In God We Trust

Grenre: Opinion, Editorial

In Response to “A Nation Guided by Faith” by Garry Wills of The New York Review of Books

America is ruled by religion – Is this an inflammatory statement? Yes. But is it untrue? I believe it is. It is more appropriate to say that highly religious men and women are currently in power in America.

This is debated. It is criticized. It is hated. It is celebrated. But is it new? Is President Bush the first American president of his kind? – A president who has been quoted as saying that God told him to run for office. Perhaps he is. But he certainly is not the first political leader to declare a divine motivation. Religion is at the forefront of many political movements around the world. This is true of the past. This is true of the present. And this is likely to be true of the future.

Garry Wills, of The New York Review of Books, wrote an essay outlining religion in current American policy. In his introduction to this outline he addresses the notion held by the right wing of America: “that the United States government was, at its inception, highly religious, specifically highly Christian, and even more specifically highly biblical.” He concludes, “That was not true of that government or any later government—until 2000, when the fiction of the past became the reality of the present.”

Wills seemingly believes acknowledging this is important because America seems to be unaware that religion is everywhere in our policies. Time has passed since Bush’s first election into office. In that time things have changed a great deal in American politics. Perhaps it is this time –the slow churning of voices and headlines– that curbs our awareness – that the powers that be are, indeed, shaping “A Country Guided by Faith.” But Wills is wrong to declare Bush is responsible for this.

Wills’ title proclaims that our nation is presently piloted by religion. However, his writing merely reveals that half of America is highly religious. What is ignored here is the fact that our governmental structure mimics the very nature of religion. And like most governments, it allows religion to be a shaping force in policy making.

To claim Bush is the sole perpetrator in what Wills calls “the labyrinthine infiltration,” a complex and cunningly orchestrated invasion of religion, is ignorant and over-zealous. The claim gives Bush more credit than he deserves.

The very concept of religion, like government, is a system. It is a system of social coherence. It is based on a common group of beliefs concerning an object, person, or unseen being thought to be supernatural. Within this definition one might also find words like “sacred” “divine” or even “highest truth.” The practice of religion relies upon moral codes, practices, values, traditions, and rituals.

Not all Americans are religious fanatics. Some are not religious. Some are liberal and of the Left in almost all ways. But still, these words cannot be lost to them. They cannot fear them. This is because they too must consider some things sacred. They hold their own beliefs. They practice rituals. They abide by moral codes. This is not shocking. This is the lowest truth. This is largely the human experience.

However, their recognition of these words ends with “supernatural” – with “divine.” President Bush believes in the supernatural. He believes in one greater truth, one set of moral codes, and his rituals include Bible study groups within White House walls. Wills is eager to point out that John Ashcroft's Justice Department performs the same ritual.

Our government and religion serve the same purpose. The only difference is we have been led to believe our government does not and should not involve “the supernatural” or God.

Wills provides a synopsis of the journey this far – the journey that has led us to this supposed theocracy: “Faith-based justice” began shortly after John Ashcroft’s nomination for Secretary of State when he assured his followers he would put an end to the task force set up by Attorney General Janet Reno. The task force was created to stop violence against abortion clinics. Ashcroft strongly denounces abortions. His faith is that these clinics commit injustice against partially formed fetuses. 2001 was also the age of the anthrax epidemic; Wills notes that 554 packets were sent to clinics that year.

Wills has drawn a connection between these two events. His implication is that Ashcroft’s faith is to blame for these chemical attacks. But Ashcroft surely did not send these packets of anthrax himself. Evangelical Christians consider Ashcroft a hero and even urged him to run for president. It is strange that Wills himself notes, “Evangelicals oppose the very idea of hate crimes.” Wills irrationally seems to disprove his own theory that religion played a part in these attacks. He is only successful at highlighting that Ashcroft and his followers are religious.

Wills claims “Faith-based social services” began when Bush so liberally provided federal aid to church groups that perform social services— his faith declared social services, no matter their actors, provide for the betterment of our nation. Subsequently, abstinence-only forms of sex education were provided for any young person seeking the benefits of this social service.

These sex-ed classes were not empty. The fact that they were even provided shows that a portion of America desired their children to be educated in this manner. Again, Wills suggestion that these services are wrong shows only he is somehow surprised that America is religious.

I received my sexual education several years ago in a public high school. We put condoms on bananas. I laughed when the instructor informed me, “condoms sure don’t protect you from a broken heart.”

However, in light of the facts provided by Wills’ essay, I see America has shown a demand for a different form of education, one that mirrors the moral codes practiced by Christians. Like other liberals, there are times I am confounded by this. How does our system government allow for a slow turn towards a faith-based administration?

Wills evaluates past administrations. He claims early on that there were none so zealous in their Christian foundation as the Bush regime. James Garfield, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan all belonged to Disciples of Christ. This Christian church is a denomination of Christian Protestantism that grew out of the Restoration Movement. Today there are about 800,000 members in the United States.

