Michel Kwarteng
Ethics & Development in a Global Economy
Final Paper
Due: March 14, 2003
Put Down Your Weapons and Take up Your
Picket Signs:
Politics Meet Religion
Much of the history we are taught in grade school and secondary
education is filled with stories upon stories of political movements and
uprising. The vast majority of these movements had one or two political leaders
at the forefront whose ultimate goals included such things as liberating an
oppressed people or reclaiming a status taken from a group of people by an
outside force. Leaders of such movements have used a wide range of tactics to
gain support for their political agendas, but one particular tactic has been so
often used by said leaders that this tactic certainly deserves a closer
examination. This tactic is religion. No matter what the nature of the movement
may have been, so often we have seen and continue to see today how political
leaders have made claims that God is supporting their cause. From the Crusades
to the recent activities of Al Qaeda, the need for God’s support has been shown
to be very important to establishing the legitimacy of a political agenda. What
happens when the political agenda fails to faithfully correspond with the
religion it claims as its backing? Is there a relationship between the
effectiveness of a political agenda and the faithfulness with which it adheres
to the tenets of the religion it claims as its support? Indeed there is such a
relationship, and upon closer examination, we will not only see that political
agendas that faithfully adhere to the tenets of a proposed religious
affiliation tend to be successful, but we will also see why this is the case.
We will then consider how this knowledge can be used today to address current
instances of oppressive regimes. First, however, let us examine why it is at
all desirable for a political leader to use religion as a means of gaining
support.
Religion is one of the oldest institutions know to mankind. For
centuries, religion has been a means of uniting a wide array of people under a
common belief system. According to Scott McClennen, Dean of Religious Life at
Stanford University, religion gives people a sense of identity. Undoubtedly,
religion has in some way influenced the lives of us all, whether or not we are
a part of a religious group ourselves. The United States has as its motto “In
God We Trust.” Numerous schools and universities were founded by religious
groups. It is often said that the majority of wars that have taken place have
involved some level of religious conflict. For most religions, particularly the
three major religions of the world – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam –
adhering to the components of the religion requires a level of faith. Perhaps
it is this faith that makes religion so important in the lives of its
followers. Most often, an individual’s religion sets the standard for his or
her moral values. As a direct result of this, the more prevalent religions of a
particular society tend to set the moral standards of that society as a whole.
This notion of the value of religion to an individual provides great
insight into the implications of a political leader’s use of religion to
legitimize his political agenda. In order for a political leader to be
successful, he will need a support group. What better way to gain support than
by identifying with the very religion with which the majority of the target
group identifies? Identifying with a particular religion and claiming God’s
support allows people to characterize the morals of a leader and his agenda.
When the morals of an individual seem to be in line with one’s own morals,
people tend to be much more inclined to support him as a leader.
Let us now examine four case studies in which individuals with a
political agenda have appealed to religion or merely to the notion that God was
behind them. The cases will include the Ku Klux Klan, Adolf Hitler, Gandhi, and
Martin Luther King, Jr. In looking at these cases, we will compare the
political agenda to the proposed religious affiliation in order to see how
closely the agenda coincided with the actual religion. Furthermore, we will
look for trends in the effectiveness of the political agenda itself.
The Ku Klux Klan has its roots in the post Civil War South. Founded in
Tennessee by a group of former Confederate soldiers during the Reconstruction
era, the original Klan aimed to uphold white supremacy and to intimidate
African-Americans and carpetbaggers. Activity of the Klan declined toward the
end of the 19th century, but
the organization revived itself in 1915 in Georgia. This new Klan was
much more ambitious than its forerunner, pitting itself against
non-Protestants, Catholics, Jews, liberals, trade unionists, and
African-Americans (KKK found prominence).
Lynching and cross burning were the most well-known trademarks or the Ku Klux
Klan. A more recent derivation of the Klan is the Church of the American
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Founded in 1995 by Jeff Berry of Indiana, this
organization patterns itself very closely after the Klan of the early twentieth
century (Anti-defamation League). In
the spirit of the Klan, the Church of the American Knights makes its philosophy
quite clear with the following statement: “We hate Jews, we hate niggers…I’m a
Yankee and I have never heard the work thank you in the nigger vocabulary…We
don’t like you niggers…Tell me one thing you race has accomplished.”
