Colin:  Welcome to the… (frantically COLIN looks around, and conveniently finds the time. Also DANIEL is preparing by putting on make-up) [time] News. Sponsored by News @ 7, they think they’re better than us, but have to be mentioned on our show to get viewers. Who’s laughing now?  Bwahahaha…

Bryan:  That would be you, sir.

Colin:  (ignores) Now over to our live correspondent Diane Summers, which is on the scene of the currently unfolding war between the French and the Huguenots.

Bryan: Hey, are you guys talking about St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre where the Catholics attacked all the Huguenots in Paris?

Colin:  Way to go intern. Way…. To…. Go…. What did I tell you about interrupting me?

Bryan: That if I ever did it again I’d get no Kibbles & Bits for one month. Sorry sir. (Goes off stage)

Daniel:  Diane… Diane? (DANIEL gets on the speaker) Diane… Diane? Walk into the camera… man, this person must not be very intelligent.

Colin:  Diane! What the heck are you doing!?

Daniel:  Wait, wait…! I’m getting something. What, someone wants me to walk into the came-… (Awkward silence) Oooooooooh. Well Jeff, I’ll be right back.

Colin:  My name’s not Jeff!

Daniel:  I know, I was talking to that guy over there. (COLIN looks. DANIEL runs and trips, then continues. COLIN goes on to describe the picture)

Daniel:  Hello, hello? Can you see me? Am I on camera?

Colin:  Yes, we can see you Diane. Can you please describe the scene that’s unraveling behind you?

(BRYAN, AIDAN, BLAKE enter away from DANIEL arguing among themselves)

Daniel:  Well there is… (he adlibs and describes pointless things in the scene)

Colin:  Not what I meant Diane…

Daniel:  Wait, they’re coming over here.

Aidan:  (speaking louder to BLAKE and BRYAN) No, you’re wrong!

Blake:  About what?

Bryan:  Remember… we were fighting ove-

Aidan:  (sounding epic) Quiet peasant! Let me explain… wait, you there with the microphone, you know they’re wrong, right?

Daniel:  Well I.D.K. (BRYAN stabs DANIEL)

Daniel:  ZOMG THE BLOOD IS GONNA STAIN MY SHIRT! (Runs and exits, prepares to become a French Soldier)

Colin:  Diane, Diane!! Hmm, well let’s watch and see how this plays out.

Blake + Aidan:  What did you do?!?!?!?! He was about to prove him wrong! (Pointing at each other; soon DANIEL comes on)

BRYAN:  Sorry, it slipped.

Aidan:  That’s what she said!

Blake:  No comment…

(BLAKE and AIDAN look at each other and stab BRYAN)

Aidan:  (At BLAKE) I challenge you to a duel!

Blake:  Why can’t our group of French Protestants live in peace?

Aidan:  Cause, you aren’t Catholic!

Aidan:  Now prepare to fight, (whips out lightsaber) I have 99 Attack!

Blake:  Well (puzzled) I have 96! (BLAKE gets a lucky shot)

Blake: You forgot about Strength!

(AIDAN disarms BLAKE)

Blake:  Fine, I’m going Super Saiyan!! This is for my 25,000 brothers and sisters you’ve killed!

Daniel:  Your reinforcements have arrived.

Daniel:  (Stabs Blake, has a hissy fit, starts to panic because he is French, tries to pick up Blake, and fails, then runs off)

Bryan:  1 month later.

Colin:  ….and all the kittens survived.

Daniel:  (recovered in bandages) Mumble mumble…

Colin:  Yes Diane, the Edict of Nantes, which grants Protestants and Catholics equality, is in effect…. Now let’s give some facts about an earlier story that made headline news.

Daniel:  Mumble mumble…

Colin:  Yes Diane, the Huguenot Massacre, now welcome out new female intern to give us the facts. Take it away Bryanna.

Bryan:  The attempted murder of the large fat one, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, was unsuccessful. Speaking of which, why did the French cross the border?

Colin:  STOP BRYANNA! Attempted murder and unsuccessful murder mean the same thing. Now go get my coffee and your whipping. Now McBlakery, take it away.

Blake:  (Cooley) Why thank you Jeff.

Colin:  My name isn’t Jeff… (Quietly) Bwuahahhahha! They will never know my name is Jefff with 3 f’s!

Blake:  What did you say?

Colin:  I said nothing; do you want a whippin’ too?

Blake:  No sir, anyway, the Wars of Religion had ended and Henry IV (4th) had transitioned from Protestantism to Catholicism and settled it with the Edict of Nantes.

Daniel:  Mumble Mumble…

Blake: Well yea… a lot of people did die… 25,000 Protestants were murdered by the Catholics.

Daniel:  Mumble Mumble Mumble?

Blake:  No, the blood didn’t stain… and yes, Civil Wars led up to the Massacre.

Colin:  Come on guys! It’s time to get to see Bryanna whipped. (AIDAN and BRYAN come out, AIDAN starts whipping BRYAN)

THE END!

Source: Wikimapia

A certain Elias Ibarra, a fanatic of the Manalos, even bragged that the contract was signed on August 4, 2011, “In Cash”.  According to him, their church owns everything and not like the Holy Trinity of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and the Ang Dating Daan, who goes to the banks for mortgage loans.  

In an interview, commuters, who preferred not to be identified for fear of the Manalos retaliation, was angered because even Policemen and Barangay officials of Bocaue Sta. Maria Bulacan has not done anything to solve the traffic problem which could last for 30 months or more, the allotted period of time to finish the construction of dome.

