Bush sharing his faith

NandoTimes ^ | July 1, 2002 | Bill Straub

[Alan Chapman]

President Bush is taking the tone of a preacher again, declaring that Americans have "received our rights from God" and that he feels "the prayers of the people" as he carries out his duties.

In Cleveland on Monday, at what was characterized as a Rally on Inner City Compassion, Bush sought to rally support behind his faith-based initiative. He asserted that the United States "should not fear programs which exist because a church or synagogue or mosque has decided to start one."

Since taking office, Bush has frequently cited his Christian beliefs and his desire for religion to play an increased role in American society - a stance that has drawn objections from secularists and civil libertarians.

Bush says that faith helped him in his own battle with the bottle, and he maintains that religious convictions can help an individual - and society - in need.

He cited his religious beliefs last week after a federal appeals court prohibited schoolchildren from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase "one nation, under God," in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Bush, responding to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, said that the United States is "a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty" and that citing God in the pledge "doesn't violate rights."

"As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence," he said at a news conference in Alberta, during the Group of Eight summit.

At the same news conference, Bush also mentioned that he had visited with victims of the Arizona wildfires earlier in the week and found them to be "hurting a lot."

"And I was trying to figure out how to bring a sense of hope, and I thought that the best thing I could say was that there is a God who loves them," Bush said. "And I believe that's the case. And as a result, I feel comfortable in my life because I have that belief and understanding."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush's proselytizing runs the risk of blurring the line between religious practices and running the government.

"He does not seem to want to keep even a decent distance between government and religion," Lynn said. "He wants to mesh the two together in whatever manner he can create. "

For a short time after Sept. 11, Lynn said, Bush appeared to embrace diverse viewpoints.

"Now it's full speed ahead to prove the Religious Right is sitting in the Oval Office," he said.

According to Lynn, Bush may in fact have unwittingly hinted that he intends to violate the Constitution regarding the appointment of federal judges.

In criticizing the 9th Circuit's decision, Bush said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

Article 6 of the Constitution expressly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."

"He said if you're not religious, you can't be a judge," Lynn said. "That violates a central principle of our constitutional system."

[roberbaran]

>The Declaration has been dubbed by one historian, "The American Scriptures." They declare why we are a country, where the rights of man are derived from (God, not the state), the purpose of government (to protect those God-given rights), and consequently, the basis upon which a government forfeits its legitimacy. The Declaration lays down foundational principles. Without it, or to ignore it, our nation loses its heritage and unique character.

Still, it is not a law. Many of you have singled out my assertion without addressing the other, obvious, half. The DoI specifies Liberty, but the USA was a slave country for 100 years. It specifies Life, but has a death penalty. It provides emotive power, but it has no strength of its own. No one has ever gone to jail because they violated it, the Supreme Court has never struck it down, and Congress never amended it. The Pres can't veto it.

It's a good letter...but it isn't a law. Any lawyers out there want to comment on my assertion?

I love the DoI as much as the next American. Yes, I would fight to protect its ideals. Yes, I think that it does define the character of our nation. But, it is a letter and nothing more.

[sirchtruth]

...where the rights of man are derived from (God, not the state), the purpose of government (to protect those God-given rights), and consequently, the basis upon which a government forfeits its legitimacy.

Exactly, and while we're at it, I am so sick of ppl making assertions of separation of church and state like God can not be mentioned anywhere in public spaces. The intent is not to take or stop ppl from praticing their religion in public, but to not force ppl to paticipate or believe. The Atheist Zealots are so elitist and pompas about not only taking God out of public, but out of everything...and I will fight to the death to keep my God, a God whom you can find NO fault, in the minds of people, in the public!

[roberbaran]

>"It was a letter. It has no legally binding power." Hmmmm. . .that would also be true of the letter from Jefferon that is often sited re: separation of church and state. And yet, the liberals never seem to mention THAT is "only a letter."

Instead of liberals, I think you mean atheists. In general (and I've been on LOTS of atheist/Christian argument lists) most atheists use it as one evidence that not all the founding fathers were Christian.

[steve50]

I can't get real excited over a politican with a Bible, even klinton pulled one out when it was to his advantage. I doubt that anyone with true Christian values would go very far in politics

[Jagdgewehr]

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush's proselytizing runs the risk of blurring the line between religious practices and running the government.

