Human Rights, Freedom and National Security

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Human rights provide and protect freedom.  Since the early 20^th century, U.S. foreign policy has promoted civil and political human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, but in Islamic cultures Islamic law, or shari’a, denies those freedoms with apostasy and blasphemy laws.  That is a problem for Islamic cultures and also for U.S. national security.

                   

            The 18^th century Enlightenment transformed religion and politics in the West with libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law; but in the Islamic East, apostasy and blasphemy laws of shari’a continue to deny the freedoms of religion and speech, and shari’a discriminates against women and non-Muslims.    

             

            That is not unique to Islamic nations.  Blasphemy laws and those denying equal rights for women once existed in America and Europe, but they have long since been eliminated by civil rights protected by constitutions in libertarian democracies and by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  In Islamic cultures, however, the 1990 Cairo Declaration takes exception to the ICCPR by making shari’a the last word on human rights and justice.

            Where shari’a asserts its supremacy over human rights, it produces a tyranny of religious law by allowing authoritarian rulers and Islamist terrorists to use oppressive forms of shari’a to silence their political opposition.  The freedoms of religion and speech would allow Muslims in Islamic nations to challenge the legitimacy of political despots and terrorists, and that would promote U.S. national security interests.    

       

            That pragmatic point has been lost on U.S. presidents since 9/11.  They have supported authoritarian regimes in Islamic nations that deny human rights and freedom, including el Sissi’s military regime in Egypt and Erdogan’s repressive regime in Turkey; and they have turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s export of Islamist fundamentalism (Sunni Wahhabism) that has nurtured both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

            Islamist fundamentalism is a toxic mix of religion and politics that denies human rights and freedom and aids and abets political oppression and terrorism.  When U.S. presidents ignore human rights and allow political expediency to shape U.S. national security policy in Islamic nations they give underserved legitimacy to oppressive rulers and terrorists, and in so doing they undermine the credibility of the U.S. as a sponsor of democracy, human rights and freedom.

            The freedoms protected by human rights are a deterrent to authoritarianism and sectarian violence.  It is only when a free people forfeit those rights that tyrants like Hitler and Mussolini can gain power.  Today the radical right is once again a threat to human rights and freedom in libertarian democracies, but political tyranny cannot coexist with human rights and freedom.

            To promote human rights and freedom in Islamic nations the U.S. should deny security assistance to any nation that denies fundamental human rights, including the enforcement of apostasy and blasphemy laws and discrimination against women and non-Muslims.  President Obama equivocated on human rights issues, and President Trump has ignored them altogether.

            Even without pressure from outside, Muslims in Islamic nations will likely insist on human rights over time.  That is evident in the wide diversity of opinion among Islamic scholars on human rights.  Progressive Muslims now promote interpretations of shari’a that are consistent with libertarian concepts of human rights, freedom and justice; but fundamentalist Muslims continue to resist any change to their ancient religious doctrines and laws.       

            Human rights and freedom are at the intersection of religion and politics.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  Because Americans love their freedom, it should be a moral imperative of their faith and religion to share their human rights and freedom with their Muslim neighbors, and in the process promote U.S. national security interests.

Notes and Related Commentary:

On how geopolitical realignments and the rise of popular nationalism [including the election of Donald Trump] have unleashed a global backlash against human rights, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/07/welcome-to-the-post-human-rights-world/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP&utm_term=Flashpoints.

On how political expediency has been a rationale for ignoring the violation of human rights in Egypt, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/egypt-and-iran-have-the-same-problem--and-the-same-answer/2016/09/22/1b970644-8103-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html?utm_term=.80891d90de94&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1; on Egypt’s coming revolt of the poor, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/31/egypts-coming-revolt-of-the-poor/.

On how the Obama administration rewarded oppression in Bahrain, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-obama-administration-rewards-repression-in-bahrain/2016/10/26/b21c4e58-9ae9-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.2fe25024d195&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.  On how the Trump’s State Department dropped human rights as a condition for fighter jet sale to Bahrain, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-drops-human-rights-as-condition-for-fighter-jet-sale-to-bahrain/2017/03/29/6762d422-1abf-406e-aaff-fbc5a6a2e0ac_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

   

On Erdogan’s repression of fundamental freedoms in Turkey, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cult-of-personality-dashes-turkeys-democratic-dreams/2016/10/31/5451c1f6-9f9c-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?utm_term=.88689f2b6613&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1; on Turkey as a dictatorship masquerading as a NATO democracy at  http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/29/the-dictatorship-in-natos-clubhouse-erdogan-kurds-turkey/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=Flashpoints.