According to a commuter, it is obvious that the Manalos for sure, have paid “padulas” or grease money as they usually do, to public officials or authorities of the place so that this another grandiose dome, can be constructed in Bulacan.

Sources said that, officials of the Hanwha Engineering and Construction Corporation, a Korean builders and the leader of the Iglesia ni Cristo ni Manalo entered into a contract for the construction of the $175 Million worth dome.

The construction of the dome commenced last August 18, 2011 in Sta. Maria, Bulacan.  Some members of the church of the Manalos sighed, on the thought of the huge amount to be spent in the construction of the dome by their church.  Where could such a huge amount of money have come from?

The Vice-Chairman of Hanwha, Mr. Kim Hyun-chung and Eduardo Manalo were both present during the groundbreaking ceremony.  The dome is said to have a capacity of 50,000 seats and its roof will be 36,000 square meters.  According to the Korean builders, the dome’s construction would last for over 30 months or to be finished until early 2014.

Why some Protestants were so opposed to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s in Northern Ireland?

With the events of the Civil Rights movement having become a success and gaining more momentum with the passing of the Civil Rights Act in America 1963, Civil Rights movements started to crop up all around the world, as an example Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there was a divide between the two major communities, Protestants and Catholics. Tensions had been with the Catholics since the Break of Rome by Henry the 8th in 1509 and later the plantation policy started by James 6th of Scotland becoming King in England and letting Protestants settle in English conquered Ireland (Taken over by the English in the 1200’s) majorly in the North East of the island. Now in 1960 tensions started to rise to an all time high with Catholics starting a Civil Rights campaign which started peacefully but ended in a sectarian, guerrilla warfare mess. Catholics wanted a Civil Rights bill as compared to Protestants they suffered major discrimination in everything: the benefit system (Introduced in 1946 to help with the baby boom and post war United Kingdom, it was meant to bring equality rather then superiority and discrimination), jobs, housing, schooling and just general aspects of everyday life.

The first ignition point of the Civil Rights movements was seen to be started by Austin Currie in June 1968. He was a nationalist MP who decided to organise a sit in, at a newly build council house for 19 year old Emily Beattie. Him along with his supporters were trying to point at the discrimination Catholics and lower class Protestants suffered in the welfare state in Northern Ireland. The discrimination he was trying to point out was this women was given priory in the housing system because she was a secretary to a member of the Ulster Unionist Party  and had been given a house over desperate couples who had children. The RUC soon broke up the protest, but not before the television crews picked up the story and reported it highlighting the discrimination.

This next event was the last of its kind for the Civil Rights movement, a protest not involving violence. Currie contracted the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) which stood up for the discriminated people in Northern Ireland and wanted to see the end of superiority in Northern Ireland. Currie wanted to hold a protest to highlight vote rigging in Dungannon which had a 53% turnout of Catholics in the local election but it ended up with the Republications gaining 7 seats while the Unionists who had the lower turn out getting 14. The march went ahead on the 24th August with a 2500 people turnout marching from Coalisland to the edge of Dungannon, chanting and holding placards. The marchers had intended to march into the centre of Dungannon and stage a rally but were stopped by 400 police and the crowd dispersed without any trouble.

Then the start of violence against and with the protests started in October 1968, Londonderry. Two members of the Londonderry Housing Action Committee were on the previous march at Dungannon. They suggested one be held on the 5th October 1968 and informed the Media. The march was banned from entering the city centre by William Craig, Northern Irelands’ Home Affairs Minister. Under the Special Powers Act Craig could ban any march he wanted to. It is unknown why he wanted to ban the marches but it is believe he just held the view that it was just a Republication March calling for unity of Ireland, not a Civil Rights March which called for equality. With all the cameras on the stage the protesters were even more determined and ignored the ban and tried to get to the Diamond the main square in the centre of the city via the Craigavon Bridge. But on the bridge they were met by the RUC who stopped them with barricades and water cannons. The protesters soon got confused and tried to cross the RUC who prevented them.  This was all fine up until the RTE (republican broadcasting company) showed more. It showed Policy brutality of RUC officers beating citizens who were retreating and blasting innocent bystanders with water cannons giving off the impression that Northern Ireland was an oppressive and intolerant state.

As a reaction to this the current serving Northern Ireland Prime Minister, Terence O’Neil passed the anti-discrimination act. This act was meant to ban and make it illegal for discrimination to take place in Northern Ireland especially in the government controlled benefit system. The reforms where passed but the tension continued to mount and rise. Some unionists were unhappy that’s this reforms where happening too fast and others feared that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt at the joining of Northern Ireland and the Free State of Ireland (Now know as the Irish Republic) together. Also many working class Protestants resented the media giving off the impression that only Catholics were suffering when in fact many Protestants where on the poverty line or below it and needed help.

Within a few months of this act being passed O’Neil was forced to resign. In January 1969 militants within  the civil rights movement decided to keep the pressure on him by holding a march from Belfast to Londonderry. A mob of militant Loyalist ambushed the marches but the police did little to protect them and rioting in Londonderry followed. O’Neil called an election to make the most of his support he had among Catholics and Protestants. He won but by only a small majority the hardliners such as Right winged Unionist Ian Paisley where now critizing O’Neil left and right and more marches and violence followed. O’Neil resigned in April of 1969 and was replaced by James Chichester-Clark.

