’s supposed to be real to you, right? So it shouldn’t be surprising to acknowledge some sort of very real influence you believe this really real God has in the real world. Really.
I suspect the problem is simply that you aren’t used to it – you either aren’t around believers that often, or the ones you encounter avoid the topic. Many consider it to be extremely private matter, but perhaps others here in the U.S. are a bit more casual about it.
But let’s make one thing clear: not believing in God(s) does not require or imply that there is something wrong with the people who believe in God(s). You know what frequently does have that implication? Religion. Smite the unbelievers, they’re wrong to speak such heresy, etc. Personally, as an atheist, I like to avoid all that judgemental crap.
Why get squicked if someone mentions God or Allah or His Noodlyness? If they’re wrong, they’re wrong, but just because I think they’re wrong about the fact of God(s) existence doesn’t send shivers down my spine or make me think they’re crazy. People are wrong about lots of things (except for me, of course) – music, clothes, barbecue, etc. Shake your head at the infinite gullibility of Man or whatever and move on. It’s the actions of a person that you mostly should be concerned with, not their claimed moral first-causes.
Honestly, and with all due respect, your post has the smell of almost religious disapproval. Lo, the irony.
I doubt if the Palestinian sources for the BBC, Shaath and Abbas, had any ill intent (for once in their lives) when they reported Bush’s words.
As I said I think it overwhelmingly probable that the direct “God told me” phrasing is either a mistranslation, a mis-remembering, or an over-literally minded paraphrase, or some combination of the three. Whatever comedians say, the real Bush doesn’t talk like that.
However it arose, the “God told me” idiom would have sounded natural to the Palestinians, or Arabic speakers generally.
Some people might take that as meaning that it necessarily correlates with violent fanaticism, since at the present time Arab society is distinctly fanatical and violent, but it doesn’t. For instance British and American anti-slavery campaigners often said theirs was a divinely-inspired mission.
As of course it was.
Well, I suppose it could have been worse. Imagine if Bush had stood up and said, “The Devil made me do it” …
A note of caution would seem appropriate, seeing as the sources of this story are those same people who have been unable to tell us precisely which mystery illness the late Mr Arafat died of… Really, the glee with which the Beeb, Grauniad, Indie etc have fallen on this story says it all.
Apparently Abbas has issued a denial of the story.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html
Of course, don’t expect to see this widely reported. Or reported at all.
Bush is religious. He himself said so, and it wasn’t just campaign rhethoric. He said Jesus Christ was his greatest philosopher.
That, in itself, did sound to most “sophisticated ” Euro-or-blue “intellectuals” as ridiculous madness. The exact phrasing of his remarks is unimportant.
I’m not religious. But when I contemplate the fact that all the enormous and unprecedented atrocities comitted in the 20th century were done in the name of secular beliefs – I say – maybe religion and religious persons deserve some respect. (Of course – provided they are not of the mad-mullah type).
When I hear a person is religious I say to myself: at least, chances are, he is not a leftie-loony beleiving in Kyoto and Social Security.
The alleged debate about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin is not so daft as it sounds.
Such a debate would involve whether angels had physical bodies in any way similar to ordinary matter – and, if not, whether they could be said to “dance on” anything at all.
Also the debate would include whether an angel has to take up physical space (if they do not, and can still be said to “dance on” thing, then all of them could dance on the end of a pin).
Think yourselves lucky that I do not have a decent knowledge of the type of Latin used in the period and the technical terms the philosophers loved – if I did I might have a go at really examining this debate (whether or the real philosopers of the middle ages bothered with this debate).
Very true, but one could counter that by pointing to the atrocities committed in earlier times in the name of religion. The key is not whether the belief system is religious or secular, but whether it is in a position of unchallenged (or effectively unchallenged) power.
EG
Guess what, everybody– Euan Gray’s initials are still EG!
L
“but one could counter that by pointing to the atrocities committed in earlier times in the name of religion.”
