A faith-based administration. (Watch On The Right).

Although George W. Bush may have faltered in his efforts to secure public financing of select sectarian, faith-based charitable organizations and programs, there remains a strong faith basis in many of his other actions.

This is most notable in his public declarations in the wake of September 11, 2001, which suggest that a precariously simplified worldview now stands behind U.S. foreign policy--namely, that there is good, there is evil, and we must follow Bush as he courageously embarks on a global crusade against the latter. He repeatedly uses the word evil to refer to any and all who are unsupportive of U.S. actions, declaring that, since September 11, "We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed."

Evil is an emotionally and religiously charged word that clouds reason, and this kind of rhetoric is dangerously parallel to that used by Muslim and other orthodox extremists to justify acts of terrorism. Large groups of people, indeed entire nations, are condemned for what they think, believe, and stand for--for being "evil"--rather than for their actions. Should the malevolent acts of September 11 serve as a catalyst for a crusade against those who may have had similar thoughts but who haven't anticipated or planned--let alone committed--similar acts?

As evidenced by his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address, Bush seems to believe such an approach is called for. He clearly caters to the populace's fears by promoting a militaristic agenda and fostering the idea that the United States is in a continual state of emergency--as if the campaign in Afghanistan only minimally addresses threats to our safety. And by declaring that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--and perhaps several other unnamed countries--represent a threat to the United States that must be dealt with, he creates an atmosphere of haste and anxiety, making it difficult for people to rationally judge matters on their merits.

It would be unwise and unfair to compare Bush's tactics to those of any specific historic leaders. In his attempts to validate military aggression, he uses arguments reminiscent of the propaganda and disinformation dispensed during World War II. For example, he presents a stark view of the world in which small, weak nations represent fatal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed states. In 1938-1939, Czechoslovakia was demonized as a threat to German national security, and Poland wasn't far behind as the list of "threats" expanded. It wasn't long before these so-called threats were used as justification for military invasion.

In his State of the Union address, Bush explicitly directed the American public to view North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as threats by declaring: "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." While it is fair to recognize the destructive potential of modern weapons, it is curious why these three and only these three countries constitute the "axis of evil."

After all, if he were really concerned about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, why not worry about Pakistan, India, and the Muslim countries of the former Soviet Union--where the threat of implementing such weapons is more pronounced and the justification for doing so is inherent in their theocracies? If human rights violations are the controlling factor, why not address human rights violations in Myanmar (Burma), Syria, and Chechnya? Does he focus on North Korea simply because, unlike these other nations, there are no compelling U.S. business interests there and because it is a non-Muslim state?

Furthermore, if Bush's aim sincerely is to combat terrorism worldwide, why after September 11 didn't he immediately ask for Interpol's assistance? By not involving Interpol in his investigation, he ignored the only international police organization with the legal power to formulate and implement serious strategies aimed at detaining criminals and terrorists worldwide and reducing future criminality and terrorist attacks. Bush's insubstantial efforts at seeking international cooperation are half-hearted at best.

Clearly, he has another agenda--at least part of which is the pursuit of a "holy" cause. This was most noticeable when he declared, "There is a spiritual shield that protects [our] country." More than simple rhetoric, these words suggest that Bush believes the war on terrorism has religious significance, that he himself is on a mission from God, and that he was placed in the White House to complete a divine assignment. In this context, his concluding State of the Union remarks promise retribution to the perpetrators of September 11:

   I will not yield. I will not rest. I will not relent in waging this
   struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of
   this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear,
   justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not
   neutral between them.

Beyond his global holy war, there are also Bush's domestic faith-based initiatives. One of the most striking was evident in his February 4, 2002, press statement, in which he declared that an embryo or fetus should have health insurance coverage separate from the woman carrying it. Such a proposal is more representative of his personal religious views than any concern for public safety and health. And the impact of this initiative would be devastating for reproductive rights as it would mean the redefinition of personhood as beginning at conception.

In a related matter, the Bush administration proposed on February 26 a total global ban on all experimentation in the field of cloning. Making no distinction between therapeutic and reproductive research, the administration's position has caused outrage among scientists. A spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared, "It's bad enough that the administration would seek to impose its views on the American people, let alone the entire world."

Bush has also asked for legislation that would pour millions of federal dollars into abstinence-only education and efforts to encourage single mothers to marry regardless of the circumstances--maneuvers which would have his personal sectarian views on morality established into civic law. In his State of the Union address, he expressed pride in the liberation of women in Afghanistan; however, by announcing these initiatives, he hypocritically is attempting to limit women's rights at home.

And these aren't Bush's only forays into the realm of public morality. His administration previously challenged assisted suicide, put a hold on international family planning funding, tried to remove birth control coverage from federal employees' insurance plans, restricted stem cell research, ended the Labor Department's "Equal Pay Matters" program, skipped the international conference on racism, refused to continue the presidential tradition of proclaiming Gay Pride Month, and passed legislation effectively violating privacy and other freedoms.

In order to succeed in these efforts, Bush has carefully surrounded himself with far-right conservatives like Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has become a lightning rod for negative media attention. There is also U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James, who played leading roles in such religious right groups as the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and Regent University. Others, such as Gale Ann Norton, Ann Veneman, and Michael Gerson, share Bush's ultraconservative perspective. By surrounding himself with easily identifiable religious and political extremists, liberals and the media alike tend to address these "easy targets" and leave Bush appearing "moderate" by contrast.

But Bush's views concerning civil liberties, justice, and democracy are clearly outside the mainstream of American culture. Millions of people from across the political spectrum who support religious liberty seriously question whether forceful and frequent public affirmation of a particular faith is an effective way to achieve the civil harmony that democracy cherishes.

Nonetheless, Bush has so far been successful in generating an illusion of consensus by fostering fear, using religiously charged rhetoric, and allowing his appointed officials to take the heat for his most extreme policies. Subliminal as this illusion is, it hasn't been part of the public debate. It is essential that the motivations and basis which form this deception become part of our national dialogue. We need to listen to the concerns and aspirations of all people and not be blindly influenced by Bush's overheated rhetoric that excludes and brands unpatriotic those with differing moral and religious ideals.

Otilia Veronica Gaidos holds a B.A. from Western Washington University; is a graduate student in diplomacy and international relations at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey; and has experience in both politics and nonprofit organizing.