But before all of this happened was the formation of the Protestant paramilitary groups. On the 17th April, 1966 the Free state of Ireland celebrated the Easter Rising anniversary (Where Catholics declared an independent nation free of the Britain’s empire during world war one) Many leaders in the Free State gave speeches condemning the British for not giving up Northern Ireland and remerging the two. This lead to a fear by hard-line Protestant Unionist’s  that there was to be another rise of the IRA and started their own paramilitary groups (Most known is the UVF, Ulster Volunteer Tear force) Their actions started on the 7th Of May that year with a fire bombing on a Catholic owned pub which left one person dead and issued a statement: “From this day, we declare war against the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause”

In conclusion I think the Protestants where opposed to the Civil Rights movement in 1960’s due to fear. I believe there was a fear among protestants who where under the influence of propaganda by right winged unionist groups and where tricked into believing that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt to merge the two countries into a united Ireland again. There was also a major fear among Protestants of the uprising of the IRA again which led to paramilitary groups being formed with ended with assassination and destruction of property. I believe may Protestants in Ireland at this time had an air of superiority and didn’t think of the lower classes even if it was comprised of Protestants as well. They believed the current system of discrimination especially in politics and the benefit system was fare and the Civil Rights Movement was an attempt to make a united Ireland. I believe this fear lead to people being opposed. I believe this fear was mainly created by Right winged political groups and leaders ( an example would be Ian Paisley) and the Free State of Irelands actions and speeches during the Easter Rising.

In 1945 came Clement Attlee’s benefit state, this was the introduction of: council housing, NHS, new jobs, scholarships and free school meals. This was a relive for a deprived Northern Ireland, which industry had been hit heavily during the Wall Street Crash depression which occurred in 1929.  Although this seemed great for a country that was falling apart due to the depression and the equality was meant to easy the tensions between the two communities, problems arose by the 1960’s. The Protestants dominated politics in Northern Ireland; this led to them having a monopoly over the councils. This led to major discrimination in housing, only around 33% of houses went to Catholics who needed it the most as their community was generally poorer on average.

The reason Catholics were generally worse off than their protestant counterparts was down to jobs. In the 1960s the world was hit by another depression. Northern Ireland suffered badly; most of their industry was comprised of manufacturing such as ship building and this new depression didn’t help with matters as they were also losing to the rapidly growing Asian markets such as China. Unemployment in Northern Ireland in the 1960’s stood at around 8% (3 times higher than in England); this was much higher in Catholic communities as they generally took the lower paid jobs within the manufacturing industry that was crumbling apart, while protestants took the higher paid jobs that remained stable.

Corruption was also a major problem in Northern Ireland. Protestants tried their hardest to stay in power and dominate politics in Northern Ireland. This lead to vote rigging, one such example was Londonderry where 14,000 Catholics and 9,000 Protestants turned up to vote, the results of the election was 12 seats for the Protestants and 8 seats for the Catholics. Gerrymandering (shifting county borders) was also occurring regularly in Northern Ireland as Protestant’s made sure they got the opium amount of seats in each county of Northern Ireland. This desire for votes made by the Protestants led to the discrimination in housing, as votes were given per a house rather per person, Protestants would be favoured for housing and as Protestants where generally better off they had more votes on average per a person then Catholics.

Also in the 1960’s came the rise of radical groups and political parties. One such example would be Ian Paisley’s democratic Unionist party. This was a right winged Protestant group that caused conflicts between the two communities in Northern Ireland. This fascist group wanted Protestants to be above Catholics and went on discriminatory campaigns that lead to violence. They also had close links to the UVF (Ulster Volunteer force). This paramilitary origination was set up after the free state of Ireland celebrated the anniversary of the Easter Rising (During WW 1 a group of IRA members took over a post office and claimed it as terrorist of Ireland, not the British Empire). This lead to fears among Protestants of another IRA uprising which lead to the UVF formation. 

In conclusion I think all of these points are major factors for why the British forces had to be sent in as peacekeepers between the two communities. However most of points link back to the right winged Unionist groups, such as the Democratic Unionist party which did everything they possibly could to make sure they had the upper hand over the Catholics which of course lead to discrimination of the Catholic community. All of this built up however I don’t believe these problems were the match that ignited the situation, I believe they just piled up the explosive, the match was the “the Battle of the Bog side” This happened after a Protestant group called the Apprentice Boys tried to stir up trouble in the area by celebrating the Protestant victory in the Siege of Derry in 1689 (In which a Irish rebellion force tried to retake all of Ireland of the British). This lead to a counter protest by Irish nationalists which lead to an attack by loyalist Unionists and the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary, A police force which was mainly comprised of Protestants) As the police tried to “clam” the area, which in reality let to police violence and discrimination against Catholics. The 2 days siege which resulted in a riot and the Catholics blocking off the road and throwing Molotov’s and stones at the police, left over 1,000 Catholics majorly injured as well as 250 members of the RUC. The siege wasn’t entered until British forces intervened, which made them look like saviours to the Catholics for a short period of time that is…  This led to more British forces having to be deployed in a effort to stop the sectarian violence between the communities, which in the end just made tensions for the worse…

Almost every religion has at least one story on how the end of days will come, usually depicting a series of events which would herald the final days. These dooms, of course, are reserved for the unrepentant, the non-believers, the heathens, and pretty much anyone else who just doesn’t agree with that particular faith.

