Bush, War and the Need for the Separation of Church and State
By
Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D., Minister
The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Lakeland, Florida – March 23, 2003

Return to previous page

     We are now at war with Iraq and the reasons are not clear to most Americans. Is it because of a real threat to this nation? Maybe. But some wonder if there are not also other, less acceptable reasons. Is it because of oil? Is it because of colonialism? Is it because a son is trying to complete what his father failed to finish? Then there is this troubling question: Is it somehow because of religion? I don’t mean in the sense of one religion rising up in opposition to another, for it is beyond dispute that this war is not being fought by or for Jews or Christians against Muslims. But there is another way that this war might be based upon religion, and that would be if President George W. Bush is motivated by some kind of religiously generated self-righteousness. Recent analyses in the news media lead me to believe that this might be so.
     Newsweek magazine, for example, recently ran a cover story on "Bush & God." [March 10, 2003] It (and other publications) explained how George W. Bush was born into a family of old-line Connecticut Episcopalians in 1946, and that his immediate family became Presbyterians when they moved to Texas two years later. [Fineman, 25] It described how, in his youth, Bush was a "hardy partyer," and how his marriage became troubled because of his heavy drinking. [Ibid., 26] His subsequent "salvation" as a "born-again" Christian was the product of having come under the influence of the Rev. Billy Graham and of a nondenominational (i.e., fundamentalist) Bible study group. [Ibid.; Tackett]
     Having said goodbye to Jack Daniels and hello to Jesus, Bush became convinced that he was "called" by "God" to run for the presidency. [Fineman, 24, 27f.; Marty, 33; emphasis added] During his campaign, he left little doubt that it was the Christian god who had called him for not only did he claim that Christ was the "political philosopher" who had most influenced him, but also he told a Jewish reporter that only Christians go to Heaven. [Tackett; Fineman 27] Beyond that, his notorious visit to the officially anti-Roman Catholic Bob Jones University further implied that it was the Protestant god who had called him. [Fineman, 28]
     Since he became president, Bush has declared, "I welcome faith to help solve the nation’s deepest problems." [Loven] He has made the tenets of his own faith perfectly clear. He has said: "The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity." [Loven; Fineman, 28] Moreover, it is his belief that the United States has been called to bring his god’s gift of liberty to "every human being in the world." [Fineman, 24] "Our nation," he has proclaimed, "is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world of justice." [Marty, 33] President Bush has expressed his confidence that "behind all of life and all history there is a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just God." [Fineman, 24] This belief that Bush’s god controls every event in history raises the insoluble theological problem of "theodicy" (concerning how a good and omnipotent deity would allow evil) especially in relation to the Space Shuttle disaster about which Bush quoted the Bible and turned to his god in prayer. [Fineman, 29; Loven] But, it also sheds light on his attitude toward the "war on terror" which he initially called a "crusade." [Tackett]
     Journalists have noted that as the problems of terrorism, tragedy and war have mounted, Bush’s "allusions to spirituality and morality" have been increasing. [Loven; emphasis added] Moreover, his remarks have "gone beyond" references to the power of faith in general and have come more and more "to use language and ideas specific to Christianity," and not just to generic Christianity, but in particular to conservative, evangelical Christianity. [Loven; Tackett]
     All American presidents have used religious rhetoric and have asked their "god" to "bless" America. [Fineman, 24; Tackett] Perhaps "it goes with the territory," for, as G. K. Chesterton observed, America is a "nation with the soul of a church." [Fineman, 25; Hauerwas] University of Chicago church historian Martin E. Marty has written that "for decades, chief executives have acted like priests of the national religion." [Marty, 32] Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas says that "Bush’s use of religious rhetoric" conforms to this pattern. [Hauerwas; cf., Klein]
     But George W. Bush has transcended the bounds set by his predecessors. His presidency has become "the most resolutely ‘faith-based’ in modern times." [Fineman, 25] Most mornings, he begins his day by going "off to a quiet place to read," and what he reads is a book of evangelical sermons. [Fineman, 22] His aides refer to Bush as "the preacher-in-chief" [Fineman, 25] and insiders say that "the atmosphere inside the White House...is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness" which is encouraged by the number of Bible study groups that go on and by the several staffer’s who have close relatives who are ministers. [Fineman, 29f.]
     The most notable difference between Bush and other presidents, however, is this, according to Bruce Lincoln, professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago: "He is trying to reorganize sensibility so that instead of this [war] being a political decision, a policy matter, a matter of rational deliberation, it becomes part of a religious worldview, a revelation or a crusade." [Tackett] Michael Waldman, one of Bill Clinton’s speech writers, agrees. He says that, whereas most presidents have used religious comments and scriptural citations as "grace notes," President Bush is "fundamentally different" in that such comments are, for him, "often the guts of the argument." [Tackett]
     There is debate over whether or how much Bush is deterministic, fatalistic, or messianic. [Klein; Fineman, 29f.] Most analysts believe, however, that Bush is sincere in his religious convictions. [Tackett; Marty, 32] But, as one says, "that doesn’t make it less scary." [Martin in Tackett] As Martin Marty puts it: "The problem isn’t with Bush’s sincerity, but with his evident conviction that he’s doing God’s will." [Marty, 32] Similarly, Joe Klein, of TIME magazine writes:

Thus it is that "many Americans—and much of the world—see him as a man blinded by his beliefs...to the complexities of the world as it is." [Fineman, 25]
     Christian theologians point out that Bush’s identification of cross and flag constitutes idolatry, and that his conceit fails to recognize that "God’s will" might not be the same as George’s will. [Hauerwas; Woodward; Marty; emphases added]
     More important than such theological issues are two other matters: First, on the domestic political front, as Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, explains: "When Presidents...become theologians...they...exclude people from their audience." [Loven; emphasis added] Bush has excluded everyone who is not an evangelical Protestant Christian. Second, and "even more dangerous" says Martin Marty, "is [the possibility] that Bush’s God talk will set the tinderbox that is the Muslim world on fire." [Marty, 33; emphasis added]
     Whatever else might be said about the religious faith of George W. Bush, I think Joe Klein is correct when he writes: "The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren’t always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty." [Klein]
     This sermon is not about George W. Bush. It is about the crucial importance of maintaining the separation of church and state in this great nation. President Bush merely supplies an example of where and how the thin wall between unprovable metaphysical beliefs and unjustifiable political action may crumble and what might be the result.
     My inspiration comes from Alan M. Dershowitz, lawyer, columnist, professor at Harvard Law School and 1990 recipient of the James Madison Religious Liberty Award from the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism. [Dershowitz, jacket, 204] Last year he published a book entitled, Shouting Fire: Civil
Liberties in a Turbulent Age. Part of it concerns our constitutional "right to believe and disbelieve—without government intrusion." [Ibid., 199-220]
     Most of us know that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any law that would establish religion or would interfere with its free exercise, and that the body of the Constitution prohibits any "religious test" for holding political office. [Ibid., 201] Those are the foundation stones upon which rest what Unitarian Thomas Jefferson popularized as "the wall of separation between church and state." [Ibid., 218] When that wall is breached, bigotry, discrimination, exclusion, and war can result.
     One of Dershowitz’s first examples of this is President George W. Bush’s inauguration. It was begun by Billy Graham’s son dedicating it to "Jesus Christ" whom he declared to be "our Savior." The problem, as Dershowitz correctly says, is that by "invoking ‘the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ,’ and ‘the Holy Spirit,’" Franklin Graham "excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing." [Ibid., 201]

