If you have listened closely to any of George W. Bush’s
national addresses during his tenure in the White House, you
probably know how the president feels about mixing religion
and politics: he digs it.
Since Bush entered office, and particularly since the
attacks of September 11, religion has had a new prominence
in the political arena, especially noticeable in the president’s
use of religious language. Indeed, Bush has made what theologian
Martin E. Marty has termed “God talk” a cornerstone
of his discourse—most evident in his oft-repeated claim that
“freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty
God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Such language
has triggered a heated public debate over the nature of
the president’s religious discourse. Some argue that Bush’s
rhetoric exceeds that of past presidents while others side with
Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the Catholic journal
First Things, who claims that Bush’s frequent references
to a divine being are “as American as apple pie.”
If Bush is serving only “apple pie,” he is serving considerably
more of it than did his predecessors. Analysis of presidents’
inaugural and State of the Union addresses since
Franklin Roosevelt entered office in 1933 reveals that Bush
has referenced God far more frequently than have other modern
presidents. Bush’s average of 5.8 references to God per
address is rivaled only by Ronald Reagan—like Bush, a
favorite of the Religious Right —who averaged 5.3 references
per address. Other modern presidents known for their
religiosity referenced God far less frequently than did Bush:
Dwight Eisenhower averaged 2.7 references per address,
Lyndon Johnson averaged 1.5, and self-proclaimed
“born again” Christian Jimmy
Carter had only two references total in his
four major addresses while in office.
Explicit references to God are only half
of Bush’s political/religious rhetorical arsenal.
Bush also packs his speeches with subtler
religious references. In his January 2003
State of the Union address, for instance,
Bush recalled a Christian hymn by referring
to the “wonder-working power” of the
American people. Similarly, in his second
inaugural address, Bush said we could all
feel proud when “the unjust encounter justice, and the captives
are set free”—an allusion to the Bible’s book of Isaiah
(among other passages). Such references are a regular part of
the president’s addresses. Even the term “evil,” which
marked much of Bush’s rhetoric following September 11,
calls to mind a Manichaean struggle between God and Satan.
B u s h ’s decision to saturate his public discourse with religious
rhetoric is important because modern presidents—far
more than those who preceded Roosevelt—are able to circulate
their messages widely through mass media and have significant
power to shape political policy. In such an environment,
presidents are well-positioned to insert religious ideology into
political decision-making, thereby threatening Thomas Jeff e rs
o n ’s vision of “awall of separation between church and state.”
For his part, Bush has never thought too highly of Jefferson’s
notion. Within days of taking office in 2001, the president
spoke with reporters not of a wall of separation, but of an
“important bridge between church and state.” In truth, the
relationship between religion and politics has throughout
American history generally resembled a bridge rather than a
wall. For example, in 1954 the Knights of Columbus, a
Catholic fraternal org a n i z ation,
successfully lobbied
Congress and President
Eisenhower to have the
words “under God” inserted
into the Pledge of Allegiance
as a means of distinguishing
Americans from “Godless
communists.” And, to this
day, several states have constitutions
that bar from public
o ffice those who refuse to
profess a belief in the existence
of a divine being.
Bush, however, has taken
this common American practice
of mixing religion and
politics to heights previously
unseen in the modern presidency.
It would be comforting
to think that the president’s
elevated use of religious
language was mere
political posturing, ultimately
of little consequence in terms of determining policy. Unfortunately,
this is not case.
Bolstered by religious conservatives’ ascendancy in the
political sphere, Bush has moved God to the center of his language
and his political decision-making. The Bush administ
r a t i o n ’s pursuit of “faith-based” initiatives, the rise of a
voucher systemthat provides government funds to pay for stud
e n t s ’ tuition at religious schools, the push for a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the Manifest-
Destiny-like invasion and occupation of Iraq all smack of religious
motivations finding their way into governmental policy.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of all of this is that the
president is unabashed in admitting that his religious beliefs
shape his policies.Bushmade this clear during
the final presidential debate of the 2004 campaign,
saying: “I believe that God wants
everybody to be free. T h a t ’s what I believe.
And that’s part of my foreign policy. In
Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there
is a gift from the A l m i g h t y.”
This statement alone should be enough to
raise the hackles of citizens interested in preserving
some semblance of American separation
of church and state. Although Bush’s
fondness for sermonizing may be due in part
to his underlying worldview, it is also a strategy
aimed at pleasing the substantial voting block of religious
conservatives—a strategy that appears to have paid off for the
president during his narrow reelection last November. Ultimately,
it matters little whether Bush is a “true believer,” a
callous strategist, or some combination of the two. The outcome
of this conflation of religion and politics is what matters,
and the outcome is clear. When our president bases policy
decisions as much upon divine guidance as upon the will
of the electorate, only one conclusion can be drawn: we are
living in a theocracy. Pundits’ frequent bickering about the
risks of theocracy in the Middle East creates an unfortunate
irony: dead-set on promoting a particular vision of democracy
abroad, we are sliding toward theocracy at home.
It is a dangerous situation, one with which all of us,
regardless of our individual political and religious beliefs,
should be concerned. Confusing the abstract realm of the
metaphysical with the concrete goals of the state leads to a
place where political leaders’ untoward acts are easily
excused because they are thought to serve a higher purpose.
In the current political climate, this is a place that America
can ill afford to go.
Get Connected
Search Public i
Public i
Get Connected
Archives
- December 2024
- October 2024
- July 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- June 2005
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- November 2002
- October 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001