Ku Klux Klan members established themselves as Christian
fundamentalists. They believed the white race was the supreme of all creations,
and thus that Protestant whites were God’s chosen people. Members of the Klan
would have agreed wholeheartedly with the statement in the platform of the
American Knights that any coalition of socialists, feminists, homosexuals,
Jews, or militant Blacks is unholy. Indeed, while the intimidation tactics the
Klan used against non-white non-Protestants certainly adhered to the Klan’s
interpretation of Christian fundamentalism, the sentiments of hatred and
intolerance promoted by the organization did not adhere to the basic Christian
tenets of loving one’s neighbors. Furthermore, lynching and cross burning fell
far short of the Christian tenet of not killing and showing kindness to one’s
fellow man. The tactics and political agenda of the Ku Klux Klan, therefore,
did not coincide very well with its proposed religious affiliation, for many of
the most common means the organization used to achieve its agenda were in
direct contradiction to basic components of Christianity.
Let us know turn to our second case study, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi
regime. Adolf Hitler rose to a position of power in Germany during a period in
which German people had seen much political and economic instability. Unemployment was up, and agricultural
productivity was declining. The people were restless and searching for ways to
improve their situation. On January 30, 1933, the President of Germany
appointed Adolf Hitler to form a new Cabinet. Hitler’s appointment marked the
beginning of a revolution in Germany. A charismatic leader, Hitler proposed a
revolution that would place the German people back at their rightful status as
leaders of their society through the purification of the German race. This revolution was not solely political and
economic; it was social. The National Socialist Revolution, as it was called,
was a revolution of empowerment. The philosophy behind the Hitler’s regime was
similar to that of the Ku Klux Klan in regards to the notions of purifying the
race in order to restore a group of people to their rightful status. The
National Socialist Revolution was slightly different, however, in that it did
blatantly preach intolerance of various groups of people. Rather, upon
examining a translation of Hitler’s speech given in 1937, we see that the philosophy
put forth by Hitler could be better described as one of self-perpetuation
rather than one promoting the degradation of other groups (On Nationalism and World Relations). At the same time, however, the
philosophy proposed by Hitler was one that was completely intolerant of any
group that attempted to impede the progress of the National Socialist
Revolution. Jews were considered one such group of people.
Interestingly, contemporaries of the Nazi regime under Hitler’s
leadership accused the movements of being godless. Hitler and active participants of the movement, however, strongly
disagreed. While the Nazis didn’t exactly align themselves with any established
religion, they did, in essence, establish their own religion. This religion was
based upon the idea that there the greatest mistake man can make is to fail to
recognize the “…Importance of conserving the blood and race free from
intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God’s gift
and God’s handiwork” (On Nationalism and
World Relations). Thus, while we cannot compare the philosophy behind
Hitler’s political agenda to any set religion, we do see his appeal to having
the support of God for his agenda. This appeal to having God’s support,
however, does allow us to draw a few meaningful conclusions. Descriptions of
God according to most religions do not include Him as a being that supports
murder. With this in mind, let us consider the tactics with which Hitler
proposed the German people purify the race. The most well-noted measures used
were concentration camps and work camps for Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, and any
other sect of people thought to pose a threat to the process of purifying the
German race. We can therefore say with a great deal of confidence that the
tactics used to carry out the Nazi revolution did not coincide with acts that
would be considered godly.
Were the Nazis successful? In short, no. Their ultimate goal was to
purify the German race and to establish themselves as an empowered nation that
would be a world leader. By the end of World War II, it was clear that this
goal would not be realized. Germany was defeated in the war, concentration
camps were freed, and eventually, Nazi leaders were accused of crimes against
humanity in the Nuremberg Trials. Germany was in a far worse political and
economic state after the second world war than it had been prior to the Nazi
regime.
Our third case study is on Gandhi, the man who is credited with leading
the Indian revolt against the British empire. Gandhi adhered to very clear-cut
principles in his efforts to liberate the Indian masses from British rule.