Pick your flavor

The Muslims believe it begins with the breaking of the moon, and some believe this has already occurred when the Apollo missions brought back lunar rock samples to Earth.

Many Christians and Protestants believe that the first sign of The End would be when God reached out to reclaim all his believers in the Rapture. In the religious fiction “Left Behind” series, this very literally equated to believers in Jesus Christ vanishing abruptly all over the world, leaving behind only their clothes and belongings as evidence of their passage. The ensuing tribulations would all be harbingers to the returning of Jesus Christ to the world of men (and woe be it to anyone left who still didn’t believe at that point!)

The Jewish faith refer to this period directly as “The End of Days”, but it is more of a objective than a cataclysmic ending of the world, where good faith and deeds become the norm, all is set right in Israel (which becomes a flowering, fertile garden instead of a barren desert), and the true Messiah finally visits the world.

Stalwart Catholicism states that the end will come “like a thief in the night” but even there they believe Jesus Christ warned that the indicators of the final days might include earthquakes and other natural disasters, wars, and other catastrophes.

The Church of Latter-day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons) believe that we are already living in the last age of Man, and await now only a final set of the “Signs of the Times” which will foretell the end. These signs include the coming of Christ (from the east) and angelic beings, and involve the world together fighting Israel, and the Wicked all being burned. There are plenty more signs

Buddhism teaches that only when Buddha’s teachings are no longer practiced in all the world – in 5,000 years – would the end come. Some Buddhists believe that there would be signs leading up to these times, including the withdraw of Buddhists teachers, teachings, and practices until nothing is left at all but depravity and all who live by the ten amoral concepts. When all comes to an end, it will begin again when Maitreya is reborn for the final time.

The Hand of God

Predictably, most of the old religions fall back on the oldest of disasters – natural disasters – as signs of the end of the world. The rivers running dry, the world being flooded over, balls of fire from the heavens, and earthquakes: all those things that were fears and hardly understood by our ancient ancestors, so surely must have been acts of God – since it was surely He who created it to begin with.

Of course, there are no facts to back up any of these claims; only the words of religious leaders ranging from thousands to hundreds of years ago, and perhaps only non-believers find it easy to relate such predictions to more recent proclamations such as the Heaven’s Gate cult in 1997 that committed mass suicide after the teachings that a comet was bringing with it the end of the world.

Should I start praying?

While some religions such as the Mormons already account the world as being in the final days, it seems mankind itself is much closer to actually pulling off the end of the world than any religion’s – major or minor – god.

So believe what you want, and pray as you like – but as I’ve been fond of saying since I was a young man, even if the largest religion is right, there are billions of believers of other faiths who are wrong, and probably won’t be saved.

Don’t stop here! Journey on with me as I continue through the myriad ways the world might end:

The End of the World Part 1: By Natural Disaster
The End of the World Part 2: Global Warming
The End of the World Part 3: Overpopulation
The End of the World Part 4: Pestilence
The End of the World Part 5: Meteor Strike
The End of the World Part 6: Solar Flare
The End of the World Part 7: Nuclear War
The End of the World Part 8: Black Hole
The End of the World Part 9: [The Wrath of] God
The End of the World Part 10: Mad Scientists
The End of the World Part 11: By Prediction

Elizabeth I and James I began a policy called Grant and Plant. Queen Elizabeth I gave land to the Protestant supporters which had been taken away and confiscated from the Catholic Irish rebels. This policy was known as The Plantation. This policy was greatly adopted by King James I. King James I “planted” his supporters following “The flight of the earls” when 90 leading Ulster landowners fled after the earl of Tyrone’s rebellion. These supporters were a mixture of English and Scottish Protestants; they were greatly resented by the Catholic population of Ulster.

Cromwell: October 1641+ Drogheda+ Wexford 1649

In October 1641, there was a rebellion against the English rule; it was the Catholics attacking the Protestants and the Protestants were defeated. About 12000 Protestants were killed and that made the Protestants even increase their suspicion and hatred towards the Catholics. There was a source of information from Ian Paisley and he said that the rebellion was one of the bloodiest massacres in Irish History. He also said that the rebellion was led by Catholic priests and the river of Ulster was completely filled with Protestant blood. He added that The River Bann was so choked with Protestant bodies that the Catholics could walk dry-shod across the river. The subsequent war continued in Ireland until the 1649, when Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army decisively defeated the Irish Catholics and Royalists and re-conquered the country. The Protestant- Oliver Cromwell crushed the Catholic rebels in the two towns of Drogheda and Wexford, thousands of Catholics were killed. Cromwell then gave about eleven million acres of land (confiscated from Catholics) to the Protestant supporters and by the time Cromwell died in 1658, only a small part- 22% of all Irish land were in the hands of Catholics.

King Billy- William of Orange: 1689-1960. Siege of Londonderry+ Battle of the Boyne

The Siege of Londonderry took place in Northern Ireland during 1688–1689. In 1688, William of Orange and his wife Mary II of England, James’ daughter, seized power from James in England. By November 1688, the walled city of Londonderry was the only one in Ireland whose garrison was not completely loyal to James II. The Earl of Antrim was ordered to replace it with a more reliable force. Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim, despite his age of 76, responded to this command, but wasted several weeks searching for men who were six feet tall or more. An army of around 1,200 men set out for the city several weeks later. Tradition has it that 13 apprentice boys seized the city keys and locked the gates while the approaching army was within shouting distance. Whatever happened, on 7 December 1688 the Catholic army found the city gates locked, and the siege began. A policy of ‘no surrender’ was confirmed by the city’s mayor. The siege is commemorated annually by the Apprentice Boys of Derry who stage the week long Maiden City Festival culminating in a parade around the walls of the city by local members, followed by a parade of the city by the full Association. Although violence has attended these parades in the past, those in recent years have been largely peaceful.

