Melani McAllister talks about the increased religiosity in America after the creation of Israel as a nation state in the 1970s. This religiosity has held on with great fervour into our current day. When I was thinking about a topic to write about I remembered an interview with George Bush when he related his reasons for launching the invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq claiming that he was on a mission from God. What I found most interesting about this article was the lack of backlash his comments received in the media, in fact, many people supported his views, especially in middle-America. Having Christian morals and actually being led into action by “God” are too completely different things. I find the second one completely disconcerting and in need of great skepticism.
The greatest backlash came from the British press, one of the least religious countries in the world, so this makes sense. It is amazing to me that Americans remain so attached to their religion, but it also makes a lot of sense. Religion becomes something of a security blanket when times are tough, and times were definitely not easy during Bush’s time in office. But why did the media allow George Bush’s own religiosity to go unchecked? Did they also need “God” as their security blanket?
Attached is an article from The Guardian, a British publication. It paraphrases George Bush’s remarks to a Palestinian leader. But even this article is less of a criticism and more of just relating the facts to their readers, very weird.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
2 comments:
I think you raise an interesting point when you say that religion becomes a kind of security blanket when times are tough. One reason why Bush's statements went unchecked, I believe, is that it was a way in which America could kind of justify why the Bush administration could invade Iraq and Afghanistan; Middle Eastern regions, whereby Christainty was orginally founded. If 'God' said it was ok, and arguably the most powerful man in the world said it was ok, then who could argue with them, without rejecting christian ideologies of ultimately 'bringing peace' etc to the holy lands?
Being a British citizen I can remember the backlash and criticism for Bush and his claims, and can vouch for the fact that Britian is indeed one of the least religious countries in the world. Due to the fact religion seems to play an influential part in American lifestyles and history, it seems obvious that it would be respected and trusted more here than in Brtian, where religion increasingly means nothing.
I'm pretty surprised that the guardian ran this article. First of all because it seems ridiculous that God himself would advocate war and second of all I like alot of people never trusted anything Bush said. Britain is indeed is predominantly an unreligious country, and I think this is why we as a country were detatched with regard to the middle east. This therefore is our 'encounter' like Mcalister said. Our relationship with the middle east is one that has been approached on American terms, the British military in tow, with regard to the 'special relationship' that is celebrated between the US and the UK. And I agree with you sof, Americas religious ties with the middle east go far deeper than anything we Brits have experienced as a nation.
An old high school history teacher once told me all war is about either religion or oil and in this case, with the middle east it seems to be about both.
Post a Comment