On the danger of Wahhabism, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-let-us-rid-the-world-of-wahhabism.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.

On the need for Islam to accept fundamental human rights and equal protection of the law for all, see http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/726912/Muslim-Charlie-Hebdo-journalist-Zineb-El-Rhazoui-Islam-no-religion-peace.

On President Obama’s hypocrisy in ignoring human rights in foreign policy, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-criticizes-past-presidents-foreign-policies-but-how-different-is-his/2016/09/14/5f0afcfa-7a96-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d3a9ac0267d&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On President Obama’s acknowledgement that ISIS is a “twisted ideology” that cannot be defeated on the battleground, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-islamic-state-will-inevitably-be-defeated-but-networks-will-persist/2016/08/04/18198978-5a5d-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the conflict between the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1990 Cairo Declaration that makes shari’a the last word on human rights and justice in Islamic cultures, see Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, at page 7, notes 22 and 23, posted in Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html.

On religion, liberty and justice at home and abroad, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-liberty-and-justice-at-home.html.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On religion, human rights and national security, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/religion-human-rights-and-national.html.

On oppresso de liber: Where religion and military power intersect, see  http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/de-oppresso-liber-where-religion-and.html.

 

On the relevance of religion to politics, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/the-relevance-of-religion-to-politics.html.

On the causes of religious violence and how to combat them, see  http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/the-causes-of-religious-violence-and.html.

On religious violence and the dilemma of freedom and democracy, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/religious-violence-and-dilemma-of.html.

On the freedoms of religion and speech as essentials of liberty and law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/08/the-freedoms-of-religion-and-speech.html.

On liberty in law: a matter of man’s law, not God’s law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/liberty-in-law-matter-of-mans-law-not.html.

On the evolution of religion and politics from oppression to freedom, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-evolution-of-religion-and-politics.html.

On the differing perspectives of Islamic scholars on concepts of justice, see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights, at pages 10-17, posted in Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html.

National Security and Military Legitimacy: When Might Must Be Right

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Military power is the hard power that complements the softer powers of foreign policy to promote and protect U.S. national security interests.  When the legitimacy of U.S. military power depends on public support in the area of operations—as it does in the Islamic nations of the Middle East—large numbers of U.S. combat forces can make that public support elusive.  

            Standards of legitimacy in Islamic nations differ from those in the U.S.  For example, the freedoms of religion and speech are precluded by apostasy and blasphemy laws, and women and non-Muslims are denied equal protection of the law; and since non-Muslims are considered infidels in Islamic nations, a large U.S. military presence can undermine the public support and legitimacy needed to achieve strategic political objectives.

Following the brief combat phase of military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, military operations evolved into counterinsurgency operations (COIN), in which U.S. political objectives became paramount.  Those objectives have depended more on public perceptions of legitimacy than on military might, and that has necessitated a drawdown of U.S. combat forces.

           

            Unlike COIN, counterterrorist operations (CT) involve military strikes or raids against terrorists.  They are brief in duration and conducted by small contingents of special operations forces or drones; but like COIN, excessive force in CT can cause collateral damage that can turn an otherwise successful military raid into a political defeat.

            Military might must be right when U.S. national security objectives require public support.  Lethal force must be restrained to avoid the collateral damage that undermines public perceptions of military legitimacy, and military operations must be closely coordinated with other elements of U.S. foreign policy to build the public support needed for mission success.

            The U.S. has the most powerful military forces in the world, but overwhelming military force can never be a substitute for political legitimacy—and it is often lacking in governments in the Middle East and Africa.  To protect vital U.S. national security interests in those regions, diplomat warriors are needed to work closely with indigenous forces and U.S. civilian resources to deny insurgent forces the legitimacy they need to recruit followers and succeed.

            President Trump’s call to “start winning wars again” by spending more for conventional military weaponry and combat operations and cutting the State Department budget for foreign assistance is wrong-headed.  The protection of U.S. national security interests requires a national strategy to identify threats and the military capabilities and operations needed to counter them.