The Battle of Boyne

King James II of England was the last Roman Catholic monarch in reign over the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland. Many of his subjects distrusted his religious policies and despotism, leading a group of them to depose him in the Glorious Revolution. He was replaced by his Protestant daughter and son-in-law, Mary II and William III- King Billy, who became joint rulers in 1689. King James II fled England and arrived at Ireland. He hoped to use Ireland as a base to win back his throne with the help of France. However King Billy in England (Dutch Protestant) took the English army to Ireland and defeated James’ army at the Battle of Boyne on 1 July 1690. 

Potato Famine

The Potato Famine also known as The Great Famine or The Great Hunger was called The Irish Potato Famine by the Irish. This name is given to the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1849. The Irish farmers and their families depended on potato as a major part of their diet. The failure of this crop resulted in a million deaths. In order to escape from the famine, about one and a half million people emigrated, many of them going to the USA. The immediate effect on Ireland was devastating, and its long-term effects proved immense, permanently changing Irish culture and tradition. Though human suffering during the famine was never photographed, the event immediately and profoundly altered the course of generations of Irish and Irish Diaspora.

Religion is an interesting topic, in that you can see just how it affects people’s political views. There are noteworthy studies done, cross-culturally, of religious behaviors in relation to the behaviors of the less-religious, the non-religious, and the atheists. A general rule of thumb, across any society, is that the more religious tend to favor strict conservative values, while the less religious tend to support tolerant liberal values. Within the United States alone, partisan behaviors based on religious affiliation are quite evident. 

Racially speaking, Black protestant churches were extremely likely to vote for Obama in the 2008 election. 92% of Black evangelicals voted for Mr. Obama, while 4% voted for his opponent, Mr. John McCain. White protestants (excluding evangelicals), on the other hand, were just as likely to vote for McCain as they were Obama, with 44% of the vote apiece. White evangelical protestants, who are often regarded as the far Christian-right, lived up to their expectations by casting their votes 68% of the time for McCain and 23% of the time for Obama. White catholics, which are generally more moderate in their thinking, barely voted in favor of Barack Obama with 47% of the vote vs the 45% of them who voted for John McCain.

Political tension due to religious differences is not just a phenomenon within the United States. In Europe, large increases in the number of Muslim Arabs recently has provoked fear in conservative White Europeans. Many traditional Europeans feel their “ethnicity” and “way of life” are being taken over by Muslims. Xenophobic political parties have now arisen, and some have even gained prominence through their anti-foreigner (specifically Arabic) rhetoric. The real problem is not immigration, but integrating the Muslim community within Europe. To simply create anti-Muslim legislation or laws that inhibit immigration will only worsen the problem. Instead, the true political test of a religiously divided Europe is to successfully integrate Islam within Europe by increasing tolerance between people. Perhaps a new, “homegrown” Islam could be achieved by retaining some aspects of Arabic culture and incorporating it into democratic philosophies.

We can make general inferences about the tendency of religious individuals to support socially conservative legislation, such as Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Choice Abortion, or Pro-Segregation bills. However, the less advantaged religious (such as Catholics, which are fiscally less wealthy in general than mainline White Protestants) may favor economically liberal policies including increasing Welfare programs, Universal Healthcare, and Progressive taxation.

Sources:

- Pew Forum, Trends in Candidate Preference Among Religious Groups

The Ku Klux Klan was mainly based in the south of America. Here they targeted those set free after the American Civil War – the African Americans. The KKK didn’t think that the former slaves as free and terrorised Africa American families based in the South who were once slaves. During the 1920’s America suffered great economic downfall, and is one of the main reasons the Ku Klu Klux Klan formed, because of the racism mixed with the anger due to the economic crisis.

Many different groups during the 1920’s emerged, over the years. One being the blacks who emerged after the abolishment of the slavery in 1865, however at the same time, a sinister group called the KKK. Only White Anglo Saxons Protestants were allowed to join, and it is known that the KKK attacked black people, Jews, Catholics and liberals.

The KKK has existed since 1865 and the KKK during the 1920s and 1930s is known as the second Klan. This was the peak of it’s existence and is estimated that it had roughly 4,000,000 members.

The KKK began murdering black soldiers (still in military uniforms) when they were returning from World War I from 1918 onwards, in which they murdered 416 African Americans over the course of 9 years, predominantly in the south.

The KKK at first was only a harmless gang, who at began riding around in white cloaks disturbing towns and the peace. They then saw this as an advantage and later when they began accepting new members, moved and became responsible for violent crimes against other ethnic groups. Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first leader of the Klan and in the 1920’s the KKK thought that they had to compete against immigrants and other ethnic groups for jobs which then resulted in rivalry between them.

In conclusion the KKK was a very dangerous organisation during the 1920’s through to the 1930’s and often people were forced to join or leave America, if they could. More often than not people didn’t have enough money especially after the war and the economic crisis. The KKK than began committing violent crimes against other ethnic groups, and with the KKK being at its peak in the 1920’s it was difficult to retaliate. The KKK however declined during the depression in America and during World War II. Whilst the KKK is partly still around to date, it is not as fierce as it once was. 

