The Case for Religion and Religious Toleration

Background

Throughout history, religion has served as the ultimate answer to many complicated questions in society: Why are we here? What happens after death? As an individual what should I strive to be? Religion has usually taken the mores and customs of a region and transformed them into a uniform way of life for a particular area. Thus, religion takes customs, beliefs, and worldviews and relates them to humanity, spirituality and morality. Since religion takes custom into account, it is no surprise that religion should differ so much throughout the world. During times when the world was much less open and globalized, it must have been easy to say, “Oh you’re from Western Europe? Then, you must be Roman Catholic” or “You’re from the Middle East? Then you must be Muslim.” Religion shaped society and therefore the people of that society. However, in time, came the notion that one way of life, one custom, and one religion was far more superior to other religions. These sentiments of superiority led to discrimination, violence and war. Nonetheless, much of the ill consequences have unfairly used religion as a motivation when in reality prejudice and greed served as the true motivations. Ideological imperialism was waged with an appeal to a higher power as a façade. Now we live in a much more globalized world in which society has evolved to harbor many cultures and religions. Consequently, individuals must become more apt to accept others ideals, customs and religions in order to fully appreciate the great aspects of our global society. We need religious toleration. Any barrier to the acceptance of the belief of others will only result in the repetition of discrimination and violence for time to come.

The Characteristics of Modern Religion

Christianity and Islam both espouse ideas of unity, peace, and love for humanity.  For Christianity, the most important and arguably most referenced idea of the bible is the Ten Commandments. Of the Ten Commandments, the most important commandments to apply to the life of the ideal Christian man would be “You shall have no other gods to rival me (God),” “You shall not kill,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear fall witness against your neighbor,” and “You shall not set your heart on…any of your neighbor’s possessions.” Therefore, in the basest terms, a good Christian is a man who accepts only one God as the one true God while respecting another’s trust, another’s life, and another’s possessions. A Christian’s life is introverted in the sense that the individual must have inner faith for one God, but he or she must also uphold a great amount of respect for other individuals. A Christian does not necessarily have to be involved with the life of another besides his and his family’s path in Christianity. Likewise, Islam also touches on the same type of nature in which the individual follows Allah, but still upholds respect for other individuals. Islam requires full faith and dedication to Allah, as in the sole faith in God (or Yahweh) for Christians. Islam also subscribes to the nation that peace can be the answer to many problems of the world. The Qur’an states, “And good and evil deeds are not alike. Repel evil with good. And he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend.” Instead of acts of violence or anger, Islam champions peaceful methods to show an overarching theme of peace amongst humanity. Violence harbors hate and division, while peace and love create unity. Both religions, in simple terms, support faith and peace as basic qualities of their theological ideals.

Religion in the Forefront of Violent Acts

For centuries, religion and theology have been used to support violent events from the crusades in the 11^th century, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1800s and the recent presence of Al-Qaeda. The crusades were wars between Christian and Muslim armies over disputed lands (argued by the Catholic Church as holy lands and thus property of the Church). To analyze how serious the Christians and Muslims were about the lands they were fighting over, one must consider that there were more than five campaigns that spilled over many centuries. To deduce the crusades as merely various fights over lands is a gross understatement once the trade of goods and ideas is taken into consideration. But, the important quality of the crusades is this idea: “We are fighting for these lands because God/ Allah want us to do so.” Sure, the bible contains countless tales of King David and the wars he waged, but, many of the anecdotes offer advice or a moral, such as the story of when King David had the army general “accidently” killed in battle because he wanted to marry the general’s wife (don’t worry God gave David a good scolding). The bible must be taken into perspective as the guideline to the complete theology of the Christian church. The purpose of the bible is offer explanations for aspects of life. The crusades served as a means for the Church and its leaders to gain more land and thus more wealth. Therefore, it looks like many of the Church leaders were coveting their neighbors lands, and so, not a completely Christian motivation. There exist instances when an individual might have to kill another, but to say that killing is ever justified under a Christian motive is most definitely a fallacy. The Ku Klux Klan was and still is a hate group in the United States that supports a “white only” and Protestant America (usually nitpicking lines from the bible to find some biblical support for their cause). The Ku Klux Klan does not represent Christianity. Taking the Ku Klux Klan into consideration, “the golden rule” begs application. When a follower asked Jesus, “What is the most important commandment” he replied, “Love thy neighbor as you love thyself” (This became known as the “Golden Rule”). To scrutinize the Ku Klux Klan under the golden rule would garner this motto: I don’t like myself very much, so you can lynch me. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan would never endorse such a motto though Jesus himself taught love for everyone in the bible. Another group, Al-Qaeda, wants to fight the great nations of the world in the name of Allah. America is seen as Al-Qaeda’s greatest enemy. Famously, Al-Qaeda has called for a jihad, or religious duty, against the United States. Contrarily, scholars of the Qur’an deny that a jihad is a violent act in the name of Islam, but it serves as a “quest to control base instincts such as, greed, lust and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity[1]…” Once again, the Qur’an references peace towards enemies as a much greater reward than wanton violence. Consequently, Al- Qaeda cannot claim to justly represent the major views of Islam.