Gandhi believed that the only true means of accomplishing this goal was through
self-sacrifice and civil disobedience, the latter of the two being an important
weapon for the masses (Gandhian
Philosophy in Short). Non-violence
was also a critical element to Ghandhi’s philosophy. Mahatma, or Great Soul as
he was called, chose to attack the British empire by gaining support for the
resistance of the salt tax, a tax that was paid mostly by those who stood to
benefit the least from the revenue it generated. Gandhi used the salt tax to
signify a tax on the necessities of life, and he used revolting against this
tax to be revolt against an unjust regime. Throughout Gandhi’s leadership of
resistance against the salt tax, his commitment to non-violence was
ever-present. He is often noted for fasting in order to show the importance this
commitment.
The philosophy behind Gandhi’s political agenda is almost
indistinguishable from his religious affiliations. A devout Hindu, Gandhi
placed his trust, “…Solely in God. (Gandhian
Philosophy in Short).” Self-sacrifice, one of the tenets of the Hindu
religion, was something Gandhi exhibited repeatedly through his fasting.
Gandhi’s non-violent means of revolting against the British regime was yet
another way in which his political agenda coincided with Hindu tenets. Unlike
the political agendas of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi regime under Adolf
Hitler, the political agenda of Gandhi actually did very closely parallel the
religion with which he proposed to be affiliated.
The effectiveness of Gandhi’s political agenda is evident even today.
India is no longer under British rule, and Gandhi had no small role in achieving
this. Resistance to the salt tax led to a salt march which, in turn, led to an
all out revolt against British rule. The Indian people, led by Gandhi in the
name of civil disobedience, simply refused to participate in key aspects of the
economy set up by the British. This refusal not only weakened Britain’s hold on
India, it strengthen the morale of the Indian masses. These people were truly
able to witness the effectual power of the masses on a political system.
Let us now look at our final case study, that of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. Dr. King. is considered to be one
of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. King came to the
forefront of leadership as a result of the arrest of Rosa Parks for not giving
up her seat on a public school bus. He led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, an event
in which all African-Americans in and around Montgomery, Alabama were urged not
to use the public bus system. The hit to the public transportation system
caused by this boycott led to the revoke of the very laws that initially
resulted in Rosa Parks’ arrest. King, however, went on to give speeches and
lead protests demanding that the United States government pass laws that will
allow African-Americans to achieve social and economic equality in every aspect
of American society. King based much of his political philosophies on the
teachings of Gandhi whom he admired dearly. Therefore, King, too, advocated
non-violent civil disobedience in the protests he led. In his “Letter from
Birmingham Jail,” King outlines four steps to a non-violent campaign:
determination of an injustice, negotiation, self-purification, and direct
action (King, Letter from Birmingham Jail). King not only applied these steps
to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, he applied them to his entire political agenda
of gaining equal treatment for African-Americans.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist minister, and thus, his proposed
religious affiliation was with Christianity. Just as in the case with Gandhi,
we see a very close correlation between King’s political agenda and his
religious affiliation. King’s commitment to non-violence was seen in the
workshops he urged protesters to attend in which people were asked if they
would be willing to take blows without retaliation. Such tactics correlate closely
to the tenets of Christianity. King insisted upon blessing those that cursed
him, as he did in his Letter from
Birmingham Jail, and he urged his followers to do the same. Indeed, one
could argue quite effectively that King’s political agenda paralleled his
religious affiliation as closely as the two could be paralleled.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was extremely effective in a very short period
of time. He was a catalyst for the passage of very important laws prohibiting
racially motivated discrimination. The status of African-Americans in this
country was never the same after the 1960’s. Like the people of India,
African-Americans realized that they do have the power to enact a permanent
change in the government of this country and that their contribution to the
economy of America is of great importance.