What is more relevant to our times is what happened in the recent past. What happened in the more distant past happened under historical circumstances that have radically changed since then.
As to “a position of unchallenged power” – today’s religions are not in that position at all.
Quite so and I tried to also make that point in my article.
I don’t really see it that way but I cannot deny that public use of the G word does sound weird to me. As I said in an earlier comment, that may be my problem but that is the truth.
Ahem. Saudi Arabia? Iran?
EG
Being thoroughly atheist, I’ve never had much time for Christ & co, particularly the sappy “love your neighbour” stuff.
But lately, having seen how much damage can be done by those who preach a message of hate, I’ve come to suspect that that Jesus chap may have known his people rather well.
Two of my friends hear voices, but they are both able to function in the real world nonetheless, so I’m happy to go easy on Bush if he suffers from this complaint. After all two minds are better than one.
However, is it likely that Bush would make these statements to two Palestinians who I assume are Muslims. Bush would surely be in no doubt that quoting his version of God to a Muslim would be guaranteed to piss them off in a big way. I just don’t believe it.
What interests me more is the old debate which has appeared on this thread, whether religion or secular beliefs were responsible for the most deaths in history. This is a largely sterile argument. The key is not whether the belief system is religious or secular, but the fact that a belief system is involved. Anybody unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and who is stupid enough to go to war over a belief (whether a Christianity or communism), is ideal cannon fodder for their more intelligent, cynical and calculating leaders. There is little doubt that religious belief, being somewhat more ridiculous and even more divorced from reality than secular belief, lends itself better to genocide, but the distinction is not worth arguing over.
Ken Hagler,
If you were to do so,and it is my observation that in the main people do not do so,you would have CAIR,ACLU on your back in a trice,there are probably the appropriate hate speech laws about.Islamophobia carries penalties all the way up to the death penalty.
It just amazes me that in a time or peril we are so sophisticated as to do the enemies work for them.
Over 50 comments discussing the implications of something which was never said.
Whoever said libertarians were irrelevant?
James” “I think Christians are simply desensitized to [mention of God] to a large extent. The possibility is you’ve actually heard people talk this way, but it wouldn’t register with you. I know I can pick it up in a crowded room. Survival mechanism, I guess.” You mean you think the Christians are coming to get you? Boo!
James Waterton – Sounds like a crock of shit to me, too. In fact, it sounds exactly how a Muslim, from his extremely limited and florid perspective, would imagine a Christian would talk – given the Muslim weakness for over-dramatisation.
SC Schaefer – People here would be more attentive to your point if you did not insult us. We are not Euros. We are not your cousins from Germany. Europe is a continent off the coast of Britain.
Nebraska – See above. I have not seen any “European take” on this here. I scrolled back. No Alice. No Sylvain. No Dissident Frogman. From the comments here, everyone seems to be British or American. Or would you prefer that I referred to you as Mexicans? I mean, it’s all the same, isn’t it? Jacob, much as I always enjoy your posts, you don’t get a pass either. We are not Euros.
Wot Natalie said. Peter too.
Well, well, well … the Beeb has decided not to stand by its story after all. Imagine! Here is The Grauniad reporting — (Link)
It is most odd that Muslims constantly refer to Allah without shock or ridicule,yet the mention of God brings forth such a reaction from our sophisticates.
Extremely worrying when Islam demands total respect.
Kim du Toit,
This has to be refuted before it passes into the mythology,what is despicable is that a statement by the Palestinians is being promoted for political purposes in the West.Al Qaeda must be laughing their heads off.
You mean you think the Christians are coming to get you? Boo!
Oh really? Most Christians I’ve met have a certain idea about how the world should work. Most of them are quite intent on using the political system to bend society more to their liking, in ways that would affect me as a non believer. They consider doing this to be their mission. They consider the continued existence of their sect to be paramount.
Tell me, would you fight and kill to keep your religion the prominent one in Western Society? If not, you’re in the minority of the Christians I’ve met.
