That New-Time Religion

I've known and worked for a number of well-meaning, deeply spiritual individuals, of numerous religions. These people have a deep-seated personal faith, and they're convinced that there's a higher being whose precepts they need to be faithful to. I've found them to be, for the most part, honest, ethical, forthright and caring, and even if I disagreed with their politics, I'd trust them with my children's lives.

I also know religious nut cases. These people, also of differing faiths, believe their religion is the one true belief, that those who don't share their beliefs are either at best insignificant and at worst destined to roast in hell for all eternity, and that it's a sacred mission for the faithful to convert, or kill, the unbelievers.

Which one is Georgedick Bushcheney?

The anointed pResident takes every opportunity to remind his audience that he has accepted Jesus as his personal savior, that doing so saved his life, and that he takes his responsibilities as a Christian personally. He is purported to pray every day, often with his top advisers. His religion is said to influence his governing.

Is this a good thing or not?

It would be a good thing if the pResident of the United States were to follow the teachings of the Bible regarding treating your neighbors as yourself, and the words of Jesus when it comes to turning the other cheek. It would be a good thing if the pResident of the United States were to heal the sick, and care for the stranger and the needy, as the Bible commands.

But is it a good thing when the pResident of the United States uses the word “crusade” – a loaded word to Muslims if there ever were one – to characterize a “war on terrorism” waged almost solely against adherents of Islam? Is it a good thing when the leader of a pluralistic nation champions government aid to a faith-based system of charities, which would be allowed to discriminate against non-believers in hiring? Is it a good thing when the pResident of the United States refuses to discipline a high-ranking general (William Boykin) who has described U.S. policy against terrorism as a fight against Satan and, according to press reports, rebuked a Somali military man with the words, “My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol”?

Writes Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jane Eisner: “This almost imperceptible switch from personal appeal to national justification is deeply troubling. It leaves the inevitable impression that the pResident believes he is doing God's work by toppling the modern-day Satanic dictator in Iraq and portrays American foreign policy as a theologically driven struggle between good and evil, rather than a process driven by both values and reason.”

The press in England, a country lacking anything close to the evangelical Christian element we are blessed with in America, has generally given more space to this issue than has the American press. Indeed, as William Powers writes in The National Journal:

“This is a gigantic story, the sort of thing that should be front and center as the country looks back at how we got into this war and tries to figure out whether this pResident deserves another term.

“Yet the more a politician talks about God, the more the press gets uncomfortable and weird. With scattered exceptions . . . the major political media have been less than eager lately to take on God.”

Jimmy Carter was a president who accepted Jesus as his personal savior. He is also a well-meaning, deeply spiritual, religious individual who never, never, would have thought of describing American foreign policy in terms of good vs. evil or God vs. Satan. And don't forget: It was Carter's misfortune to have to oppose the ayatollahs of Iran. Now those guys were religious nut cases. Do we have one sitting in the Oval Office?