Religious language is nothing new in political discourse, but it has, unfortunately, become one of the most dominant voices booming out the Bush White House.  

David Greenberg, in his review of three books about the Bush legacy in The New Yorker, highlights research by Bruce Lincoln, Professor of the History of Religion at the University of Chicago, about President Bush’s use of religious language. According to Lincoln, President Bush made allusions to Revelation, Isaiah, Job, Matthew, and Jeremiah during his speech to Congress in which he declared that America would invade Afghanistan. Bush’s speech was littered with biblical allusions not only for theatrical and emotional effect but stemmed, at least partially, out of genuine religious conviction.  

Greenberg notes that “this kind of recourse to religion leaves citizens no grounds on which to question the President’s actions. If the inspiration of God or the Bible is purely personal or subjective, it’s not open to debate – and decisions based on it become immune from scrutiny.”

While Greenberg makes a valid point, I’d like to underscore the creative aspect of religious language. When religious language is used to discuss political events, language escapes its descriptive role and becomes outright creative – what is and should remain a political issue assumes a religious dimension. It is true that President Bush is fighting his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under the protective shell of a religious banner in which his personal religious beliefs are excused from rigorous scrutiny. Just as importantly, however, it is the repeated use of religious language to describe a political issue that has made America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to an extent, a religious issue for some citizens.  

Religious language and imagery are nothing new in political discourse in America or elsewhere. Badr Shakir Al-Sayyab, one of the most acclaimed 20th century Iraqi writers, configured the British colonialism of Iraq in apocalyptic terms, and he did this to great effect. Al-Sayyab claimed in 1957 that the eyes of the modern poet have “been ravaged by his visions and he perceives the seven sins pervading the world like a terrifying monster.” According to Al-Sayyab, the modern poet is tormented by his apocalyptic visions and great evil of this century’s colonialism.  

While the apocalyptic vision may be well suited to poetic language, it is when apocalyptic visions seep into the dominant political discourse that we should be wary; it is this type of religious language that bars us from speaking honestly and productively about the political and material motivations for war and occupation. President Bush is not so much describing an apocalypse but encouraging one.  

Mimi Hanaoka