“Tell me, would you fight and kill to keep your religion the prominent one in Western Society? If not, you’re in the minority of the Christians I’ve met.”
More interestingly James,would you fight to remain an atheist,rather than becoming say, a Muslim , Islam being the only other contender in Western society?
Well, this is one reason why I don’t pay too much lipservice to the Church of England any more. I’m not at all sure that they would endeavour to maintain the Anglican faith as the prominent religion, given the limpwristed attitudes we see from Canterbury and York in their dealings with MCB and others plus their almost apologetic stance for the Crusades let alone the populus’ views of Islam.
Good point, Peter. And James, you make an assumption that I am Christian, whereas I have never discussed my beliefs – if any – in a public forum.
You write: “Tell me, would you fight and kill to keep your religion the prominent one in Western Society? If not, you’re in the minority of the Christians I’ve met.”
You poll every Christian you meet, do you? I’d ask to see your stats, but this really is a boring byway.
This is my first visit to this site.
Nice to see, given the tone of your piece, that you accept so uncritically the uncollaborated word of the leader of the biggest and most opprobrious terrorist organisation on Earth.
Congratulations on your extreme level of gullibility.
I assume the rest of your blog will be of an equal standard, so I doubt I shall bother returning.
ps disregarding the accuracy or otherwise of the claim, I find it curious that the so-called Liberal Left seem to consider any taint of Christian or Jewish thought or conduct as tantamount to a confession of homicidal insanity, whereas the vastly more murderous creed of Islam is looked up to and admired. Most odd.
This (or a similar) allegation was denied over 2 years ago in a Whitehouse press briefing by Ari Fleischer.
Quite old news. What’s so sad about this situation is that a bunch of papers went to print without any denial at all when there was already a denial on record from 2 years ago.
Verity has no need to discuss her beliefs. She has made the tenets of her faith abundantly plain.
(1) The war against Islamic terror is the Number One priority for the West today.
(2) The leader of the second largest nation fighting this war has resolutely remained in favour of it despite massive public criticism in his own country.
(3) THEREFORE this leader is a vain nincompoop who should be insulted at every opportunity. And so should his missus.
Feminine logic, don’t you love it?
I didn’t have too much trouble believing that Boosh would say something like this, altho it is hard to defend. Then again:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004984.html
Case closed. He might have indeed said God spoke to him (in a DELUSION), but that would require believing the “word” of a paleostain murderous animal over a normal human.
Matt O’Halloran writes:
“(3) THEREFORE this leader is a vain nincompoop who should be insulted at every opportunity. And so should his missus.
Feminine logic, don’t you love it?”
Well, your chromosomally superior wonderfulness, if we were ever so polite, would you put us out of our misery by explaining how the “THEREFORE” crept into (3)?
I certainly don’t recall Verity (or any other essentially second rate female mind around here) proceeding from one, to two, to three.
Indeed, any person applying the logic you beleive you excel at, would understand that Bliar and his better half could still be utterly worthless pieces of ordure, despite the former having reached the correct decision on Iraq.
Still, I’m sure you know best (though I can’t help wondering about the wisdom of someone with an Irish surname playing the stereotyping game).
Right, and that would explain why he wrote “Now he may or may not have actually said that (the BBC is rather prone to run with whatever story fits its world view)”. That does not sound all that uncritical to me.
Did you actually READ the article you are commenting about? I think most people have understood the article was about politicians, particularly Bush, invoking God, regardless of if it is true or not about that particular utterence.
GCooper,
I don’t think Blair made the right decision on Iraq,I think he had a “Diana’s Funeral” moment,his handlers were dying to “get him into khaki”
If you consider what actions has he taken regarding domestic terrorism that have been right,come to that,any other decisions?
Actually I think Verity is a first class female.
bush said word for word “God instructed me to strike at Saddam…” a quote from 2003. google it yourself.
Ms Lewis: trying to buy into the notion that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth.
I have always liked the line about the Bible: “it made for pretty good reading until the hippy showed up.”
