Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Some Anniversary

100 years ago today, the War to End All Wars began. Hmmmm ….seems that didn't work out too well.

I thought it was July 28, 1914, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, exactly one month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

And had she lived, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon) would be 114 tomorrow.

As I understand it, the term "War to end all wars" came about in reference to the British declaration of war on Germany......August 4th, 1914.

Tomato, tomahto.

No help here.

Well, maybe some....it says Wells argued that only the defeat of German militarism could bring about an end to war and used the shorter form, "the war to end war". August 4th is when Britain declared war on Germany.

However, historical exactness aside, I only wanted to underline the irony of the phrase.

> I only wanted to underline the irony of the phrase.

And you made your point!

One of my partners and I are currently reading the book Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, which takes a look at the long thread in American history of seeing the United States as the Redeemer Nation, ordained by God to bring peace to the world by the power of the sword...a view of American destiny that extends back at least to the 1600s.

The early Americans strongly believed the French and Indian War would be the war that established American dominance over the world once and for all, allowing us to create a world at peace. Later, the Spanish-American War was cast, particularly by Protestant pastors, as the war that would usher in the long era of permanent peace.

That didn't work so well, as it led directly to the Philippine–American War, which was framed by many prominent American political and religious leaders as a war that was necessary to bring peace to the barbaric parts of the world.

Generally speaking, this "zealous nationalism" in US history and culture has long been part of the American civil religion. Nearly every major war we've ever been involved in has been advertised as The War That Will Bring Peace, and we're perpetually surprised and disillusioned when things don't work out that way.

Well, then, it was the 100th anniversary of the platitude to end all platitudes.

Sounds like an interesting read. Without the benefit of having read the book I wonder, though, if this isn't so much an American trait as it is the inclination of whoever is the "big kid on the block" at any point in history. Off the top of my head I think about The Crusades or the Roman Empire.

I'll say.

Or, to cannibalize ~ borrow a phrase from the days of the Iraq war(s), the Mother of all Platitudes.

There have been other nations with the same redeemer complex, to be sure (the Roman Empire's Pax Romana is a good example), but the book argues--convincingly, I think--that the American zealous nationalism is far more religious in tone than what we see in past superpowers, with the exception of the ancient Israelites.

If you look at speeches from the leaders of previous world powers, from the British Empire to the Romans, you don't see the kind of appeals to God you do in past and contemporary American politics. We seem to approach our world policies from an almost uniquely religious frame, appealing often to our God-given destiny to be the world's salvation. Even when we're pursuing decidedly secular aims, like installing friendly governments in oil-rich countries, the framing is very often religious.

There's a weird side effect of that kind of mindset--we have this idea that because our mission is Godly, the only way we can lose is if God turns away from us. So when the 9/11 attacks happened, American religious and political leaders were quick to say the attacks succeeded because God was displeased with us, and call for "purification" by turning against gays, lesbians, atheists, people who wanted abortions, and anyone else perceived as insufficiently Christian (and specifically, conservative Protestant Christian). The framing of foreign policy in terms of religious mission carries with it the tendency to want to blame internal, un-Godly people for any perceived failure or setback, and to respond to failure abroad with religious persecution of the ungodly at home.

This reminds me of a joke that circulated in the early 00's. I think I have the major characters and version numbers correct. Here goes:

God is completely distraught with mankind's behavior and decides s/he will destroy human life on earth. S/he goes to the major leaders of the world—Bush, Putin and Bill Gates—and announces this intention . The leaders then appear before their respective constituencies and make the following statements.

Putin: "I have bad news and bad news. The bad news is there is a god. The other bad news is he's pissed and will kill all of us."

Bush: "I have good news and bad news. The good news is there is a god. The bad new is he's pissed and will kill all of us."

Gates: "I have good news and good news. The good news is there is a god. And the other good news is I don't have to fix Windows 7."

And therein is the hypocrisy.

I am certainly not an expert in theology but it seems to me that these political leaders and their followers are not themselves adhering to Christian doctrine.

Setting aside the argument about whether or not Jesus Christ was the son of God, the fact is that there was such a man who taught core values about the way we should treat one another, none of which included turning against others for any reason.

To put it another way, Christianity is a wonderful religion. It's too bad that it's never been tried...

I can't agree with that. No matter what the leaders, political or otherwise, might want or direct, there are a lot of people who simply go about living their lives according to their beliefs. It's likely that many would be among those that Tacit mentioned to as having been persecuted at home.

It is, unfortunately, a lot more complicated than that.

If you read the Bible from start to finish, you'll find two different, incompatible, and competing themes throughout: the theme of the avenging God, using the chosen people as a sword to redeem the earth through bloodshed and violence, and the theme of the forgiving God, bringing a message of love, peace,and charity.

These aren't just confined to Old Testament vs. New Testament. The theme of the avenging God is the primary idea in the book of Revelation, for example. The book of Matthew has Jesus saying "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The American civil religion has both these mutually antagonistic threads woven deep in it. The folks who say the God of the Bible is kind and loving are correct--but the folks who say the God of the Bible calls for holy war against all who oppose the righteous are also correct.



One of my girlfriends is Quaker; she certainly lives her life by her beliefs, without engaging in the sort of chicanery that gives religion a bad name.

But there's a gotcha: the American civil religion isn't necessarily about religious leaders or churches. Even folks who don't consider themselves churchgoers and who don't belong to an organized religion can still buy into its ideas. Ideas like

- the United States is an exceptional nation, totally unlike any other that has ever existed, and therefore deserving to be the world's dominant superpower
- The United States is on a mission to bring peace and democracy to the world
- Our use of force against those who oppose us is always justified, because we are the beacons of freedom and liberty in the world
- Our enemies are agents of irredeemable evil
- If we fail abroad, it is because we have not dedicated ourselves passionately enough to the cause of right
- Institutions such as courts and processes such as diplomacy are weak, and sometimes we must circumvent such feeble institutions in order to do good and defeat evil

are all elements of American civil religion, and they're not necessarily connected to a church or a religious organization. These are ideas it's hard not to accept on a subconscious level, even for people who don't explicitly identify as religious. For folks who do, these ideas can be very powerful.