Religious Freedom?
1
As I’ve done my very best to not go out of me way to not care about the Olympics, it’s been very hard to completely miss George W. Bush making an ass of himself in China. The silly faces and gestures he’s made were likely throwback moves when he was class clown, I mean cheerleader, way back when.
Then I caught an excerpt from an interview he did with Bob Costas.
Q If these Olympics are as successful as they are shaping up to be, most people believe this only further legitimizes the ruling party in the minds on most Chinese citizens. And even absent true liberty as we understand it, the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much better than they once were. Therefore, what’s the party’s incentive to reform?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, if you’re a religious person, you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped. And secondly, I think the Olympics are going to serve as a chance for people to come and see China the way it is, and let the Chinese see the world and interface and have the opportunity to converse with people from around the world. This is a very positive development, in my view, for peace.
The Jon Stewart response to the first part of Bush’s response was that he must be talking about Christianity, but if your religion rhymes with, I don’t know, “buslim” then we must destroy you.
Here’s what gets me. The response to “religious freedom” is that “once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped.” I don’t think he’s talking about religion in general; I think he’s talking about a specific religion. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have needed to start with “if you’re a religious person.”
One of my fears is that religion “can’t be stopped.” This is hardly an argument for freedom of religion at all. He’s implying that people become dependent on it and we can make decisions based on it and that religious law can become the law of the land.
How can a leader speak of freedom of religion while pointing toward control by religion in the same sentence?
Only George Bush could justify himself that way.
Popularity: 7% [?]
As I’ve done my very best to not go out of me way to not care about the Olympics, it’s been very hard to completely miss George W. Bush making an ass of himself in China. The silly faces and gestures he’s made were likely throwback moves when he was class clown, I mean cheerleader, way back when.
Then I caught an excerpt from an interview he did with Bob Costas.
Q If these Olympics are as successful as they are shaping up to be, most people believe this only further legitimizes the ruling party in the minds on most Chinese citizens. And even absent true liberty as we understand it, the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much better than they once were. Therefore, what’s the party’s incentive to reform?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, if you’re a religious person, you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped. And secondly, I think the Olympics are going to serve as a chance for people to come and see China the way it is, and let the Chinese see the world and interface and have the opportunity to converse with people from around the world. This is a very positive development, in my view, for peace.
The Jon Stewart response to the first part of Bush’s response was that he must be talking about Christianity, but if your religion rhymes with, I don’t know, “buslim” then we must destroy you.
Here’s what gets me. The response to “religious freedom” is that “once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped.” I don’t think he’s talking about religion in general; I think he’s talking about a specific religion. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have needed to start with “if you’re a religious person.”
One of my fears is that religion “can’t be stopped.” This is hardly an argument for freedom of religion at all. He’s implying that people become dependent on it and we can make decisions based on it and that religious law can become the law of the land.
How can a leader speak of freedom of religion while pointing toward control by religion in the same sentence?
Only George Bush could justify himself that way.
Popularity: 7% [?]