Andrea Lewis :
Yeah, and Bush said “Saddam tried to kill my daddy, so I’m gunna get him.”
Google it. I’m sure you’ll find something.
Google is such a powerful source of truth.
G Cooper – I was about to bat out a response to the illogical Matt O’Halloran, but yours was funnier and more pointed.
For Mr O’Halloran, though: You do understand that we were discussing religious beliefs and it was in this context I said I had never mentioned mine, or lack of them, in any public forum. Even were I as mendacious as Tony Blair, I would not be bonkers enough to claim I have never discussed my political beliefs on the internet … And I have been unwavering in my support of our presence in Iraq.
G Cooper, I agree with you: Indeed, any person applying the logic you believe you excel at, would understand that Bliar and his better half could still be utterly worthless pieces of ordure, despite the former having reached the correct decision on Iraq.
Absolutely, and that takes us forward to Peter’s thoughts. I, too, am certain Bliar didn’t make the right decision on Iraq on principle. (Muffled sniggers.) I too believe it was a self-glorification moment – Dianesque, if you will. Another good role.
My own theory is that, in his limited Boy’s Own perception, being a “war leader” was the only thing Margaret Thatcher had over him. I don’t think it was just his advisors, Peter. He hungered for a war in which he could star. That’s why he visited the troops in a shirt that had been bleached so white you could see it from Mars, and several bottles of Man Tan, posing on the hood of a jeep or a tank or other piece of heavy equipment. Who cares, it was something butch.
I had confidently predicted that his first visit to the troops would be in full Florence of Arabia attire, but win some, lose some.
It must be galling that Mrs Thatcher was fighting in the interests of Britons overseas and had the support of most of the country; but at least our Tone’s got a special relationship with the POTUS, just like Maggie!
Bliar is a coward. At home, his response to the terrorist outrage in London was to hurriedly form a group of the usual suspects into a conciliatory “Muslim advisory panel” and impertinently wag his finger the British, forbidding a “backlash”.
Matt,
I think verity will treat your fallacious remarks with a dignified silence.
However if she doesn’t—
Well you’ll find me behind the sofa, just in case.
Matt,
I think verity will treat your fallacious remarks with a dignified silence.
However if she doesn’t—
Well you’ll find me behind the sofa, just in case.
Verity,
I have not been able to find the quote again,but one of Blair’s coterie did say “I can’t wait to see him in khaki”,the implication being that war leader was next on the agenda.
Blair is desperate about his legacy,the only problem is he wants to be in the history books now!
It might be added that though Blair is using one of the few British institutions that still works,the Armed Forces,his government has cheesepared their budget,signed the ICC which leaves our military exposed to the accusations of any malicious enemy and generally spread forces over so many warlets that we couldn’t defend ourselves if we wanted to.He has now involved us in an EU army and is allowing NATO to be dissolved.
Lastly he has signed so much sovereignty away that no other Prime Minister could ever wage war again,Tony was determined to be the last Little General.
Peter – I would not argue with a word you have written. I am sure a member of his coterie – Peter Mandelson? – swooned he “couldn’t wait to see him in khaki”. Maybe that WWI khaki where the officers wore jodhpurs?
We are right to be in Iraq. We are right to be facilitating democracy in the Middle East as an aide-memoire to the theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran. Our brave armed forces are fighting for the right reasons, and the driving force is the President of the United States, not Twittering Tony.
Blair and Her Hideous Cherieness are lapsed members of the CND. Only lapsed because it looked as though membership might screw their chances to get elected by normal people.
Yes Tony must be the only CND member with his own nuclear deterrent!
If god is capable of telling muslims to kill Salman Rushdie why shouldn’t it be capable of telling George Bush to invade Iraq?
Verity writes:
” I am sure a member of his coterie – Peter Mandelson? – swooned he “couldn’t wait to see him in khaki”.”
Lance Price (the former BBC hack, turned Za-NuLabour spin doctor) avers that Bliar had an unseemly desire to be a war leader.
