BY DON MONKERUD
APTOS, California
Despite staunch backing from fundamental religious groups, the Bush administration continues to face opposition over the war in Iraq from mainstream religious leaders. Many wonder how religious groups that claim to follow the same God and Bible but come to such different conclusions.
Opposition begins with questions about motivations for a war on Iraq. "The idea of preemption is very difficult for a democracy," says Douglas Johnston, president of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy in Washington, D.C. "Normally we need a crisis to muster the political consensus to take action."
In this case, the reasons for invading Iraq put forth by President Bush didn't convince Johnston about the absolute necessity for the war. A graduate of the US Naval Academy and the youngest officer to qualify for command of a US nuclear submarine, Johnston found the alleged linkage between Saddam Hussein and global terrorism to be weak; there is nothing unique in the violation of UN resolutions-India, Israel and others are also big violators; and the threat of nuclear proliferation from North Korea is of greater concern than Iraq. "Our case was not as solid as I would have liked," he says.
In the same vein, the US Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches (NCC) and hundreds of religious leaders directly communicated their opposition to the war to President Bush. The NCC supports war only in extreme situations, such as one country invading another, and believes the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to complete their work. They do not support preemptive strikes.
"President Bush converted to a kind of Christianity that believes God is a warrior," says Robert Edgar, General Secretary of the NCC. "Bush uses language like good and evil very freely and inappropriately, but the world is more complicated than black and white, good and evil."
On the other hand, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) sent a letter to the White House supporting the war. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC believed Bush's policies concerning "Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction" were correct.
The commission cited casus belli, developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and fifth centuries AD, as an adequate reason for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Casus belli presumes an aggressor will cause lasting, grave, and certain damage. Ronnie Lipschutz, professor of politics and author of The Myth of 'Ethic Conflict:' Politics, Economics and 'Cultural Violence,'" finds that religion clearly plays a role in going to war against Iraq, but one the administration is trying to downplay. Initially Bush named the mission after the Crusades. He mentions God a great deal and Lipschutz finds a messianic vision in Bush's pronouncements of the US remaking the world in its own image.
The Bush Administration put forth many justifications for the invasion but Lipschutz finds problems with each of them. No weapons of mass destruction were found; there are many other tyrants in the world-often supported by the US; democracy has to come from within a country rather than be imposed from without; and Saddam Hussein's elimination will do little to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Bush Administration tries to downplay the role of oil, although it certainly plays a role.
"There are multiple reasons for going to war, and obviously Bush is looking for an explanation that has the greatest resonance with the American public," Lipschutz says. "The Bush Administration is trying to serve multiple goals with this war and that's why they bounce from one reason to another, none of them persuasive by itself. All together, they look like a laundry list."
Religion has often been used as a source of righteousness to promote political agendas and expansionism, according to Albert Garcia, a theologian at Concordia University in Wisconsin. An underlying message remains "a holy war against the axis of evil." He maintains that other conservative presidents, including Eisenhower, Reagan and George Bush, Sr. never used religion to justify their actions the way President George W. Bush does.
"Many see Bush's religious beliefs as personal," says Garcia, "but that's unfortunate because there is a line that is crossed when it becomes self-righteous and makes anything acceptable even when it's carried out for political and economic interests."
Garcia doesn't want to see religion used as a means of conquest, but rather to help people and provide services to those in need. Whether Bush uses religion consciously or not, Garcia finds the rhetoric of good and evil disturbing. The US may bring American-style democracy and capitalism to the Middle East, but this will not bring peace or understanding between the US and Arab nations. We need to understand Islam's call for the submission to the will of Allah in opposition to greed and secularization. The solution for the region is more complex than doing away with a cruel dictator. Iraqis and others have to work out their own problems. "We can't impose our way of life on everyone," Garcia says.
Not all congregates agree with Garcia and other church leaders. A Gallup Poll in October showed that practicing Christians are more likely than their nonpracticing counterparts to favor the invasion of Iraq. Nationally, 60 percent of those who reported that "religion is very important" to them, support the war. Support for going to war increased to 64 percent among "born again" or evangelical Christians and increased to 70 percent for those who consider themselves part of the "religious right," about 18 percent of the population.
In contrast, only 49 percent of those who say religion is "not very important," some 17 percent of the population, support invading Iraq. Those who never go to church, 13 percent of Americans, similarly showed less support for the invasion. The poll concluded that "those who are most religious generally tend to be above average in their support for military action, while those who are less religious tend to be less in favor."
"What a paradox," says Gregg Carter, a sociologist at Bryant College in Smithfield, R.I. "Christ's central messages on how we should come to terms with our enemies-through love and charity-are ignored, overlooked, and disregarded by a nation and a majority of its people who claim to be the heirs of these messages and of their author."
Carter said there is no research to reveal the reasons for this schism between religious belief and support for military solutions to conflict. He does find that the differences in the scriptures emphasized by fundamentalists versus mainline denominations are so great that they appear to be following two completely different books. Fundamentalists are more likely to take their cue from passages from Romans in the New Testament, which say your leaders come from God. Do what they say. If not, you will invoke God's wrath. Mainline Protestants take guidance from passages Luke which advises Christians to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you.
Another reason for the schism comes in who gets included in "the Kingdom of God." The mainline churches include everyone while the evangelicals exclude those who don't agree with their doctrine and interpretation of the Bible. This position plays out politically with the far right fundamentalist-predominately Republicans-who draw their strength from the traditional "Bible Belt," the South and Midwest.
Daniel Wirls, associate professor of politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz, finds that Baptists and more conservative American Christians possess a missionary zeal about America's purpose in the world. He sees a number of reasons for the war, including an over-reliance on military force to make policy, a frustration with resolving the Iraqi situation, oil and Israel.
"People like Jerry Falwell made the link with Israel a long time ago," says Wirls. "Israel represents the kind of control they would like to have over the Holy Land, short of Christians taking it back. Many fundamentalist Christians may not be hospitable to Judaism in the US but it is 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliance."
Regardless of the religious reasons put forth by President Bush for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, religious leaders and congregates remain locked in disagreement. Evidently, the essential values of Christianity have not been resolved after almost two thousand years. Despite the rhetoric about America being "a Christian nation," Christians remain undecided on whether to embrace their enemies or kill them.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, May 7, 2003.
Visit the