In considering the four case studies that have been presented, we can now
identify a few trends. Firstly, from the examples we have seen, we find that
individuals whose political agendas tend to coincide fairly closely to the
proposed religious affiliation tend to be successful while individuals whose
political agendas fail to correlate with proposed religious affiliations tend
not to share this trait. The question the arises , “Why this is the case?” One
possible explanation is that at a spiritual level, political agendas that
faithfully coincide with their religious affiliations succeed as a result of
this faithfulness. Another possible explanation is that examples have been selected
such that this trend could be seen and that upon examination of a broader
ranges of cases, this trend would not exist at all. Yet a third possible
explanation is that it is not necessarily the fact that an individual’s
political agenda correlates with a proposed religious affiliation that makes it
successful; rather, it is the nature of the tactics used in political agendas
that tend to closely correlate with religion that makes them successful. This
third explanation is the most plausible, and it is the one we will explore
further.
Let us now review our case studies in terms of the type of tactics used
to accomplish the political agendas themselves. In the first two cases, the cases
of the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime, we see that the tactics of
physical violence and intimidation were used. In the case of the Klan, these
tactics were aimed at groups the Klan felt should be kept subordinate to white
Protestants. Similarly, in the case of the Hitler, these tactics were directed
at any group of people that were thought to pose a threat to the achievement of
a purebred, powerful German people. Neither of these two political endeavors
coincided very well to their proposed religious affiliations, and neither of
these endeavors were particularly successful at achieving its ultimate goal. In
the latter two cases, the cases of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., we see
that the major tactics were non-violence and civil disobedience and that the
two men utilized these tactics in virtually the same manner. Additionally, we
see that the nature of the tactics used by these two individuals were more
focused on economic attacks on the opposition as opposed to physical attacks.
In the case of Gandhi, the refusal to acknowledge the salt tax and the ensuing
events such as work stoppages and the movement towards making one’s own
clothing created a huge disruption in the economic stability of the British
government in India. In a similar manner, the boycotts and protests led by
Martin Luther King, Jr. not only affected the public transportation department
but it also adversely affected business at and near the site of protests.
Truly, the British empire and the American South could not economically afford
to continue its treatment of the Indian people and African-Americans,
respectively.
The role of economics in the tactics of Gandhi and Martin Luther King,
Jr. are critical, for it is this economic component to their political agendas
that allowed them to be so successful. The fact that the political agendas of
these men was closely related to their proposed religious affiliations alone
was not enough to ensure their success. The relationship between the political
agenda and religion did, however, lend itself to the use of a certain form of
political strategy: economic attack. By aligning the political agenda with a
religion, brutal, violent means of achieving the target goal were eliminated.
Instead, the much more effective economic strategy was used. Often, this
strategy is mislabeled as pacifistic and altogether passive. Such a labeling is
grossly inaccurate. By attacking the economic structure of the opposition,
Gandhi and King were able to weaken the very core of the opposition. A nation
cannot function properly without a sound economic structure, and in order for
the economic structure of a nation to be sound, it must have the cooperation of
its people. By mobilizing the oppressed people to engage in civil disobedience,
Gandhi and King were able to interrupt the citizen cooperation necessary for a sound
economic structure. Gandhi and King were not the first individuals to use an
economic rather than a physical means of attack to achieve a successful end. In
the Old Testament of the Bible, we see that the Israelites were unhappy about
being the slaves Egyptians. When Moses asked pharaoh to free the people,
pharaoh bluntly refused. Moses, then, simply led the Israelites out of Egypt.
He led away the entire workforce of the country of Egypt! Surely, this had a
major economic impact on the Egyptian government. Additionally, we see that
Moses was completely successful; the Israelites were never again enslaved by the
Egyptians. We see yet another example of this with Jesus. Before his arrival,
the Pharisees had structured the temple such that it was more of a business
than a house of worship. When Jesus came, he taught that it was not necessary
to make expensive offerings to God in order to spend eternity in heaven.
Rather, he said, all one had to do was to believe. Such teachings were
disastrous to the economic structure the Pharisees had created for the temple,
but these teachings very effectively accomplished Jesus’ goal of teaching
people to follow God by faith and not by works. Indeed, the effectiveness and
long-lasting impact of an economic rather than a physical attack is definitely
not something that should ever be overlooked.