                       

Before President Trump’s first address to Congress, his national security advisor, General H. R. McMaster, reportedly advised him to “describe the battle against The Islamic State and al-Qaeda as a global and generational war that the U.S. should fight in partnership with its Muslim allies.”  Trump ignored McMaster’s advice and asserted an America First national strategy that was more focused on nation destruction than nation building in Islamic cultures.

Radical Islamist terrorism is a major threat to U.S. national security.  To counter that threat the U.S. must provide military aid and security assistance to Islamic nations.  Only Muslims can undermine the legitimacy of radical Islamism.  It is the religious ideal that drives Islamist terrorism.  President Trump’s defense and budget proposals ignore that reality as well as other lessons learned in legitimacy, jeopardizing U.S. national security and military legitimacy.

            

Notes and commentary on related topics:

On Trump’s pledge to ‘start winning wars again’ as “ignorant and delusional—and highly dangerous,” see http://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/trumps-pledge-to-start-winning-wars-again-is-ignorant-and-delusional-and-highly-dangerous/.

On  Trump’s ramped up bombing in Yemen as a signal for a more aggressive use of the military, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/09/trumps-ramped-up-bombing-in-yemen-signals-more-aggressive-use-of-military/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP%203-10&utm_term=Flashpoints.  

On the Trump fallacy that throwing more money at the military will make it stronger, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/throwing-more-money-at-the-military-wont-make-it-stronger/2017/03/02/74716c22-ff99-11e6-8ebe-6e0dbe4f2bca_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On Trump’s budget proposal to increase defense spending at the expense of foreign assistance, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-defense-budget-boost-raises-questions-on-strategy/2017/03/17/740d20c2-0ae9-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html.

On how the battle to define an “America First” foreign policy (and military legitimacy) divides

The Trump White House, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-battle-to-define-an-america-first-foreign-policy-divides-the-trump-white-house/2017/03/18/d436acf2-09b3-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On military legitimacy generally, see Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (Frank Cass, 1996), manuscript posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-VmpMUV9sSU9kaDA/view under Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/.  On the diplomat-warrior, see chapter 5; on lessons learned in legitimacy, see chapter 6. 

On the application of legitimacy to the  special operations training and advisory mission, see Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission in Special Warfare, January/March 2013, posted in Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html (See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-eVRlcWFENHNUVUE/view).

On religion, violence and military legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2014/12/religion-violence-and-military.html.

On religion, human rights and national security, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/05/religion-human-rights-and-national.html.

On a containment strategy to defeat Islamist terrorism, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/11/a-containment-strategy-to-defeat.html.

On a containment strategy and military legitimacy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/08/a-containment-strategy-and-military.html.

On the diplomat-warrior: a military capability for reconciliation and peace, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-diplomat-warrior-military.html.

Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

Religion is the primary source of the moral standards of legitimacy that define what is right.  Ancient Judaism, Christianity and Islam emphasized the moral obligation to provide for the common good, especially caring for the poor and helpless.  The Enlightenment of the 18^th century shifted the focus in politics from providing for the common good to individual rights, and that, coupled with capitalism, created moral ambiguity in both religion and politics.

Moral ambiguity pervades American politics today.  Voters who elected Donald Trump put their individual rights and wants ahead of their responsibility to provide for the common good, and most of those voters were white Christians.  The irony is that Trump’s self-centered narcissism and nativism is the antithesis of the altruistic morality taught by Jesus. 

Most Americans claim to be Christians, but there is great diversity among them on the moral standards they apply to their politics.  That diversity ranges between the altruistic morality of the gospel of Jesus and the self-centered prosperity gospel.  Trump tapped into the prosperity gospel, which accommodates objectivist moral standards that even Ayn Rand could embrace.

The prosperity gospel is the unlikely progeny of a Christian religion that evolved from the altruistic morality in the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, to a gospel of individual salvation and worldly success.  The social and moral norms of American politics and religion were transformed by the “the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” coupled with capitalism and the Puritan work ethic.

The institutional church has fostered moral ambiguity in religion and politics.  The strength of the church, like other social institutions, depends on its popularity; and religious beliefs that emphasize individual salvation and worldly success are more popular that the moral teachings of Jesus that emphasize self-denial and helping the poor and needy.        