Strange, how quickly these CND types can change once they get the scent of power, innnit?
Peter – He can wear the ceremonial sandals and duffel jacket when he presses the button.
BTW – to all the Bush beaters out there, have you ever noticed that Mr Bush does not carry a Bible, unlike Bill Clinton who was seldom seen without one? T Blair doesn’t carry a Bible of course, because he wears a ju-ju in his breast pocket and Her Hideous Cherieness sends his toenail clippings for blessings by a ju-ju man. Before that, remember? – he always carried a koran that he waved like an assault weapon when he was getting on off planes? Like the splendid, traitorous little pacifist/one-worlder he is?
What a very bizarre chapter in English/British history this freak is.
AIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!
Bush is a delusional neurotic christian with one finger on the button!!! NOoooo… Please say it isn’t so!
Oh wait a minute… He’s been in the white house for almost five years and… and i’m… still… here!?!Something is not right here?!? I thought i could trust any and every muslim politican in everything they say! Surely, they had no involvement in this, for they are always trustworthy and honorable people.
What gives? Surely the beeb wouldn’t purposely and maliciously lead me astray, just so they can shape my opinion to suit their purposes, now would they???
I really do love this site, ive got it bookmarked. But, sometimes i’m surprised by how easily the beeb and it’s radical muslim hanger-on’s can so easily hoodwink a site that i respect and admire!
I really have too hand it to the propagandaists for the radical islamists though, they really know how to put the fear of G*D into a western secularist!
Man, don’t let them control you guys like this. You guys are better than that!
More interestingly James,would you fight to remain an atheist,rather than becoming say, a Muslim , Islam being the only other contender in Western society?
You’re avoiding the question. I, however, wil not.
It’s here that you fail to see my distinction.
I will fight to remain alive and capable of holding my own opinions, to believe or lack belief in anything I choose. I will fight to remain an atheist.
I will NOT fight for ATHEISM, however. I will NOT fight to make it the dominant philosophy in Western Society.
Now do you understand my question? Let me rephrase the question;
Will you fight to defend your right to a faith?
Will you fight to defend The Faith?
Good point, Peter. And James, you make an assumption that I am Christian, whereas I have never discussed my beliefs – if any – in a public forum.
You’ve made a name discussing your beliefs in this forum. Just not your religious ones. Which, given how you generally show little restraint in expressing yourself, frankly I find a little strange.
You write: “Tell me, would you fight and kill to keep your religion the prominent one in Western Society? If not, you’re in the minority of the Christians I’ve met.”
You poll every Christian you meet, do you? I’d ask to see your stats, but this really is a boring byway.
No need to poll Christians. They don’t have to be asked. They let everyone in a 50 meter radius know about it in no uncertain terms. They find ways to work it into conversation, even on topics seemingly unrelated to religion. They wear it on their sleeves. On occasion, they wear it on their knuckles, so to speak.
Andres Kupfer is right. Whatever the truth is, publicizing this now is not a very smooth move by the PA.
James,
You would be the first to bend the kbee under Sharia,you have nothing to lose,and I can’t see you fighting for anything.
I would fight for the existance of other faiths,beliefs,creeds philosophies,politics because what we are fighting is Fascism pure and simple.
Don’t get chippy about the beliefs of others because you have none and don’t presume to know what others believe,and finally don’t try and construct what you think is an irrefutable argument because then you will have to answer,”Will you fight to stop Islam becoming the dominant faith in Western Society?” ultimately your atheism will hinge on that.
James writes of Christians – They wear it on their sleeves. On occasion, they wear it on their knuckles, so to speak. But doesn’t it get worn off as they drag them on the ground?
91 comments? Perry is the baal of the ball.
James,
You would be the first to bend the kbee under Sharia,you have nothing to lose,and I can’t see you fighting for anything.
Utter bollocks. It’ll be the Christians who’ll go on bended knee, as Islam at least allows a get out card for them being “people of the book”. Us non-believers will be disposed of, as we’re not the kind to bend knees to gods. We leave that to the Christians, you do it far better than we do.
