“God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear.” - George W. Bush, March 3, 2004

USA PATRIOT ACTS I AND II

1. THE HYPOCRISY OF GEORGE W. BUSH.

George W. Bush struggled with business failures and a drinking problem before he made a monumental decision in the 1980s. He had just spent a weekend with longtime family friend Billy Graham. Bush later wrote: “It was the beginning of a new walk where I would recommit my heart to Jesus Christ.” (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

Bush’s newfound faith gave him a political boost during his father’s 1988 presidential campaign, when the elder Bush -- an Episcopalian -- found himself struggling to connect with the Christian Right. That group had helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

George W. Bush knew its importance, and he subsequently played a key role in gaining support of the Christian Right during the 1988 campaign. According to Wayne Slater, the Austin bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News and author of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, Bush contacted some key evangelical ministers, reassuring them about the values of his father in a way his father, an Episcopalian, never could. (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

Ten years later, Bush won a second term as governor of Texas. On inauguration day in 1998, he met in the governor’s mansion with his close friend and adviser, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

Bush told Land, “And among the things he said to us was, I believe that God wants me to be president.” (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

Two years later, Bush referred to his GOP presidential nomination as a divine mandate during the 2000 campaign. He said he was “called” -- a phrase that evoked the prophetic commissions of the Hebrew scriptures. After he was elected, Bush called leading pastors of the region to the Texas governor’s palace to carry out a ritual of “laying on of hands.” That practice corresponded to the ordination of clergy. Bush told the pastors that he had been called to be the presidential candidate. Later, he also used this same language -- divine calling -- on many occasions after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (The Nation, December 4, 2003)

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s explained the enormous importance of the Christian Right: “The single most reliable predictor of how a person voted in the 2000 election was whether they went to church or to synagogue or mosque at least once a week. If they did, two-thirds of them voted for George Bush.” (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

Bush understood the importance of the Christian Right, and he had no problem in winning the support of the Christian Right. Most fundamentalists believed Bush understood the “heart and soul” of their beliefs and that his post-9/11 speeches comforted a grieving nation. (PBS, Frontline, April 29, 2004)

He ran for the White House unapologetically on faith. He divided the world and the presidential campaign into two discrete spheres: one for patriots who believed in his policies and vision, and one for everyone else. (Newsweek, April 26, 2004)

After 9/11, Bush called the American invasion of Afghanistan “a crusade” -- until advisors told him that he was implying it was a “holy war” or a “jihad.” He repeatedly referred to the fundamentalist Muslims as “evil-doers.” Bush said, “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail.” Bush also labeled his enemies as the “axis of evil,” a term that was theologically and morally loaded. If the “axis of evil” were so evil, terrorists would also have attacked other democracies across the globe. (The Nation, December 4, 2003)

Bush’s heretical belief was similar to that of the doctrine of ancient Manicheism which began in the 300s A.D. It was rejected by the Christian church as heresy. The belief divided reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. Its founder Mani believed that good and evil were separate but that they became mixed in the world through evil principles. Mani wrote that salvation lay in the release of goodness and a return to the original state of separation. (www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/manirel.htm)

In a 60 Minutes interview in October 2003, Falwell called the Prophet Mohammed “a terrorist.” Falwell claimed Mohammed sought to divide the world between Good and Evil, between “righteous” and “infidel.” According to Falwell, Islam used violence and preaches hatred and distrust between people and nations. And Islam, Falwell said, promotes confrontation that inevitably leads to warfare.,?p>

Similarly, Franklin Graham -- the son of Billy Graham castigated Islam. Graham had repeatedly insulted Islam, calling it a “wicked religion.” During Bush’s war, Graham was waiting on the wings to send missionaries into Iraq to evangelize its people under the cover of bringing humanitarian aid into the country -- while Iraq was suffering from lack of food and water. It appeared as if the Bush administration was fully behind Graham’s ploy, since the White House had invited him to preside over an April 18th Good Friday service. (Associated Press, April 3, 2003)

The Pentagon also raised questions about its own motives in the Middle East when promoting figures like Graham. The Pentagon Chaplain’s group drafted a letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld: “We are deeply dismayed and disappointed that the Pentagon Chaplain’s Office has invited Mr. Franklin Graham, an extremely controversial and divisive figure, to perform the Good Friday Services at the Pentagon on April 18, 2003. Mr. Graham has made recent public statements that are not only insulting and offensive to Muslims but also to those who espouse ecumenism among the faith groups. (Associated Press, April 3, 2003)

