I'm not sure, but I think I agree that Bush's "leadership" shows that religion isn't moral for an unusual reason. Bush's intransigence about Iraq and his inability to recalculate the situation based on new data and new trends has been based on his religious feeling of certainty about what he's doing. So his religion has made him infexible and contemptuous of reality, and that posture is incompetent. There is no connection between that level of incompetence (a level where the decisions destroy human lives) and morality. Thus, when religion blocks out the world but claims to lead it, it must be less than moral.
When religion blocks out the world and wishes to minimize contact with it, such as Amish communities and monestaries, I find no immorality. As such, Bush would do well to read Thomas Merton. Bush's appearance at Pope John-Paul II's funeral was obviously not hypocritical, he was paying respect to a man he profoundly admired.
Your question opens the door to a hellish connundrum, because religion offers an opening to secular life in which one can act profoundly immorally (!). One can be very religious and very immoral in carrying out secular responsibilities if one has an authoritarian personality. So I want to throw out the fast spitball that religion EMPOWERS immorality when it is embraced by those who possess authoritarian personality characteristics -- a shocking point presented very well by Nixon lawyer and one-time jail bird John W. Dean in his new book, "Conservatives without Conscience" which offers a brilliant analysis of Bush and Cheney that offers a unique answer to this question.
2006-10-26 04:35:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by urbancoyote 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush is clear proof that religions are easy to deceive.
2006-10-24 17:15:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it depends on what you use religion on. bush and his party along with the fanatic Muslims are proof that it can be used for selfish and murderous purposes.
2006-10-24 17:17:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by linus_van_pelt68 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do believe.
He is concrete and absolute.
I have a brother who is a catholic deacon. He's the same way and I find him intolerant, hypocritical, prejudiced, totally unapologetic, wrong, stubborn, undebatable, who loves the stage and people think he's wonderful. Looking like a hero is an art form with him.
Sorry, I digress
2006-10-26 19:46:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Congratulations on noticing that religion and morality are not the same thing.
2006-10-24 17:51:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It is true, however, that religion is not inherently moral, even though it pretends to be a vehicle for instilling moral principles.
2006-10-24 17:14:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The christian religion went down the crapper years ago, now you have people who accept biased new stations as 'fair and balanced' and philosophy/science as evils which their children need to be sheltered from. You don't need to belong to a church to accept spirituality.
2006-10-24 17:19:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by natalie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe Bush is proof that unquestioned faith will eventually lead to tyranny.
2006-10-24 17:14:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ur-4-Sale! 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Every barrel has its bad apples. Even religion can turn bad when it's used for political gain.
2006-10-24 17:14:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by britteads 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it proves that humans who hide their evil under the name of religion are idiots.
2006-10-24 17:18:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Count 4
·
1⤊
0⤋