Balkinization: George W. Bush and faith in an afterlife

George W. Bush and faith in an afterlife

Sandy Levinson

A story in today's Times about George W. Bush's encounters with relatives of slain soldiers includes the following description of those meetings: "God is a frequent topic. Robert Lehmiller, also of Salt Lake City, says the president brought religion into the conversation, telling him, “If you truly believe the Scriptures, you will see your son again.” Although I probably should, I can't refrain from placing this comment in the context of the alleged belief of Islamicist suicide bombers that they will reach paradise quickly (and be greeted by 72 virgins). That is, I presume that for most of us that belief is just one more sign of irrational fanaticism. But what should we think of what presumably is the far more common belief in the US that there is indeed an afterlife in which one will be reunited with those one loved? And, more to the point, is it easier for a Commander-in-Chief in effect to send those loved ones to their deaths if he believes in this optimistic Christian message that, taken to one extreme, treats one's time in this particular world, this "vale of tears," as of limited importance as against the blessings of eternity that come through acceptance of Jesus as one's Savior (see John 3:16, which I memorized many years ago as a third-grader in my North Carolina school in order to win a Bible certificate)? One does not know if Bush believes that Jews (or any other non-Christians) will see their loved ones again. I.e., is the assumption underlying the statement attributed to Bush that if you don't "believe in the Scriptures," then you will be deprived of the boon that believers get? There was an article in the Sunday NY Times Magazine sometime around 1999 that indicated that he adhered to an exclusivist view that being Christian was a necessary, and not only a sufficient, condition for salvation. The article reported that Barbara Bush disagreed, but there is no indication that Bush has ever renounced this widely held view among many contemporary Evangelical Christians and pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics.

So the possibilities are these: 1) What political leaders believe (or profess to believe) about religion is of no importance whatsoever in explaining what they actually do. Either they are completely cynical or, even if not cynical, they can sufficiently "compartmentalize" so that their ostensibly deepest theological views are irrelevant when it comes to the task of governing. This view presumably is held by those who believe that it is illegitimate (and probably unconstitutional to boot) to ask self-professed committed religionists nominated to the federal bench (such as William Pryor) if their views might indeed affect the way they would interpret the law with regard to, say, the death penalty, abortion, social justice, family law, etc., etc. So if George Bush believes in a joyful afterlife that, in a profound sense, negates the circumstances of one's death here "below," that may be an interesting factoid, but of no political relevance (even if it is thought to be relevant that Islamic youths may believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their acts as "martyrs").

2) There are indeed connections, at least for some people, between what they believe about theological matters, whether it is what God is deemed to require of us or whether there is an afterlife, and that decisions in the world may be affected by these beliefs. If this is the case, then, of course, we should be very interested in whether these connections are present with regard to those who lead (or would wish to) lead us.

Mr. Bush should be commended for trying to give comfort to the families who have paid the highest costs, at least among Americans, for our invasion of Iraq, though one might still wish that he had found time to attend at least one funeral for someone killed in Iraq. (The article does suggest, incidentally, that there is a certain amount of vetting that keeps away those who might wish to pour out their wrath on the President for sending their loved ones into harms way for no very good reason.) As suggested in my first paragraph, perhaps this posting is just one more example of my over-the-top suspicion of George W. Bush. Still, we know that he believes it relevant to inject religion into these moments of encounter as a means of consolation, and I cannot help wondering how his belief in an afterlife might structure the way he behaves in other contexts within the world, including his role as our Commander-in-Chief. Is he consoled by the same confidence that death's sting is not in fact permanent (at least for believers)?

Posted 2:46 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

George W. Bush and atheists in foxholes. I wonder - does George Jr. feel the same as George Sr.?

"...I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George H. W. Bush, Aug. 27, 1987

I ask because the almighty Commander Guy has said he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord" - so I wondered if what his Daddy thinks about this is what he thinks too.

# posted by

EvilPoet : 4:22 PM

The Sept. 1998 article in the NYT Magazine that Sandy mentioned is available here.

# posted by

Unknown : 6:30 PM

Bush senior doesn't/didn't have much affection for the religious right -- he's a dying breed: a Country Club Republican. I think that 1987 statement can be chalked up to Atwater telling HW that he needed the Christian conservatives' votes.

# posted by

Calvin TerBeek : 6:51 PM

Bush's 'faith', I suspect, to the extent that it is actually felt, is little more than a visceral alignment with power. Properly, self-mystification.

His 'faith' allows him to imaginatively and emotionally participate in a narrative that places him, as the leader of a chosen nation, at the centre of a supernatural drama. Identifying himself as an instrument of divine power allows him to instrumentalise all else.

His 'faith' plays out in the horrible tangle of his gut. It expresses itself as an unwarranted confidence in the rightness of his decisions, a scorn for evidence, an inability to comprehend difference, his lack of curiosity, and his willingness to make 'difficult decisions' (that is, his willingness to send other people to die).

If only there were some reasoned theological positions that informed his decisions. That would allow debate, dialogue. But that would seem all too bookish. If god moves through Bush, she moves through his gut (oh, infernal viscera).

# posted by

Unknown : 7:22 PM

Abstractly, not uninteresting.

Politically, don't go there.

# posted by

Anderson : 7:45 PM

I would say that a politician's religious beliefs in the sense of ethics, i.e., what his/her religion imposes as a moral obligation is very important and a matter of legitimate public discussion. A politician's religious beliefs in the sense of theology are better treated as private.

(I have also noticed, though, that most people, when talking about their religion, have no real interest in or understanding of theology anyway).

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 8:35 PM

'Politically, don't go there.' - Anderson

Anderson, was this directed at my comment?

Sandy's post invites us to consider the possible implications of Bush's 'belief' on his policies, rather than to look at the political implications of religious demographics and such.

Surely one can speculate here about what goes on in Bush's brain (though, granted, it's not so pleasant to imagine what goes on in his gut)? The media and Very Serious People are forever busy with speculations about the metaphysical motivations of 'matyrs' (Sandy makes this point).

I was involved in a film about an ex-special forces operative who went on to hold senior posts in the pentagon and had serious political aspirations. I spent much time with him in the dusty desert town that he has retired to, and I was disconcerted again and again by the effortlessness with which he moved from incisive insider political analysis to eschatology.

He once said, 'there are angels that strum the harp, and there are angels that hold a flaming sword. Sometimes we need a different kind of angel...'

I was properly scared. I certainly don't want to take any kind of clash-of-civilisations position, but surely in some minds and some of the time 'spreading democracy' is god's work.

(Surely it doesn't cause offense here not to capitalise 'god'?)

# posted by

Unknown : 8:35 PM

But what about the opposite position, that there is no hereafter, that This Is It? If that is the case, then how do you justify any sacrifice at all?

If there is nothing else, why would or should anyone risk dying for anything other than some altruism that admittedly you will never know or benefit from.

This goes back to the old posts on human rights and religion. If one is well and truly an atheist, what is there to fight for or to risk death for? To go back in history, what difference does it make to you if a bunch of jews, gypsies and various others are getting gassed in Poland if you are a farmer in Iowa? Or some people down south being enslaved in brutal conditions. Why risk losing it all when you won't even know the outcome?

Walking the rows in Arlington, most of those markers have a cross, quite a few have a star of david and I'm sure there are some with significance to muslims and others. Many of those who fought and died, in fact probably the overwhelming majority of them, believed in an afterlife of some sort. For some of them, it is what motivated them to lay down their lives to make the world a somewhat better place.

I don't have the answer to whether there is something hereafter, but is Bush so terrible to believe there is?

# posted by

Scott : 9:15 PM

Calvin TerBeek - it seems the more things change - the more they remain the same.

# posted by

EvilPoet : 9:21 PM

'some altruism that admittedly you will never know or benefit from' - Scott

Isn't this what defines altruism? What would be an altruism that we benefited from?

To keep the discussion focused on Bush's 'beliefes': there would be nothing terrible in Bush believing in an afterlife, or reincarnation, or transport to a parallel universe. What would be terrible would be if his belief in an afterlife made him all the more willing to send others to it.

And my concern is not that Bush has 'faith', rather the he has bad faith, so to speak.

It would surely be too easy for me to say that there is so much here on earth, scattered about, so much in the few days that we have, so much in life that I would be willing to die for (and without the promise of a sweet hereafter).

And sometimes I think it must be an uncommon courage that allows people to march into death at another's bidding (though sometimes surely as uncommon a courage not to do so). At other times I think, how easily, how eagerly, humans throw themselves at death.

But as you mention the rows in Arlington, it might be worth bearing in mind that, while many died fighting against fascism, many also died fighting for it. Many of them have crosses on their graves, too.

# posted by

Unknown : 9:59 PM

Sandy:

The comparison between joining God as a result of one's faith in God and being awarded 72 virgins for committing mass murder is a tad over the top. Indeed, the latter man-made fantasy is completely contrary to Allah's law against murder. In any case, I am not exactly what use 72 virgins will be when you are in non-corpeal form as a spirit.

As to the affect faith has on policy, I cannot imagine a true believer in God not being guided by His instruction. However, faith in the afterlife does not mean that it becomes easier for a leader to sacrifice life in a war because life is one of God's most precious gifts.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:10 PM

Scott,

Can someone, at this late date, write, with seeming sincerity,that if there is no 'after-life', there is nothing worth 'sacrificing' for? Nothing to 'die" for defending? Pathetic, pathetic. To quote the old Tim Curry song, I Do the Rock, "Nietzsche's six feet under but his babies' still got rhythm'. Ah Friedrich, how much like the Bourbon's America (and mankind) still is; I think we have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.

# posted by

jme : 7:53 AM

Sorry, mi-uw, I was referring to Prof. Levinson's post.

It is a bit curious, actually, that none of America's principal wars appears to have been directed by a president who was a dogmatic (I mean "orthodox," but that's confusing) Christian. Lincoln hardly qualifies, FDR even less so; Truman, LBJ, Nixon ....

Wilson is arguably a closer call, but he does not seem to have been terribly eager to get American troops into the war.

# posted by

Anderson : 10:21 AM

While religiously motivated murder is hardly insignificant, the vast majority of mass murder over human history (especially modern history) was performed by states which were either atheist or were commanded by leaders who would not be thought to be following the basic precepts of Judaic/Christian/Islamic monotheism.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:17 PM

the vast majority of mass murder over human history (especially modern history) was performed by states which were either atheist or were commanded by leaders who would not be thought to be following the basic precepts of Judaic/Christian/Islamic monotheism.

However, a very significant percentage of the mass murder was commanded by those claiming to do it for religious reasons, which was sufficient to motivate those who felt they were doing their religious duty by killing, despite the precepts of their religion.

A very good reason to distrust any political leader who wants to commit violence by claiming religious grounds (especially when there is a very strong case that such violence will achieve the political, commercial, or personal goals of the leader).

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 9:14 PM

I do not wish to comment on the hereafter. But hereinafter, I would hope not to encounter in legal documents "hereinafter" or, for that matter, "hereinbefore." For the originalists who believe in the "herebefore," please come down to earth.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:20 AM

The comparison between joining God as a result of one's faith in God and being awarded 72 virgins for committing mass murder is a tad over the top.

How so? I'd note that, for those so inclined, "committing mass murder" is just "doing the Lord's [or Allah's ... or Cthulhu's ... or whoever's] work". And we as mortals are hardly in a position to question revealed divine wisdom, no?

You might argue that "salvation by faith" requires no such "good work", and thus that the fundie folks don't actually go out doing the Lord's work ... but I'd point out that this is hardly true in fact, and that to the extent that it is true, it is a bizarre thought; the idea that axe-murdering pederasts get to sit at the right hand of Gawd [that, FWIW, is my compromise on the proper capitalisation of the divine's appellation] just by having "faith in their salvation through the substitutional atonement of Jesus-on-a-crosss", while not encouraging bad acts, certainly seems to allow for such penalty-free....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:47 AM

"Bart" DePalma slanders atheists:

While religiously motivated murder is hardly insignificant, the vast majority of mass murder over human history (especially modern history) was performed by states which were either atheist or were commanded by leaders who would not be thought to be following the basic precepts of Judaic/Christian/Islamic monotheism.

Quite selective "history" (which is a polite way of saying "false"). Not to mention, nary a single leader has ever taken a country to war under the banner of atheism. Wouldn't work, even if some numbnutz was stoopid enough to try; we don't have much truck for authority; goes with the territory.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:53 AM

Hey Bart - where did you get your talking points? Ann Coulter?

/snark

# posted by

EvilPoet : 12:29 PM

"...who would not be thought to be following the basic precepts of Judaic/Christian/Islamic monotheism."

And someone trots out the "No true Scotsman" fallacy....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:13 PM

Is it time to sing:

"Onward Christian/Islamic/Judaic Soldiers .... Marching on to War Against the Atheists"?

All together now!

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:45 PM

Sorry I got to the party after everybody had left. Interesting, that some commenters had in mind the difference in military behavior that might occur between people who believe in PARADISE after death rather than in EXTINCTION after death. But nobody spoke of the difference in military behavior that might occur between people who believe in the possibility (probability?)of HELL rather than EXTINCTION after death.

Is there any evidence that religious belief (based on venerable authority) in the prospect of eternal punishment for those who commit aggressive war or other war crimes has restrained Christians, Jews or Muslims tempted to commit such crimes?

Posted Monday, Nov 12

# posted by

Curtis Crawford : 9:10 PM

Bart writes:
The comparison between joining God as a result of one's faith in God and being awarded 72 virgins for committing mass murder is a tad over the top. Indeed, the latter man-made fantasy is completely contrary to Allah's law against murder. In any case, I am not exactly what use 72 virgins will be when you are in non-corpeal form as a spirit.

The Islamic version of 'heaven' is just as valid and verifiable as your own. There is no polite way to describe your position here.

And no, the belief that the righteous, regardless of how they have died, will have 72 virgin wives is no more a man-made myth than whether or not jesus was born from a virgin and rose from the dead.

# posted by

John : 4:01 PM

Establishment Clause challenge to the war in Iraq!

# posted by

Brendon : 6:03 PM

I'm as quick to ascribe wackiness to George Jr. as anyone, but I think it goes too far to suggest that he devalues human life because he believes in heaven. I've known lots of people who believe in heaven, and none of them wanted themselves or their loved ones to get there any quicker. If he truly does not value human life, it's probably for the most common reason: we never feel others' losses like we feel our own.

# posted by

moonbeam : 5:43 PM