Real Religion

The individuals who truly embody the teachings of Christianity and Islam will never be celebrities, personalities or socialites. The heroes of religion are the people who push aside possessions in order to ameliorate people who are poor and benefit from specific services. The Mother Teresas and Ghandis of the world are unknown. Perhaps, it becomes easier to point fingers at groups or actions because of their unconventional views because the individuals who truly embody their religion are generally unknown and under the radar. It becomes much easier to blame religion when one of these groups or actions uses religion, though the actions do not even qualify to support a belief of a particular religion. Moreover, Christianity and Islam champion a peace amongst humanity as an ultimate goal through kindness and love in lieu of violence and anger.

Religion in Society

Religion works for some people and it doesn’t work for others. In the end, it is fine that some people choose to believe in a religion and it is also okay if others choose not to subscribe to a religion. My main problem comes when individuals try to discredit religion as some kind of underlying evil force in society. Ultimately, individuals who waged war in the name of religion obviously did not comprehend that some of the world’s major religions strongly oppose violent acts in favor of peace towards others. A writer cannot be a writer if she doesn’t write. A race car driver cannot be a driver if he cannot drive. But, for some reason, an outlying religious zealot (or group) somehow represents a specific religion even if he doesn’t fulfill the most basic tenets of a particular religion. No one ever blames the thousands of religious organizations around the world for aiding and teaching the impoverished. On the other hand, there exist tons of groups, such as the Peace Corps, that are not affiliated to a certain religion, yet still fulfill many duties out of kindness. Therefore, it is possible to be charitable even if an individual is not tied to a particular religion. The blame for discrimination can go both ways. Conclusively, the solution is very simple: respect and toleration. Respect those who choose not to follow a religion and tolerate those who choose to do so. For too long, people have used religion and beliefs as a way to judge others. Now, it should be the time to actually recognize that in the midst of all the beliefs and ideas, we are just people.

Sources:

The Bible

The Qur’an

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

http://islam101.net/peace-in-islam/275-peace-in-quran.html

http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_kukluxklan.htm

---

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

The United States Foreign Policy in Latin America

The United States Foreign Policy in Latin America

Background:

The DREAM Act has passed in both the states of California and Illinois. Though much of the criticism of the DREAM Act has been that the act gives benefits to illegal immigrants who have essentially broken the law by living in the US without proper documentation, I feel that the influx of illegal immigrants (especially from Central American) during the 1980s and 1990s can be traced to misplaced American foreign policies. From Harry Truman’s containment to Condoleezza Rice’s defense of the Democratic Peace Theory, the United States has frequently tried to have some say in the governments of the world. However, I feel that Americans should not be surprised that there are so many illegal immigrants in the United States because failed foreign endeavors have stalled the progress of political institutions in Latin America. The civil wars of Guatemala and El Salvador serve as examples to failed American intervention. When political institutions fail in their purpose, then people look to the United States despite persecution. The DREAM Act offers some future at least to the children who had to experience hectic lives in search of a better existence. To think that the DREAM Act is just a handout paid for by taxes on citizens for the benefit of illegal immigrants is ignorance. I would definitely encourage further research on the DREAM act (http://www­.whitehous­e.gov/blog­/2010/12/0­1/get-fact­s-dream-ac­t)

Trends of US Foreign Policy:

Ever since Stalin began taking control of Eastern Europe after World War II, the United States took the mission to stall the spread of communism around the world. This became known as the foreign policy term as “Containment.” President Truman solidified the idea of containment through the formation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), to serve as an intergovernmental military alliance to fight against an external party (the Soviet Union). Containment has led through most of the United States’ military operations: the Korean War in the 1950s, the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s, and involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s. These major military operations were concentrated in areas where the Soviet Union could have a direct influence, or where the Soviet Union could initiate an operation. However, any involvement in Latin America would have to be discrete as to not start a “red scare” à la Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba stood as an obvious target to watch since it was outright communist. Nonetheless, the risk of having any other Latin American country, considering the proximity to the United States, become communist could be detrimental to the United States. In contrast to any missions outside the Americas, American involvement had to be subtle as to not cause alarm. Much of the involvement followed the idea that if Latin America were democratic, then these states would be friendly to the United States. The “Democratic Peace Theory” states that democracies, for some detail in their definition, rarely or never go to war with one another. These policies garnered different effects in Latin America and the Latin American population of the United States.

