I’ve had to take a break from Myth of a Christian nation to work on two different classes at Highland during the last few weeks, but I just noticed a statement that was apparently made by President Bush recently which serves as a pretty good example of the mentality that Boyd is criticizing. Here is the statement:
The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it’s hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It’s idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.
Among several problems here is this: political freedom is simply not a value that is esposed much (at all, really) in the New Testament. Its a good thing - but its never characterized by the New Testament writers as some lofty ideal that should be placed alongside the notions of love of fellow man and respect for creation. And the idea that the most powerful man in the world thinks its a good idea to kill people and destroy things (two things that do seem to be prohibited) so that he can achieve what he (wrongly?) thinks is this “gift of [the] Almighty” is not a good sign.
Worse yet, he is basically saying “…and I can’t be talked out of this.”
In the meantime, to add his part to the mayhem of the upcoming election year, my son is thinking about creating a Facebook group called “If Hillary is elected, I’m moving to Canada.” I’m thinking about joining.