After all, all your buildings have the knee padding.
I would fight for the existance of other faiths,beliefs,creeds philosophies,politics because what we are fighting is Fascism pure and simple.
I wouldn’t fight for those. I would fight Fascism in order to survive. I would fight it for the sake of people, not gods. Any “faith, belief…” that doesn’t survive is no loss. Besides, someone will probably “reinvent” it again later.
Don’t get chippy about the beliefs of others…
I’ll get as “chippy” as I like. I don’t go on bended knee, remember?
…because you have none and don’t presume to know what others believe…
I don’t need to presume. They make it very well know what they believe.
…and finally don’t try and construct what you think is an irrefutable argument…
I leave that to irrefutable arguments to Christians.
…because then you will have to answer,”Will you fight to stop Islam becoming the dominant faith in Western Society?”
I’ve already answered that in part. Provided the religion stays away from me and does not use Governments to further its influence and power, I could care less which one is the “dominant” one. Again it comes down to my question, will you fight for the right to have a faith or not, or will you fight to defend The Faith?
ultimately your atheism will hinge on that.
Ah, so you are a Christian. I say that because only a Christian would think that, would understand atheism so badly.
My atheism hinges on evidence (or lack thereof). Nothing more.
James writes of Christians – They wear it on their sleeves. On occasion, they wear it on their knuckles, so to speak. But doesn’t it get worn off as they drag them on the ground?
LOL! You said it, not me 🙂
Verity – Jodphur is a beautiful city. And the fort there’s amazing. It’s so unfair that such a place has ugly pants named after it.
James,
No I am not a Christian you little prick,I realise that you cannot understand that your atheism is at the level of belief,but your intolerance towards a belief that in no way forces itself upon you is extremely revealing.
Why do you require religion to keep away from you,is your atheism so shaky you are frightened you will get converted? I can see it now,James gets siezed by masked Christians and forcibly baptised,starts walking around saying “Yah” just like Cliff!
You are probably one who babbles on about “Right Wing Christians”,ignoring the significant contribution “Left Wing Christianity” made to the Social democratic tradition,and indeed classical liberalism. Indeed you seem ignorant of the entire Judeo Christian cannon of ethics which underpin Western Liberalism.
Your view that Islam, particulary Sharia law is unobtrusive, is so ignorant as to be pitiable.
..and no you won’t fight,I doubt you have ever fought for anything in your life.You merely want to survive and it is obvious the level of dhimmitude you have already reached with your moral equivocation.
Only a fool would say in his heart, “there is no God”… for even the pagans and heathen have their gods, as well as those self serving heritics and liars, who serve Satan, (who is filled with self, a higher self absorbed god). Anyone who believes in nothing… good or evil, God, or Satan, “is blind”… President Bush is not blind, he’s made some mistakes, and may make more… he’s human, yes human, and is taking counsel from human’s… unless your blind, you’ve noticed how imperfect we humans can be! I am no fool, I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ, and believe in the power of God to fulfill all the prophecies “as it is written”… we should pray for our President, that God would speak to him, because incase you have not noticed, “America” is in trouble… being tossed by the winds (who created those winds?)… God will shake everything that can be shaken… This generation is liken to “Sodom & Gomorrah”… is there a “Lot?” and where is his family?
Time to Wake up America! The birth pains are getting more intense, and more frequent now… you are worrying whether the President has heard from God?
People why are you not on your knees? …asking God if he has spoken to our President, and asking God to make President Bush, a burning Bush to this Nation… a modern day Moses… we need God to raise up a man to lead his people out of the bondage we are in… the bondage of sin, which brings death, unto a new promise land, which God promises those who will turn to Him. There’s a God, “one God”, and all will meet him… whether they believe in Him or not! “Are you blind?” … “Jesus saves”, “Jesus heals”… and “Jesus is coming again”… Soon, much sooner than many think!
If ever there be one scripture that all should read, this one fits for now… Luke 21