Customer Reviews

With God on Our Side - George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right in America

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Whether you're on the side of the Christian right or suspicious of it, this film successfully gives nothing more than the facts about the conservative/fundamentalist's political agenda and its influence on the U.S. political scene over the last several decades. It never resorts to taking a stand. Those on the right will find nothing to disdain, and those on the opposite side will perhaps be more informed about what they fear. The movie gives the entire scenario, much of which I've either forgotten, or perhaps never was aware of, regarding the Rev. Billy Graham's unfortunate support of Nixon, President Reagen's Supreme Court nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor and her "disappointing" track record (to those on the right), the presidential bid of Pat Robertson and his scarey jump start in the early primaries, and how conservatives feel that George W. is finally, definitely their man. All very interesting and informative.

Fabulous doco...

Explores various religious aspects across more than a quarter of a century.

The documentary discusses the importance of religion in modern politics and its place as a modern campaigning tool - using rare footage from Carter onward.

The other focus of the program is on the president and his personal embrace of religion. Though some are cynical, the program enables a better understanding for those unfamiliar with some of the personal history of Dubya.

WGOOS is an examination of the rise of conservative Christians (especially the Moral Majority) as a political force in America over the last 40 years. It uses interviews with some of the movement's heavy hitters -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Ralph Reed and others -- to discuss the movement's ups, downs and political maturation. The film seems intended as a critique of the movement. In this it fails, depicting these men (and they are all men!) on their turf, with no agenda other than to bring Christ to the nation. But there's little examination that the "Christ" they are talking about is pro-American, pro-capitalism and pro-conservative. If there's a lack of balance in the film, it's that there is almost no voice to oppose the self-sanctifying stories these men tell of themselves. It would have been helpful to the ordinary viewer, for instance, had voices from the religious center or left be added to challenge the conservative interpretation of Jesus and the gospels. It would have been helpful too had the film shown more clips from the TV shows these men run. Falwell's claim that the ACLU and lesbians (among others) were to blame for 9/11 was included, but little other spectacular and disturbing material. As it is, the men seem quaint and passionate about their faith, but little more.

The second part of the movie focused on the rise of George W. Bush as the latest hope of religious right to push their agenda. The movie makes a strong case for Bush's sincerity as a believing Christian. After seeing Bush praying and preaching and talking about God, it's hard to believe him to be completely cynical on the subject. The film buttresses the case for Bush the believer, but fails to note behaviors or positions at odds with that image. Bush's consistent support for tax cuts for the wealthy, for instance, ought to strike Christians as a bit out of the gospel mainstream. Indeed, the film is so careful about the topic that it comes across as almost worshipful - inadvertently providing us with an idyll to George W. Bush as God's choice for America.

The film was strongest when it put the viewer inside the mind of conservatives as they watched the parade of recent presidents. It was painful to watch Jimmy Carter, a man of strong morals and deep evangelical convictions, try to support a woman's right to choose. With religious conservatives equating abortion with murder, his embrace of this party's pro-choice plank must have seemed positively scandalous. The footage of Ronald Reagan with beaming conservative religious leaders showed their giddiness at having achieved power -- just before they realized that while Reagan used them to get elected, he would follow his own path. The film also scored when it portrayed the bewilderment of the media establishment when faced with a longstanding movement they knew nothing about. It was hilarious to see anchor John Chancellor talk about evangelicals as though they were a newly-discovered tribe of headhunters from the mountains of Borneo.

All in all, WGOOS provided interesting insights into a movement that has done much to shape the political debate in the United States. Its greatest blunder is to allow the movement's own leaders to define the film without adequately depicting the context in which the movement exists. Its greatest missed opportunity was to neglect a discussion of the brand of Christianity that informs these men, to ask why it is so popular, and to discuss why people of good will might disagree.

The real danger is that someday the evangelicals will gain so much power that they will turn this country into a theocracy. You can believe that the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Robison and others, if given the choice of a country under their power or a country under the power of the people, would not hesitate to install themselves or someone who would do their bidding.

Well, would this be a bad thing for America? The astonishing thing is that many people would say "No, it wouldn't be a bad thing for America." The more amazing thing is, it could happen.

Democracy and the rule of law, the idea of equal rights for all citizens and a government of checks and balances is actually something new in the world if one takes a long view. Throughout most of human history most rulers were tyrannical and told the people that they derived their power and authority from God. Whether they were European kings, Japanese emperors, Islamic ayatollahs or Easter Island chieftains, they all spoke for and were to spoken to in a privileged way by God. It is only in the last two centuries or so that democratic leaders have risen to rule their countries without the claim that they rule by the authority of God. Thanks to the Enlightenment and the rise of education for the masses it has become increasing difficult to persuade the majority of people that any individual should rule because that individual (and his supporters) say he is God's choice. After all, who decides who is God's choice, and how can we know? Who speaks for God?