The moral teachings of Jesus have never been popular, so that followers of Jesus are not likely to be successful politicians.  Jesus was a Jew who never promoted any religion, not even his own—much less an exclusivist religion like Christianity—and those who try to follow his moral teachings today are not likely to achieve any worldly success that requires popularity.

America’s individualistic values contrast sharply with the more collective values in Europe and Islamic cultures.  European nations emphasize individual freedom, but their socialist political values are less influenced by religion than those in America.  And in most Islamic nations individual rights and freedom are subordinated to Islamic law, or shari’a.

In America, some Christians have used the free exercise of religion to deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law, and concepts of morality that ignore the common good are complicating issues of health care, climate change, national security, human rights and immigration policies.  In Islamic nations apostasy and blasphemy laws deny any freedom of religion or speech, and shari’a denies women and non-Muslims the equal protection of law.          

Christians and Muslims make up well over half the population in a world of increasing religious diversity, and the greatest commandment is a common word of faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.   If people of faith were to affirm its altruistic moral standard and balance individual rights and wants with providing for the common good, they could stem the tide of dysfunction and division caused by moral ambiguity in religion and politics.          

  

Notes and commentary on related topics:

On the moral ambiguity of modern religion, see http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/the-moral-ambiguity-of-modern-religion/article17408997.ece.

On Americans losing trust in their institutions as a result of a shift from collective to individualistic values, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/americans-have-lost-faith-in-institutions-thats-not-because-of-trump-or-fake-news/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On a current trend among conservatives beyond the objectivist, individualistic views of Ayn Rand toward a Dark Enlightenment of nationalism and fascism, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/ayn-rand-is-dead-liberals-are-going-to-miss-her/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On moral ambiguity in health care policies, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/09/the-poor-just-dont-want-health-care-republican-congressman-faces-backlash-over-comments/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On moral ambiguity in climate change, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/09/on-climate-change-scott-pruitt-contradicts-the-epas-own-website/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1; on how a lawsuit might influence climate change policies, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/09/this-climate-lawsuit-could-change-everything-no-wonder-the-trump-administration-doesnt-want-it-going-to-trial/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

 

On moral ambiguity in national security and the use of military force, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/09/trumps-ramped-up-bombing-in-yemen-signals-more-aggressive-use-of-military/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP%203-10&utm_term=Flashpoints.  See also  

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/trumps-pledge-to-start-winning-wars-again-is-ignorant-and-delusional-and-highly-dangerous/.

On moral ambiguity in promoting human rights, see       http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/07/welcome-to-the-post-human-rights-world/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP&utm_term=Flashpoints.

On the immorality of Trump’s travel ban, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-half-baked-travel-ban-is-a-picture-of-american-shame/2017/01/30/1a0cd234-e6f4-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On faith and freedom, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2014/12/faith-and-freedom.html.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/love-over-law-principle-at-heart-of.html.

On religion as good or evil, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/02/is-religion-good-or-evil.html.

On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.

On a fundamental problem with religion, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/05/a-fundamental-problem-with-religion.html.

On the future of religion: In decline or growing?, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/06/the-future-of-religion-in-decline-and.html.

On freedom and fundamentalism, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/freedom-and-fundamentalism.html

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.

On legitimacy as a context and paradigm to resolve religious conflict, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/legitimacy-as-context-and-paradigm-to.html.

  

On what is truth, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/what-is-truth.html.

On politics and religious polarization, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/09/politics-and-religious-polarization.html.

On who is my neighbor? see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/01/who-is-my-neighbor.html.

On the politics of loving our neighbors as ourselves, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/01/the-politics-of-loving-our-neighbors-as.html.

On the relevance of religion to politics, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/04/the-relevance-of-religion-to-politics.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/05/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

On health care: a right or privilege? see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/health-care-right-or-privilege.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On discipleship in a democracy: a test of faith, legitimacy and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/12/discipleship-in-democracy-test-of-faith.html.

On saving America from the church, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/01/saving-america-from-church.html.

On the need for a revolution in religion and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/02/the-need-for-revolution-in-religion-and.html.

Accountability and the Stewardship of Democracy

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

The quality of government in a democracy depends upon the accountability of elected officials to voters, and also the accountability of voters to God’s will—which is that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  That is the moral imperative of the greatest commandment, which is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The accountability of voters to God’s will is a matter of stewardship, and stewardship in a democracy requires that the resources of government are used to make a better world for everyone.  Americans have been given much, so that much is expected from them.  That is the message of the parable of the talents at Matthew 25:14-30 (see commentary in Notes below). 

