2026-04-17T04:00:56.093Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/17/politics/the-dangers-of-the-trump-administration-using-faith-to-justify-war
长期以来，美国总统们一直在战时以及奔赴战火的士兵身上寻求上帝的祝福。
但特朗普政府乐于暗示其权威得到了神的认可，并用基于信仰的正义性为其对伊朗的战争披上外衣，这有可能侵蚀又一项长期存在的政治传统。
国防部长皮特·赫格斯塞思在简报中援引经文，将美国军队塑造为近乎精神战士的形象。唐纳德·特朗普总统曾在社交媒体上发布一张自己化身基督形象的AI图片。副总统JD·万斯则驳斥了教皇利奥十四世的神学观点，此前教皇警告称，上帝不会保佑投下炸弹的人。
这类言论正让美国愈发接近圣战叙事——这是多位前任总统都曾担忧的问题，也让诸多中东冲突变得如此棘手。
伊朗伊斯兰共和国长期以来一直声称其行动是在践行真主的意志，并将战争中的殉道誉为神的奖赏。以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡则部分援引犹太节日普林节来解释当前的战争，普林节纪念的是《以斯帖记》中所述的犹太人免遭波斯帝国毁灭阴谋的拯救事件。
特朗普政府日益浓厚的宗教色彩，反映出共和党意识形态的僵化以及与“让美国再次伟大”运动兴起相伴而来的更激进福音派信条的影响。这凸显出高层政党官员愈发愿意宣扬自身的宗教教义，即便这有可能冒犯其他信仰群体或无信仰者。
这或许部分源于个人信仰。但这同时也是一场权力博弈，多名党内官员借此争取福音派基督徒的支持——这是特朗普正在萎缩的基本盘的重要支柱。“这并不那么令人意外，”富兰克林大学政治学与国际事务教授吉姆·格斯说道，“但（他们）采取的这种极其直白、极具宗派色彩的方式，无疑是前所未有的。”
对许多宗教美国人而言，在政治中谈论灵性几乎算不上争议话题。但信仰未必具有党派属性。一些信徒担忧，他们的宗教正被滥用来为战争辩护。人们也不禁质疑，宗教与国家机构之间的宪法分离是否得到了尊重。尽管宗教能给许多人带来慰藉，但公开的宗教言论可能会边缘化其他群体。在军队中这一问题尤为尖锐，因为军中信仰多样，而且美国人也有权不信仰任何宗教。
特朗普的现代前任们往往避免将中东战争描述为宗教行动。他们希望剥夺那些宣扬圣战或宗教战争的对手的合法性，也清楚基督教的弦外之音可能会给结盟的穆斯林国家带来政治 complications。这类言论还可能成为恐怖组织的征兵工具，让美国人成为海外目标。毕竟，奥萨马·本·拉登向美国宣战的理由之一，就是1990至1991年第一次海湾战争期间美军以“十字军”的身份进驻沙特阿拉伯。
2001年“9·11”袭击事件后，乔治·W·布什总统曾一度口误，将“反恐战争”称为“十字军东征”。后来他随即表示：“我们的战争不是针对某一宗教，不是针对穆斯林信仰。”
相比之下，赫格斯塞思认为政治正确的语言会束缚美国“作战人员”的手脚。他胸前纹有耶路撒冷十字——一种与十字军东征相关的宗教符号。
赫格斯塞思是美国战争叙事中新宗教论调最鲜明的体现者。
五角大楼在给CNN及其他媒体的声明中辩称，他频繁使用基督教言辞，与乔治·华盛顿在福吉谷的祈祷，或是富兰克林·罗斯福总统在二战期间向军队分发圣经的做法并无二致。
对赫格斯塞思的批评，并未质疑其信仰的真诚性。批评的焦点在于，他是否应该在作为公职人员履行职责时如此突出地利用宗教。这位国防部长经常暗示美国的战争得到了神的认可。例如，他将复活节期间在伊朗营救一名美国飞行员的行动比作复活。
信仰和宗教本质上是绝对的。但结束战争所需的外交手段必须具有灵活性，足以让对手宣称不同的结果。许多围绕土地或资源展开的中东战争，因其宗教层面的因素而令和平缔造者的努力受挫。
赫格斯塞思还以一种令批评者担忧的方式使用信仰，认为这会削弱真正民主社会的保障，比如新闻自由。例如，本周四，他援引一则寓言，将指责美国战争宣传的记者比作法利赛人——“他们那个时代自封的精英”，那些人质疑耶稣的“善良”。
赫格斯塞思绝非首位以圣经语言描述军事行动的军事领导人。在诺曼底登陆的命令中，德怀特·D·艾森豪威尔将军将盟军对欧洲的入侵称为“伟大的十字军东征”，并祈求“全能的上帝保佑这项伟大而崇高的事业”。
但自那以后的几代人，美国在宗教上变得更加多元，甚至出现了世俗化趋势。“我认为这个国家已经截然不同了，在某种程度上，看到公职人员在这种情况下使用这类宗教语言，实在是有些不合时宜，”格斯说道。
一些宗教领袖担忧，党派政客妄称拥有神圣动机的场面。
“这愈发令人警觉，因为它如此明确地将总统及其政府与假定的神意乃至神的形象联系在一起，”华盛顿圣公会教区主教玛丽安·巴德本周三告诉CNN的凯西·亨特。
宗教正当性的感觉或许能给作战人员及其领导者带来慰藉。但许多战时参与者都认为自己得到了上帝的支持。亚伯拉罕·林肯总统在第二次就职演说中曾指出，联邦和邦联的士兵“都读同一本圣经，都向同一个上帝祈祷，各自都祈求上帝帮助自己对抗对方”。
本届政府对自身的路线深信不疑，甚至敢于挑战罗马天主教徒认为是圣彼得继承者的教皇。
教皇并未退让。
“耶稣告诉我们，使人和睦的人有福了。但那些为了自身军事、经济或政治利益而操纵宗教乃至上帝之名，将神圣之物拖入黑暗与污秽的人，有祸了，”利奥十四世本周四在访问喀麦隆时说道。他对“战争贩子”的谴责，可能指向非洲乃至全球的多位领导人。但他与白宫产生分歧的背景十分明确。
特朗普与梵蒂冈的争执并非源于经文。特朗普只是不会对任何批评他的人手下留情——无论对方是谁。本周四，他坚称自己“有权不同意教皇的观点”。就在一周前，教皇对特朗普发出的警告表示反对，特朗普曾称，如果伊朗政权不接受其结束战争的条件，整个伊朗文明都可能“灭亡”。
这是世界上两位最具影响力的美国人之间的冲突，两人都拥有庞大的追随者群体。出生于芝加哥的罗伯特·普雷沃斯特一生虔诚俭朴。而亿万富翁、纽约人特朗普则以炫耀张扬塑造了自己的品牌，还曾公开表示怀疑自己能否升入天堂。
“利奥应该好好履行教皇的职责，运用常识，不要再迎合激进左派，专注于成为一位伟大的教皇，而不是政客，”特朗普近日在社交媒体上写道，或许忘了教皇通常都是重要的政治人物。他此举可能还会损害共和党在美国逾5000万天主教徒中的选情。
