George W. Bush is not that different from Osama Bin Laden, and that scares me. Make no mistake, Bin Laden is a murderous thug. His methods are indefensible. President Bush does not deliberately murder civilians. However, the unflinching religious single-mindedness that motivated Bin Laden’s minions to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 is not all that different from what the President is saying these days.
In his press conference last Tuesday night, Bush, in defending the invasion of Iraq and arguing that the invasion is an important part of the larger war on terror said that “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.”
Ostensibly, he’s right. Freedom and the unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence are the corner stones of our society, and maybe we do have a moral obligation to work to spread freedom across the world. However, binding these rights and grandiose concepts like “freedom,” to a Christian God – rather to some enlightened concept of Jeffersonian human reason – has no place in Presidential rhetoric. Bush, as the head of our secular state, must find other means of justification for his policies.
He, as the leader of our free country, must effectively articulate his vision to an increasingly diverse and multicultural civic society. Saying ‘God said so’ doesn’t cut it. As the secular justifications for going to war with Iraq have fallen away it seems the White House has fallen back on Jesus.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq the American public was told that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security. This was a justification that American Muslims, Jews, Christians, junkies, atheists and freaks could understand, or at least consider. Some may have disagreed, but policy, it seemed, was being dictated by valid intelligence that had been carefully considered. This was not true. Hussein had no chemical weapons. He had apparently already used the ones we helped him make on his own people and the first Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions had accomplished the goal of disarming the rogue brute.
The much-cited Al Queda connection was also non-existent. Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim extremist. Hussein was a brutal, but secular, dictator. The idea of a marriage of convenience was not unfathomable, but turned out to be false.
In fact, there was no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded. Now, the country is a breeding ground for the religious extremism that turns disposed teenagers into bomb wearing terrorists. Americans, simply are not safer as a result of the invasion. The people Hussein oppressed might be (questionable), but Americans are not.
So what are we left with? As reports from Iraq of more teenagers killed and captured stream in on a daily basis, we can take solace that our mission is sanctioned by God. This is a truly frightening, but not new, concept.
I got queasy in the 2000 Presidential election when Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. Back then I was wallowing in a haze of bourbon and nihilism and saw Bush’s answer simply as emblematic of his lack of erudition.
He is however, a born again Christian. He famously kicked his cocaine and alcohol abuse in favor of Jesus – a worthy transformation – but now he’s our President.
There has been no greater impediment to secular progress since the Civil Rights movement than our President’s and more so this country’s, religious dogma. We are embroiled in a divisive gay marriage argument over what is essentially semantics. A secular state has no business discriminating against anyone for reason’s of race, gender or sexual orientation. This means that in the eyes of the state – referring to tax breaks, provisions of health and the other trappings of a civic society – gay people must be allowed to marry.
Of course, members of clergy in various sects should refuse to marry homosexuals if they believe the teachings of their church demand that. But keep it in the church. A religion can define marriage however it wants, as long as they understand that their dogma will not apply in the civic realm. Similar arguments can be made regarding abortion. Clergyman should preach abstinence and are free to loathe abortion – just keep in it in the church and understand that in the civic sphere a woman will retain supreme autonomy over her body.
The leaders of this country must be determined to uphold the separation of church and state and in doing so, clearly demarcate the bounds of a civic society where all citizens can enjoy their unalienable rights. The religious teachings of love and compassion have a place in society, but God cannot dictate policy.
Craig Giammona can be contacted at [email protected]