Reagan was not overt in showing his religious zeal. He was smarter than this. As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided. However, he later took a strong stand against abortion. He published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which decried what Reagan saw as disrespect for life, promoted by the practice of abortion.

Bush, an Evangelical Christian, precedes Jimmy Carter: the first openly born-again Christian in presidency. In the last election, 40 percent of the votes for George W. Bush came from the ranks of Evangelical Christians.

It is clear. Whether Wills likes it or not, a popular majority of Americans desired this religious “infiltration.”

It may be true that this administration is extreme. It may also be true that there are more figures in government that come from religious backgrounds than there has been in the past. Condoleezza Rice’s father is a minister. Chief of staff Andrew Card is married to a minister.

In the United States we are unaccustomed to the meeting of church and state. This is why Wills and liberal Americans are concerned to see these religious individuals in office. To see religion and state so cleverly blending frustrates us. For many it is sickening.

But it is important to consider that for others it is a relief. Wills fails to do this. Those that are relieved know something. They know moral codes, practices, values, traditions, and rituals. They know a system of social coherence – that is the nature of religion. As aforementioned, it is also the nature of government. Wills fails to acknowledge this relation. His evaluation of the immediate past is cogent. He does not go beyond this.

Wills essay elicits the forever question regarding the separation between church and state. His premise is to show the wavering division under the Bush administration. But we must go back. We must go bigger. We must see all.

Ironically, Jesus Christ has sometimes been credited with the invention of the separation of church and state when he advised his followers, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." (Mathew 22:21)

In many ancient cultures, there was just one political ruler. This ruler was also the highest religious leader and sometimes considered divine. Under republican governments, religious officials were appointed just like political ones.

Ancient Israel offers the first example of an attempt at true separation. The civilization was different in as much as the King and the priesthood were separate. One man occupied each role. There was limit to their respective spheres of authority and responsibility. And even then, interferences did happen. Under foreign supremacy, the high priest also held the highest civil authority in an autonomous theocracy.

Theocracy describes this state that Wills seems to fear – A state in which religious leaders and leaders in general society or government are identical. In a theocracy they form a strongly interlocked group. A number of states in the ancient world could be so described. Recently few exist, but those that do are known to be The Vatican, Tibet under the Dalai Lama and Iran in certain periods.

At present Pakistan could be called as a theocratic state, as Islam is the state religion. Bangladesh, after its separation from Pakistan has established a secular state but after some period of time it also declared Islam the state religion.

The countries outside of this realm are not free from religion. There may be separation. There is not always freedom. Each individual keeps morals. Each will practice rituals – some religious, some not. There is overlap where morals, traditions, and practices will clash with, but also coincide with governmental law. Gay marriage has been forbidden in America long before the Bush Administration. But still we rely on government and we are convinced of the need of social coherence. Religion is the original method in reaching this. Government is our attempt at social coherence outside of religion.

The United States thinks itself exempt from theocracy. We have the Constitution. We hold it high and declare ourselves immune. It is not allowed, this battle between the two – between religion and state. It is what prompts Wills to write his essay.

How does this paper, this constitution, possess the power to fight what is real? Not religion, but those following it. We follow the constitution as though it is our bible. It is what we rely on to enforce social consistency.

In the last section of Wills outline he aims to prove we are fighting in a “faith-based war.” Wills highlights the faithful speech delivered by deputy undersecretary for defense intelligence, General William (Jerry) Boykin. Boykin is thought to be a primary intelligence that will eventually lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

The lecture was given in churches. Boykin stood proud. He did not wear his formal military attire. He wore Army fatigues and declared Bush is “in the White House because God put him there for such a time as this. God put him there to lead not only this nation but to lead the world, in such a time as this.”

Boykin later continued to spew quotations that equated the war in Iraq to a war of good versus evil. He also went as far as to say that the enemy is not Osama bin Laden, but rather “Satan” himself. Ultimately, Boykin's statements were protected by the constitution under freedom of speech.

Perhaps it is not true that the founding fathers of our country were overt in their religious beliefs. They did however provide protection to those who are.

The controversy that followed Boykin’s speech may be credited for inspiring Wills essay. In his conclusion he writes: “There is a particular danger with a war that God commands. What if God should lose?”

Wills’ fear is that Evangelicals think this is impossible and that we will continue to fight a faith-based war no matter the loss. But I would like to remind Mr. Wills that our own nation circulates a dollar bill that reads “In God We Trust.” This is the national motto of the United States of America. This is not the currency of Evangelicals alone.

This has been the motto of the United States since it was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956. This motto officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower made it our official motto when he signed the resolution into law on July 30th, 1956.

The only instance in which the motto has been disputed occurred when President Theodore Roosevelt argued against the motto on coinage. This was not because of his lack of faith in God. This was because he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of God on something so common as money.

The Bush Administration did not bring about the presence of religion in American policy. It is merely the first administration with a president that so actively reveals his religious devotion. Even in the instances revealed by Garry Wills, religion or faith is not what guides our country – but the religious individuals that are. This is not shocking. This is the truth. And they are speaking to the audience in America that has been and will continue to be religious.