|
APOCALYPTIC MANIFESTO  With Jerry Falwell recently departing planet earth, ostensibly off to meet his maker, now is the time to examine the role Christian fundamentalism has played in American history since 9/11 – particularly on the policies of George W. Bush.
Falwell and Bush both trace their religious roots to the Puritanism, a complex and multi-faceted offshoot of the sixteenth century English Reformation: simply put, Puritans searched for purity of worship and spirituality in everyday life, unfettered by the corrupt taint of immoral Catholicism. Elizabeth I, a product of the new Church of England, in balancing the delicate needs of both Protestant and Catholic subjects, displeased both (SEE HERE). After a century of marginalization, even self-imposed exile, the movement left Europe for North America, a haven of religious freedom – and a seemingly degenerate indigenous population. Preoccupied with perceived “sinful” behaviour, Puritans waged an eschatological battle to appease their ancestors’ guilt for not maintaining the essential precepts of spiritual purity. This war was not only internal, against sinful hedonistic impulses, but also against Native Americans: Puritans believed North America was the new Israel, and they were the new “chosen people”. Thus, the land had to be cleansed of immorality, purged by violence; self-loathing transmuted, like the phoenix, into a higher, purified state of being. Although their modern descendents do not advocate outright aggression, one might notice a constant theme of self-denial and moral authoritarianism that condemns all but the most narrowly defined behaviours. All is black and white without regard to scientific and humanitarian advances. Jerry Falwell, for example, blamed 9/11 on what he labelled as dissolute Americans: the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians were the reasons why the United States was attacked (SEE HERE). It is quite possible to state that within evangelical circles, which George W. Bush and members of his administration openly embrace, there exists a belief in a final, apocalyptic battle for the world and human souls. To this president, the world is simplistic: good and evil, us and them, the believers and the non-believers. Ultimately, the good, us, the believers will prevail, but not before a bloody war against the enemies. This administration, convinced of its rectitude, moral superiority, and history of military superiority, sees this apocalyptic battle as manifest destiny. Underlying this theory is the irrationality of belief: religion, which can neither be proved nor disproved by empiricism, bestows the possessor with absolute certitude. The scientist, when confronted with evidence, will modify findings; the believer will never, being utterly sure. George W. Bush has spoken of his misspent youth, until discovering Jesus Christ. How often has he remarked about having only one father – the one in heaven? How he is in “the Lord’s hands?” How John Ashcroft, Bush’s former attorney general, echoed the sentiment by stating there is no king but Jesus? George W. Bush now has a sense of purpose, a mission, particularly after 9/11: to rid the world of what he terms as “evil” and “evildoers”. To him, that fateful, horrific day was an opportunity, an epiphany of purpose for a meaningless life. To him, all is clear and unequivocal: one is either with him or with the terrorists; countries that harbour terrorists are guilty by association; God had spoken to George W. Bush and George W. Bush listened. And God told George W. Bush to attack Iraq (SEE HERE). Who could resist such a mission? This administration, convinced of its rectitude, moral superiority, and history of military superiority, sees this apocalyptic battle as manifest destiny. Underlying this theory is the irrationality of belief: religion, which can neither be proved nor disproved by empiricism, bestows the possessor with absolute certitude. A disturbing undercurrent, and one that undermines the Constitution, is the Machiavellian nature of such thinking. By assuming the way justifies the means, this charming prince feels free to indulge in whatever activities – legal or illegal – will meet his stated goals. This president, endorsed by Christian evangelicals, has consolidated power into the executive, engaged in domestic spying, suspended civil rights, attacked a sovereign country based on lies, thrown the entire Middle East into turmoil, tortured, amassed fortunes for himself and his cronies, and fixed not one but two elections. The idea of promoting democracy and liberty seem ludicrous, even hypocritical, in such a light. God’s plan must be executed; the righteous must prevail by whatever means possible. Pragmatism, careful consideration for nuanced human behaviour, other cultures and political systems, as well as the complex balance of international relations and international law do not fit religious extremism and must be therefore be discarded. The idea of building a worldwide theocracy based on violence appears quite contrary to Christianity: in George W. Bush’s universe the meek will not inherit the earth, one does not turn the other cheeks but attacks with vengeance, the peacemakers are cursed, and rich men enter the kingdom of God easier than a herd of camels through a needle’s eye. Yet is it true? Or is it all a façade? While Americans argue over religious red herrings such as abortion, right to die, feminism, stem cell research, and creationism vs. evolution, George W. Bush acts with impunity. Rhetoric without substance. Hypocrisy. This split, this dichotomy, illustrates a disturbing element within the American psyche: despite the professed separation of church and state, politics has rarely been so steeped in the trappings of religion. Only one religion – fundamentalist Christianity – is allowed. But as Christianity places the emphasis more on what one believes rather than what one does, salvation can come within minutes of death: confess, request absolution, accept Jesus, and the soul is saved. Yet one could legitimately argue this twists the essential precepts of an established religion, and that true, good Christians insist upon both. Does George W. Bush ever contemplate Iraqi deaths? The innocents put to death on death row while he was governor of Texas? What of his mockery of Karla Faye Tucker? What of dead American soldiers? Wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor? This amorphous “war on terrorism”, which George W. Bush believes he can win with military might, harkens back to a previous age of superstition, of the Bible as science, and the Book of Revelations as the “End of Days” foreshadowing the “Rapture”. The end of the world is nigh. From a political perspective, it is easier to govern an uneducated, but religious, populace. A fearful flock is more docile. If God is perfect, then God’s plan is perfect; if God speaks to George W. Bush, the message is therefore perfect and cannot – indeed, must not – be questioned. Moral certitude again; now we have some vague notion as to why this president is utterly, irrationally inflexible and will persist in this war until “Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting [him]” One can cite numerous legal arguments for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but one frequently overlooked, perhaps due to being almost impossible to define and prove, is the corruption of religion to meet radical political ends. This president, whose powers of rationalization are boundless, has declared war on the separation of church and state, and consequently the founding fathers, who omitted “God” from the Constitution (see here). He feels himself above the law and acts accordingly, being answerable, in his mind, only to some higher power. Jerry Falwell derisively spoke of the church – state separation as a myth, akin to global warming. In conclusion, no one has the right to impose a particular belief system or creed on others; religion, agnosticism, atheism, are deeply personal issues – diversity was guaranteed by the founding fathers, men of intellect not far removed from the Salem Witch Trials. George W. Bush is free, as we all are, to worship as he sees fit, but it is a dangerous folly for him to base domestic and foreign policy on a theocratic, apocalyptic vision of the world. In doing so, Bush subverts the Constitution and deserves impeachment. Irene Rheinwald is a Jewish writer, artist, historian and former social worker residing in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She is a member of PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity), has travelled extensively in the Middle East, and studied foreign relations. Recommend this article...
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 3841
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Irene Rheinwald Jerry Falwell APOCALYPTIC MANIFESTO
|
Commentary 
