WASHINGTON (ABP) — President Bush said recently he doesn't understand “how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord.” But that testament brought a protest from one of the country's top Jewish leaders.
Bush made the comment in an interview with editors and reporters from the conservative Washington Times, reported by the newspaper Jan. 12.
David Saperstein, director of the Washington-based Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, told reporters Jan. 13 he is “deeply troubled” by Bush's remarks. “Such an assertion violates the spirit of the Constitution's ban on religious tests for political office and endangers the strength of the religious pluralism and tolerance that the president has so often affirmed — and re-affirmed in the same interview,” Saperstein continued.
Bush prefaced his statement, according to the newspaper, with an assertion that he supports the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans, including those who have no faith.
“I fully understand that the job of the president is, and must always be, protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit,” he told the Times. “That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have — or one of the greatest freedoms — is the right to worship the way you see fit.”
But Saperstein said Bush needs to explain himself further. He noted Jan. 13 that the Religious Action Center had already “called on the president to act affirmatively to prevent Americans from misunderstanding his remarks by clarifying that he rejects any religious test for the office of the presidency.”
Bush, a Methodist who often discusses his faith using terminology common among evangelical Protestants, has raised the profile of the role of religion in a president's life. Both his detractors and supporters have cited Bush's use of religious terminology among their reasons for opposing or supporting him.
Elsewhere in the Times interview, Bush defended the right of non-religious Americans to challenge the government when they believe it has unconstitutionally endorsed or supported a religious view.
Referring to atheist Michael Newdow's efforts to get a phrase he views as offensive removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, Bush said, “The great thing about our country is somebody can stand up and say, 'We should try to take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.'”
However, Bush noted, “the backlash” to a federal appeals court decision in 2002 endorsing Newdow's view “was pretty darn significant.”
“This is a country that is a value-based country,” Bush said. “Whether they voted for you or not, there's a lot of values in this country, for which I'm real proud.”
While a handful of Bush opponents have criticized Bush's regular use of religious language and imagery while speaking in an official capacity, many others — including some conservatives — have criticized the president for supporting policies they say endanger the First Amendment's guarantee of church-state separation. Saperstein's comments came as an aside during a Jan. 13 press conference in which several moderate religious leaders discussed threats to that separation they believe will arise as the 109th Congress begins its work.
One of the speakers, Brent Walker, noted that, while “the metaphorical 'wall of separation' [between church and state] does not block religious values from playing a role in public life,” one of the many upcoming threats to religious liberty he perceives is an effort to pass legislation that would make it easier to display the Ten Commandments on government property.
“The posting of the Ten Commandments by government officials in a way that demonstrates endorsement of them — such as in a monument on Capitol grounds or in a county courthouse — clearly crosses the line drawn by the First Amendment,” said Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. “The government has no business singling out one favored religious tradition, choosing the preferred Scripture passage and displaying it in a way that creates a religious shrine.”
The Supreme Court will hear two cases in March regarding the display of the Decalogue on government property.