Some say that the history of Ireland begins in 5th century A.D. when Patrick arrived from Britain and converted the Celtics to Christianity. After the Reformation, Ireland remained Catholic but King Henry VIII changed Britain to Protestant. He sent Protestants to settle the northern part of Ireland. “The settlement of Ulster in 1609…was massive in scale and resulted in the intrusion of a Protestant Culture that was completely alien to its Catholic inhabitants.” (Darby 1976) This started the conflict. “Massacres of both Protestants and Catholics took place throughout the 1600’s, as the two sides battled for supremacy and the right to occupy the land each now called ‘home.’” The 17th century closed with war in the Battle of Boyne in 1690. William III Orange defeats James II of (Ireland). This is why the Protestants identify with orange. For now the minority Protestants are in control. On July 12, Protestants in Northern Ireland still celebrate Battle of Boyne. All in all, Great Britain ruled Catholic Ireland from 12th century to 1920.

The greatest trajedy of the 19th century was the Great Famine. The population grew from 5 million in 1800 and to 8 million in 1845 when the Great Famine struck. Most of the people were poor and depended on their potato crop. In 1845, a fungus desease attacked the potato plants and made them rot. The Great Famine lasted for 3 years. Many died from starvation and desease. In all, 1 million died and another 1 million immigrated to America. The government didn’t help very much, but left it up to the Irish landlords and soup kitchens. Many of the Irish tenants’ lost their land.

Tensions became worst in the early 20th century. Irish Catholics wanted home rule, which meant independence from Britain. However, Irish Protestants in the north didn’t want Irish Independence because they feared being ruled by majority Catholics. The dispute was resolved in 1920 by the Government of Ireland Act which divides Ireland politically into Ireland and Nothern Ireland. The act failed to settle the conflict. After the seperation of Ireland in 1920, more violence continued in the divided country.

Perhaps one of the more overt attempts at political consolidation through religious means was seen in Pakistan in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The regimes of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq exemplify the use of this tactic greatly. Both leaders tried to use the Islamic religion as a way of legitimizing executions, imprisonment and violence which, in turn, strengthened their rule due to the appeasement of largely Muslim populations.

A less overt attempt at political consolidation through religious means was, is, and will continue to be seen in America and consequently, throughout the world. The United States of America approaches both domestic and foreign policy with an inherent evangelical protestant slant and is further bolstered by the hijacking of “human rights,” which has essentially, become a pseudo religion in itself. My contention is that the American manipulation of religion is actually more dangerous to its people and the world because the exploitation is now two-fold. In this fashion, the Bush administration can satisfy and appeal to both the left and the right simultaneously while achieving the same goal – colonialism.

This paper will evidence these claims by in-depth exploration of the politics of Pakistan in the 70s and 80s and establishing parallels to modern American politics, in particular, the Administration of George W. Bush. Such parallels will include the Bush Administration’s use of religious symbols and rhetoric, particularly regarding the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through examination of both Pakistani leaders’ reign, the decay of democracy due to persecution and violence will be revealed, as will the tightening of political power by means of corruption. Conversely, it will be shown how America has chipped away democratic values by the introduction of the Patriot Act and the use of such rhetoric as the “Axis of Evil” so as to create a global atmosphere of “either you”re with us or against us’. This notion will be furthered with the use of Costas Douzinas’ concepts that western perceptions of human rights have morphed into a form of quasi-religion, which has successfully resulted in a merging of counterterrorism and humanitarian intervention agendas.

Pakistan

Since the start of his rule, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto attempted to cultivate his image as a pious and Islamic leader under the banner of “Islamic Socialism. Bhutto understood the importance of appealing to the religious sentiments of the population for political legitimacy. He emphasized the notion of Islamic unity with other Muslims leaders, such as Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Sadat of Egypt, during the Lahore Islamic Summit. He also tried to connect his policies with that of the Prophet”s teachings. However, the pragmatic purpose behind his use of Islam in government policy can be seen in the Constitution of April 1973. The constitution declared Islam as the state religion, noted all laws must confirm with injunctions of Islam and that laws repugnant to Islam would not be permitted.1 However, the constitution didn’t limit his powers as the PPP chairman.2 This shows that Bhutto would use Islam for political purposes, but not let it interfere with his power.

In order to understand the context behind Bhutto’s actions, it’s important to examine the Islamists’ power in society at the time. The Islamists parties were always opponents of Bhutto and PPP. They formed a significant role in the opposition coalition to Bhutto, the PNA, and their mosques became centers of demonstrations against Bhutto. Leaders of religious organizations mobilized participation from the lower middle class as evident in their mass demonstrations after the 1977 rigged elections. The Islamists had even managed to penetrate the armed forces. Commanding troops began to believe that opposition to Bhutto was equivalent to affirming one’s belief in Islam.3 Bhutto realized that he could both buy himself more time in power and possibly sway the Islamists to his side if he was able to appease them through concessions. As Stephen Cohen states, “aware of the growing Islamist movement, which had gathered steam by opposing both Ayub and the blatantly irreligious Yahya Khan, Bhutto advanced the idea of Islamic socialism.”4 Understanding the strength of the fundamentalist movement makes it much clearer to see why Bhutto would implement certain policies.

