What do you think about the US's militarism and religiousness in politics ?

[Maciamo]

It's no big news that religion has a tremendous role in US politics. The motto of the USA is "God bless America", people traditionally swear on the Bible in court, the Ten Commandments still guide the legislation of some Southern States, and a massive number of Americans vote for the most religious of the two dominant presidental candidates. That is strange for me, as I have grown up in a country where one of the most basic value is the separation of State and Religion. It is also ironical that the US have imposed to Japan in its post-WWII constitution to separate State and Religion too (even if it is not 100% enforced).

Looking at the religious affiliation of US presidents since George Washington, I found that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist (believe in god or in a "supreme being", but otherwise not religious), and two US presidents (Andrew Johnson and Rutherford B. Hayes, both just after Lincoln) had no religion. Lincoln himself was hardly a Christian, as he did not believe in Jesus. Interestingly, there has been only one Catholic and that was Kennedy (could have a second with Kerry soon).

As for the military experience of presidents, I know it sounds obvious and even necessary to many Americans as the presidents is also commander in chief, but in many European countries it is strictly prohibited for any politicians to be part of the military, so as to avoid militarism at the government like in Japan from Meiji to WWII. It also seems to me that having officers or former officers ruling the country sets the mood for harsher policies, especially regarding foreign policies and war. No wonder that the US government is seen worldwide as a "police" of the world.

Browsing the list of US presidents by military ranks and by military service, I discovered that 29 presidents (out of 43) were/have been military officers, including all presidents after F. D. Roosevelt, but Clinton.

What do you think about the US's militarism and religiousness in politics ?

 

[Brooker]

It sucks.

Maciamo wrote....

That is strange for me, as I have grown up in a country where one of the most basic value is the separation of State and Religion. It is also ironical that the US have imposed to Japan in its post-WWII constitution to separate State and Religion too (even if it is not 100% enforced).

America has the same "Separation of Church and State" policies, but it gets overlooked because there are so many hard core religious people. Religion has played a much bigger role in American politics since Bush became president.

Having a government that isn't affiliated with a religion is very important in its ability to make decisions logically and fairly.

 

[CC1]

As for the military experience of presidents, I know it sounds obvious and even necessary to many Americans as the presidents is also commander in chief, but in many European countries it is strictly prohibited for any politicians to be part of the military, so as to avoid militarism at the government like in Japan from Meiji to WWII. It also seems to me that having officers or former officers ruling the country sets the mood for harsher policies, especially regarding foreign policies and war. No wonder that the US government is seen worldwide as a "police" of the world.


What do you think about the US's militarism and religiousness in politics ?

I personally think that it is a good idea for the President to have served within the Armed Forces. You have to remember that the President is in charge of all the military, but he has the authority to send the Marines into conflicts without as much as confronting Congress or the people. It will also help the President to draw added respect from the military members knowing that he/she served prior.

As for religion? I don't see a problem with "In God We Trust" or "God Bless America"...no one is forced to say either one...and our founding fathers were the ones who put this comment on our money. I really think that people now days are way too touchy feely about crap like this!

 

[Maciamo]

I personally think that it is a good idea for the President to have served within the Armed Forces. You have to remember that the President is in charge of all the military, but he has the authority to send the Marines into conflicts without as much as confronting Congress or the people. It will also help the President to draw added respect from the military members knowing that he/she served prior.

I understand your point, but that was exactly how the Japanese saw it since the Meiji Restoration. The faction of Yamagata Aritomo even managed with the same arguments to have the army and navy ministers (=defense secretary in the US) chosen only among serving officers. At that time (until 1945), the emperor was the commander in chief of the army and navy, and as such had to be educated by military officers since his childhood (in Hirohito's case). Eventually, the army was declared independent from the prime minister and Parliament (=Congress)'s control, and was only under the emperor, giving it almost unlimited freedom to pursue its ambitions in Asia.

The problem with a president with military experience is that he will have a tendency to favour war or military action more than a true civilian. This cannot be good for world peace, especially when we are talking about the president of the most powerful nation on earth, and this president is fervently religious and dedicated to big businesses like Bush is. Let me remind that it was the big Japanese businesses, the zaibatsu like Mitsui, Mistubishi or Sumitomo, that financed the military in the 1930's and WWII. Now the same situation happens in the US, with big businesses financing a pro-military rightist government. Too similar with what Japan experienced to be ignored !

 

[Satori]

As for religion? I don't see a problem with "In God We Trust" or "God Bless America"...no one is forced to say either one...and our founding fathers were the ones who put this comment on our money. I really think that people now days are way too touchy feely about crap like this!

Actually, that's not quite true.

The History and Constitutionality of National Mottos:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

:souka:

 

[CC1]

I understand your point!

As I see yours also!

The problem with a president with military experience is that he will have a tendency to favour war or military action more than a true civilian. This cannot be good for world peace, especially when we are talking about the president of the most powerful nation on earth, and this president is fervently religious and dedicated to big businesses like Bush is. Let me remind that it was the big Japanese businesses, the zaibatsu like Mitsui, Mistubishi or Sumitomo, that financed the military in the 1930's and WWII. Now the same situation happens in the US, with big businesses financing a pro-military rightist government. Too similar with what Japan experienced to be ignored !

