North Looking South

Militant Christian fundamentalism and American foreign policy 
By John Barham, April 20, 2007

Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on  spreading the Message of Jesus Christ,  the message of peace on earth  & goodwill toward men. Everything  depends on everyone learning  about the birth of the savior.  Congressman Robin Hays,  Republican of North Carolina

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair; and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the  earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of  a mighty wind. Book of Revelation, Chapt. 6,  Verses 12 & 13 (KJV)

Growing up in a denomination in the American “Bible Belt” that was fundamentalist and evangelical, I was exposed quite early to many who espoused a literal interpretation of scripture. At the same time, though, there was strong emphasis on “…everyone being his or her own priest” and “…rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In other words, the denomination into which I was baptized was strongly committed to an independent appraisal of the Bible as well as to the principle of separation of church and state.

Since that time, there has been a sea change with that faith—as well as with other denominations of the fundamentalist/evangelical stripe—and the last two or three decades have witnessed Christian fundamentalists becoming rigidly dogmatic and decidedly political. By the 1990s, the politics that had been considered worldly and corrupt in the 1950s became more and more acceptable for many who had come to feel that an increasingly secular America was consigning their values to the dustbin of history.

In a skillfully implemented strategy, the Republican Party, by placing great emphasis on social issues such as stem-cell research, feminism, Second Amendment rights, abortion and same-sex marriage, gradually claimed the allegiance of this sizeable segment of the American electorate. Although fundamentalists had not heretofore been attracted to the Republican Party—probably because of their lower than average incomes—social issues brought them by the millions into the ranks of Republican voters; and, buttressed by this surge of new supporters, Republicans dominated the House of Representatives for 12 consecutive years, controlled the Senate for 7 out of 12 sessions and won four of six presidential contests. In some respects, this became the icing on the cake of the Republican “Southern strategy” that was conjured up as a reaction to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

With the assumption of presidential power by Bush Number Two, fundamentalists had their man in the White House. As the Washington Post saw it, “For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader.”

As a reformed alcoholic and a born-again fundamentalist, George W. Bush, with the adroit coaching of Karl Rove and other architects of his administration, has drawn on the Christian Right as a significant prop for his administration’s foreign policy initiatives, which have taken a much more unilateral approach to America’s relations with the rest of the world. Expressing himself in unequivocal terms that would delight the most hard-shelled of Christian fundamentalists, President Bush has denounced a so-called “axis of evil;” and, in his second inaugural address, referred to America’s mission, “…which has come to us from beyond the stars.”

It would then seem to follow that, as the world power which righteously seeks to promote democracy and fulfill God’s will; the US should not be bound by regular parameters of international law. Hence, America is within its rights to question the Geneva Convention and other international agreements defining relations between nations, including the treatment of prisoners of war. As God’s chosen warriors, Americans should be immune from normal notions of accountability.

Common to many militant fundamentalists is the conviction that the second coming of Jesus Christ will be ushered in by a final conflict between good and evil in the Middle East. In increasingly strident terms after 9/11, the President, who still maintains that he has been given a mission from God in his presidency, tended to state his aims in language which was absolute in its contrast of light and darkness. And, in making his case for the invasion of Iraq, this form of rhetoric became even more prevalent. Commenting on the President’s predisposition to see the challenges of his administration in chiliastic terms, Bob Woodward stated that, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and to rid the world of evil.” 

In his recent book, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, Andrew J. Bacevich, a graduate of West Point and a professor of international relations at Boston University, points to what became a growing crusade mentality among fundamentalists who were, in fact, advocating preventive warfare before the Bush administration began pronouncing itself in favor of preemptive strikes. Even more frightening is Bacevich’s contention that, in the eyes of many politically-inclined fundamentalists, “For some countries—those designated for special roles in God’s plan for salvation—the usual rules of war and particularly those of just war do not apply.”

Recognizing a unique opportunity, neo-conservative theorists saw militant Christian fundamentalism as a vehicle by which an aura of religious endorsement could be conveyed to an overtly aggressive foreign policy. And, at the same time, according to Andrew Bacevich, “…evangelicals looked to soldiers to model the personal qualities that citizens at large needed to rediscover if America were to reverse the tide of godlessness and social decay to which the 1960s had given impetus.” Joining militant fundamentalists and neo-conservative visionaries in a circle of codependence were neo-liberal globalizers, who would seek to further their economic fortunes on the coattails of a new imperialism which, by its very nature, was devoid of any semblance of forward-looking internationalism. 

The role of militant Christian fundamentalism in American foreign policy during the last 20 years has been, for all practical purposes, a sham and a deception. It can best be exposed for what it is by revealing its hypocrisy in failing to promote just income growth in less developed regions of the world instead of the neo-liberal globalization with which it has been united in an unholy alliance. And, finally, in falling far from the gospel of individual peace as preached by Jesus Christ and by assisting in the distortion of US foreign policy into a grotesque mockery of American values, militantly political fundamentalists provide a decided contrast to all those believers who have long sought to promote universal justice through the Christian faith.






After a career of more than 40 years in higher education in the United States and abroad, John Barham retired in 2006 and is a full-time resident of San Miguel de Allende. He lectures frequently for the international Elderhostel program in Mexico. 





Outrage Trumps Speech: The Dangerous Precedent of Don Imus

By Jim Karger

I hate to be politically incorrect, but that has never stopped me and it won’t stop me now.

After reading the press accounts of Don Imus’ termination, I have come to believe that perhaps I am the only person in the country (or in my case outside the country) who believes Imus’s firing was wrongheaded for a number of reasons I’ll get to in a moment.

But first, a disclaimer: I’m not a fan of Don Imus or an apologist for his recent commentary, i.e., “nappy headed ho’s.” I have never watched his TV program if only because I find the whole idea of watching radio to be contrary to its purpose—which is to listen.

Like Howard Stern and other shock-jocks, the few times I’ve heard Imus on the radio I have found him not particularly well-informed and his outrageous humor and language only remains interesting until one habituates to it, which in my case took only a handful of experiences.

That said I understand others (as in two and a half million others) feel differently. They love outrageous chatter and can't seem to get enough of it. My guess is these are the same people who watch reality television, a misnomer because that is not reality. That is sensationalism. But whatever it is, it is their right to watch it and listen to it or to vote with their fingers. If you don’t like what I see or hear, don't watch it and don't listen to it—simple as that. Change the channel. 

So, what was the problem with firing Don Imus for his outrageous comment? Several reasons come to mind.

First, it was like firing a turtle for being too slow. You knew the turtle was slow when you bought it and it is disingenuous to be angry now because it is not fast. CBS and MSNBC knew when they picked Don Imus up that he has always been outrageous. To suddenly take him out for doing what he has always done smacks of hypocrisy mostly because it is hypocrisy.

Second, it was not the outrageousness of his speech that caused him to be fired and silenced. It was that his outrageous speech was racial, and outrageous racial commentary (as opposed to other outrageous commentary) is politically unacceptable. You can talk about giant dildos on the radio because sex is OK. (At least you can on XM Radio which many expats in San Miguel enjoy daily.) You can even talk about (and show) the most hideous of violent acts on TV and that is OK because for some reason violence got a pass, too. But to utter a racial remark, even in jest, will convict you of a crime for which the only penalty seems to be death.

And that makes no sense to me.

I am also non-plussed, but not surprised, by the gutlessness of MSNBC and CBS, financial whores who took the opportunity to take out someone who has been a thorn in their side for years. They would fire their own mothers if they thought it meant a buck and when it did mean a buck—that is when GM and a few others pulled the plug—rather than pick up advertisers who were standing in line, and standing up for their listeners, not to mention free speech, they fell apart like a cheap suit.

But, perhaps my greatest disappointment was in the general public. They took the easy way out, the politically correct way out, the way out that required no effort whatsoever. It is, after all, easy to offended by speech one finds offensive—you can just sit in front of the tube and be outraged, righteously indignant, and somehow feel morally superior by calling for the head of anyone that offends you.