The religious policies Bhutto made were desperate concessions to appease and buy support from the Islamists. The fundamentalist nature of the policies clearly conflicted strongly with the Bhutto’s original platform of liberal and moderate Islam. Such a blatant contradiction in the ideological nature of the policies shows they were done out of political pragmatism. An example of this was his policies towards the Ahmediyya community whom are seen as heretics by the Islamists. Out of political weakness, Bhutto supported the Islamists calls for oppressing this community. He helped enact the legislation of the Ahmediyya community that designated them as non-Muslims. This prohibited them from attending Islamic rituals and removed them from all positions of public service or office in the armed forces.5 This religious apartheid completely contradicts with Bhutto’s original liberal platform. Perhaps the most blatant example of Bhutto’s use of religion to get mass appeal was his actions right before his overthrow. These included banning alcohol, gambling, bars, nightclubs, and movie theatres. He publicly stated that he would move Pakistan to an Islamic state.6 As Omar Noman observes, “It was ironic that the PPP, erstwhile promoters of Islamic socialism, were responsible for initiating legislation which introduced the Muslim equivalent of Calvinsit Puritanism.”7 This timing and rushed policy stance proves that Bhutto thought he could salvage his political position by instating religious laws and winning the favour of the Islamists.

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the General who overthrew and succeeded Bhutto, faced a somewhat similar dilemma as Bhutto; a lack of wide-spread support throughout the country. Some speculate he overthrew Bhutto in order to instate “Islamisation, however, according to Hasan-Askari Rizvi, the policy to restructure the polity on Islamic lines did not appear prominently in early days of martial law regime.”8 Rather, Islamisation

was used for politically strategic purposes. Whenever a regime is overthrown, it makes sense for the new regime to appeal to the opponents of the previous regime. However, the secular and liberal adversaries of Bhutto were opposed to him because of his increasingly autocratic rule. They would not suddenly warm up to a military regime. Instead, Zia could appeal to the other major adversaries of Bhutto: the fundamentalists. He considered the secular political community, not the fundamentalists, the biggest threat to his power.9 Zia”s political strategy was the “use of Islam to legitimize a patently unjust order and to bolster a regime demonstrably without a popular base.”10

In order to get legitimacy from the religious fundamentalists and the wider population in Pakistan, Zia had to cultivate an image of a pious leader who would enforce and defend Islam. His devotion to Islam was made in a blatantly clear to Pakistan’s people by his decision to remain living in a Spartan home once in power. This decision was designed so Zia could portray himself as pious and non-materialistic leader.11 The policy did succeed in winning support among the middle and lower classes, which formed a major base for the fundamentalists. 12 His publicized adherence to religious practices generated respect from the population. The religious parties did not smear him, in the way they did Bhutto for his private “un-Islamic” activities. This cultivated image was done so that the population would eventually equate himself as the defender of Islam and initiator of “Islamisation. This strategy was exemplified perfectly during the referendum of 1984. The referendum question was skillfully posed as to whether one was in favor or against the “Islamisation’ program. A yes vote would guarantee Zia another five years in the government. The “yes” column of the ballot was printed in green because these were the colors that represent Pakistan and Islam. Zia cited democratic teachings as being incompatible with Islamic teachings. Instead, he propagated the belief that the population should focus on the principle of Islamic solidarity, a pivotal factor in Islamic thought, and the establishment of a political system reminiscent of the Rule of the Prophet.13 By making creation of an Islamic state as a priority over democracy, Zia provided an excuse for him to stay in power longer. The utopian Islamic state became a sort of light at the end of the tunnel that Zia would constantly refer to, especially when there was increased pressure for elections. Criticism of Zia could then be equated with a rejection of an Islamic state. All these policies had a common factor; Zia had used systematic manipulation of religious symbols and norms in order to get the population and religious groups to rally around the government.

In order to guarantee support from the Islamist community, Zia had to prove his piety and offer more concessions to them. Zia had to do more than just come across as pious; he had to prove he was setting up an Islamic state. In fact, only the creation of a chaste Muslim state governed by Shari’a would satisfy standards of the main Islamist party, Jammat-i-Islami.14 Zia’s changes to Pakistan’s laws drew applause from the Islamist community. Zia called for a renewal of jihad, imposition of the zaka, and the formation of an Islamic judicial system. Crimes such as adultery, drinking alcohol, theft and gambling were all punished by medieval Islamic measures. Zia decreed the Islamic legal code as the supreme law of the land which essentially meant that Islamic judges could strike down laws that conflicted with Islam. Analysts say that this specific policy was done out of the fear that Zia would be under more domestic criticism once the Soviets left Afghanistan.15 All these policies led Pakistan to be governed by Islamic law and judges, which very much appealed to the Islamist groups.

Winning the support of the Islamist groups was essential because it served as a form of mobilization for the state and against the opposition. The Islamists had considerable support among the middle, lower and migrant class. Jamaat-i-Islami’s ability “to recruit followers among the younger members of the population met with considerable success.”16 Thus, Zia’s Islamisation policies appealed to these constituencies and turned them into his supporters. They served as an effective tool in intimidating Zia’s political opposition.