"He does not seem to want to keep even a decent distance between government and religion," Lynn said. "He wants to mesh the two together in whatever manner he can create. "

What Rev. Lynn is saying then is a man or woman in public office must conceal any and all personal expressions of "religious" faith.

What if that same individual's character and integrity is due to personal "religious" convictions and the honorable conduct of said individual is based on "religious" motives?

The above quote suggests that Rev. Lynn believes that religious faith and the man who has such faith can and should be easily divorced when it comes his function in public office.

For nearly eight years we were told to accept Clinton's numerous and glaring foibles and utter lack of integrity as part of a "great president" doing a great job. Now, we have a president whose personal religious faith and his subsequent belief in God is somehow a detriment to his conduct as POTUS.

[sirchtruth]

Yes, I would fight to protect its ideals. Yes, I think that it does define the character of our nation. But, it is a letter and nothing more.

I agree with you, but let's face it, it is the backbone on which our law exist. Other than the 10 commandments, the DOI Is the single document which everything this country stands for is derived from and the minute we are willing to let others trample it, that's the day we are no longer free.

[roberbaran]

I'm an atheist. I don't want to eliminate religion: IMO, you can believe whatever you want to believe. What I took offense to was GW calling me un-American because of MY belief system (you probably recall the quote as well as I - it was made before he was elected).

I'm not un-American. In fact, I've no other belief system competing for my attention. I will never say "I refuse to obey this American law because of my religion." I know that certain religious peoples have not had that same commitment to our nation. Jehovah's Witnesses will not serve in the army, even though the draft is a law. Are they more or less un-American than I?

[streetpreacher]

ummm... I would prefer he not be elected, work for his defeat, and pray to God for mercy on a nation that had become so apostate.

[Alan Chapman]

What -- they'd rather he lied about the basis for his decisions?

I can tell you that this libertarian would not have preferred that he lied but that he practiced his faith in private (meaning outside of the government). It's inappropriate to use government to advance one's religious beliefs.

The only criteria the president should apply when appointing judges is wether or not the candidates understand the concept of rights and liberty, separation of powers, federalism, state sovereignty, and wether they can read plain English.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Our Christian heritage is what made this country great...why we're still having this argument is proof of the damage done by the ACLU and folks like Barry Lynn. There is no doubt about what our founders believed, what the Pilgrims believed, what the early builders of schools, hospitals, courtrooms believed...we have libraries worth of original documents, speeches, evidence in monuments in DC, and war journals. This is a country founded on Christianity...and everyone else was fortunate to partake of the bounty these Christians gave them.

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin

Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.

And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.
Faith of our Fathers

***Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?
***Religion and the Constitution, Thomas Sowell.
***One Nation Under Siege.

[bearsgirl90]

I doubt that anyone with true Christian values would go very far in politics

I tend to agree.

[streetpreacher]

Two and a half centuries ago, our forefathers landed upon the shores of this nation and made a covenant with God. They covenanted in the Mayflower Compact that they would be His people and this land would be a light to the nations. Today this ground that we stand upon is crying out to us. The covenants of our forefathers are crying out to us today to renew them!

In 1837, Jonathan Adams stood... Jonathan Quincy Adams stood here and he said, "Posterity, you will never know the price that my generation has paid for your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it!"


Today let dead men's bones speak to our hearts! The men and women who founded our nation are looking upon us right now to see how we will respond to their words. They're watching to see what we will do with the cause that they paid such a great price for. These men and women saw our generation when they signed away their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor! Today we stand here because they cut covenant; we can be a covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; because of their sacrifice, to cut covenant with our God!


If we can't connect somehow with our forefathers, at least let us connect with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the Israelites who stood in a land under oppression and bondage and their cry arose to a God who remembered the covenant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! He remembered their covenant and delivered them! As a generation we stand here; May our cries of bondage, may the oppression that we've been under arise to God today and may He hear it, not because of us, but because of the covenant that our forefathers made on this land!


Society today has tried to tell our generation that we have no Christian heritage in this nation. But there is overwhelming evidence in our history that we are the heir to a great Christian heritage in America! If there is no Christian heritage in our nation, why then during the Great Awakening, did the motto of our nation become "One nation under God"? Why then during the Revolution did the cry arise "No King but King Jesus!”? Why then?


