|
RICHMOND, Vermont Besieged by
plummeting approval ratings and mounting domestic and foreign challenges,
President George W. Bush nonetheless keeps the faith. Speaking to a California audience last
month, he affirmed that he bases "a lot of foreign policy decisions on
some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an almighty. ...
Secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in
everybody's soul ... to be free."
Such a statement will surely add to the
distress of many friends of the United States who believe that
it has been led astray by such beliefs. The concern is about a president
who so strongly believes he is doing "God's work" that he cannot
see mistakes when he makes them or alternative policies when events cry out
for them.
Europeans have always been uncomfortable
with the way American presidents have invoked God in support of U.S. policies. Bush
didn't start this, but he has practiced it with more conviction than most
of his predecessors.
A French foreign policy expert, François
Heisbourg, has put European concerns this way: "The biblical
references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil,
these are things that we simply don't get. In a number of areas, it seems
to me that we are no longer part of the same civilization."
As opposed to America, where religion has
historically been on the side of "freedom," Europe's experience
suggests that the church is not always a friend of democracy, and that
religion can be a source of conflict as much as an instrument for peace.
For Europeans the political success of the 18th-century Enlightenment was
that it ensured a social contract based on reason, rather than on an
absolute truth that made discussion and debate impossible.
For the most part, religious faith has
reinforced many of the values on which European and American civil
societies are based. The freedom to worship in a faith of one's choice is
an important source of cohesion and peace in our societies.
But some Europeans have lately equated the
danger of American evangelical fundamentalism's influence on U.S. policy with that
posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism.
A European friend put it this way:
"In Europe, it is newcomers
who are challenging the fundamental values on which our political system is
built, whereas in the United States this challenge
comes from a core indigenous group's perversion of the founding values of
their own system." She added, "I find this even more scary."
Even the most committed American Christian
fundamentalists, however, support separation between church and state. By
way of contrast, many Islamists - and not just the radicals - want a close
match between their religious beliefs and the rules of state.
Nonetheless, fundamentalists see the texts
of their faith as the "truth." A middle-of-the-road Christian
"believes" in God. But someone with a more fundamental approach -
including, apparently, President Bush - sees the existence of their god as
a fact, not as a belief.
This kind of certitude becomes particularly
problematic at the intersection between religion and politics. A strong
believer, with political views on an issue grounded in religious beliefs,
is less likely to tolerate varying political views. Uncompromising faith,
which can be a strength in one's personal life,
can be a recipe for disaster in foreign policy.
That point was driven home by Bishop
Wolfgang Huber, Chairman of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany, when he warned
that some Americans fall into the trap of believing that the American dream
means "American superiority in the name of Christ."
The next American president will
undoubtedly invoke God's blessing on America, as American
presidents have always done. But it is one thing to ask God for blessing
and guidance. It is an entirely another to believe the Almighty blesses
every thing that we do.
A bit more religious modesty would help
put U.S. foreign policy
back on more solid ground.
Stanley R. Sloan is a visiting scholar at Middlebury College's Rohatyn Center for International Affairs.
|