“Graham’s negative statements concerning Islam and Muslims, which he has never recanted, fly in the face of what we stand for as Americans. By sponsoring and promoting a visit to the Pentagon by an extreme fundamentalist like Mr. Graham, the Pentagon Chaplain’s Office is sending a message that it and the Department of Defense condone public displays of attitudes and thoughts that contradict not only Department of Defense regulations but also the American ideal of religious tolerance. We hope and pray that the Pentagon Chaplain’s Office will reconsider its invitation to Mr. Graham and instead invite a more inclusive and honorable Christian clergyman to perform the Good Friday Services.” (Associated Press, April 3, 2003)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington advocacy group, said it was upset to hear that the relief agency Samaritan’s Purse, run by Graham, planned to work in Iraq. Council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said, “It’s particularly disturbing that a group headed by a man who openly states he believes the faith of Islam is evil would enter into a Muslim country in the wake of an invading army.” (Associated Press, April 3, 2003)

Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush acknowledged that he did not seek advice from his father. Bush said, “You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.” (Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack)

According to Bob Woodward, Bush’s commented on the final days before going to war. He said, “I was praying for strength to do the Lord’s will. I’m surely not going to justify war based on God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible.” (Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack; Newsweek, April 26, 2004)

2. BUSH MANIPULATES THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

After he left the White House in 2003, David Kuo said administration officials ridiculed evangelical supporters as “nuts” and “goofy,” but he said they were politically invaluable to help win elections. Kuo also wrote that the White House office of faith-based initiatives, which Bush promoted as a nonpolitical effort to support religious social-service organizations, was told to host pre-election events designed to mobilize religious voters who would most likely favor Republican candidates. (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction) Kuo accused Karl Rove’s political staff of hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. Kuo chastised Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services. (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction) Shortly after Bush’s 2000 inauguration, Karl Rove met with Don Willett, a Bush aide from Texas who operated the faith-based programs. Rove said the entire faith-based initiative would be rolled out the following Monday. Willett asked just how without a director, staff, office, or plan the president could do that. Rove looked at him, took a deep breath, and said, ‘I don’t know. Just get me a fucking faith-based thing. Got it?’ ” (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction) Before the 2002 elections, White House political director Ken Mehlman issued “marching orders” to use the faith-based initiative in 20 House and Senate races. To avoid appearing overtly political, Mehlman said his staff would arrange for congressional offices to request visits from the faith-based program officials. (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction) Throughout the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, faith-based officials met with lawmakers in some places in an effort to generate publicity for them, while also hosting conferences in battleground states attracting hundreds of pastors and community activists eager to learn how to apply for federal grants. (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction) In 2005, Kuo criticized the administration’s handling of faith-based programs, saying that they received minimal senior White House commitment. (David Kuo, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction)

3. FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

In the summer of 2001, Bush proposed directing federal funds to religious groups that provided social services to the needy. He outlined a series of tax changes to encourage charitable giving to religious and other community organizations. He also announced new federal grants to support organizations -- particularly religious groups -- that rehabilitated inmates, educated the children of prisoners, and provided housing for pregnant single women. White House advisers contended that controversial religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, and other cults could compete for government money if their social services programs had proven results. Yet they remained silent on whether such groups would receive federal aid.

The White House said that the religious groups that contracted with the government had to maintain a delicate balance. They could not use government money for religious instruction, worship, or proselytizing. They could not refuse to serve clients based on religion. And they were not supposed to redirect any clients who were uncomfortable with the religious aspect of a program to an alternative group.

By placing religious groups on an equal footing with other organizations, which received federal grants, Bush placed himself in a precarious situation. Advocates for the separation of church and state maintained that he crossed over the delicate line and violated the First Amendment.

A 1998 survey of more than 1,200 congregations by Mark Chaves of the University of Arizona found that moderate and liberal congregations were more likely to express interest in applying for government money under existing “charitable choice” programs than conservative congregations. Predominantly Black congregations were far more likely to seek such funds than predominantly white congregations. (Washington Post, July 13, 2001)

It was not surprising that many White conservative religious leaders were less than enthusiastic for Bush’s proposal. Many of them never wanted the government money. Blacks were split. Some endorsed the president’s plan, but others did not trust the administration, even if the faith-based plan could help Black churches.

Bush met with conservative church leaders in the White House. Steven Goldsmith, former mayor of Indianapolis, was second in command. Two months earlier, he was touted to be the Jewish exception in the Bush Cabinet.

MSNBC.com (February 5, 2001) reported on Bush’s connections to Applied Scholastics, a Los Angeles-based operation that promoted the teaching methods of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Applied Scholastics had been successful with church and community tutoring programs, especially in some inner cities in California. However, opponents of Scientology charged that it was a front for the church and a recruiting tool.