政府对教皇的攻击在欧洲也并不受欢迎。“如今有两位美国领袖：一位是美国梦的真正英雄，那就是教皇利奥、教皇普雷沃斯特，而非特朗普总统，”意大利前总理马泰奥·伦齐在接受CNN国际频道采访时对伊莎·索阿雷斯说道。
万斯则一如往常，公开为总统辩护。这位副总统本周表示，教皇“在谈论神学问题时务必谨慎”。万斯愿意就教义问题与教皇交锋，再次展现出他是一位与众不同的政客，热衷于意识形态而非表面的政治斗争。
然而，他的批评者认为，这位相对较晚才皈依罗马天主教的人身上透着傲慢与野心，而天主教徒普遍认为教皇的教义教导是无误的。正如美国天主教主教会议教义委员会主席詹姆斯·马萨在一份声明中所说：“当教皇利奥十四世作为普世教会的最高牧者发言时，他不仅仅是在发表神学观点，他是在宣讲福音，并作为基督的代理人行使其牧职。”
本届政府正深陷于这样的复杂境地，将最高权威的认可赋予其对伊朗的战争。根植于道德确定性的战争可能会失去战略方向。神圣使命感可能会模糊决策，为战场上的越界行为提供赦免。这也正是为何多届总统政府都避免将宗教引入战争的原因。
The dangers of the Trump administration using faith to justify its war
2026-04-17T04:00:56.093Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/17/politics/the-dangers-of-the-trump-administration-using-faith-to-justify-war
American presidents have long sought God’s benediction in wartime and for soldiers heading into the fire of battle.
But the Trump administration’s willingness to imply divine endorsement of its authority and to cloak its war in Iran with faith-based righteousness threatens to erode yet another long-held political tradition.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frames his briefings with scripture and presents America’s troops as almost spiritual warriors. President Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as a Christ-like figure on social media. And Vice President JD Vance rebuked Pope Leo XIV’s understanding of theology after the pontiff warned that God doesn’t bless those who drop bombs.
Such rhetoric is bringing the United States closer to the holy war imagery that many previous presidents worried about and that makes so many Middle East conflicts intractable.
Iran’s Islamic Republic has long claimed to be enacting Allah’s will and lauds martyrdom in war as a divine reward. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained the current war partly by invoking Purim, the Jewish holiday that marks the salvation of the Jews from a plot to destroy them by the Persian Empire as told in the Book of Esther.
The Trump administration’s increasing religiosity reflects a hardening of Republican ideology and the influence of a more radical evangelical creed that coincided with the rise of MAGA. It highlights the increasing willingness of top party officials to seek to highlight their own religious doctrines, even at the risk of offending people of other faiths or non-believers.
This may be partly about personal belief. But it’s also a power play as various party officials court evangelical Christians — an important pillar of Trump’s weakening base. “That’s not so surprising,” said Jim Guth, professor of politics and international affairs at Furman University. “(But) the very, very explicit and very sectarian way they did it is certainly unprecedented.”