US involvement in Guatemala:

In a piece on the CIA website, David M. Barrett states that early on in the cold war the United States congress could give strong support for covert operations without many people knowing[1]. In 1944, a revolution commenced in Guatemala where Dictator Jorge Ubico was overthrown in favor of a democracy. A civilian president named Juan Jose Arevalo was soon elected. However, the men who took charge in Guatemala created a leftist regime, thus putting the United States on its toes. One must remember that the government in Guatemala had been “elected” and not at all forced upon. Nonetheless, the principles of Guatemala’s democracy still bothered the United States, who could not stand any form or sign of communism so close to home. Guatemala’s final stand before American intervention came when US-corporations, such as the United Fruit Company, could not escape the Guatemalan government’s land expropriation. Soon, Guatemala bought Soviet armaments from Czechoslovakia and the United States could no longer watch idly. In the eyes of the CIA, Guatemala had turned “red.”The target became Jacobo Arbenz, Arevalo’s successor. In May and June of 1954, the US used to CIA to easily overthrow Guatemala’s government. The US kept quiet. Though the initial coup of 1954 was seen as a success, as more repressive regimes abdicated the leadership position in Guatemala for the ensuing five decades, the intervention was seen as a failure. The CIA had trained a select number of rebels to issue an attack on the head of state. Once victory had been won, a military leadership took over the Guatemalan government.

US involvement in El Salvador:

El Salvador had been a nation of class struggles since the early 1880s. Coffee was the main cash crop of the country accounting for 95% of the nation’s income in the hands of 2% of the population. The great economic class disparity led to the creation of the Central American Socialist Party which pitted peasants against the government. The government established death squads in response to kill anyone who wanted to cross the government. By 1979, the power struggle between the government and the peasants had reached its zenith. The five main guerilla groups in El Salvador united to become the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (or FMLN) in order to combat to government, and thus the civil war commenced. In order to combat this leftist uprising, the United States government offered much military aid in forms of weapons and money. Like Guatemala, the United States could not risk having a communist nation so close to home while fighting Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. However, the Salvadoran military’s force against the guerillas and the people of El Salvador put US involvement and issues of human rights into question. The murder of Archbishop Romero (now a Martyr for the El Salvadoran people’s cause) is still used as an example of the military’s cruelty. Calling for the US to stop sending aid to the Salvadoran military, Archbishop Romero was shot through the heart while celebrating mass. A peace deal was finally reached in 1992, but at the cost of about an estimated 70,000 casualties involving women, children and clergy.

Illegal Immigrants in the US:

It comes down to this point in the end: Do you really blame so many Latin Americans for fleeing to the United States? They evade massacres and unfair governments in favor of persecution, but with at least some hope of survival. Many of these countries were taking the steps that would make democracy work for their respective peoples. Instead, the US used its influence to make a government accountable to the US, not to the people. Unfortunately, democracy cannot exist unless it is accountable to its own people. We must remember that democracy did not happen overnight in the United States either. African-Americans did not get the right to vote until the latter part of the 19^th century and laws barring their ability to vote were not abolished until 1965, and women could not vote until the 19^th amendment was passed in 1920. Democracy needs time to evolve for the specific needs and solutions of its particular state. There are many illegal immigrants in the United States because American foreign policy has given the people a reason to illegally immigrate to the United States. In the course of creating a pro-American regime in Central America, the United States has created a juxtaposition of an efficient (for the most part) democratic government adjacent to inefficient, tyrannical governments in the Americas. Without a working government and without a stable opportunity of advancement, a journey to the United States becomes the only viable option. Now, the Dream Act does not provide a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, but it does give an avenue for individuals who actually want to benefit the United States in some way. The United States has always been the haven for opportunity and intellectualism, and it has not changed now. If individuals are opt to die for this country or to dedicate themselves to provide solutions, then maybe we should garner this chance to let them prove their ambition. Also, the people who benefit from this the most are the children of the parents who experienced the broken governments and massacres. As for the broken governments left behind in the wake of mismanaged foreign policy and efforts, it will just take time and the will of the people to repair their institutions.

Sources:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm

http://libcom.org/history/articles/guatemala-us-intervention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guatemala#Early_20th_century

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1891145.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War

---

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm