‘Karl Rove is not a believer’

May 5, 2007

I’m really not sure what to make of this assessment, gleaned by Christopher Hitchens from Karl Rove, as part of Hitchens’ new book, “God is not great.”

I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

I’m torn about the relevance of this. Karl Rove’s theological beliefs, or lack thereof, should be his business. I’d assumed, incorrectly, that he shared the president’s worldview on such matters, but I’m not at all sure this is anyone’s concern but Rove’s.

But (and you had to know a “but” was coming), that’s unsatisfying, isn’t it? Rove works in what can fairly be described as an evangelical White House, led by an evangelical president. Before Hitchens’ “scoop,” we knew of no professed atheists in the White House at all. Indeed, I assumed an admitted non-believer would be made to feel most unwelcome in the president’s inner-circle.

And what of that phrase, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith”? Jonathan Chait argues, “If you don’t believe in God, then why would you think believers are ‘fortunate’ for putting their faith in a nonexistent higher being?” While Ezra relates to Rove’s approach, concluding, “I deeply envy individuals of faith, and would happily bargain away whatever satisfaction I supposedly derive from my bold freethinking for a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane, and a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness.”

I’m not sure what to make of all of this, but I thought I’d pass the “news” along to readers anyway. I do, however, have a couple of questions for Rove and the White House political operation: in his role as a campaign strategist, has Rove ever encouraged a client to exploit religion for partisan gain? Or denigrate non-believers to score points with the GOP base? If so, Rove’s atheism would appear to have far more significance.

It’s not hard to see Karl’s motivations if this is true. If so then he’s even more contemptuous of “Fundies” than he is of Liberals considering all his cynical ploys and plots.as he views them no more useful than rubes and as a club to beat us over the head with.

  • I do, however, have a couple of questions for Rove and the White House political operation: in his role as a campaign strategist, has Rove ever encouraged a client to exploit religion for partisan gain? Or denigrate non-believers to score points with the GOP base? If so, Rove’s atheism would appear to have far more significance.

    Indeed it does. I don’t think he’s an “atheist” so much as he is a believer in power for its own sake – power to make the Prostitute’s Son who was laughed at, bullied, and put down through his childhood, who discovered as a teenager that his father was gay – the opportunity to make all those who denigrated him say “uncle.”

    That’s not really anywhere close to being an “atheist”. It is, however, the description of a sick, twisted psychopath.

  • Quite simple. Machiavelli and Leo Strauss. Exploit the religiousity of people as a means of social control. Karl has no need for religion, he’s a member of the ruling class (or at least one of its agents).

  • This is somewhat old news.

    Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush. In their book The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, authors James Moore and Wayne Slater write that Rove is an agnostic.[26] In an interview on NPR’s program Fresh Air, Slater said “Karl Rove is… an agnostic… He told a friend in high school that he grew up in a largely areligious [sic] household. He told a friend at the University of Texas… that he would like to be a believer, but he’s an agnostic, and couldn’t be otherwise.”[27]

    This was back in the Fall of 2006. The NPR interview is here.
    It isn’t unusual for someone to stop off at agnostic on their way to atheistic. Basically though the reason this is suddenly news is that the magazine is hyping the Hitchens interview.

  • Rove is ruthless, amoral and clever. That he isn’t taken in by the blandishments of religion isn’t all that surprising. Given that even if you focused their attention on it, the fundies would give him a pass on his nonbelief, so this is just unimportant trivia.

  • It’s interesting to me only in that the mindset of the Right, on some level, has always struck me as grounded in the ethos that in Holy War, all is fair: since God can’t play dirty, we have to do so on his behalf, and the righteous end will justify the amoral means.

    Absent that conviction, Rove is just an amoral scumbag.

  • and we are not fortunate enough to have people of ethics wielding administrative power.

  • Isn’t there something in the Bible about avoiding “evil counselors” , not being unequally yolked to unbelief, and seeking wisdom from God? Bush is such a loser; he doesn’t even believe in his own book.

