Too Much God In Bush's Inaugural Address?
George Bush cited the word "God" three times in his inaugural address yesterday. The words "Jesus," "Lord," "Christ," "religion," "church," "Providence," "scripture," "Bible," "Koran," "Christianity," "Islam" and many other "god-type words" were not mentioned at all!
Yes, I admit that he did mention that each person is valuable "because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth." And, yes, he did make a reference to "the author of liberty." But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone of such rhetorical and political skill as Peggy Noonan can summarize Bush's speech as simply, "Way Too Much God."
The first time the word "God" appears is in a quote from Abraham Lincoln:
The second time the word "God" appears it shows up as part of a theological assertion, "Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills." Although it has a sort of timeless sound to it, this phrase appears to be original with this speech. It's parallel cannot be found on Google or any other search engine. It does, however, reflect an unequivocal Biblical/Christian understanding of God's providence.
In the context of the speech it could be more simply written as follows, "It is not for us to decide whether we are a nation 'chosen' by God or not. God does whatever God wants to do. And, in any case, that is not the reason we have 'confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.'" That's all. Rather than claiming that God has somehow "chosen" the United States for this purpose, Bush says that we cannot determine whether we have been chosen or not. Such a claim is not necessary in any case, for our hope for universal freedom transcends any notion of "manifest destiny" or having received some sort of "divine favor" as a nation.
The third time the word "God" is used it appears in his closing sentence, "May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America."
Is this "Way Too Much God?"
But what about the phrase, "author of liberty." Has Ms. Noonan never sung the hymn, "My Country 'Tis of Thee?" The fourth, and final, verse begins, "My father's God, to Thee, Author of liberty, to Thee I sing." These words were written by Samuel F. Smith in 1832 with the final verse being a prayer asking for God's blessing on our country.
This unattributed citation supports the Bush thesis that human freedom is not a right granted by government or created and sustained by a national constitution. If this were the case then liberty and freedom, being conceived, created and granted by human hands, could just as easily be taken away by them. Freedom, with humanity as its foundation, is hardly a universal right. Every tyrant, every culture, every nation would be free to affirm human liberty or not. The idea of freedom itself would be reduced to that of an opinion.
Bush refuses to buy into this humanistic approach to human liberty and freedom. Instead, taking his place alongside the writers of our nation's Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, he affirms that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Bush asserts that freedom is a right granted to every human being by God. As such it is both universal and irrevocable. It is good, it is right and, furthermore, being God's will, it will one day triumph.
Ms. Noonan somehow thinks that human freedom can be affirmed as a universal right without citing "God," "providence," "Divine Law," or even "the author of liberty." She is wrong. And, being an intelligent person, she should know she is wrong. The logic is simple and clear.
What she, and others, mean when they say that Bush uses too much "God-speak" is that they do not believe that liberty is a universal right. They believe that liberty is merely a choice, or an option that was chosen as the founding principal of our nation. Other nations, apparently, are free(!) to make different choices. Such alternative choices should not be judged as being better or worse, good or evil. Such judgment on our part must be seen as forcing American values and culture onto other, equally valid cultures with their own, equally valid, set of values.
What we have here are people dancing around the fundamental issue of whether our human freedom is granted by God or created by human invention and chosen as one equally valid option among many.
Personally, I feel much more comfortable with George W. Bush on this one. With his philosophy of freedom he would not be able to take it away from me even if he wanted to! Ms. Noonan and her ilk, however, cause me to break out into a cold sweat. If, as they imply, freedom is granted by a human hand, then it follows that, by a human hand it can be taken away.
Are they so blind as to not see this? Do they not see that they undermine the very values they pretend to hold?
"Way Too Much God," Ms. Noonan? Not by a long shot!
Yes, I admit that he did mention that each person is valuable "because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth." And, yes, he did make a reference to "the author of liberty." But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone of such rhetorical and political skill as Peggy Noonan can summarize Bush's speech as simply, "Way Too Much God."
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. She writes. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. 'The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."Yes, I do believe I did sniff a whiff of "heaven" in this speech. But, before I go on, let me go back to the three times the word "God" was cited.
The first time the word "God" appears is in a quote from Abraham Lincoln:
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves: and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."These words were spoken by Lincoln in a speech delivered before the first Republican State Convention of Illinois, held at Bloomington, on May 29, 1856. (It is interesting to note that Lincoln used the word "God" eight times in this stridently anti-slavery speech.) I suppose Ms. Noonan would prefer that, from henceforth, American presidents only publicly quote passages from Lincoln where the word "God" does not appear.
The second time the word "God" appears it shows up as part of a theological assertion, "Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills." Although it has a sort of timeless sound to it, this phrase appears to be original with this speech. It's parallel cannot be found on Google or any other search engine. It does, however, reflect an unequivocal Biblical/Christian understanding of God's providence.
In the context of the speech it could be more simply written as follows, "It is not for us to decide whether we are a nation 'chosen' by God or not. God does whatever God wants to do. And, in any case, that is not the reason we have 'confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.'" That's all. Rather than claiming that God has somehow "chosen" the United States for this purpose, Bush says that we cannot determine whether we have been chosen or not. Such a claim is not necessary in any case, for our hope for universal freedom transcends any notion of "manifest destiny" or having received some sort of "divine favor" as a nation.
The third time the word "God" is used it appears in his closing sentence, "May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America."
Is this "Way Too Much God?"
But what about the phrase, "author of liberty." Has Ms. Noonan never sung the hymn, "My Country 'Tis of Thee?" The fourth, and final, verse begins, "My father's God, to Thee, Author of liberty, to Thee I sing." These words were written by Samuel F. Smith in 1832 with the final verse being a prayer asking for God's blessing on our country.
This unattributed citation supports the Bush thesis that human freedom is not a right granted by government or created and sustained by a national constitution. If this were the case then liberty and freedom, being conceived, created and granted by human hands, could just as easily be taken away by them. Freedom, with humanity as its foundation, is hardly a universal right. Every tyrant, every culture, every nation would be free to affirm human liberty or not. The idea of freedom itself would be reduced to that of an opinion.
Bush refuses to buy into this humanistic approach to human liberty and freedom. Instead, taking his place alongside the writers of our nation's Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, he affirms that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Bush asserts that freedom is a right granted to every human being by God. As such it is both universal and irrevocable. It is good, it is right and, furthermore, being God's will, it will one day triumph.
Ms. Noonan somehow thinks that human freedom can be affirmed as a universal right without citing "God," "providence," "Divine Law," or even "the author of liberty." She is wrong. And, being an intelligent person, she should know she is wrong. The logic is simple and clear.
What she, and others, mean when they say that Bush uses too much "God-speak" is that they do not believe that liberty is a universal right. They believe that liberty is merely a choice, or an option that was chosen as the founding principal of our nation. Other nations, apparently, are free(!) to make different choices. Such alternative choices should not be judged as being better or worse, good or evil. Such judgment on our part must be seen as forcing American values and culture onto other, equally valid cultures with their own, equally valid, set of values.
What we have here are people dancing around the fundamental issue of whether our human freedom is granted by God or created by human invention and chosen as one equally valid option among many.
Personally, I feel much more comfortable with George W. Bush on this one. With his philosophy of freedom he would not be able to take it away from me even if he wanted to! Ms. Noonan and her ilk, however, cause me to break out into a cold sweat. If, as they imply, freedom is granted by a human hand, then it follows that, by a human hand it can be taken away.
Are they so blind as to not see this? Do they not see that they undermine the very values they pretend to hold?
"Way Too Much God," Ms. Noonan? Not by a long shot!
posted by Bird of Paradise at 9:21 PM
<< Home