« Previous | Main | Next »

Will George Bush become a Catholic?

William Crawley | 00:48 UK time, Sunday, 15 June 2008

_44744074_e19b1762-78a4-4891-ae68-9de88d7030b4.jpgCal Thomas, the syndicated columnist, joins me on Sunday Sequence this week to talk about President Bush's European tour and, amongst other things, the rumour that the US president, a lifelong Methodist, may, in retirement, follow Tony Blair into a new spiritual home -- the Catholic Church. George Bush's brother Jeb, the former governor of Florida, has already made that spiritual journey. Speculation has been encouraged by the unprecedented reception given to the president by Pope Benedict on Friday (watch here).


  • Comment number 1.

    Whew, you scared me. For a second I thought you were going to tell me he's becoming a Democrat.

  • Comment number 2.

    George Bush: may will become a Catholic....

  • Comment number 3.

    As leaders of two great empires, Bush and Benny have a lot in common. They were both elected by a cabal of powerful right-wingers, though they would like to give the impression that they are the people's choice. They have squandered the lives of many, many innocent people, Bush through his bombing of Iraq and other countries, Benedict through his pig-headed opposition to contraception which has taken a huge toll in terms of starving people and those suffering from AIDS. They both have an albatross round their necks: Bush has the iniquity of torture, kidnapping and Guantanamo; Benny has the folly of celibacy and the covering-up of paedophile crimes. Throughout the wreckage that they have caused, both believe that the spirit in the sky approves of their actions.

    In fact, they have so much in common, I would not be surprised if they got married.

  • Comment number 4.

    Does anyone know if George ever "came out" as Evangelical? He talked the talk, but I've never been sure if he publicly identified himself as one of us.

    Graham Veale

  • Comment number 5.

    Oldredeyes - was going to post a detailed response but you're just talking crap so won't bother.

  • Comment number 6.

    I might be interested in a detailed reply, especially if you've got a defence of Benedict. I know very little about him.
    G Veale

  • Comment number 7.

    gveale - there is nothing to defend with Benedict. He's the Pope - that means he believes and teaches what the Catholic Church believes. Suggesting he's responsible for Aids is beyond ludicrous but for the record a quick defence. People who blame the church because of its attitude to condoms pretend that there is a group of people who ignore the church's teaching on sex outside marriage, ignore her teaching on homosexual acts, ignore her teaching on prostitution - but bizarrely all adhere to the Church's teaching on condoms and therefore catch or spread Aids. It's beyond stupid. The church has no particular view on the use of contraception within other sinful acts - we don't teach people how best to commit sins, anymore than we would tell robbers whether to use guns or knives. But as a matter of prudence, we would suggest that encouraging the use of condoms in otherwise risky sexual situations has contributed significantly to the spread of Aids, partly because it is seen to support the risky activity in the first place and secondly because as a matter of fact, condoms have a percentage failure rate in practice through incorrect usage and breakage.

    I don't think Bush will become a Catholic but I think he is very respectful of Catholics and shares a lot of our views.

    Now a defence of Bush. He is responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years.

    Some would argue that removing Saddam Hussein and his crew constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did.

    But we should remember something, America invaded Iraq to protect America, not for purely humanitarian reasons and that’s the difference between it and Rwanda or Darfur.

    It is unquestionable that Bush has made the USA safer by keeping Islamic terrorists pinned down fighting troops in Iraq. In the past few years, the US has killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. They’ll not be hijacking planes and flying into buildings any time soon.

    The Iraq war has been a success. The Iraqi army is coming into its own, Muqtada al-Sadr has retreated to Iran. Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. The Iraqis have a democracy.

    According to a CNN report, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.)

    Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed. The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

    The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

    Liberals have only blind hatred for Bush.


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.