The United States of America in the 21st century  has no concept of religious war because it no longer considers its own religion anything worth fighting for.  Most think of the Christian Church as a social service institution that marries and buries, and so it is easy to understand why the country at large would fail to grasp the historical significance of the situation that now confronts us.  American Christians tend to have very little knowledge of their own religious history.  They know even less of Islam, and are ignorant of the fact that the violent interaction of the two throughout ages past has formed and continues to form the reality of much of the world as it is today.  Most view the modern world through the eyes of the secularists that manage the mainstream media outlets.  Like almost everyone else, they think of war in terms of politics and economics, and choose what is right and wrong by selecting one of the various flavors of political propaganda that flow from the fountain of mass media.

    The Bush Administration has tried very hard to spin the Iraq war away from the issue of religion.   While our freedoms are being sacrificed on the altar of homeland security, we are told that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power so that America might bring the gift of freedom to the Iraqi people.  The comparison to the liberation of France from the Nazis has been drawn, which is, of course, patently absurd.  It seems that the president never misses a photo op with any Muslim cleric that dares to be seen with him, and even as Tomahawk missiles screeched towards their first targets in Baghdad, Mr. Bush was reiterating the great respect that America has for the Islamic faith.  Be that as it may, to say that the war against Iraq, or the larger war on terrorism, is not about religion is like claiming that the World Series is not about Baseball.

    As war drew nearer in March, Newsweek delved into President Bush's personal religious background in search of his motivation for a conflict that appears to hold more risks than the anticipated benefits dictate taking.  Since the election in 2000, the left had not made much of George Bush's claim of being a born again Christian.  During the campaign, a Bush appearance at Bob Jones University raised the expected cries of "anti-Semite" and "racist," but the liberal analysts interpreted this as a republican ploy to solidify and extend his base support deeper within the religious right.  Since politics in America is a very cynical business, the possibility that Bush might be sincere in his faith, beyond its value as a political tool, was never seriously entertained.  In the "through the looking glass" reality of the liberal left, a believing Christian in the White House is a matter of grave concern and a dangerous thing under the best of circumstances. Newsweek had a field day revealing Mr. Bush's religious sincerity for their readers, and pondered the dark ramifications that this holds for the future.

    Overlooked by the left is the fact that George W. Bush's support within the so called "religious right" may be broad but it is not as deep as it appears.  The president did not draw this broad support -- and win -- in the last two elections because he was George Bush.  He drew this support because he was not Al Gore or John Kerry.   Ironically, the election of George W. Bush has done more to divide and weaken the religious right than eight years of outright warfare with the Clinton Administration could accomplish.  Bush has succeeded in polarizing the right into near and far factions.  The near are true believers; those that embrace him as a Christian brother, accept his witness at face value, and vote and campaign with enthusiasm.  They are Pat Robertson Evangelicals and Jerry Falwell Baptists;  Pat Buchanan republicans and the Ross Perot "volunteers" that cost George H. W. Bush the 1992 election. This is the younger Bush's core constituency; the folks the platform was written for; the flag waving, "support the war" faithful.  While their loyalty is not doubted, their numbers are not great enough to secure national elections without the support of the Christian far right.  These are the John Birchers; the "get US out of the UN" Christian "patriot" far right that considers young Bush a carbon copy of his father, whom they despise.  While not significant enough in number to show as more than a small "blip" on the national political radar, they vote in extremely high percentages, even when the candidate makes them hold their collective nose.  In the historically close election of 2000, it was their support, based not on any love of George W. Bush but on their seething hatred of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, that ultimately elected Bush president.  The 2004 election, closer than the administration likes to make out, was essentially a repeat of this theme, with Kerry standing in as he that is too far left for far too many.  Bush knows this, and, should he forget, the far right takes every opportunity to remind him of it and hold his feet to the fire.  Bush's relationship with the fringe of his party is tenuous and tempestuous at best.  They site the Bushes' involvement and dedication to Yale's Skull and Bones Society, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberger group as evidence that George W. Bush is not only a phony conservative, but a phony American and a phony Christian as well.  In their world, he is a major player in the masonic conspiracy for world domination (New World Order), and even a closet satanist.  That these people think what they do of George W. Bush and still supported him for president speaks volumes on their opinion of the Gores, Kerrys and Clintons that dominate the democrats, but that's a story for another day.

    Understanding George W. Bush is akin to holding mercury.  When a grasp of who he is and what he's about is achieved, the stunning incongruities of his life makes the perceived reality of it slip through the fingers.  But this much is clear:  Bush is far more complex then the "simple Texas country boy" persona that is presented for mass consumption.  He is a man of many contradictions:  An eastern establishment, Texas cowboy.  A Skull and Bones born again Christian.  A New World Order globalist and a patriotic conservative American.  A Bible believer and Freemason.  A humanitarian and oil baron.  Despite the reporter's perspective, the one consistency that emerges in the personality of George Bush is his sincerity, loyalty and dedication to his beliefs.  It is the contradictory nature of these beliefs that makes the real George W. Bush -- if there is one -- such an elusive commodity.

    While not the "dim bulb" that his detractors claim, Bush is hardly an intellectual giant.  His apparently incongruous belief system may well be the result of a mind that has the ability to grasp philosophical concepts and an inability to reason these concepts through to their logical conclusions.  Much of the Bush Administration's policy is long on form and short on substance in this way, the war with Iraq being the most obvious example.  If the president is both sane and sincere, then his own personal religion is a bizarre syncretism that seeks to reconcile opposite spiritual perspectives and objectives. It seeks to serve both God and mammon, and positions the president squarely in the middle of man's eternal struggle between good and evil by allowing the devil's counsel to carry equal weight with the Lord's. This is not an unusual situation within the human condition.  It is the human condition. It is where we all begin; our own personal Eden turned hell by taking counsel with the serpent and not just God alone.  The personal experience with Jesus that the president claims as his own is the only solution to this dilemma, but the cost of this discipleship is heavy in worldly terms.  If Jesus has indeed lead the president from the darkness of alcoholism into the light of sobriety ( and his rise to the presidency seems witness enough that something profound did happen here) then it must be noted that there is a singular and distinct lack of repentance or even explanation concerning the controversial and questionable beliefs and activities in which he still participates.  And his rise to the presidency is witness to this, too.