Anyone wanting to answer the question of “how we began” in Iraq has to confront the monumental fact that the United States, the most powerful country in the world, invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there, and then must try to explain how this could have happened.

One possible explanation for the George W. Bush administration’s Iraq policy is the president’s Christian faith. In the period leading up to the war, the president would say that he relied on his “gut” or his “instinct” to guide the ship of state, and then he “prayed over it.” In a recent speech to Christian broadcasters, President Bush explained that his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq were undertaken because we believe that every human being bears the image of our Maker. That's why we're doing this.  Despite intense criticism, the president has remained confident about his Iraq policies: The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right decision. Forever is the language of faith; in politics and history, circumstances change every day. Faith differs among religious believers, and between believers and nonbelievers; for that reason, it should not be the basis of public policy as it offers no common ground for governance. 

Nonetheless, frustrated by their years away from power, the Democratic presidential candidates have all copied the faith page from Bush’s playbook and spoken regularly of their Christianity. Campaigning as a devout Christian recently left Senator Barack Obama in the difficult position of having to explain away the fiery rhetoric of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who, in Obama’s words, use[d] incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.  In response to the controversy, Obama shrewdly gave a well-received speech about race, and distanced himself from some, but not all, of his pastor’s views. 

Obama missed the main point, that explicitly Christian political views have the potential to widen the religious divide. Running on religion is as divisive as running on race. According to a recent Pew Forum report, 16.1% of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion; 4.7% belong to religions other than Christianity; and 44% of American adults have changed their affiliation in some way. Nonetheless, Senator Obama has consistently played the religion card. During the recent Texas primary, he sent fliers around the state entitled “Faith, Hope, Change,” describing himself as a “Committed Christian.” Visiting the Rio Grande Valley, he said, “I know that sometimes people are hesitant to mix church and state. . . But it’s also important to remember that Jesus was an advocate. He wasn't afraid to go into the temple and throw that table down, drive the money lenders out. He was passionate about justice. Not just peace – justice.” When conservative Christians challenged his support of gay civil unions, Obama referred them to the Sermon on the Mount, which he described as more central to his faith than an obscure passage in Romans.

That remark about the Sermon on the Mount immediately prompted a discussion about the proper interpretation of different scriptural texts, their importance and their meaning, with many Christians countering that the Bible absolutely prohibits gay relations. This scriptural debate could be endless, as Scripture does not offer a common basis for public policy.

Was Obama arguing that as president he will drive the money lenders out of the temple? Is his position on the Iraq war rooted in another text from the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”? Will Obama, like George Bush, follow faith and instinct instead of history and military judgment? These are the unanswerable questions that arise when candidates run on religion instead of shared political and constitutional values.

In his next speech, Obama should try to bridge instead of build the religious divide.