America is more divided and polarized by politics today than since the Civil War.  That is not so much the fault of Donald Trump as it is of those voters who gave Trump the power of the presidency.  To be good stewards of democracy voters must support candidates who promote a politics of reconciliation based on the shared values of the greatest commandment.  

Accountability and stewardship in democracy are based on a voter’s standards of legitimacy, and those standards are shaped by religion.  Most Americans claim to be Christians, but in their politics they have ignored the moral imperative of their faith to love others as they love themselves.  To be accountable as good stewards of democracy, Americans must elect leaders who balance individual rights and wants with providing for the common good.

             

Nicholas Kristof has asserted that those who voted for Trump out of frustration with their unfortunate circumstances should not be considered “bigoted, unthinking lizard brains” by their neighbors.  I beg to disagree.  Anyone who voted for a “…demagogue who vilifies and scapegoats refugees, Muslims, undocumented immigrants, racial minorities [and] who strikes me [in Kristof’s words] as a danger to national security” is either a bigot or is inexcusably ignorant.

Those voters who supported Donald Trump should be held accountable for acts that threaten to unravel the fabric of American democracy.  They cannot claim ignorance of his corrupt character or the importance of the office he sought.  His notorious business dealings, his reality TV show and his rude, crude and divisive campaign rhetoric clearly revealed a man unsuited to be our nation’s leader—unless you happen to be a Wall Street billionaire.

It is especially ironic that most Trump supporters were white Christians who voted for a man who is the antithesis of Christian morality.  The church bears some accountability for this political fiasco, both in the religion it promotes and the politics it often ignores.  The prosperity gospel of Trump supporters is idolatrous.  It promotes belief in a plastic Jesus devoid of altruistic moral standards and a false god that rewards such belief with worldly success.

Idolatry is the worship of a false god, and any religion that promotes a corrupt populist demagogue like Donald Trump is idolatrous.  Given the corrupt nature of politics with its competition for popularity, money and power, voters cannot expect Christ-like candidates; but the stewardship of democracy requires that they reject populist demagogues like Donald Trump.

The privileges of freedom and democracy depend on voters exercising their responsibility to be good stewards of their democracy and being accountable to God’s will to love their neighbors as they love themselves.  The election of Donald Trump was a failure of stewardship and accountability.  It portends the demise of freedom and democracy unless voters can become accountable to God as better stewards of democracy in both their religion and politics. 

Notes and commentary on related topics:

On Nicholas Kristof’s view that Trump voters are not the enemy, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/even-if-trump-is-the-enemy-his-voters-arent.html.

For commentary on the parable of the talents at Matthew 25:14-30 as a matter of Christian stewardship, see pp 192-195 of The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, a primary resource at  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/ that is posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view.

On Matthew Fox describing how idolatry affects us today, especially in our politics, see https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=mm#inbox/15ab286074673e6b.

On faith and freedom, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2014/12/faith-and-freedom.html.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/love-over-law-principle-at-heart-of.html.

On religion as good or evil, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/02/is-religion-good-or-evil.html.

On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.

On a fundamental problem with religion, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/05/a-fundamental-problem-with-religion.html.

On the future of religion: In decline or growing?, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/06/the-future-of-religion-in-decline-and.html.

On freedom and fundamentalism, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/freedom-and-fundamentalism.html.

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.

On legitimacy as a context and paradigm to resolve religious conflict, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/legitimacy-as-context-and-paradigm-to.html.

  

On politics and religious polarization, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/09/politics-and-religious-polarization.html.

On who is my neighbor? see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/01/who-is-my-neighbor.html.

On the politics of loving our neighbors as ourselves, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/01/the-politics-of-loving-our-neighbors-as.html.

On the relevance of religion to politics, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/04/the-relevance-of-religion-to-politics.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On discipleship in a democracy: a test of faith, legitimacy and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/12/discipleship-in-democracy-test-of-faith.html.

On saving America from the church, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/01/saving-america-from-church.html.

On the need for a revolution in religion and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/02/the-need-for-revolution-in-religion-and.html.