Bushwhacked: George W. Bush and the First Amendment

By Jamie York

On January 20, 2001, shortly after his inauguration, President George W. Bush broke his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution when he declared that religion "will have an honored place in our plans and laws."

President Bush and his supporters are not interested in pluralism -- they want to create a Christian nation -- so it is no surprise that Bush's first act as president was to issue an executive order to stop federal funds to international health organizations that provide abortion services or counseling. According to UNICEF, 600,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes and 78,000 of these deaths are caused by unsafe abortions. How can Bush claim to be "compassionate" if he begins his term by cutting off needed health care services in the developing world?

Bush also indicated that he would soon be introducing legislation to provide school vouchers that would benefit religious and other private schools at the expense of already financially-strapped public schools and he promised to introduce an initiative for "faith-based" social services that would distribute federal tax monies to religious groups for services such as after-school programs, job training and drug treatment programs now being offered by government agencies and secular organizations. President Bush and his constituency have a political agenda that is inseparable from their Judeo-Christian concept of values and morality and they want to use congressional legislation and the federal courts to ensure that their beliefs will one day become the law of the land.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for the separation of church and state because the authors had determined that the best way to ensure religious freedom was to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. The first 10 constitutional amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution so that it would be more acceptable to small farmers and landless workers, but the separation of church and state was added to the First Amendement as the result of a reasoned historical analysis. After studying the widespread political power of the Roman Catholic Church and the heresy trials of the Spanish Inquisition, as well as the influence of the Church of England upon the early colonists, the authors realized that it would be impossible to provide for even the appearance of freedom of expression and civil liberties if they endorsed a society in which a particular religious sect could become the official custodian of "truth." Even though real political power was held by a wealthy minority, the new United States of America was to be based upon a plurality of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and opinions, not upon some narrow religious interpretation of morality. Under the First Amendment, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists and devil-worshipers alike are free to express their ideas so long as no valid constitutional laws are broken.

Since the First Amendment was passed in 1791, religious symbols have slowly crept into government. Our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase "one nation under God." Christmas is a state-sanctioned holiday during which religious symbols and nativity scenes are often prominently displayed at public buildings. And certainly, references to God by the president of the United States are not neutral; state-sanctioned prayer in the schools is not neutral; anti-abortion legislation is not neutral; and school vouchers favoring religious schools are not neutral. Thus far, however, the Supreme Court has managed to uphold the First Amendment when serious challenges to

church-state separation have been presented, but the same Court that recently installed George W. Bush as president may well begin to dismantle the separation of church and state on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, some people argue that there is no harm in a little religion in government and that it may somehow "do us all some good." The grave danger with this point of view, however, is the combustible mix of intolerance and power. Instead of staunchly defending the all-inclusiveness of the First Amendment, most of us do not raise a fuss when an art exhibit is banned for being obscene, when anti-war protesters are arrested for burning a U.S. flag, or when a group of white supremists are denied a permit to hold a rally. As long as there is no restriction on our own free speech, then we don't seem to mind the suppression of views we disagree with, especially views we find distasteful or repugnant.

The Moral Majority and the Christian right wing -- fervent supporters of George W. Bush -- are openly seeking a Christian nation. They see their opponents as nonbelievers rather than as mere political adversaries which whom they disagree. They also believe that they have a monopoly on truth and they are eager to have the government impose their version of "truth" on everyone, religious minorities and nonbelievers alike. Once they have the desired political power, they can more easily write their intolerance into law. One can only imagine the horror of an anti-homosexual witch-hunt as new heresy trials begin in the United Christian States of America.

Of course, defending the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevent the unification of church and state, but we, as citizens, cannot become complacent or careless. We must remember that securing our own freedom requires us to defend the right of others to express views with which we disagree. "If the citizens are educated and form their own opinions," writes Astronomer Carl Sagan, "then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."

Back