Rachel Amandson

The most powerful man in the world is also the face of Christianity to the world. With his recent victory -- a large part of which was due to growing support from white evangelicals -- what role will religion play in the future of George W. Bush's politics?

White evangelicals make up 25 percent of the voting bloc, 78 percent of which voted for Bush in the last election. In addition, Bush took 56 percent of the white Catholic vote, which is the second largest voting bloc next to white evangelicals. He also won 42 percent of the Hispanic Catholic vote, which was up 11 percent from the last election, according to a speech given at SPU on Jan. 26 by David Domke, a professor of communications at the University of Washington.

The sincerity of his faith is arguable, but it can certainly be called strategic. According to Domke, Bush mentions God an average of six times per address and uses carefully crafted words when referring to controversial initiatives, such as "defense of marriage" and "culture of life," the latter of which Domke said is actually language stolen from the Pope.

Here's an even better example from Domke: the topic of gay marriage wasn't mentioned by the president until June 2004, and hasn't been mentioned since winning the election. Coincidence? I think not.

His inaugural address was filled with words bearing religious connotations. He described freedom as "eternally right" and said America has had years of "sabbatical" after communism. He concluded the address by giving a startlingly benediction-like line: "May God bless you, and may he watch over the United States of America (www.whitehouse.gov)." His use of language was a conspicuous effort to affirm the religious voters who provided winning support.

However, according to the article "What does Bush owe the religious right?" in the Feb. 7 issue of Time Magazine, the only high-priority topic of the Christian right Bush mentioned was abortion, and even then it was just a fleeting comment congratulating protestors. None of their initiatives are included in the top-10 legislative priorities.

Based on these actions, it appears that Bush has just used and manipulated the Christian-right to get back into office where he can continue his plans for Social Security and the Middle East.

This claim is further supported by the response from Christian activists to Bush's lack of action towards their agenda. One poignant example from Time is the Arlington Group's letter, signed by such prestigious figures as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, which threatened to reduce support for Social Security if issues such as gay marriage aren't addressed.

It isn't just Republicans using the God strategy either. Democrats are realizing that they need to downplay their secular affiliation and go back to the roots of liberal theology that inspired leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr.

Time also stated in the article "Trying out a more soulful tone" that John Kerry was so worried about the religion issue that he hired a special religious-outreach task force but then ignored several of their suggestions, such as speaking at a Christian college.

That same article in Time mentions that Hilary Clinton has also grown more God oriented, reminding followers in a recent speech that she is a "praying person" and stating that Democrats are organizing a faith committee to "emphasize the moral dimension of their policies."

Democrats are beginning to realize that using the vaguely-defined God-card can be useful in getting votes in America these days, especially as people turn towards simplistic, surface-level religion in light of world events such as the rise in terrorism, the AIDS pandemic and the tsunami disaster. The issue is now about which party is politicizing religion, but that religion is being politicized at all.

To look at it from another perspective, what image does Islam have in America? It has been increasingly negative since the surge in fundamentalism after the Iranian Revolution 26 years ago and the rise in terrorism. We characterize Islamic leaders as individuals willing to justify otherwise-immoral using the name of Allah. Are we doing the same thing with Christianity?

It's an abuse to twist and pervert a belief system for a personal or political agenda. While one's faith should help make decisions, it needs to be done in earnest, unselfish reflection, without motives in mind.

Bush clearly has motives: first to win the election, invade Iraq, then to push through his plans for Social Security, and so he conveniently used Christianity to reach his objectives. Whether or not his faith is heartfelt can never be proved, but assertions can be made based upon his actions.

It's a dangerous game to blend religion and politics (Perhaps our forefathers realized this when they decided to separate church and state). Bush has it so easy, because all he has to do is appeal to his "fellow believers" by saying that after prayer, he feels it's God's will to, for example, "bring freedom to the people of Iraq."

Who can argue with that? Apparently the president's will is God's will. He is the divine messenger of God, after all.

It's just too easy to create a position where anything can be justified without argument as long as it's based on religion. There is even evidence of apprehension among evangelicals in regards to Bush's fusion of faith and politics. To give just one example, in October over 200 evangelical leaders in the United States signed a petition condemning the administration's use of religion in foreign policy (www.counterpunch.org).

Again, what image of Christianity are we giving to the world? Is it one of humble, genuine devotion, or of shallow, tactical manipulation for selfish ambitions?

I think Chuck Colson, recently named one of Time Magazine's 25 most influential evangelicals, put it best:

"Sad to say, the church has managed to shoot itself in the foot almost every time it has achieved power in society."