Economist Cover Story

Folks,

The Economist magazine (which calls itself a newspaper for better postage rates) has a cover
story on the New Wars of Religion.

http://tinyurl.com/ypwfgx

Of course, this is about east vs west, etc... Moslem vs Christian... a perennial argument.

Which makes me think... is there a pattern to observe and learn from?

Although these wars are billed as terrorist (bad means) vs the free (good ideals), certainly a
religious foundation is attached to the terrorist side, and certainly by those who use the term
"islamofascits." (Do you suppose Arabic Blogs speak of "evangelofascists?") Bad means vs
good ideals is critical, because if we consider the Moslem ideals, they look pretty much like
ours. If we consider our means, they look pretty much like the terrorists.

I think the real division is between the peace-loving and the war-loving. On both sides, the
vast majority of people are peace loving, and on both sides the leaders are somehow war-
loving. I think I can go further and say the masses better represent their respective religions.
But then they would, wouldn't they?

How we got to our leaders being war-lovers, contrary to the religion of their masses, I'll leave
to others to explain.

The more interesting question is how magazines like the Economist can imply that Osama bin
Laden is a religious leader or George Bush for that matter. Nobody around these people are
religiously qualified as ministers, let alone motivated by such sentiments.

There single largest religious institution, the Catholic Church, has consistently condemned
the USA attacks in the middle east, as do countless smaller denominations. (And plenty of
Islamic religious groups have condemned the terrorism on the other side too). In fact the
Vatican will no longer receive Bush administration officials, refusing to meet with Condi Rice
most recently, but is happy to meet with the Saudi King this week.

The idea that there is some religious basis to these conflicts is absurd. What is plain is both
sides try to put a halo on bombing their way to government takeover. The USA elite wants to
rule the middle east, extend their own govt control over the territory, and the other side
wants to do so as well, except their own govt control. This conflict is bomb-throwers vs.
bomb throwers, in with the goal of political power. What's religion got to do with it?

Anyway, if plainly today religion has nothing to do with these wars, we can say "that is
nonsense!" Likewise, when we read of "wars of religion" in history, are they every bit as
bogus an appellation? At the same time, we can know that people who practice their religion
sincerely are no threat to us.

As a side issue, this "religion thing" is slightly impolite in western culture. We are supposed
to interact as though we have no religious perferences. I think this is wrong. There are
countless entrepreneurial opportunities in religion, to do good while doing well. We just
don't see that anywhere in the USA economy today. Perhaps we should expand our view to
include small business opportunities in religion.

John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post