That is the real question. In Iran the ayatollahs speak for God. In America it is often the TV evangelist. But they speak in different tongues and they say diametrically opposed things. Both have the Truth and the Light. Both have God on their side.

Today's evangelical Christians claim that it is they who speak for God and it is they who know God's will. Ah, to know God's will. Such arrogance. And in their arrogance they would turn this country into a theocracy in which their will would be done in the name of God.

The problem with having God on your side is that you can't be wrong. Not only that but with God on your side it is easy to persuade yourself that the ends you believe in justify the means you will use to achieve them. If someone is against you, it is easy to see that they are against God. Since you can't be wrong, why should there be any discussion? Why should anyone be allowed to stand in your way?

This is why it is dangerous for the rest of us to allow the evangelics to take over the Republican Party on their way to taking over the country. You can be sure, given the power, they will usher in an Age of Ignorance and Superstition to rival that of the Middle Ages and (by the way) initiate an apocalyptic war with Islam and any other religion or creed that tries to oppose their Truth. After all, to them this life on earth is only a brief period of time before the Judgment. And those who do not follow their beliefs will be in eternal damnation anyway. So what does it matter what we do today or tomorrow or the next when the Rapture is coming and Christ again and the day of judgment?

Question: By what authority does Pat Robertson speak for God?

Answer: By the same authority that Osama bin Laden speaks for God.

This documentary--like no other documentary that I have ever viewed--will appeal simultaneously to both the evangelicals and those who oppose them. Both sides will see in this documentary evidence that supports their point of view. The evangelicals will see their glorious and upstanding heroes triumphant, and others will be disgusted at the very sight on screen of the carefully coiffured liars and hypocrites and those who lust for power. It will also explain why George W. Bush became the President of the United States, and send a warning. What sort of man might the evangelicals elect next?

This was a very strange documentary. The first half is a very straightforward, objective and informative history of the evangelical influence on US politics from circa 1950. But by the last half all objectivity is thrown out the window and it turns into a very blatant promotional movie for George W. Bush and his handling of the 9/11, the Iraq War, etc., ending with Bush waving the flag and an interviewee saying he hopes God still has a plan for George W. Bush to help the world.

Watch it if it's on TV, but I wouldn't recommend spending money on the DVD.

I'm a Christian that believes the Bible is 100% accurate and that Christ came and died and resurrected and will come again. That said, this documentary was chilling. Unlike some Christians in my generation, I was not raised with the Cross and the American flag wedded together. We were by no means anti-American, we just knew that no human political party represented God and that America is not all there is, nor is America a new chosen land.

The scariest thing in this was Falwell saying that there were three things they had to do:"Get people saved, baptized and registered to vote"

Someone please tell me where that is in the Bible?! Christ said to makes disciples, no pundits! How would Jesus vote? He won't! If you take a look through the New Testament you will see that Christ and the Apostles were in different to the politics of the day. Christianity's power in the beginning was through a grassroots counter-cultural revolution, not taking political power! And for all of my brothers out there that still believe America was founded as a Christian nation, read The Search for Christian America, it might open your mind. Forgive that outburst. I'm just sick of Pat Robertson and guys like Falwell making it seem like Jesus would be a pro-gun, pro-war, pro-big business Republican if He was bodily here.

Bottom line, this documentary in my opinion is fair and balanced because most of the people interviewed are on the religious right and the supposed "Moral Majority". The interviews didn't seem to be edited in a way to make the speakers look bad or anything. There seems to be little "spin" in this.

Before viewing "With God on Our Side," I suspected the title might be ironic or downright sarcastic. The film, I suspected, would seek to skewer George W. Bush and the Christian right/evangelical movement. As it turns out, I was seriously wrong. This film is neutral and allows its subjects (mostly Christians) a forum free from ridicule.

"With God on Our Side" is really two films that coexist rather comfortably. On the one hand, it is a history lesson, seeking to explain the rise of evangelical Christian political power and George W. Bush's place in the White House. Note that I said "explain," not "justify." On the other hand, the film is an examination of the George W. Bush presidency and, more particularly, the role of Bush's faith in that presidency. The point, I think, is that one cannot understand the latter without an understanding of the former.

