By Augustus Douw
Ever since the Garden of Eden, when the Serpent asserted his ecclesiastical view of governance into Eve's attentive mind and gave her his interpretation of the constitution of God's Kingdom, world politics has always paused to consider the reckoning opinions of religious powers.
The kingdoms of the world have never since been completely able to draw a line between the two competing ideals that constantly struggle to dominate social governance or balance the weights of morality and legality.
The crusaders of past fallen empires conquered new territory with double ideological convictions of political liberation backed by religious conviction, often with two representative flags respectfully hoisted to certify the the facts. And when religion from the conquerors came with the power of the king, the new subjects were often forced to show their loyalty by converting to the faith of new invaders as a sacrament of obeisance. The consequence of dissidence was often death or damning dungeons.
The Catholic Church was one time an empire in itself, ruling the world in the historical "Dark Ages", enforcing the doctrine of the church with a mighty, heavy hand. The facts of the Spanish Inquisition testify to the power of religion in those days as a super power that pinned the world under its thumb. In its era, all non Catholics were considered heretics and ground to pieces by the Inquisitor.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, The Church of England repeated the merging of powers of church and state, bringing the church under the control of King Henry VIII as the Supreme Governor of the Church. Henry desired to cause the king to be the supreme leader of the kingdom's church, and wrestled acrimoniously with the Pope for control of England's monasteries and clergy.
In May 1532 the Church of England agreed to surrender its legislative independence and canon law to the authority of the monarch. In 1533 the Statute in Restraint of Appeals removed the right of the English Roman clergy and laity to appeal to Rome on matters of faith and church.
The first Act of Supremacy confirmed Henry VIII by statute as the Supreme Head of the Church of England in 1536. This constitutional change made it possible for Henry to access the considerable wealth that the Church had amassed.
The founding of the great United States and its constitution was an attempt by freedom-seeking citizens to liberate themselves from the strong absolute controlling power of the Church of England. They wished for a free government system that didn't use religious loyalty as a sign of loyalty to the flag or king, and to practice faith outside of government-mandated doctrines. But one might rightly conclude that that was asking too much. Although the constitution has always guaranteed separation of church and state, it's ideally only on paper. Politics has never disentangled freely from religion. George Washington's faith in God led him to guide the design of the constitution along Bible principles. Abrahan Lincoln's faith was a fundamental conviction in his fight against slavery. Martin Luther's 'Dream" of complete civil rights for all people hinged upon his Christian believes.
The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. The one-dollar bill of the United States currency is inscribed with the motto: "In God We Trust." Mark you, this is the property of the United States Treasury, a department of the federal government. The inclusion of the motto on all currency was required by law in 1955. How does this go over the First Amendment? It was as though Congress confessed at that time that although the wish of the people is to keep the two institutions separate, the political can never exist without the confederation of the religious.
Religion's influence on politics continues to operate in stealth up to date. The assertion of religious powers continues to dominate world politics in a semi-underground fashion just barely demarcated with a thin, obscure line between the church and legislation. The separation of state and church in United States is at best just hypothetical anymore, with many state legislators paying close attention to opinions--and sometimes arm-twisting--from churches who support voters and powerful interest groups.
Besides the influence of Christian churches on politics, Islam has evolved into a major player in the field, albeit from a different direction. As a law in itself, Islam is viewed by the faithfuls as absolute constitution from God Himself, and a fundamental layer of governance for any country that claims Islamic values and heritage. Any ideologies or systems that work contrary to that law are considered fundamentally satanic, or evil and subject to judgment according to that law, for which most crimes death is prescribed. Thus terror becomes judgment in behalf of God, according to them.
The harsh strictness of the Islamic law and the zeal with which the faithfuls work to uphold and protect those laws, is not understood in the Western conventional interpretations of religion or laws. The two sides come into conflict in a complex misrepresentation of each side's motives, intentions and values with a resultant loud clash that has now significantly altered the world's perspective on security and freedom. The conflict is now irrevocably coined "the war on terror, or terrorism."
Religious ideologies and churches wield superpower status anymore on their own. The Catholic Church still maintains strong influence on many countries' governments and special interest groups. Catholic politician's the world over listen carefully to their diocese and bishops before they vote.
The church's influence is on every piece of legislation at every level. The recent health care debate was largely steered by the pressure and wishes of the Catholic Church, when a last minute impasse around using publicly funded insurance programs to pay for abortions almost derailed the bill at the Senate level. Senators understood to do the will of the church or forget passing the bill at that point.
In the same context, the West needs to understand that in the views of the faithfuls, Islam is both a government system and a law, as well as a religion. The three are inseparable. An Islamic state is just that: all three fundamental elements represented in one ideal, by which an Islamic government rules its subjects. A holy war is demanded by the Koran and triggered by the invasion upon the religious law or state by a non-believing force or occupation.
Osama Bin Laden's motivations are not selfish, but ideologically and fundamentally right according to Islamic law. His murder of thousands or millions of "unbelieving invaders" is just obeisance to the law. He would never see it as crimes or appreciate prosecution for murders. If convicted and executed, he would be dying for the faith, a martyr, in his conviction. For being so faithful and dedicated, he is admired by his supporters as a heaven-bound, zealous soldier.
With Islamists determined to protect the sanctity of the Islamic laws with such zeal, it should not surprise anyone in the West that such fundamental acts of obeisance, marked by violent punishment for lawbreakers as proscribed by Sharia Law, have been escalating. The conflict will not cease any time soon, or ever. To ask Moslems to stop terrorizing the world is tantamount to asking them to stop believing in or protecting the perceived sanctity of their laws, according to the Koran. The outlook of the conflict appears bleak . The standoff may not be suppressed or even stopped with bombs, guns or forced political reorganization.
As Islam spreads its influence and terror into nether parts of the world, taking advantage of technology and improved communication to garner support, foment training and recruitment, a change in engagement policy by the West would probably have better results and decrease the conflict. Negotiations and relinquishing of native territory to the Islamists and working in economic fronts rather than military ones would probably render more appeasement and decrease motivations to violent conflicts and terror. If they were left to their thing and kept from flying into the West, they would be more content than being invaded and forced to rewrite their religious values in exchange for economic development.
Posts