  • There is a quote in the Bible, something to the effect:
    Act as if you have faith and faith will be given to you.
    Mr. Rove certainly does not act as a man of faith.

  • I think of Rove as Bush’s version of “Wormtounge”, the tool of evil behind the throne, whispering darkness into the king’s ear.

  • Rege (post #5) is right. That’s about the same time it came out that Rove’s father (or was it step-father?) was gay. I don’t have any links handy, but I definitely remember reading the articles.

  • I’m glad to see that this story is starting to get some press. It has been lighting up the atheist blogosphere for awhile now. More evidence about Rove’s beliefs (or lack thereof) and a discussion of the implications of this report can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/3c3hfq

  • Sh*t, coming in late again. Can’t resist, though.

    Belifef
    Belief is saying “I don’t know if this is true or not, but I need a starting point so I’ll say ‘I believe it’.” That then, basically, is the staus of a ‘believer’.

    Faith
    Faith is saying “I have some evidence from my own experience, and I trust wiser people than myself who tell me something is true, so, in order to develop spiritually and expand my understanding, I have faith in the benefit of engaging in certain methods and practices. I pursue my study and practice according to guidance I have received, convinced of their future benefit.”

    Truth
    Truth will always be more contentious, but still there are sine qua nons we all have to accept if we are to make any sense at all in discussing any issue. I won’t enumerate these, but they are of the nature 1 plus 1 equals 2, etc. There are extremely profound truths that are hard to access but, when reached, are entirely liberating. These cannot be reached by words or analysis alone. They require direct experience.
    There are, of course, an infinite number of relative truths, but these are constrained by an inescapable superficiality, namely: each relative truth has to be explain in terms of another relative truth. Though useful in a practical sense, they are inadequate on their own for a complete understanding of the true nature of mind and reality.

    Belief is a reasonable starting point. Faith builds on belief and develops on the basis of evidence and experience. Truth is the ultimate goal of belief and faith, and is incontrovertible when found. Truth does not need to be imposed on others, nor do others need to be persuaded of it. It is simply known and experience.

    May all beings be happy and create the causes of happiness

  • Rove is too Machiavellian to be a believer in anything. Whether it be a god or goodness and love. As I recall he admitted that rounding up the religious right was his idea to bring home the votes. He/this admin in other words used people’s belief systems (in addition to fear…but that’s another method)…to win them over to the real side of evil which is: Corporate $$$ ober allus.

  • come on cb, are you crazy ?

    this is the most cynical white house in history, and that feral little retard would have a nazi pedophile satan-worshipper in his inner circle if he thought he was smart enough to take a brain-damaged failure and deliver him the white house for two terms …

  • I believe atheists must quickly conjure some sort of excommunication system so as to disavow Karl Rove before he gets any closer to us than “agnostic.” Damn, we’ve had to work so hard to try to get people past the idea that atheists are necessarily amoral and evil and here comes this schmuck to tar us with guilt by association.

    #4 and #12 are right on the money. But the sheeple are too blind to see how cynical this scumbag is. It’s like Rush calling his fans dittoheads. They’re too damn stupid to realize he’s insulting them every time he says it.

  • Perhaps the more important question is whether he has any moral principles, or any sense of right or wrong. Does he have any sense of responsibility to the electorate who pay his salary and who allowed him to hold the position he now holds? Or is he totally amoral and immoral?

    I think, however, the article says more about Bush’s version of Christianity than it does about Rove’s. Once again we see that there is no limit to the depth or breadth of immorality of the lies that Bush will tell, to get what Fratbrat Boy wants.

    At least, when asked, Rove is probably giving an honest answer.

  • Per “I do, however, have a couple of questions for Rove … has Rove ever encouraged a client to exploit religion for partisan gain?”

    Wasn’t there a 60 Minutes expose about this? A fellow named James Wolcott was the White House point man on faith based initiatives. He related how Rove was cynical and vulgar in discussing the subject. “Get me a God damned faith based thing” or something to that effect. I think Wolcott, a conservative Christian, wrote a book about it.

    • Comments are closed.