Church and State: An Unholy Alliance

January 2010

Why did he have to say it? Why did President Barack Obama, at the sorrowful, stirring memorial service for the victims of the Ft. Hood shootings, feel the need to make reference to some sort of divine retribution? Obviously referring to the suspected killer, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Obama crossed a line. He said, “This much we do know—no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice—in this world, and the next.” If only he had left out those last six words.

Which “next” world was Obama speaking about? The Muslim afterlife, with Paradise or Hell as promised by Hasan’s God, Allah? Or the Christian versions of those without the virgins? Or was it some other afterlife altogether? The president unwisely coupled religion with secular law and in doing so he made a lot of us squirm. Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, stated outright that he believed Obama had crossed a line with those six words, and most of his guests agreed.    

The “murderous and craven acts” of course refer to the tragic killings at Ft. Hood, Texas. In the early afternoon on November 5, 2009, thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded by gunfire on that military base. Shot but not killed was the obvious murderer, Maj. Nidal Hasan. We will probably never know all the details about what happened and why. But one thing we do know is that Maj. Hasan, a self-proclaimed, ardent Muslim, had very conflicted feelings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since American soldiers were killing Muslims. As early as 2007 Hasan delivered a lecture at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that was supposed to be about a medical topic of his choosing. Instead he talked about Islam and suicide bombers and the difficulty Muslims encountered when trying to morally justify the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Why weren’t red flags flapping wildly at that point? Did no one find that out of place? It’s painfully clear that Hasan could not separate his feelings of obligation toward church and state. His secular military duties and his religious obligations clashed irreconcilably. Nor can he possibly be the only individual in our military with the same conflicts of interest. Makes you feel real safe, huh? Way to go, Homeland Security!

It’s time to stop this asinine PC crap and call a spade a spade. This is no time to be grasping for “politically correct” solutions to nutcases like Hasan. He should have been weeded out and put in a straight jacket long ago. Likewise, it’s time we stopped the PC nonsense of talking about tribal rivalries and culture clashes and the rest of that BS. It’s religion. Nothing more and nothing less. Religion. That attempted bombing of the Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day (get the symbolism?? huh??) was a purely religious act. I’m tired of watching the frantic tap-dancing of the spin doctors in trying to avoid the glaringly obvious. It’s religion, people!

Osama bin Forgotten

Try to remember what 9/11 was all about. If “decadence” and freedoms were truly the motivations for the attacks, then the obscenely decadent indoor ski resort in Dubai should have been at the top of bin Laden’s hit list. With 22,500 square meters of indoor ski area, Dubai also boasts an 85-meter indoor mountain for skiing. Yes, indoor mountain. Shopping malls, restaurants, theaters, shooting galleries, the list is endless. Strictly Muslim, of course (a wink and a nudge on that one) you can find all the sex, drugs and decadence your wallet can afford. Bush’s lame explanation of how bin Laden envied our freedoms was a lot of crap. Bin Laden was instead fuming over the fact that American troops, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, had desecrated the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia with their presence there. Don’t forget that both Mecca and Medina, holy cities for Muslims, are in Saudi Arabia. We defiled their Holy Land and bin Laden never got over that. It was all about religion.

A Utopian Dream

Try to imagine today’s world with no religion in it. I’m serious. Try it. It’s not easy. Of course there have always been wars of greed and there always will be probably, but I ask you again to picture today’s world with no religion. For the moment don’t think back into ancient history as well. Your head might explode.

In this particular thought experiment, focus specifically on certain cities and regions of the world: Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina, Rome, Ireland, Indonesia, all the Southern states in the USA, and, who’s kidding who, the entire Middle East—all of it, especially Israel. It’s a tall order, I know, but at least try to imagine all those areas with no religions.

Now. What is everybody fighting about? Border disputes? Of course. Mineral resources? Of course. Whose penis is bigger than whose? Of course. However, can you imagine the same chaos we’re experiencing now with no religion mixed in at all? Can you imagine the intensity of the hatred bristling everywhere with no religion involved? If you say yes, you are lying.

Atheists can be bastards too, but we never feel the religious fervor, the zealous hatred that True Believers know so well. And exploit so well. If you think your head won’t actually explode, let’s look back. The problems of religious warfare reach far back into our human history. In the year of the Prophet Muhammad’s death, 632 AD, the Shia and Sunni factions split immediately and have been warring ever since. In the 11th century the state-sponsored Crusades into the “holy land” to be fought against the Muslims, were launched by the Catholic pope and continued, on and off,  for two hundred years. The Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century was just an extension of the overall medieval inquisitions begun in the 12th century, all of which were state-sponsored purges of religious “heretics.” The combination of the nobles and the priests of the Aztecs resulted in human sacrifices to their many gods during the 13th and 14th centuries. Politics and religion were indistinguishable during Europe’s Thirty Years’ War of the 17th century, which wrought devastation to the countries (mostly Germany) involved. In our own budding nation, during the 17th century, the Salem witch trials made their ugly appearance. And so on.

If we do not learn from history we are destined to repeat it; but our record in that area is not very good. For whatever reason (hubris? hope?) we act as if what has happened before, over and over again, will not necessarily happen again. Well, given the same conditions, yes, it will.  We need to remind ourselves of what can (and usually does) happen when religion and politics are united.

We often hear about the “clash of cultures” we are experiencing but never about the clash of religions. Everyone sidesteps that one, fearing the incendiary nature of any discussions that might result from that observation. Well, it’s time to stop sidestepping. We Americans value democracy and freedom, which are only sustainable when church and state are separated. In countries where that separation is blurred or nonexistent, there can be no freedom. We find ourselves at a loss in dealing with such countries. The harsh reality of that fact was highlighted when, shortly after the horror of 9/11, the diplomacy-challenged George W. Bush foolishly (or maliciously) used the word “crusade” to describe our proposed war on terrorism. The backlash against that word was immediate and violent among Muslims. Anyone who understands history will understand that backlash.

But our foray into Iraq in 2003 demonstrated the depths of our ignorance in relating to Islam. When confronted with the warring factions of the Sunni Muslims and the Shia Muslims, we were caught in the crossfire of religious warfare and were clearly unprepared to deal with any of it. The killings were horrific and only occurred because there was no dependable secular government to deal with. It is all about religion. We are finding the same problems in Afghanistan.

But even after all of that, even after recognizing the disastrous results of church/state fusions in ancient history as well as recent history, far too many American groups are still hell-bent on forcing fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity into our public forums and into our government. Why? Why are they doing that? Why is this happening in a country that already offers such generous freedoms for religions? Listening to some of the grandstanding political speeches coming from our own Congress, you sometimes think you are listening to an old-fashioned tent revival. God is constantly invoked to make political points. This has to stop. This is moving toward theocracy. God does not belong on C-SPAN.

All we have to do is look around the world, which is now so easy to do on the Internet, to understand the dangers of providing tax dollars for religions, uniting church and state. We must learn, finally, the lessons of such unhealthy unions. And we should all cherish the freedom of and from religion that our Constitution so wisely created.

  © 2010 Judith Hayes

 Sources

Hardball, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 11/11/09

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120138496 (11/6/09)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111117825.html  (11/9/09)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-memorial-service-fort-hood  (11/10/09)

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Fort+Hood+shooting+suspect+charged+with+murder/2214996/story.html  (11/12/09)

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/documents/nidal_hasan/Hasan_2007.pdf

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/30/2009-12-30_somali_.html