I'm here to tell you that our generation has been under a subtle attack from the enemy to disconnect us from our past! Covenant ties us to our past and gives us hope for the future. Could it be that today, more than just our generation, that our nation's destiny stands in the balance? Could it be that by us renewing covenant today, that generations coming after us will walk in the land that has the blessing of God?


- Spoken by an unknown young lady from the F.I.R.E. School of Ministry at a national event, transcribed by me

I believe this girl who sounded like a teenager had a better grasp about the founding of our nation than most of these so called intellectuals or even many who post on FR. The bottom line is this: if the Bible is true and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One to Whom you will give an account, then your narrowminded legal twisting of the Constitution or sophistry won't avail you much!

[Alan Chapman]

I love how liberals get all bothered when a Christian President exercises his free expression rights...

Well, I'd give further consideration to your position if I were you. That you get a sense of glee about it is discomforting.

This isn't simply a case about the president espousing his religious beliefs. He intends to make a concerted effort to stack the bench with judges who share his religious beliefs. And while this might seem virtuous and heroic it sets a dangerous precedent. The Office of the President ought not be used to advance one's religious dogma wether the president is a Christian, a worshipper of Mother Earth, or a worshipper of Xerxephius of Alpha Centari.

Someday we may get a president whose religious beliefs run contrary to your own. I think it's fair to assume you would not want him to stack the bench with judges who shared his religious beliefs.

[Alan Chapman]

...the "Rev." Lynn's comments run the risk of blurring the line between between stupidity and outright apostacy.

Argumentum ad Hominem.

Surely you can do better.

[RAT Patrol]

He does not want to load the judiciary with Christians. He wants to load it with political conservatives only in the sense that they are strict constructionists. He wants judges who interpret the law rather than those who see themselves as revisionists who can usurp the legislative branch of government. The fact that a lot of conservatives are Christians is absolutely not the point. You sound like you want to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Do you think all judges should be atheists? Religion should not be an issue.

[Alan Chapman]

...that would also be true of the letter from Jefferon that is often sited re: separation of church and state.

I'm certain even you can see the danger in allowing government to be used as a means to advance one's religious dogma. The religious dogma of officeholders may not always be consistent with your own.

[RAT Patrol]

Let me add that what I "loves" was the hypocrisy it exposes. They cry separation of church and state only when it serves their political goals. Be consistent and don't let tax dollars fund the desecration of religious symbols either then.

[Alan Chapman]

According to 'reverend' Lynn, the Declaration of Independence should be considered an unconstitutional, anti-American screed.

Argumentum ad Hominem.

Surely you can do better than that.

[My2Cents]

The Declaration of Independence was more than a letter. It was tantamount to an official resolution adopted by the Second Continental Congress affirming the natural rights of man -- God given rights. As natural, God-given rights, they are not rights that any civil government can deny or take away, without jeopardizing that government's own legitimacy. As natural, God-given rights, these rights precede all civil laws adopted after the formation of the government of the United States. In this sense, these natural, God-given rights are higher than even the Constitution itself. They are higher than the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were granted by the government of the United States (the "People", to be technically correct). The Constitution can be amended. The principles of the Declaration of Independence cannot. They stand forever, absolute. The "inalienable rights" declared in the Declaration of Independence are above the laws of man, and are supreme to the laws of man.

You say the Declaration is not a "law." Fair enough. They are more than a law. They are the basis of our liberties, and the guarantee that government cannot legitimately deny them to any person in the United States.

As to the fact that the right to "liberty" was articulated at a time of legal slavery in the colonies (and later, within the United States), any student of history would recognize that the Declaration of Independence did more to bring about the destruction of the institution of slavery than any other document or law passed by Congress. The proclamation that liberty is a "God-given" right gave the abolitionist movement it's strength and rationale. Lincoln, in many of his speeches before becoming President, harkened back to the Declaration of Independence as the principle argument against slavery. It took time, and it took a war, but the Declaration of Independence sowed the seeds of slavery's destruction.

[Alan Chapman]

The Atheist Zealots are so elitist and pompas about not only taking God out of public, but out of everything...

You're mistaken.

Interestingly, some atheists are under the impression that certain religious zealots are elitist and pompas about not only forcing God into government, but using the force of government to coerce the financing of and participation in religion.

Is that impression correct? Or, are they mistaken?