Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Madeleine Albright is scared of George Bush's faith:
"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.
"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."...
She apparently thinks it antagonizes religious Muslims and makes dealing with them more difficult. I believe the opposite is true. Religious Muslims respect people of faith, as any antagonist must respect a strong opponent and treat them in kind. It's Albright's namby-pamby weak-kneed belief that invites attack by showing an opportunity for gain through confrontation.
Born and raised a Roman Catholic in Czechoslovakia, Britain and then the United States, she converted to Anglicanism when she married and only later in life discovered she had Jewish roots.
It is this legacy which makes her wary of any religion which claims a monopoly on truth, she said.
These days, she describes herself as "an Episcopalian (U.S. Anglican) with a Catholic background", recalling how she used to pray to the Virgin Mary as a child and still does.
"I know I believe in God but I have doubts, and doubt is part of faith," she said.
Self-examination is always a good thing, and Albright clearly caricatures Bush's beliefs by trying to cast him as someone who has no self-doubt. The weakness that Albright tries to sell as strength is simply an invitation for attack by the strong, and a recipe for an inability to see difficult situations through...otherwise known as a lack of backbone. Leftists of the Albright variety will never understand that.
I'd make a rather different criticism of Albright -- Bush has used "absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues" when, exactly?
Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot wrong in that package. Of course, there's not a lot of detail in the article so it's dangerous to go too far with the criticism, but it sounds like she's quoting him from speeches made before religious groups? Imagine, using "over the top" religious rhetoric in front of religious groups. The nerve.