Let us now turn our attention to more recent events and consider if the
use of economic rather than physical means is something that can be applied
today. Currently, the people of Iraq are in a difficult situation. They are
living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and the conditions are far
from optimal. In fact, the conditions of the Iraqi people do not seem to be too
different from the Indians under the British regime, the Israelites under
Egyptian rule, the Germans after World War I, or African-Americans during the
pre-Civil Rights era. Given the situation in Iraq, therefore, we should surely
make every attempt to aid the Iraqi people. However, in regards to achieving
the political goal of liberating the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime, we
have the option of going to war or searching for another means by which to
accomplish the task. In examining the history of similar situations, we have
seen that physical tactics used to accomplish such goals tend to be
unsuccessful. Economic tactics, on the other hand, tend to be very successful.
Thus, I propose that not only should we refrain from going to war with Iraq, we
should set our sights on upsetting the economic stability of Hussein’s
government. With economic instability, as we have seen, a nation cannot stand.
Therefore, if we can mobilize the Iraqi people with the knowledge that the
economic well-being of their nation is contingent upon their cooperation, they could
use this as leverage to demand a permanently better government system. War will
never be an effective means of achieving a peaceful end.
Works Cited
Brie, Francoise. “Iraqi women speak out about life under Saddam’s regime.” International
Alliance for Justice. Retrieved 12 Mar. 2003 <http://www.wadinet.de/news/iraq/nw1222_
iraqiwomen.htm>.
Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus. New York: Random House, Inc., 2000.
“Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.” 22 Oct. 1999. Anti-Defamation League.
Retrieved 4 Mar. 2003 <http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/american_knights_kkk.asp>.
“Executive Summary: Saddaam Hussein’s Iraq.” Sept. 1999. US Department of State. Retrieved
12 Mar. 2003 <http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm>.
“Gandhian Philosophy in Short.” Gandhian Institute Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal. Retrieved 4
Mar. 2003 <http://www.mkgandhi.org/philosophy/gandhiphil.htm>.
Gelfand, James. “Liberate the oppressed people of Iraq.” 7 Mar. 2002. Northwestern Chronicle.
Retrieved 12 Mar. 2003 <http://www.chron.org/tools/viewarticle.php?artid=332>.
Haraldson-Bering, Lynn. “In 1920s, KKK found prominence: Pennsylvania continues to lead
country in number of hate groups.” Lynn Haraldson-Bering homepage. Retrieved 3 Mar.
2003 <http://www.haraldson-bering.com/kkk.htm>.
Hitler, Adolf. “On National Socialism and World Relation.” Translation of a speech delivered in German Reichstag 30 Jan. 1937. German Propaganda Archive. Retrieved 12 Mar. 2003
<http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm>.
King Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Retrieved 4 Mar. 2003
<http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html>.
Larson, Viola. “Identity: A Christian Religion for White Racists.” 1992. Christian Research
Journal. Retrieved 4 Mar. 2003 <http//www.equiporg/free/DI100.htm>.
Ley, Robert. “The Jew or Us…” Translation of a speech delivered 31 Mar. 1939. German
Propaganda Archive. Retrieved 12 Mar. 2003 <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/
gpa/ley3.htm>.
“Mahatma Gandhi - Indian Spiritual/Political Leader and Humanitarian.” 2 Feb. 2003.
LucidCafe. Retrieved 4 Mar. 2003 <http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95oct/
Mkgandhi.html.>
“Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil - Rights Leader.” 2 Feb. 2003. LucidCafe. Retrieved 4 Mar.
2003 <http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jan/king.html>.
McClennen, Scott. Lecture. The role of religion in current politics. Fall 2003. Ethics and
Development in a Global Economy. Stanford University.
“Statement of United Church of Christ leaders opposing U.S. war against Iraq.” United Church
of Christ website. Retrieved 4 Mar. 2003 <http://www.ucc.org/cgi-bin/advprint/print.cgi>.
“Toppling Saddam Hussein: Troubling, Unanswered Questions.” Mar. 2002. Friends Committee
on National Legislation. Retrieved 12 Mar. 2003 <http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_
hussein.htm>.