February 8, 2007

During the Gulf War, the U.S. public saw a video clip that was repeated many times. In it, a U.S. helicopter pilot was about ready to shoot an Iraqi with a missile. It was nighttime, but the pilot had night vision equipment and, as he was about to push the button to annihilate the Iraqi soldier, who could not see his adversary, the pilot exclaimed, "Say hello to Allah!" Then, the video shows an explosion. The "Say hello to Allah" statement became standard fare in America’s psyche.

No one complained about broadcasting the event, yet it is improbable that any TV outlet would have broadcast a foreign soldier stating "Say hello to Jesus!" if the roles were reversed. That would have been considered in bad taste.

On September 12, 2001, George Bush declared the United States was about to embark on a "crusade" against terrorism. Many people mentioned to him that the new enemies were mostly of the Islamic faith and that American Moslems and millions of followers of Islam from around the world who decry terrorism were highly offended at the choice of the word "crusade" to designate a future war. He had to be told that a "crusade" is indicative of a holocaust against Moslems.

Shortly after, Bush retracted the word and said he had nothing against Islam or the followers of the religion. The retraction was hollow. In March 2004, a Bush-Cheney campaign letter praised the president for "leading a global crusade against terrorism." When questioned by the press about the accuracy of the allegations, Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot acknowledged the letter and its statement and said its intent was "focused upon the single-minded efforts of the president … to undertake a mission to liberate people and protect the cause of freedom."

Since the September 2001 statement and subsequent retraction, Bush has exceeded this gaffe by words and deeds. In 2003, while Bush was still feigning fairness in the Israeli/Palestinian issue, he met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. In the meeting, Bush told the Palestinian leader that actions must be taken quickly to implement the one-sided roadmap that the American administration had drawn up. The president told Abbas, "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them. And He instructed me to strike out at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

That statement transcends arrogance and borders on idiocy. Bush told the leader of a predominately Moslem people that his god (the Christian one) is behind the U.S. offensive against Arabs and Muslims and he expected Abbas to cringe and comply.

Shortly after Bush’s meeting with Abbas, the book The Faith of George W. Bush arrived on bookstands. It was written by Stephen Mansfield, an author whose specialty is Christianity, and describes incidents in a positive manner that would make even many Christians dubious of Bush’s statements. The book was reviewed in 2003 by Paul Harris for The Observer newspaper of Great Britain. Harris wrote:

Blair and Bush were the two most aggressive world leaders against the former Iraqi regime. One can only wonder how the Moslems in the Arab world look at a scenario where the two biggest warmongers pray to a Christian god together. Then, when the leaders emerge from prayer, they are even more militant. This is indicative of the insincerity of Bush saying that neither he nor America have anything against Moslems or the Moslem world

The Faith of George W. Bush reveals much about the influence of Christianity on Bush in areas where religion is normally kept aloof from governmental duties. Shortly before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texas evangelist, "I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen … I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, reporter Bob Woodward asked Bush if he had sought his father’s advice. He told Woodward, "You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."

When Woodward’s book Plan of Attack was published in 2004, many people were surprised at Bush’s obsession with Christianity in determining his agenda. However, if one had watched and listened to Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign until the publishing of Woodward’s book, he/she would not have been so amazed.

"Good versus evil" has always been a part of George Bush’s message. This concept is part of Manichaeism, a religion conceived in the third century in Babylon. However, many U.S. Christians today have incorporated the belief that reality is divided into absolute good and absolute evil. Bush has not been deficient in realizing that his "good versus evil" message is accepted, without question, by millions of U.S. citizens.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. In Foreign Policy in Focus, on June 28, 2004, he spoke of the danger of such an inflexible attitude:

Despite all the Bush denials of conducting a holy war, within a year of the occupation of Iraq, subtleties were abandoned and religious terms were commonly used to depict not only the invasion of Iraq, but of various scenarios throughout the Middle East. Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, was not remiss in putting together the pieces of the puzzle. On April 21, 2004, in an article titled, "Things Fall Apart," he wrote:

We have heard and still hear Bush administration officials state, "We are not against Islam. This is not a war against Islam." This statement is as hollow as any made by administration spokespeople.

Many American citizens are equally as duplicitous when it comes to their attitudes toward knowledge of Islam and its followers. Time-after-time, we hear statements such as, "I have nothing against Moslems, but _____ " After the "but" comes a tirade. These common actions represent denial at its utmost. The blinders put on by much of the American public are identical to those used by racists in speaking about African-Americans. They are the same used by those who maintain that humankind has not degraded the atmosphere and the environment. They are the same blinders used by people who say they are not homophobic, yet decry any attempts by homosexuals to attain equal treatment under the law. They are the same barriers used by most bigots throughout the decades and centuries. In most instances, only a few bigots will step forward and admit their hatred. The majority of bigots hide behind the veils of denial. They are more dangerous than the outspoken zealots.