"Thank You, Master President," Part II

In other news, Bush certainly did give the big shake-off to the "Justice Sunday" constituency, didn't he? Not once, but over and over again!

THE PRESIDENT: Gregory. David Gregory.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating [sic] Democrats who oppose your judicial choices? And I wonder what you think generally about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. Some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role of a judge.

Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. They deserve an up or down vote. I think for the sake of fairness, these good people I've nominated should get a vote. And I'm hoping that will be the case as time goes on.

The role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, or lives her life (emphasis added). And that's how I've tried to live my life, through example. Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.

Q Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I asked is --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I just don't agree with it.

Q You don't agree with it.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think people oppose my nominees because -- because of judicial philosophy (emphasis added).

Q Sorry, I asked you what you think of the ways faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I know you asked me that. Well, I can only speak to myself, and I am mindful that people in political office should not say to somebody, you're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of religion. As I said, I think faith is a personal issue, and I get great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion.

The great thing about America, David, is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want, and if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim. That's the wonderful thing about our country, and that's the way it should be.

This exchange is more than interesting. It is instructive. The reporter opened the door for Bush as widely as he could, and the president refused to walk through it.

For all the media focus on Bush's faith, and for all the fervor with which Evangelicals claim him as one of their own, I have always suspsected that the president is not an Evangelical Christian as Evangelicals themselves define the term. Last night was not the first time that Bush's own words have suggested a disconnect between his actual beliefs and what are presumed to be his beliefs.

Take this sentence from the exchange above:

"I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, or lives her life."

If Bush is using the word "judged" the way Evangelicals use the word "judged," then nothing could be further from the truth. Evangelicals most certainly do not believe that people are judged by the way they live their lives. We believe we are judged, in the ultimate sense, by whether we have faith in Christ. Period. One's eternal fate has not one thing to do with the way a person "lives his life," whether or not he or she is a good person, or whatnot.

That aside, Bush's statement was nothing if not a forceful repudiation of the "Justice Sunday" Christian martyrdom complex. Are the Democrats "against people of faith" for opposing your nominees, Master President?

Nope, nuh-uh. It ain't about nuthin' but "judicial philosophy."

And, certainly, Bush's actions are consistent with this viewpoint. He has never paid anything more than superficial attention to the social agenda of the Christian Right. He has never tossed them anything more than bleached bones on abortion and gay rights. If these issues were important to him, he would address them. When he must address them, even rhetorically, he gives the impression that he would rather not be bothered. Compare this to his single-minded determination on Social Security privatization.

When, I wonder, will the religious right get a clue?