In the January edition of Freedom, the official Scientology magazine, Bush and his mother Barbara were shown embracing both a high-ranking executive of the Church of Scientology and John Travolta, the actor who is a member and vocal advocate of Scientology. Colin and Alma Powell were also in the photo which was taken at the church summit in Philadelphia, during the Clinton years, to promote Applied Scholastics.

The Bushes have long been associated with faith-based programs that addresses the needs of our society,” according to Moonie cultist Rick Ross’ Web site, www.rickross.com. He outlined the Bushes’ connections to the Reverend Moon and his various programs. “Some of these groups are very controversial and may have alternative agendas. So when we talk about funding faith-based programs, we should proceed very cautiously.”

Republicans were dealt a setback, when the issue of employment discrimination by faith-based charities raised new questions about the future of the initiative. While the bill would preserve an exemption from employment discrimination laws granted to religious organizations in 1964, critics argued that the social service arms of charities receiving federal dollars should not be allowed to discriminate in their hiring policies.

Critics of the bill argued that the proposed law would effectively eliminate state and local measures that prohibited job discrimination against homosexuals. House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt was skeptical of the legislation, questioning whether Congress should allow faith-based organizations to be immune from state and local anti-discrimination laws.

Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, “This bill is a political nightmare for the White House. It has already alienated religious leaders, civil rights advocates and social service providers. Now members of the president's own party are jumping ship.” (Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2001)

But the next day, the administration mustered enough GOP votes to pass the faith-based initiative, 233-to-198. Supporters ignored complaints that the bill pre-empted state and local anti-discrimination laws. Republicans blocked a final attempt by Democrats to ban employment discrimination under federal, state, or local laws for any organization receiving government funds under the law. The bill included a series of tax breaks -- worth $13 billion over 10 years -- to encourage charitable giving by individuals and corporations. (New York Times, July 20, 2001)

The Bush administration received a setback when John DiIulio, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, unexpectedly resigned. For more than six rocky months, DiIulio advocated Bush’s faith-based plan in Congress and the broader religious community. But DiIulio was not able to deal with the political opposition to the program. He could not overcome obstacles to letting religious-based and community organizations provide some of the social services traditionally offered by the government. (New York Times, August 18, 2001)

The White House denied that any high-level talks with the Salvation Army over the “faith-based” initiative had occurred. But in July, it was revealed that two months earlier, Bush met privately with top officials from the Salvation Army, while the White House was reviewing a request from the charity for a regulation protecting it from local workplace nondiscrimination laws based on sexual orientation.

Salvation Army officials confirmed the meeting and said that it was “in connection with faith-based initiatives.” But when asked whether they discussed the issue of employment nondiscrimination laws, Salvation Army official Tom Jones said, “I don't believe it came up.” Jones said that the Salvation Army’s request for a regulatory change “wasn’t discussed at that meeting.” The session was attended by eight Salvation Army officials, including National Commander John Busby, as well as Bush and John DiIulio Jr., head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (New York Times, July 15, 2001)

The meeting came a week after the Salvation Army issued an internal report stating that it had a “firm commitment” from the White House to move on a regulation that would exempt government-funded religious charities from state and local laws that include sexual orientation in workplace nondiscrimination laws. After the session, Bush signed a proclamation declaring the following week National Salvation Army Week. (New York Times, July 15, 2001)

House GOP leaders postponed the first vote on Bush’s “faith-based” plan to provide $13.3 million in tax breaks for social services to the nation’s poor. In addition, it would strengthen the ability of religious charities to compete for government grants in a growing list of programs, including housing, domestic violence, and hunger relief. It would allow groups receiving such aid to maintain much of their religious quality. However, in their federally funded programs, they would not be able to attempt to convert others to their religion. (Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2001)

4. BUSH’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO HELP RELIGIOUS GROUPS

On December 12, 2002, Bush bypassed Congress and issued an executive order to make it easier for religious groups to receive federal money for welfare programs. A month later, on January 22, Bush announced, for the first time, that religious groups would be allowed to use federal housing money to help build centers where religious worship was held -- as long as part of the building is also used for social services.

The policy shift, which was made in a rule that the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed earlier in January, significantly expanded the administration’s contentious religion-based initiative. The current regulations generally prohibited religious groups from using federal housing and community development grants, which totaled $7.7 billion in 2002, to build or rehabilitate structures.