For many religious Americans, talk of spirituality in politics is hardly controversial. But faith is not necessarily partisan. Some believers worry that their religion is being misused to justify war. And questions loom over whether constitutional separations between religion and state institutions are being respected. While it offers solace to many, overt religious rhetoric can marginalize others. This is an especially acute issue in the military, where many faiths are practiced. And Americans also have the right to follow no faith at all.
Trump’s modern predecessors have tended to avoid presenting Middle East wars as religious ventures. They hoped to deny legitimacy to adversaries who preach jihad or holy war and were conscious that Christian overtones can create political complications for allied Muslim nations. They can also act as recruiting sergeants for terror groups and make Americans targets overseas. After all, one of Osama bin Laden’s rationales for declaring war on the US was the presence of US troops or “crusaders” in Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War in 1990-1991.
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush slipped once by referring to the “war on terror” as a “crusade.” Later, he said, “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith.”
Hegseth, by contrast, believes politically correct language hobbles US “warfighters.” He has the Jerusalem Cross, a religious symbol related to the Crusades, tattooed on his chest.
Hegseth is the clearest embodiment of the new religious tone to how the US frames the war.
The Pentagon has argued in statements to CNN and other outlets that his frequent Christian rhetoricis no different from prayers said by George Washington at Valley Forge or the distributing of Bibles to the troops by President Franklin Roosevelt in World War II.
Criticism of Hegseth does not question the sincerity of his faith. It focuses instead on whether he should leverage it so prominently in his duties as a public official. The defense secretary often implies divine approval of the US war. He, for instance, compared the rescue of a US pilot in Iran over Easter to the resurrection.
Faith and religion by their nature are absolutes. But the diplomacy needed to end wars must be provisional and sufficiently loose to allow adversaries to claim different outcomes. Many Middle East wars over land or resources have frustrated peacemakers’ efforts because of their religious dimensions.
Hegseth also uses faith in a way that critics worry weakens the guarantees of a true democratic society, such as a free press. On Thursday, for example, he cited a parable to compare journalists who fault US propaganda about the war with Pharisees, “the self-appointed elites of their time” who doubted Jesus’ “goodness.”
Hegesth is far from the first military leader to portray campaigns in biblical terms. In his orders for D-Day, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to the allied invasion of Europe as a “Great Crusade” and asked for “the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”
But in generations since, the United States has become more religiously diverse, even secular. “I think the country is just very different, and it’s really anachronistic, in a way, to see this kind of religious language being used by public officials in this case,” Guth said.
Some religious leaders worry about the spectacle of partisan politicians assuming divine motives.
It becomes “all the more alarming because it is so clearly associating the president and his administration with the assumed will of God and even the likeness of God,” Bishop Mariann Budde, of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on Wednesday.
A sense of religious justification may be comforting to those who fight and their leaders. But many protagonists in wartime think they have God on their side. President Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address that soldiers in the Union and Confederate armies “both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.”
The administration is so convinced of its course that it’s willing to challenge the man Roman Catholics believe to be St. Peter’s successor — the pope.
The pontiff is not backing down.
“Jesus told us, blessed are the peacemakers. But woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a visit to Cameroon on Thursday. His rebuke of the “masters of war” could have referred to multiple leaders in Africa, or globally. But the context of his disagreement with the White House was clear.
The president’s beef with the Holy See is not over scripture. Trump simply offers no quarter to anyone who criticizes him — whoever they are. He insisted Thursday he had a “right to disagree with the pope,” a week after the Holy Father took exception to Trump’s warning that all of Iranian civilization could “die” if the Tehran regime didn’t agree to his terms to end the war.
This is a clash between the world’s two most prominent Americans, who both have vast followings. The former Robert Prevost, Chicago-born, lived a life of piety and austerity. Trump, the billionaire New Yorker, built a brand defined by ostentation and has publicly voiced doubts that he’s headed to heaven.
“Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician,” Trump posted on social media recently, perhaps forgetting that popes are often major political figures. And he might be prejudicing GOP prospects among America’s more than 50 million Catholics.
The administration’s attacks on the pope are not going down well in Europe, either. “Today, there (are) two American leaders: One is the real hero of (the) American dream, but that is the Pope Leo, Pope Prevost, not President Trump,” former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi told Isa Soares on CNN International.
Vance, as he often does, has made a show of defending the president. The vice president said this week that it was “very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.” Vance’s willingness to spar with the pope on dogma showed him again as a most unusual politician who relishes ideological rather than superficial political fights.
His critics, however, perceive arrogance and ambition in a relatively recent convert to Roman Catholicism, whose faithful generally regard the doctrinal teachings of a pope as infallible. As James Massa, the chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, said in a statement. “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ.”
These are deep waters that the administration is entering as it implies the endorsement of the highest authority for its war in Iran. Wars rooted in moral certainty can lose strategic direction. A sense of divine purpose can blur decision-making and offer absolution from battlefield transgressions. This is precisely why many presidential administrations stopped short of sending religion to war.