Thus it is that we are taken from Nixon to Carter, Bush to Bush, seeing the roles that faith and morality played in the various campaigns. The subjects are, almost without exception, true believers, by which I do not mean in the Bible or God or any particular religion but do mean in the role evangelical Christians have claimed, at times to the incredulous disbelief of the mainstream media. Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell all have significant time on screen. Political insiders discuss candidly their decisions vis-à-vis the growing power of evangelicals. I found most of these comments to be quite interesting and informative--up to a point.

The point comes about two-thirds of the way through the film, at which point things became just too repetitive for me. Perhaps because the George W. Bush presidency is current and its flaws and contradictions manifest, I found the uncritical examination of the subject to be unsatisfying. The basic premise of the film seems to be that evangelical Christians have been duped too many times. First, Nixon's law-and-order campaign appealed, but the man himself proved to be unsatisfactory. Then the Carter profession of his faith was appealing until his support of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Reagan was the next shining star until his politics proved too pragmatic. So Pat Robertson made a run for the presidency only to be beaten by George H.W. Bush, in part because of the timing of scandals among other television preachers (Jim Bakker, for example). Clinton came next, of course, and only mobilized evangelicals to replace him.

This history is a bit too tidy, though. It fails to account for Clinton's second term or the fact that George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. This last fact is one that I wish the film had explored in more detail. Some of the religious figures in the film assure us that they believe God was acting through the Supreme Court, whose decision in Bush v. Gore for all intents and purposes established Bush as the president elect. If, as they say, God was guiding the election, why did Bush lose the electoral vote and ascend to the presidency in a fashion that gave him relatively little power? Why would not God have chosen to guide the voters' hands rather than the justices'? Unqualified statements of faith, whether in God or in Bush, are not especially informative. There are too many of these and not enough people trying to reconcile their faith with the problems of the current presidency, from the corruption to the fighting in Iraq and, indeed, the reason for the war to begin with.

I give the film four stars because it does present a history lesson that is not generally available in many mainstream fora, but I do not think the film, objective as it is, deserves a fifth star since it fails to delve deeply enough or present opposing viewpoints.

This was very interesting and informative. I was completely opposed to the Bush administration, and I didn't think this documentary gave a positive view of him or the religious right at all. I thought it was simply very objective and trying to just show facts rather than push any agenda.

The day I watched this movie I also started The Audacity of Hope, by President Obama. Both are old news. With God is a pretty well made documentary of the conservative evangelical movement, also known as the religious right. It covers the histroy & pre-history of the movement climaxing with George W. Bush stolen election of 2000. I hope I'm over that. Another win in 2004. By 2006 the Republican Party, which they had given their heart to lay in total disgrace. They lost their legislative majority. In 2008 it even got worse as they lost the White House. Sex scandals, lies & most of all, abuse of power brought them down. Either God has forsaken them, God stopped paying attention to their nonsense, or they never had his attention in the first place. Don't you think God has more important things to do than arrange for Pat Robertson to get delegates in Iowa? The Moral Majority a term coined during the Nixon administration was neither moral or a majority. They did organize, but as it is made perfectly clear, as a political entity, not as a religious force. Exhibit 1 is Jimmy Carter. He was one of them. He was an Evangelical Southern Baptist, a born again Christain. Politically & socially he was liberal, & miles away from their agenda. He was also a Democrat. They embraced Ronald Regan. He disappointed them. Maybe he had more important things to do, like the economy & national defense. He paid scant attention to them. Fast forward to 2000 & they again had their chance to make history. George W it appears was a true born again Christain. He had been saved & best of all he was consrvative & a Republican. He lost the popular vote but that doesn't matter in America.
The Supreme Court declared him the winner of Florida's electoral votes 5-4 & that was that.
The dvd extras are plentiful & interesting. They are considerably less balanced with a god-centric point of view as if God needs them. The religious right seems to be intolerant of other points of view including the The United States Constitution. They imply that they are the good Americans, which I find sadly laughable. But it's their movie.

Actually this is completely free of editorial opinion, nothing beyond a few basic facts are given by the producers. If one has been paying attention over the last 40 years they won't find anything new here, those who get this DVD hoping for a diatribe on the religious right will be disappointed, on the other hand this is not pro-religious propaganda some may be hoping for. The producers do cover the ups and downs - Nixon's fall, how Reagan/Bush Sr. used them, & the PTL & Swaggart scandals. In interviews they let various members of the movement explain themselves as they see themselves. There really isn't any need for the producers to spend time editorializing, because in the end everyone will form their own opinion based on how much they agree or disagree with the objectives of the movement.