“ON GEORGE BUSH AND RELIGION I, REDUX, PART 2”    

                   Introduction 

Author’s Note. This is the second of the series of my columns written since the outset of my appearance on TPJ that focus on George Bush that we are doing as re-runs, lightly edited but not updated.  Steve Gheen and I thought that in light of the fact that Bush is now in the twilight of his Presidency (that is in the Gotterdammerung, not the gentle, sense of the word), such a series would be appropriate: a backwards look at a backwards man, only the second true reactionary, in the literal sense of the word (Reagan was the first), ever to have occupied the White House.   I hope that you will consider these writings to be an adequate representation of this man who continues to work so hard at achieving what is evermore so obviously his original goal: the overthrow of US Constitutional Democracy, to replace it with a Georgite version of theocratic fascism.  And now to Part 2 of that first Bush column, that appeared in TPJ on April 8, 2004.

            On Certain Bush Appointments 

About a year ago [that is in 2003], Pres. Bush appointed one Dr. W. David Hager to head the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration.  This Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.  And so, who is Dr. Hager?   

He is a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now. The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. In a book that Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled Stress and the Woman's Body, he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. 

Ah yes, one might say, but he is entitled to his views.  But one might also say that in a position such as the one to which he has been appointed, science is important. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. 

This is precisely why the Founders wrote the “Wall of Separation of Church and State” into the Constitution.  Although those precise words do not appear in the First Amendment, that is how its provisions concerning religion were famously by Thomas Jefferson, the whole Bill of Rights having be primarily written by his close friend, James Madison.  They authors of the Bill of Rights knew, from their then-current experience with England and the experience of their English forebears that stretched back to the time of the first Pilgrim immigrants fleeing religious persecution there, what "religion in government" means.  It doesn't mean that "religion," lower-case "r," as a concept say of the existence of a supernatural being, is in government.  They knew that it meant precisely this: a particular Religion and Religious ideology, with an uppercase “R,” is in control of the government, and the force of the criminal law backs up its writ. 

Bush on “Under God” and the Pledge of Allegiance  

From the New York Times: “One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does Under God Mean?” March 22, 2004, by Linda Greenhouse  

“According to a form letter signed by President Bush and sent to those who wrote the White House about the federal appeals court decision in June 2002 that declared the pledge unconstitutional, reciting the pledge is a way of proclaiming ‘our reliance on God’ and of ‘humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of divine providence.’

”This letter . . . . concluded by expressing the wish that ‘the almighty continue to watch over the United States of America.’ …… 

“[In presenting the government’s case before the Supreme Court, the Georgites of course opposed the appellate court decision ruling that “under God” could not stand in a pledge that is required for recitation in a public school.]  Solicitor General Olson told the justices that the appeals court misunderstood the pledge. The phrase ‘under God’ did not place the pledge in the category of religious expressions that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, he said, for example ‘state-sponsored prayers, religious rituals or ceremonies, or the requirement of teaching or not teaching a religious doctrine.’

“Rather, Mr. Olson said, ‘under God’ was one of various ‘civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country.’ He said the framers believed ‘that God gave them the right to declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the unalienable principles given to them by God.’"

The Republican Religious Right invariably holds that the word “God” is in the Declaration of Independence and try to make their adherents think that it appears in the Constitution also.  In the Declaration, the word that Jefferson used, that some take to mean “God,” is “Creator.”  He knew the difference between the plain meanings and the political implications of the two.  If Jefferson had meant “God” by the term “Creator,” he would have said “God.”  He did not.  As a practicing atheist the word “Creator” is one I am perfectly happy with.  For to me with my world-view it means simply the laws of chemistry, physics, and biology that have operated the Universe since its formation and lead eventually to the processes of life and evolution.  There is no word in the Constitution, of course, that even alludes to the God-concept. 

                   The Two Bushes, Iraq, and W.’s Theology

And finally, here is the text of a Doonesbury strip that well expresses the Georgite theology (Newsday, March 14, 2004): 

Gary Trudeau's G.H.W. Bush figure (a Roman helmet) is talking with his G.W. Bush figure (an asterisk). 

HW: Son, do you know why I decided not to invade Iraq?

W: Haven't a clue, Dad. 

HW: Really? I put it in my book. 

W: Books are Laura's thing. 

HW: Let me read you some excerpts... "An occupation of Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... There was no viable exit strategy... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. 

W: I don't recall any of that, Dad. 

HW: But it was reported in all the papers. 

W: I don't read the papers. 

HW (to himself): Another child left behind (to W): Nice to talk to you, son. 

W: Listen, Dad, you're either with or against me [emphasis added]. 

Which sums up George Bush’s theology: the 5^th century Manichean Heresy concerning the absolute, and equal, dualism between Good and Evil, in modern dress.