Just as you may be scared that a President with military experience would be more apt to go to war...I believe that he may be more likely to pursue peace! (the idea being that he realizes what happens in war!) Bush being the exception (note: I do not consider the Natl. Guard = serving in the military...unless you have operational experience!) Bush was in the guard and never earned operational experience. He merely used this service as many politicians do...as a stepping stone into politics! A Commander in Chief who has served in a war, or a conflict, would (in my opinion) be less likely to commit troops into combat unless it were absolutely necessary.

With that said: that doesn't mean that I think Kerry would be a better leader. How can he lead after he has done nothing but berate the war in Iraq and make the servicemembers feel as if what they are doing is unjust?

Please note...these are just my opinions!

 

[Satori]

Also, this is kind of interesting ...

Separation of Church and State:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_am.htm

:souka:

 

[Duo]

I see the influence of religion in this current administration totally unaceptable and utterly insane. In the documentary The World According to Bush, it shows how Bush really beleives that he has been given a Divine mission, how they do group reading in the White house with the old and new testament, and how also they even pray in the oval office.

Even worse, the chief of the US intelligence, General Boykin, is a christian preaching in uniform. In the documentary there is a clip of him showing a picture of a US spy plane over Mogadishu in the day that the black hawks went down ad saying that this picture wasn't a fake and that it was in fact the demon himself. Going further, and I qoute "its not the enemy u can see, but the one within the spiritual realm"'

And if it is not the evangelical christians, then it's the conservative Jews such as Wolfowitz.

Am I the only one who is starttled by this

:? :? :?

 

[Maciamo]

Actually, that's not quite true.
The History and Constitutionality of National Mottos:

So, the "In God We Trust" motto has only appeared in 1861, only been approved in 1886 and didn't appear on coins before 1908. And religious references increased in the 1950's ? That is very revealing of the change of values of the United States from the times of the late 18th century Enlightment to the modern religious state that it is.

Am I the only one who is starttled by this ?

Oh no, I totally consent. Thanks for the link "the world according to Bush". Great video !

 

[Lina Inverse]

It sucks.

Straight and to the point!
The influence of religion in the US is already way beyond insane! kashii:
The militarism is also very bad, but not as bad as the religious fanaticism.

 

[Duo]

Oh no, I totally consent. Thanks for the link "the world according to Bush". Great video !

Anytime, I wish everyone would get a chance to see this, I saw it on France 2, seeing as it is a French production, however, if any of you would like to get this via downloading, pm me, and I will tell you where you can get it; I'm not 2 sure about the procedures of this sort of thing in the forum, so I won't post how to download this here. :relief:

:wave:

 

[Brooker]

I think the president should act more like a diplomat than a general, but the Republicans don't seem to think so.

CC1 wrote....

With that said: that doesn't mean that I think Kerry would be a better leader. How can he lead after he has done nothing but berate the war in Iraq and make the servicemembers feel as if what they are doing is unjust?

But IF the war IS unjust, then what Kerry is saying is true. Putting spin on the war and saying that everything is going just fine doesn't help anything. Bush is acting like a coach for a team that's down by 20 points in the 4th quarter ("Come on guys, we can still fight the good fight and beat these guys.") but we don't need a coach, we need someone who's going to be realistic about the situation and deal with it accordingly. That's the kind of leadership that people will follow.

 

[Satori]

As for the military experience of presidents, I know it sounds obvious and even necessary to many Americans as the presidents is also commander in chief, but in many European countries it is strictly prohibited for any politicians to be part of the military, so as to avoid militarism at the government like in Japan from Meiji to WWII. It also seems to me that having officers or former officers ruling the country sets the mood for harsher policies, especially regarding foreign policies and war. No wonder that the US government is seen worldwide as a "police" of the world.

I never really thought about this particular issue, but your arguments against presidents with a military background make perfect sense to me. I had no idea that European countries prohibited that sort of thing, but again, it makes perfect sense.

As to the issue of church and state, I am against it and always have been. What's interesting to me is the fact that so many fundamentalist Christians are against the merger of church and state, believing that the state will prevent them from their religious freedoms. Yet so many of those same Christians are for government-sponsored church schools, the prevention of gay marriages, keeping the word "God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our money, etc. As long as it's their religion and their beliefs that are supported, they are fine with the merger of church and state. But if anyone advocates the rights of other religions, atheists, gays, etc., they have a fit and claim there is too much government involvement as it is.

In the words of Justice Blackmun:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

We currently have a democracy that's more of a theocracy. When church and state merge, it affects gay marriage, class race, etc.

Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering. --Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)

"Every nation and every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." --George W. Bush

Here are some very interesting sites I found recently:

Introduction to Church and State:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

And here's an interesting video from the Free Speech.org site:

Church and State:

http://sourcecode.freespeech.org/flash_content/flash_content.html

And this is the home page for Free Speech.org:

Free Speech Radio:

http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/genx.php?name=home