Is Bush an apocalyptic Christian who believes the "end times" are coming soon?

[BrainGlutton]

@Crotalus

He’s saying he hasn’t thought of it that way, and he hasn’t talked to anyone who thinks of it that way.

I find the latter part very hard to believe.

Unless he has talked to people who think of it that way, but did not understand what they were saying.

[Crotalus]

@BrainGlutton

I find the latter part very hard to believe.

Unless he has talked to people who think of it that way, but did not understand what they were saying.

I can understand your skepticism. I am what most would call a fundamentalist Christian, and I have definitely, though rarely, talked to people who seem to believe that we are currently in the midst of the end times. Most of the Christians I know appear to adhere to an admonishment by Christ to the apostles that they not try to work out when He will return (I did a quick search and couldn’t find the verse). I think both parts of his statement may be true.

[John_Mace]

@RickJay

There is no way in hell any President is going to directly say “no” and piss off eighty million fundamentalists. Bill Clinton would not have given a straight answer, either. Neither would Bush 1.0 or Reagan, who were two of the least religious Presidents in living memory.

There were about 100M votes in the last election. Are you saying 80% of the populace are fundamentalist Christians, and that all of those think we’re in the end of times now? Maybe you meant 8M.

[ElvisL1ves]

Or maybe he’s aware that not everyone eligible votes? The numbers aren’t inconsistent, although the definition of “fundamentalist” is certainly negotiable.

Clinton or Carter would have noted that the majority of Americans are not fundamentalists, and are somewhat worried by them as well. Their responses would have been No, but phrased so as to reassure both the questioner as to their solid Christianity, and the non-fundies as to their non-fundamentalism. Both of them, and Gore too, can quote chapter and verse as well as anyone, and would have cited Jesus’ admonitions about not knowing the time of His return, and His other general lessons about taking care of each other and the Earth, as guiding their actions. Bush lacks that deftness and resorts to evasiveness, but usually to a greater extent than he displayed in that answer.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

I wonder if Carter would have?

Wasn’t Carter a baptist (and rather fervent about being one)? He probably won’t have even hemmed and hawed about it BG…

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

@Crotalus

Most of the Christians I know appear to adhere to an admonishment by Christ to the apostles that they not try to work out when He will return (I did a quick search and couldn’t find the verse).

Matthew 24

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
…
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
…
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

[Crotalus]

@xtisme

Wasn’t Carter a baptist (and rather fervent about being one)? He probably won’t have even hemmed and hawed about it BG…

-XT

I thought BrainGlutton’s question was interesting, too, but I can’t decide what I think he would have said. He essentially introduced some phrases which are common among fundamentalist Christians into the mainstream media, such as “born again” and “lusted in my heart”, so he was pretty unselfconscious about his faith. I feel fairly certain that he believed, at the time of his presidency, that there would someday be an end time as described in the bible. But I know a lot of Christians who feel that they are not supposed to speculate about it, and, as I said above, I have rarely heard a Christian talk about the apocalypse being now.

And, on preview, thanks, Elvis, for finding that verse. I did a quick look before and missed it.

[Kimstu]

@xtisme

Wasn’t Carter a baptist (and rather fervent about being one)? He probably won’t have even hemmed and hawed about it BG…

I dunno, Jimmy Carter doesn’t seem particularly enamored of the views of many modern fundamentalists, to judge by what he said about them in his recent book Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis:

For generations, leaders within my own church and denomination had described themselves as “fundamentalists,” claiming that they were clinging to the fundamental elements of our Baptist beliefs and resisting the pressures and influence of the modern world. This inclination to “cling to unchanging principles” is an understandable and benign aspect of religion, and a general attitude that I have shared during most of my life.

I soon learned that there was a more intense form of fundamentalism, with some prevailing characteristics:

    * Almost invariably, fundamentalist movements are led by authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others and, within religious groups, have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women and to dominate their fellow believers.
    * Although fundamentalists usually believe that the past is better than the present, they retain certain self-beneficial aspects of both their historic religious beliefs and the modern world.
    * Fundamentalists draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.
    * Fundamentalists are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs. They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda.
    * Fundamentalists tend to make their self-definition increasingly narrow and restricted, to isolate themselves, to demagogue emotional issues, and to view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.

To summarize, there are three words that characterize this brand of fundamentalism: rigidity, domination, and exclusion.

I imagine that Carter probably isn’t a “Rapture Baptist”.

[BrainGlutton]

@Kimstu

I dunno, Jimmy Carter doesn’t seem particularly enamored of the views of many modern fundamentalists, to judge by what he said about them in his recent book Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis:

I imagine that Carter probably isn’t a “Rapture Baptist”.

And if the Rapture does come, we’re gonna lose 'im!

[yanceylebeef]

@Kimstu

I dunno, Jimmy Carter doesn’t seem particularly enamored of the views of many modern fundamentalists, to judge by what he said about them in his recent book Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis:

I imagine that Carter probably isn’t a “Rapture Baptist”.

In an interview last year with MSNBC, Mr. Carter was said to have bemoaned the “melding … between the Republican Party and the more conservative Christians,” saying: “This is not only an anomaly, but I think is contrary to the best interests of our democratic principles.”

It also said …“He broke with the convention several years ago, distressed at its takeover by conservative Christian fundamentalists beginning in 1979.”

He’s talked about his faith before, and is very open about being an Evangelical.

[monavis]

@ElvisL1ves

Matthew 24

As I understand it (in a way) the Stars and planets are in a constent state of a fall their gravitation around the sun makes them move. Our sun is the closest star and if it came closer to earth then the earth and all life in it would be destroyed.or earth would be too hot for our type of life.