I'm unimpressed.

Far more difficult (and effective) is to be outraged about things that matter, that left unchanged are dangerous, and that might actually require us to take action, spend our money, and get off our behinds.

What kinds of things? Well here are a few that come to mind this week (not necessarily in order of importance):

The US tax code. Most US citizens just suffered the pain of tax preparation. I don’t believe I (or anyone else) should have to spend two weeks every year trying to figure out how much I need to pay for having to work the other 50 weeks. That is something that is unnecessary and unproductive. But, unlike calling for Imus’s head, if we want change we can’t just sit around and complain about taxes. Instead, we have to demand an alternative to the thousands of pages of laws and regulations that only insure that whatever we file each year is not going to be right. If the average citizen in the US or Canada wanted a fair system, we would demand a value-added tax that tacked 15 percent to everything we buy (except perhaps food, basic shelter, education, and a few rags to wear). We could eliminate the income tax because each of us would pay as we go. No questions about loopholes, not to mention the positive product of encouraging Americans to save—something most have forgotten how to do as evidenced by the nation’s n
egative savings rate. How? Regardless where we live, we can get active. We could actually vote. We could elect people to Congress who aren't in the business of protecting the status quo. We could demand public financing of elections to take the lobbyists out of the picture of politics. We could have clean, simple government if we wanted it bad enough and my guess is we would feel a whole lot better about that than most feel about acing a radio announcer for saying something stupid.

If we wanted to change the world for the better, we could stop supporting the slaughter of baby seals in Canada by pipe-wielding thugs, an annual murderous spree that has gone on too long. Could we stop it? In a New York minute. But we can’t do it by watching television and shedding a tear or two. We could handle the problem with our wallets. We could stop buying anything made in Canada for any reason. We could stop traveling to Canada and let the Department of Tourism there know why we won't darken their door again until this outrageousness, the kind that costs lives, forever stops and we could tell everyone we know about it. I feel a lot better about doing that than knowing Don Imus got pegged for a slip of the tongue.

We could do something about global warming. It’s real, and we need to either get used to the results or change it. Every Nobel Prize winner that has studied the topic has acknowledged the grim reality of the situation and our generation will be rightfully judged grossly negligent toward future generations if we continue to ignore it and if we don’t do something about it. Those who deny it exists are, in my opinion, both ignorant and outrageous, but I don’t believe they should be silenced. Let them rattle on, but for the majority who say they care it is not enough to sit in our easy chairs and call for the heads of industries that produce greenhouse gasses. No, it requires us to do something like stop doing business with those companies. It means getting in gear with alternative energy sources. If you can’t afford a solar water heater, use fluorescent light bulbs, or sell that big SUV and be hip by hooking up with a hybrid. 

All this said I am not defending Imus’s comment. It was stupid. It was outrageous. It was offensive. And if I listened to his show, I’d probably stop listening. But that is different than silencing him.

After all, if stupid or outrageous or offensive were the standards for being silenced and fired, none of us would ever speak or work again. We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t said. If we’re sorry about it, we say we’re sorry. We mean it. Those who matter forgive us and we move on in hopes we’ll do better the next go around.

Don Imus’s humanitarian record illustrates he isn’t a racist and racism is not why he was fired. He was simply outrageous like all of us are from time to time and should have been treated as each of us would hope to have been treated in the same situation—castigated, even vilified, but knowing that a sincere apology would ultimately result in compassion and forgiveness.

And, most importantly, we should never forget that outrageous speech is still speech. It, along with freedom of the press, are the most fundamental protections enjoyed in democracies and we should be most careful when an opportunity arises to silence anyone, for the next time it may be we who are silenced.

Which brings me back to Mexico. Just how free is speech here? I sometimes wonder because I’ve seen and heard too many expatriates silenced when faced with the threat of “libel.” In a future column, we’ll examine whether there is really anything to be afraid of or whether, as in most other democracies, truth is an absolute defense. 

© 2007 Jim Karger



Jim Karger is a full-time resident of San Miguel and a former columnist in Dallas, Texas.