Crusade against Nationalism

Commentators have suggested that we are observing a return to the Crusades of the Middle Ages, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Do they mean that we have returned to a period of religious warfare between the forces of Christianity and the forces of Islam, or do they mean a period of warfare in the name of religion? If they simply mean warfare in the name of religion, I can agree with them, but if they imagine that any of the present conflicts in the world are genuine expressions of either Faith, then I am at odds with that view, since the conduct of the combatants is not consistent with the tenets of either religion.

If the fundamental purpose of religion is to unite mankind, then it provides no justification for dividing it into warring factions. It is true that Islam makes provision for war, but only for the purpose of protecting the Faith of Islam itself, which was a dire issue in the days of the Prophet but not today. The greatest threat to Islam today would seem to come from its own professed believers, not any particular political or ethnic group. Indeed throughout the world there is a growing respect for the principle of freedom of religion, so that everyone should be free to practice their Faith according to their own conscience and without hindrance or persecution. Despite the links drawn between terrorist activities and fundamentalist religious movements, the leaders of both religions are at pains to recognise terrorism as an aberation which has no relationship to the true Faith it purports to uphold. In such an environment of growing tolerance there is no rational basis for Jihad, any more than there is a rational basis for refusing to recognize the significant common ground between Islam and Christianity.

The turmoil which the world is presently experiencing will come to be seen as not so much a religious crusade as the death throes of Nationalism, giving way as it must to globalism. That the politicians busy with the present conflict have failed to recognize this is obvious from the absurd excuses they make for their present course of military action well outside their sovereign boarders, well outside the most generous interpretation of their national interests and without a clear mandate from the United Nations. On the one hand they use the argument of national sovereignty to justify the harsh treatment of asylum seekers, while on the other they show complete disregard for the sovereignty of another nation, on the grounds of corrupt government.

It can be rationalised however, if one views the world as a single federation and the United States as the self appointed Federal Police. But what sort of democracy would that illustrate besides one from which ninety five percent of the world is disenfranchised? Is this the sort of democracy we would like to see introduced to Iraq?