The new rules allowed the use of federal aid to acquire, rehabilitate, or build centers used for religious and specifically approved non-religious activities, so long as no federal money was used for the religious section. A church could erect a building using federal money to create a shelter for the homeless in one part and private money to create a sanctuary in another part. A synagogue could use a grant to rehabilitate part of its building for a counseling center for AIDS patients or the poor. A Muslim group could apply for federal money to upgrade the lighting and equipment in a room in its mosque to allow it to be used as a counseling center for single parents. (New York Times, January 23, 2003)

5. BUSH’S ANTI-GAY AGENDA

White House advisor Karl Rove was the Salvation Army’s first White House contact in its effort to win approval of a regulation allowing religious charities to practice anti-gay workplace bias. This contrasted sharply with the administration’s initial insistence that senior officials were not involved with the charity’s request.

A May 1, 2001, Salvation Army document indicated that the Bush administration was working with the nation’s largest charity to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to practice hiring discrimination against gay people. The White House made a “firm commitment” to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits. In turn, the Salvation Army agreed to use its influence to promote the administration’s “faith-based” social services initiative -- to allocate more government funds to religious charities. (Washington Post, July 10, 2001)

The report suggested that Bush preferred to circumvent the legislative process on gay issues. He preferred to allow conservative groups, such as the Salvation Army, to follow laws barring discrimination against gays in hiring, job promotion, and benefits. According to the document, the Bush administration was suggesting that faith-based groups follow federal regulation, forbidding state and local governments from barring such discrimination when administering programs with federal funds. (Washington Post, July 10, 2001)

The document defined the charity’s “objectives” as making sure states and localities could not “impose the category of sexual orientation to the list of anti-discrimination protections” or mandate “equal benefits to domestic partnership” unless religious non-profits were exempt from such provisions. Under the 1996 welfare reform law, the charitable choice provision allowed religious organizations to compete for federal funding for certain programs without impairing the charities’ religious character, as long as the charities did not use federal funds for worship or proselytizing. Bush hoped to extend the charitable choice provisions to other programs. (Washington Post, July 10, 2001)

The Salvation Army’s report clearly stated its goal: “(White House officials) first want to move the charitable choice provisions in the legislation and use the political momentum of this effort to push forward religious exemptions to domestic partnership benefit ordinances and municipal contract clauses that protect against any form of sexual orientation discrimination.” (Washington Post, July 10, 2001)

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, religious organizations had an exemption that allowed them to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion. Bush proposed that religious charities could not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability -- but it said nothing about sexual orientation.

The Salvation Army proposed a new regulation, revising an Office of Management and Budget regulation known as “Circular #A-102.” The new wording would say that agencies could not award assistance to local or state authorities that required religious charities to “adopt terms or practices for those with religious responsibilities” or to provide employment benefits, if the practices or benefits “are inconsistent with the beliefs and practices” of the charity.

The Salvation Army received nearly $300 million a year in government money. But the Salvation Army’s report indicated that the Bush administration was eager to use the charity’s influence to pass the legislation, offering the charity something it wanted in return. (Washington Post, July 10, 2001)

The White House denied that it promised the charity anything. But a White House official involved in the matter said yesterday that there was “an implied quid pro quo.” This official said that Don Eberly, the deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had given the Salvation Army “an implicit understanding” that the administration would seriously consider the change. The official said that Eberly offered assurances to the Salvation Army both because he believed that the regulatory change would be good public policy, and because he was so eager to win the Salvation Army’s endorsement of Bush’s faith-based initiative. (Washington Post, July 12, 2001)

Dan Bartlett, a deputy assistant to the president, said that Rove was aware of the issue during a phone conversation with Mark Holman earlier in 2001. Holman’s law firm of Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley was retained by the Salvation Army to lobby the White House. Bartlett said that Holman offered the Salvation Army’s help on the faith-based initiative and then said, “We have a regulatory issue -- a federal constitutional issue. Who should we talk to?” Bartlett said that Rove referred Holman to the Office of Management and Budget as well as to the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (Washington Post, July 12, 2001)

In an attempt to defuse the problem, press secretary Ari Fleischer said that faith-based groups already had the power under federal law to discriminate against gays in hiring. White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said that the Salvation Army’s claim of a “firm commitment” overstated the case.

6. “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”

In the summer of 2005, Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about “intelligent design.” Bush opposed Charles Darwin’s natural selection theory that challenged established scientific thinking and promoted the idea that an unseen force was behind the development of humanity. (Washington Post, August 3, 2005)

Although Bush said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, he said that he believed that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories. (Washington Post, August 3, 2005)

Bush said, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught. I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” (San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 2005)