3,000 years from now people will still be waiting for the end to happen. Every one has a personal end to their life so one should live life the best that they can.

Monavis

[ElvisL1ves]

@monavis

3,000 years from now people will still be waiting for the end to happen. Every one has a personal end to their life so one should live life the best that they can.

Sure, but the temptation to just let all of those petty wordly responsibilities go, convince oneself of one’s own righteousness, and simply wait to be imminently taken bodily into Heaven is pretty strong. It’s the easy, feel-good method, after all.

[JRDelirious]

BTW I think RickJay oversimplified and lumped in every so-called “Evangelical Christian” in his “80 million” number, even though not all of them are believers in the imminence of the end-times or the Rapture.

However, I would not fault W for treading mighty gingerly over anything that may raise the hackles of the harder-line fundamentalist-endtimer segment, even if they’re nowhere near 80 million, because they ARE activist and DO vote. As to his statement that this is “first I heard of it”, I take it to be Bushese for “sure, I listen politely when someone brings it up, but, Lordy, no, I don’t seriously base my policies on that, it’s not something I could do anything about anyway, man, gimme some credit! Aren’t you payng attention? It’s about oil–er, I mean, about freedom and democracy…”

I agree, though, that Bill or Ronnie would have taken that ball and played it until nobody remembered what the question was and everyone listening could have sworn he said exactly what they wanted to hear.

[UncleBeer]

@BrainGlutton

As Kevin Phillips pointed out, that answer took 5 minutes when a simple “No” should have sufficed, but we should take comfort that W answered* it without referring even obliquely to Bible prophecy at any time.

I’m not sure you read that right. That article linked was written by Maureen Farrell - not Kevin Phillips. It’s Farrell who is relating to us statements made by Lou Dobbs in his CNN interview with Phillips; Dobbs is the guy who said it took Bush five minutes to answer the question posed. Dobbs also tells us that it is one of his own colleagues who asserted that a simple yes/no answer from Bush should have sufficed. Phillips only wrote the book which prompted the question. And then gave us his view on why Bush had such trouble responding.

Interestingly, if we read the CNN transcript of Lou Dobbs’ interview with Kevin Phillips, one gets the strong impression that Dobbs wants us to believe that Bush’s response, “The answer is – I haven’t really thought of it that way,” came only after five minutes of hemming and hawing. In actuality, when one looks at the Whitehouse transcript of the Bush interview, that sentence comes first in Bush’s five minute answer. The remainder of the response Bush gave was an attempt to further explain his initial answer.
Not that any of that makes a real difference in what you’re saying. Just that your statement glosses over several possibly important nuances.

[BrainGlutton]

@UncleBeer

The remainder of the response Bush gave was an attempt to further explain his initial answer.

The remainder of the response had nothing whatsoever to do with his initial answer or even with the question asked.

[UncleBeer]

@BrainGlutton

The remainder of the response had nothing whatsoever to do with his initial answer or even with the question asked.

I suppose not. Allow me to concede that I’ve commited an error. That, however, doesn’t mean much. I wasn’t really trying to make any qualitative statement about what Bush said, didn’t say, or flat out evaded. I just wanted to set the record straight on who said what to whom. Your post, to me, seemed misleading.

[tomndebb]

I’m sorry, but every time I see this thread, I read it as
Is Bush an apoplectic Christian who believes …?.

[BrainGlutton]

@tomndebb

I’m sorry, but every time I see this thread, I read it as
Is Bush an apoplectic Christian who believes …?.

Somehow I can’t imagine Bush getting excited enough to put him at risk of apoplexy.

[BrainGlutton]

Kevin Phillips has a good article in The Nation on the theocratic trend within the Pubs generally: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/phillips

Regarding W and Iraq:

Since Robertson’s run for the White House in 1988 and the victory that same year by Bush the Elder, the Republican Party has clearly moved closer to this constituency–and the process was speeded by Bill Clinton, whose politics and personal conduct offended the churchgoing South, in particular, enabling George W. Bush to pose as the standard-bearer of moral restoration in 2000. This metamorphosis gained further momentum after September 11, 2001, when the younger Bush responded to the terrorist attacks by declaring the start of a war between good and evil, speaking in a relentlessly religious idiom that several biblical scholars have described as double-coding–only mildly religious on the surface, but beneath that full of allusions to biblical passages and Christian hymns. They, too, suggested that Bush cast himself as a prophet of sorts–one who spoke for God.

The upshot of this escalating religiosity on the part of the Republican national leadership has been an escalating and parallel religiosity on the part of the Republican rank and file. Those voting Republican for President since 1988 have become increasingly religious in motivation. After 9/11 pro-Bush preachers described Bush as God’s chosen man while hinting that Saddam Hussein, whose Iraq was the biblical “New Babylon” of fundamentalist preacher Tim LaHaye’s eerie Left Behind series, was the Antichrist or at least the forerunner of the Evil One. In 2004 a further wave of evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal turnout helped to cement the Republican transformation, even as moderate mainline Protestants shuddered and turned in a small Democratic trend between 2000 and 2004.

[tdn]

@yanceylebeef

It also said …“He broke with the convention several years ago, distressed at its takeover by conservative Christian fundamentalists beginning in 1979.”

I certainly remember this when it happened.

But it does prompt the question: What was the party of choice for the religious right pre-1979? Surely they were not a huge Democrat voting bloc. Did they just generally avoid the polls altogether?