U.S. military

  •  (1) |
  • 1 (11) |
  • 2 (470) |
  • 4 (1) |
  • 5 (2) |
  • 9 (17) |
  • : (1) |
  • A (1557) |
  • B (1166) |
  • C (1893) |
  • D (1005) |
  • E (1258) |
  • F (812) |
  • G (725) |
  • H (1026) |
  • I (1029) |
  • J (515) |
  • K (115) |
  • L (624) |
  • M (1178) |
  • N (608) |
  • O (250) |
  • P (2010) |
  • Q (55) |
  • R (1315) |
  • S (1211) |
  • T (772) |
  • U (259) |
  • V (407) |
  • W (633) |
  • x (3) |
  • Y (39) |
  • Z (14) |

America's Military-Industrial-Religious Complex: Evangelical Christians Given Access to the Pentagon

America was founded on a policy of separation of church and state. It is written into our Constitution. And yet, Bush and his supporters are continually mixing Christianity, and a particularly extremist version thereof, with government, routinely violating the Constitution.

"Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.

"The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.

"The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S."

-- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, from the "Detached Memoranda," Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detached Memoranda." William and Mary Quarterly (1946): 554-62.

Long ago the Halliburton Republicans violated Eisenhower's warning against a military-industrial complex by largely privatizing our military, making the war in Iraq a war that benefits no one except Exxon/Mobil, Bechtel and Halliburton. Under Bush/Cheney, the blurring of the line between our military and American corporations has continued apace, angering anyone who really supports our soldiers or considers themselves a traditional, "Eisenhower Republican." But the line between our military and evangelical Christianity worries me even more. Ever since Bush started calling our wars "Crusades" and invading every Muslim nation he can, justified or not, it has seemed like the rise of the American Taliban has started to determine our foreign policy.


mole333's picture

| | | | |

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1370 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

One thing that I've found unsettling, though, in listening to coverage about the protests thusfar, is this "good immigrant/bad immigrant" rhetoric that's present in what some people are saying, protesters and organizers alike. This morning, while listening to NPR, I heard one woman speak about how Latino immigrants aren't doing anything to harm this country, that they "love America" and just want to become good, hard-working Americans. Then I heard one organizer, speaking at one of the rallies, say something like this: "Nineteen people hijacked planes and participated in the 9/11 attacks, and not one of them were named Gonzales, Rodriguez, or Santiago. But you can bet that many of the people dying serving their country in Iraq are named Gonzales, Rodriguez, and Santiago" so on and so forth.

I understand that much of this is in response to the whole immigration debate getting wrapped up in worries about "national security" - how the specter of terrorism seems to make allowances for all manner of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, and how countless immigrants are nonsensically made to suffer because of it. However, it definitely seems like a very bad, very problematic move to buy into this sort of dichotomy that pits "good" immigrants or "good" brown folks (here, Latinos) against "bad" ones (apparently people of Arab or Middle Eastern descent - because, you know, the actions of individuals become the responsibility, the fault, the burden of their entire race and religion.) Latinos, like all other immigrants to the United States, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and are entitled to certain rights and protections because they are human beings, not because they're good, flag-waving*, American-loving immigrants. No one is illegal, no matter whether your name is Juan or Mohammed, Gonzales or Atta.


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify