The Politics of Religion - Part One

Reasons for war range from economics to religion, but expansionism was supposed to be a lesson we already learned.

"Manifest Destiny" by Damon Albarn & Michael Nyman Courtesy: dreamchimney.com

(PASO ROBLES, Calif.) - Since the turn of the 21st century, religion has become a more serious concern for the American people because the assumed authority of President Bush comes from his belief that he is God's Active Voice and refers to himself as “The Decider.”

He has used his belief to confront Islam in the Middle East with the hope of imposing upon it what he calls Freedom that can be interpreted to mean Free Choice in religious terms, under a democratic label. America's strength is presumed to be God given, and an obligation to convert the Middle East to democracy.

It is an echo of a by-gone era when the "white man's burden" was to impose Civilization [another word for Christianity] upon the lives of lesser peoples wherever they may reside. But Moslems sees it as another Crusade by Christianity to impose its will on Islam and resists as it has for centuries.

Islam has retreated, but it never succumbed, and it is not likely to do so now. In the 7th and 8th centuries, Christianity suffered serious defeat at the hands of Islam that swarmed over much of Southeastern Europe and occupied Spain for seven-hundred years. In 1095 the pope promised Crusaders who would take up the cross to free Palestine from the “infidel,” that they would inherit Paradise if thy did. The Crusades fell short of being an organized effort, but the cry of many who answered the call was, “God wills it!”

The shouts then were similar to what is heard today, the promise of Paradise and “Allah is great!” by radical Moslems willing to sacrifice themselves for Islam. To Moslems the U.S invasion and occupation of Iraq [Bush’s War] must evoke memories of the a distant past, just another attempt by Christianity to impose its will on Islam.

In fairness to President Bush, it should be noted that U.S. territorial expansion and Imperialism is nothing new, but until the turn of the 20th century it involved lands contiguous to existing boundaries, the exception being the purchase of Alaska in 1867.

In 1803 Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory from France; the Adams-Onis Treaty with Spain in 1821 gave Florida to the U.S.; in 1835 Texas declared its Independence from Mexico, and in 1846, as a prelude to President James K Polk‘s Mexican American War, was annexed to the United States with its southern boundary at the Rio Grande. The Victory of 1828 transferred to the U.S, Mexican lands west of Texas [excluding Baja California] to the Pacific Ocean and contiguous to the Louisiana Purchase boundary north to the Columbia River.

As an after thought, Polk added the Gadsden Purchase creating the current boundary between Mexico and the U. S. in Arizona and New Mexico. He also settled the boundary dispute between the U. S. and Britain at the 49th degree of N. Latitude, with variations both east and west where the line crossed water. The eastern boundary between Canada and New England was settled separately.

The settlements were the fulfillment of America’s dream of Manifest Destiny that created a nation bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean as far, “as the North Pole.”

Then in 1898 the United States went to war with Spain over Cuba, and in just over two-years more annexed Hawaii, took title to American Samoa, acquired Puerto Rico and the Philippines, plus Guam and Wake Islands. President McKinley was at the helm at the time, and at first did not want the Philippines. But Protestant-clergy welcomed the “little brown brother” to whom the gospel should be carried, “not as a piece of political ambition, but as a mission we have from God.”

McKinley claimed he struggled to decide, “before I prayed Almighty God for guidance,” and then the answer came. Among more practical considerations, in the end he justified the decision to keep the Philippines as a duty to Christianize them beyond what Catholics had already. The Protestant-ideal was the seed of the evangelical-movement in the U.S.. Other nations were eager for a piece of the colonial pie in the Philippines too, but The United States would take it all.

Arguments ran pro and con between the rationale-of-the-present and anticipation of the future. Expansionists advanced the familiar arguments of present-day Iraq about strategic advantages; national honor and responsibility; about destiny and the cowardice of “hauling down the flag.” Albert J. Beveridge, an Imperialist orator argued that “only those should govern who are capable of self-government,” adding, as a defense of those who objected to extra-continental expansion that, “the ocean does not separate us from the lands of our duty and desire, the ocean joins us; Cuba not contiguous? Puerto Rico not contiguous!” Here was Imperialism at its grandest level. Rudyard Kipling, a British Imperialist, and a poet, encouraged America to:

Take up the White Man’s burden

Ye dare not stoop to less,

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloke (sic) your weariness.

The Omaha World-Herald‘s comment was, “In other words, Mr. Kipling would have Uncle Sam take up John Bull’s burden.”

Initially, Filipinos celebrated the ouster of the Spanish, believing Americans came as liberators, but when the truth was known they rebelled, and 70,000 troops were sent by the U. S. to crush the insurrection by Filipinos The New York World proclaimed: in 1899:

We’ve taken up the White Man’s burden

Of ebony and brown;

Now will you kindly tell us, Rudyard,

How may we put it down?

The Iraq scenario is reminiscent of the Philippines when, during the Spanish American War the focus was on Cuba, but the United States wrested the Philippines from Spain. Filipinos believed the U.S. was giving them their Independence and were joyous, but when they realized their yoke had simply been replaced by another Imperial power, they rebelled using primitive methods of warfare, butchering prisoners and torturing them with water-cures An insurgency developed that fought the 70,000 American troops sent to quell it, and the history of that time reads virtually as does Iraq today.

Beheadings and other gruesome tactics were not uncommon in the Philippines, and Americans resorted to the same tactics until the leader of the Filipino insurgency was captured, after which the U.S. agreed to give Independence to the Philippines within a specified period of time, and kept its promise, while retaining military bases for itself.

It remains to be seen if American bases will be established in Iraq.

Here are the other parts to this series on Salem-News.com:

Politics of Religion Part Two

Politics of Religion Part Three

------------------------------------------------
Kenneth G. Ramey was a 79-year old "writer without a Website" who is generating excellent, provocative articles on the subject of religion and world affairs. We are pleased that Ken's "lone wolf" presence as a writer in the world has been replaced by a spot on our team of writers at Salem-News.com. Raised in Minnesota and California during the dark years of the Great American Depression, Ken is well suited to talk about the powerful forces in the world that give all of us hope and tragedy and everything in between. You can write to Ken at: kgramey@sbcglobal.net