Although "inaugurations are not the appropriate setting for theological proclamations of who is...the true messiah" and "the steps of the Capitol should not be confused with the lectern of a...church," Bush’s inauguration ended with another Protestant preacher inviting all who agree that Jesus is "The Christ" to say, "Amen." [Ibid., 202f.] That put Senator Joseph Lieberman and other non-Christians into the embarrassing position of "either denying his own faith or remaining [conspicuously] silent"—which is "precisely the position in which young public school students are placed when ‘voluntary’ prayer is conducted at school events." [Ibid., 203]
     According to Dershowitz, part of the reason inauguration travesties and school prayer abuses won’t go away is that "we live in a country in which organized religion is falsely associated with personal morality" and in which "many Americans...believe that only religious people can be moral." There is, however, "no empirical or historical basis for this false association." Don’t bother telling them that, though, for "the last thing religious fundamentalists want is an open and honest debate about faith. The only thing they want," says Dershowitz, "is one-sided religious propaganda." [Ibid., 203; emphases added]
     Today, fundamentalism is pervasive and increasing throughout the world. [Ibid., 212; emphasis added] That makes it all the more urgent that we remember that "the fight for the separation of church and state is a struggle that never stays won." [Ibid., 204; emphasis added] Dershowitz notes that "we have never managed to persuade a majority of Americans, or a majority of people throughout the world, that religion has no place in government, and that government has no place in religion. [Ibid.]
     Furthermore, "no other country [besides America] has even tried to build a wall of separation between church and state." [Ibid., emphasis added] From the very beginning there was opposition. People tried (but failed) to have amendments added to the Constitution declaring this to be a "Christian nation." [Ibid., 205] Some even called the Civil War "God’s revenge" on the separation policy. Chinks did appear in the wall, as in the cases of Sunday business-closing "blue laws," "In God We Trust" on our money, and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. [Ibid., 206f] But the wall survived.
     Now, says Dershowitz, there is "a more subtle process" at work among those undermining the wall. It is a "two-step process." [Ibid., 208]
     "The first step is to say, ‘we prefer religion over nonreligion. A little bit of religion of a generic form can’t really hurt." Conservatives, like Ronald Reagan, say, "A little prayer won’t hurt anybody." Even liberals, like William O. Douglas, are sometimes seduced. He wrote: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being." [Ibid., emphasis added] But which god is that, and whose religion, and what about the other gods of the polytheists and their religions, and what about the atheists who are American citizens—are they to be disenfranchised or banished? Ours is a secular, pluralistic democracy, not a religious, sectarian theocracy. We are one nation under law, but only tyranny could force us to be "one nation, under God"!
     The second step being used to undermine separation, according to Dershowitz, "is for the state...to define what religion means...[and] what is true religion and what is real religion." [Ibid., 211; emphasis added] This has happened! One example occurred when the judge in the Jim Bakker trial told the defendant: "We...who have a true religion" are offended by charlatans like you who have a false religion. [Ibid.] This kind of "back-door establishment" of any religion merely because it happens to be practiced by the majority of Americans is "precisely the opposite of what the framers of our Constitution had in mind," says Dershowitz. [Ibid., 212]
     Even that, however, is not the "most insidious" problem challenging separation today. According to Dershowitz, the very worst thing now is the "religious hegemony" that prevails in the U.S. which makes it all but impossible for "atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or humanists" to profess their beliefs publicly without losing their jobs, being ridiculed, threatened or attacked. Under what amounts to a "Don’t ask; don’t tell" policy, such nonbelievers must either "stay in the closet" or face persecution, despite the fact that the "Constitution guarantees freedom of and from religion." [Ibid., 214-215; emphases added] In contrast, atheism and agnosticism are openly acknowledged throughout Europe and offer no obstacle to employment or holding political office. That means that "there is more actual freedom of disbelief in Europe than there is in the United States." [Ibid., 215]
     In words that echo our own Unitarian Universalist Principles, Dershowitz says:

     Finally, Dershowitz makes a strong case for the claim that so far, in the U.S., "the wall between church and state [despite its chinks] is not broken." Indeed, he says, "the successful status of American religion is to be contrasted with the sorry state of religion throughout most of Europe" where there is no such separation. "Organized religion is thriving in America and dying in much of Europe." The obvious conclusion is that "separation of church and state is good for religion," just as it is good for nonbelievers. [Ibid., 218; emphasis added] Should it come to pass that the wall ever did crumble in America, everybody would lose.
     To make this last point clear, let me return to the Newsweek cover story on "Bush and God." It describes how President George W. Bush has set up America’s most extensive "faith-based" domestic agenda. If he gets his way, all of the following items will become reality: conservative, Pro-Life judicial nominations; new H.U.D. regulations that allow federal grants for construction of "social service" facilities at religious institutions; a ban on human cloning and "partial birth" abortion; a sweeping program to allow churches, synagogues and mosques to use federal funds to administer social-welfare programs; strengthened limits on stem-cell research; increased funding to teach sexual abstinence in schools, rather than safer sex and pregnancy prevention; foreign-aid policies that stress right-to-life themes; and federal money for prison programs that use Christian "tough love" in an effort to lower recidivism rates among convicts. [Fineman, 30]
     All of those things, and a war, are what can occur when church and state come together. Wouldn’t it be a lot better if never the twain shall meet?!