The Threat of a Faith-Based Defense of America

In the war between reason and religion, declared by militant Islamic fundamentalists, President Bush is firmly on the side of religion. The positions he supports most passionately are those of theocracies: prayer in schools, a national pledge "under God" recited by children, judges who uphold religion in government, laws against abortion, publicly-funded faith-based initiatives, bans on cloning and genetic research, censorship of pornography, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. If he has not imposed religious censorship, it is not because it is antithetical to his core values. Mr. Bush is energizing the political foundations of an American theocracy, through a religious takeover of the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, there is only one issue in the 2004 election: the war with militant Islam. Here Mr. Bush has also remained true to his principles. He has not acted against a single religious government.

Mr. Bush took down the Taliban because they had, in his mind, aided those who "hijacked a great religion." He threw down a secular dictator in Iraq and established the constitutional language by which the country can become a fundamentalist state. Iranian theocrats—who assaulted our embassy in the first action of the war—have been assured that their overthrow is not on our agenda. We have bombed their opponents in Iraq, and negotiated with their Shi'ite stooges who plan to take over Iraq. If they succeed, a greater fundamentalist state, armed with nuclear bombs, would be a gift from George Bush.

From the moment of the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush exercised his leadership by declaring the war not against militant Islam, but against "terrorism." This has obfuscated the nature of our enemies—a world-wide Islamist network—and led us to squander our resources in ways not central to our interests. Had our president named the enemy properly, but then taken no action at all, we would be better able to repudiate that inaction and fight the war properly. Now we must repudiate the very aims of the war. It will take extraordinary leadership to reverse this error.

The result is that the source of America's enemies remains untouched. Iran is building nuclear bombs. Pakistan and Russia—each a thugocracy armed with nuclear bombs—are called allies. Syria and the Saudis have not been confronted. Afghanistan and Pakistan remain hideouts for Al Qaeda. We arm Islamic soldiers in Iraq while our money builds schools in Baghdad. When we leave, those schools will likely teach radical Islam while those soldiers shoot at us.

Mr. Bush accepts that people have a "right" to establish a government based on religious principles, if they wish; after all, he thinks, that is what we did in America. He then uses US troops to preserve the "rights" of foreigners to establish the same religiously-inspired governments that attacked us to begin with.

All of this is undercutting the very idea of self-defense. Mr. Bush spent over a year asking the UN for permission to invade Iraq, all the while claiming that no permissions will be sought. He is re-defining "overwhelming force" into "a consensual war fought with compassionate regard for innocents." Such a conceptual stew leaves people with little guidance as to what offensive retaliation against foreign enemies *is*.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has established a permanent, institutionalized state of siege at home. The war can now be fought in our airports, without ethnic "profiling." And, don't forget, you are permanently at risk; the war will be long; better buy some duct-tape.

More deeply, Mr. Bush's foreign policies are defined by two elements: religious patriotism, and religious altruism. The first demands that he stand tall against America's ungodly enemies. The second demands that he spend billions to help the unfortunate. Picture two bombers over Afghanistan: one drops a bomb (precision-guided, to avoid hitting a Mosque), and the next drops peanut butter. The first affirms the patriot, the second redeems the altruist. This, he thinks, is how God wants him to fight the war, against the hijackers of a peaceful religion.

This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush's "faith-based" thinking, which goes much farther than his overt religious beliefs. He has "faith in markets," "faith in the American people," "faith that people want freedom." He holds such ideas as religious absolutes, not rational conclusions. He often shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious ("you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists "), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction.

Mr. Bush does not lie. Critics who say he does are failing to understand him at all. (Many on the left are projecting their own methods onto him.) He really thinks this is how he should defend America. His belief is real—but his faith will not save us. In the long run it is more closely aligning us with the principles of our enemies, who are faithful indeed, unto death.

It is a positive sign that many Americans want a forthright offense against our enemies. But they are confused if they think that Mr. Bush advocates this in fact. I do not wish to abet that confusion.

What about John Kerry, an obnoxious Carter / Kennedy / Clinton wannabe who sees Americans as war criminals? He has no redeeming qualities; he will say anything to anyone to get in. He does not have Mr. Bush's basic decency. But he does not hide his desire to subordinate American defense to a foreign consensus. This leaves less confusion in its wake; no one will mistake him for George C. Patton.

This is not an argument for Mr. Kerry. But elected officials do not always act as they claimed they would during a campaign; the fact that Mr. Kerry will say anything to anyone to get in means he will do anything to stay in. He will be desperate to be seen as tough on terrorism, and to avoid another attack on America. He might actually do a better job against America's real enemies—militant fundamentalist Islam—than Mr. Bush. While Kerry strives to be conservative—fiscally and militarily—the Republicans might once again become an effective opposition party.

The important point is this: in the war with militant fundamentalist Islam, Bush is pro-religion, all the way to the core of his soul. Kerry does not share this premise. He will not sympathize with fundamentalism. He will not work to turn America into the image of her enemies.

Cartoon by Cox and Forkum.