Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Should Karl Rove’s faith matter?

Should Karl Rove’s faith matter?

Last updated on: July 25, 2008 at 4:50 pm by Policraticus

Should Karl Rove’s faith matter? 2008-07-25T16:50:36-05:00 Policraticus

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Does the faith of a major politician matter? Well, it seemed that George W. Bush’s faith played a significant part in winning over voters. John Kerry’s faith, on the other hand, seemed a hindrance since, as not a few Catholic bloggers incessantly decried, he didn’t seem all that genuine about it. In our current election season, not much has been made of John McCain’s faith since it is not altogether certain he has much religious conviction (though Oswald Sobrino will mount a trapeze to convince you otherwise). And despite his participation in the now infamous Trinity United Church, (idiotic) questions still loom over whether Barack Obama is a Muslim (since, as FOX News continually reminds us, the middle name “Hussein” carries a factor of fear). But what about major figures who work with our elected officials and who play an incalculable role in the structures of election and policy? Does his/her faith matter to us?

Without answering this question myself, I wish to revisit for a moment the well known rumor that Karl Rove is either an agnostic or an atheist. Parenthetically, I don’t believe there is much difference between the two as being agnostic is, without question, atheism in practice if not an explicitly identical affirmation (cf. CCC 2128). The rumor of Karl Rove’s lack of faith took off last year after an interview by Boris Kachka of New York magazine and the always relevant and vitriolic Christopher Hitchens. During the talk, Kachka asked Hitchens whether he knew of any atheists within President George W. Bush’s administration. Here’s what happened:

Do you think an avowed atheist would ever get elected in the U.S.?
Yes. I do not believe any of the statistical claims that are made about public opinion. I don’t see why anybody does.

Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

Hitchen’s account of Rove’s atheism/agnosticism was not the first such claim made. Rather, Hitchens corroborated the same claim made by Wayne Slater, who wrote a biography on Rove entitled Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, during a 2004 Fresh Air interview with NPR’s Terry Gross:

SLATER: You know, I remember seeing Ralph Reed in Texas when Rove tried to bring him on board back in about 1998. Ralph Reed is an Evangelical Christian who was successful in bringing Evangelical Christians around for political ends. Karl Rove is just the opposite. He is, in fact, an agnostic. He has told a friend in high school that he grew up in a largely a-religious household. He told a friend at the University of Texas, where some years ago he was teaching, that he would like to be a believer but he’s an agnostic and he couldn’t be otherwise. So Rove’s approach has always been not that religion and the values of religion ought to have a place in our public policy, which is the message that he sent. Rove’s approach is that Christians are a marvelously effective voter delivery system that can be rallied, motivated, energized, and delivered for the political candidate of your choice.

GROSS: Are you confident that Karl Rove would still consider himself an agnostic?

SLATER: I know that he felt that way two years ago. I don’t know of any reason to think that he has changed that view. He certainly hasn’t told me that he has. It’s certainly possible. I think the evidence and the history is that he remains something of an agnostic, though he sees the Christians, and not just Christians but also orthodox Jews, to some extent, as a valuable voter source. With Rove, it’s about winning. With Karl Rove, it’s how can you put together a team and a constituency or a cluster of constituencies that delivers you 50 percent plus one of the vote? And that’s what it’s all about.

We have then two individuals who know Rove personally stating that he is, in fact, an agnostic at best. Deal Hudson, who once worked with Rove corralling Catholics to elect Bush before resigning due to a public scandal, refuses to believe it. Apparently, Rove’s faith (or lack thereof) really matters to him. Hudson gives two reasons for denying that Rove is agnostic:

1. After the Hitchen’s interview, Hudson claims he called Rove:

Rove sounded very annoyed and told me he was going to “call Hitchens” about it.

2. Someone (we don’t know who) pointed out to Hudson that Rove signed-off the Rush Limbaugh show with the words “God bless you.”

To the first point, assuming that Hudson really did call Rove, did he ask Rove if Hitchen’s claim was true? If so, why did Hudson neglect to tell us in his blog post? That certainly would have cleared things up for all of us, and we wouldn’t have to rely upon Hudson’s empty claim “Karl Rove is NOT an atheist.” Perhaps Hudson did ask Rove if the claim was true but received the answer he didn’t want to hear. In any case, Rove’s annoyance tells us nothing. Perhaps he was annoyed that Hitchens betrayed his trust. Perhaps he was annoyed because he didn’t want his agnosticism/atheism to be public knowledge. Perhaps he was annoyed because Hudson called him. Whatever may be the case, relaying that Rove “sounded very annoyed” does nothing to counter the claims of direct testimony from two independent sources who personally know Rove.

To the second point, saying “God bless you” is not a declaration of faith. It is a trite courtesy that has largely been sapped of its meaning by its endless repetition and its being that most knee-jerk rejoinder to someone sneezing. Furthermore, Rove is one smart guy. What better way to try to quell unwanted press attention and to assuage the concerns of his right-leaning base (e.g., Hudson) over his agnosticism than by slipping in a goodbye “God bless you” on conservative talk radio? No denial has ever come from Rove, and Hudson either doesn’t really know the truth or he is lying about the truth. Nevertheless, CNS trusts Hudson despite the relative dearth of evidence he offers, even writing a whole piece based on his testimony alone.

Funny thing about Hudson’s claim is that he doesn’t seem to believe it himself! After trying to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic/atheist, Hudson proceeds to conceive the possibility that Rove is an agnostic! Hudson then forms an argument as to why we shouldn’t worry if Rove is an agnostic, an argument that can be broken down as such:

P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
C: Therefore, Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.

For a moment, let’s grant that P1 and P2 are true. Does the conclusion follow from these premises? Of course not. The argument assumes a number of other premises. A modified form of the argument with these assumptions would go as follows:

P1: An agnostic is “not sure” or “does not know” that God exist.
(P2′): Being “unsure” or “ignorant” that God exists entails the ability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
P2: An agnostic can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 1 and 2]
(P3): Karl Rove is an agnostic.
(P4): Karl Rove can appreciate the goodness in theists [from 3 and 4]
(P5): Being an atheist entails the inability to appreciate the goodness and values of theists.
(P6): An atheist who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is cynical.
(P7): An agnostic who claims to appreciate the goodness and values of theists is not cynical.
(P8): Karl Rove is not cynical [from 3, 4, 7]
C: Therefore, Karl Rove cannot be accused of being cynical.

This is the same argument of Hudson but with the unstated premises that he invariably relies upon. You can see why he didn’t explicitly state a lot of these premises because they are either weak or untrue.

P1 is untrue. Agnosticism can also mean religious indifferentism and is, more often than not, merely practical atheism (cf. CCC 2128). This would suggest, granting the truth of P5 and P6, that Hudson’s entire argument collapses according to the veracity of P1.

We can grant the truth of P2′, because it is conceiveable that an agnostic would appreciate goodness and values. It follows that we can grant P2.

P3 seems to be true based on the testimony and evidence of Hitchens and Slater.

P4 can be granted as conceivable, but not as true. It remains a weak, unsubstantiated premise.

P5 is likely to be false. There does not seem to be anything inherent to atheism that demands that goodness and values in theism (e.g., individual rights, dignity of person, moral systems) cannot be appreciated.

P6 is false if P5 is false.

P7 is weak. What if there were agnostic who privately chides all religious values, yet publicly claims to value them? This certainly is an easy to conceive political tactic.

P8 is unsubtantiated on account of 7.

The conclusion, which relies upon the truth of 7 is weak. The entire argument itself is weak by logical standards. Hudson seems to really want Rove to be a theist, but if he is an agnostic, Hudson really wants him to be insusceptible to the charge of cynicism. But Hudson cannot make the claim that he does, for we do not know what type of agnostic Rove is, and we do not if Rove truly appreciates the goodness and values of theism beyond their uses for an election. In the end, Hudson fails to convince us that Rove is not an agnostic (the intent of the assertive title of the post) and then fails to convince us that Rove is not susceptible to the charge of cynicism.

I bring up Hudson specifically because he is an influential Catholic who seems to believe that Rove’s faith–whatever that means–really does matter. So let’s return to the original question of this post: Should Karl Rove’s faith matter? Correspondingly, should the faith of advisers close to McCain and Obama matter? Be cautious as you answer.

Previous Post

July 25, 2008

To Keep in Mind When Discussing Labor Markets...

Next Post

July 25, 2008 Vox Nova at the Movies: In Opposition to Batman

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What New Testament book is known for its chapter on charity?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hebrews Philippians 1 Corinthians Romans