The case of Zia’s rule shows how religion can be used as a political weapon to divide and destroy the opposition. By equating his regime as the guardian of Islam and implementation of an Islamic state, Zia was able to smear the opposition as being “un-Islamic”. Religious leaders used their legitimacy to condemn left-wing and secular parties as secularists and communists. These smears are “two of the most despised political labels in Pakistan currently.”17 Because they came from religious leaders, many in the population came to believe this vilification. The publicized public lashings for “un-Islamic” crimes terrorized the opposition into submission for fear of being labeled “un-Islamic”. Zia skillfully alleged that anyone who called for Bhutto’s return was calling for a return to Bhutto’s alleged religious sins. By publicizing the accused “sins” of Bhutto, such as womanizing, consuming alcohol and blasphemy, it was much easier to smear politicians calling for his return. Much like Zia formulated himself to represent Islamisation, Bhutto was formulated to represent un-Islamic activities. Thus, when ever someone spoke of a return to democracy, they would be accused of calling for a return of blasphemy. By cultivating a political culture where dissent was viewed as sacrilegious, Zia found a way of using religious as a weapon against his opposition.

The strategic use of incorporating religious agents into the government also served as an effective regime maintenance tool. By incorporating the ulama and fundamentalist actors into the state machinery, the state’s policies were seen as more legitimate and could be masked as true religious decisions. The fundamentalist clerics of the Council of Islamic Ideology did not permit books that were “repugnant to Islam”. These would include books that were of secular nature or that promoted innovation. This would typically include literature and material that promoted democratic ideologies or reform that posed a threat to the regime. Thus, Zia found another way to prevent threats to his regime by using the cloak of religion and religious actors.

Perhaps the most effective way Zia manipulated the use of Islam to consolidate power was by turning Pakistan into a totalitarian state. Islam is a moral code that permeates social, political and economic life. By incorporating Islam into the state, it essentially allowed for the state to control all forms all life.18 Much of the population actually supported the draconian measures since it seemed in accordance with Islam. Religious revivalism and state control was so deeply engrained in the population that, ““the more secular intelligentsia were sidetracked by events, their collective voice reduced to a whisper among those appealing to the spiritual dimensions of the larger society.”19 Physical monitoring of the population was done under the rubric of enforcing religion. To enforce his campaign of widespread adoption of the practice of five daily prayers and general compliance to Islamic codes of behavior, Zia appointed 100,000 prayer wardens for village and urban localities to monitor the population The enforcement of the religion’s seventh-century penal codes for “un-Islamic” behavior included lashes for drinking, stoning to death for adultery, and amputations of wrists for thefts. These measures allowed the state to physically monitor the population and encroach into areas that were previously private.20 Because of the use of religion as a justification for the measures, many sectors of the population actually supported or were passive to this whole process. The incorporation of religious themes into the media proved to be another tool of Zia’s. In 1997, television became an enthusiastic promoter of religious themes and the oppressive religious policies of the regime. Because it was masked as religious programming, that state could use the religious preachers to dissipate state propaganda. They extensively spoke of the “acceptance, on religious grounds, of a dictator whose piety is sufficient to command obedience”21. In such a religious country, this message resonated in the population. All these policies, under the pretext of promoting the Islamic religion, allowed Zia to further consolidate his political grip on the population.

AMERICA

Religion has always been a major force in the Untied States’ politics, policy, identity, and culture. Religion has shaped the nation’s character and has formed Americans’ ideas about the world, and influences the ways Americans respond to events beyond their borders. The predominant religion in America today is Christianity.22 In particular, Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants and white Catholics, form George W Bush’s largest support base.23 The Christian beliefs these groups carry have been major influences in the forming of Bush’s America. The Bible has been the guiding book of most American leaders, however, the amount of biblical references and maxims used by George W. Bush, especially when describing the war on Terror, have been unprecedented in modern American history.

It was the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency when the notorious tragedy of the September 11th attacks took place. In the aftermath of the attacks, many Americans turned to religion for comfort and answers. Many Americans also turned to the government seeking similar guidance. This marked the occasion where Bush began vigorously using the religious sentiment of the Nation to propel colonial agendas in the Middle East. This is evidenced in Bush’s September 20th, 2001 address to the nation:

“I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”24 It is clear by his speech that he is setting the stage for an immense conflict and is clearly delineating a common enemy or evil force. He then, arrogantly describes how God is on the side of what he describes as justice and freedom.

Fundamentalist Christianity teaches its believers to be “in the world but not of the world”25; that is, to live among secular people but to reject their way of thinking. One can see how this leads to problems internationally if American foreign politics are built on these ideals. Pair this with pretext of human rights for invading nations, and you find yourself within the current global situation.

The term religious fundamentalism has been exclusively associated in the media with Islamic leaders who are allegedly hell-bent on the destruction of other faiths. This term, however, can be equally applied to American leadership. For example: The persecution of the Ahmediyya community by both Bhutto and Zia draws a relation to the persecution of many Muslims in America. The leaders prohibited this community from attending Islamic rituals, public events and removed them from all positions of public service or office in the armed forces, simply because they were not devout Muslims. Conversely, since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, the discrimination of Muslims in America by means of no-fly lists, extra-judicial imprisonment, (Guantanamo Bay) and unwarranted scrutiny by authorities have been common practice.

Also, the way in which Zia implemented social surveillance of his population by appointing 100,000 prayer wardens to monitor his citizens, is almost a perfect mirror of surveillance techniques imposed on Americas by means of the Patriot Act. Zia implemented the intrusion of privacy with the pretense of religion just as Bush implemented the intrusive monitoring as a necessary evil to ensure national security. As seen in Pakistan, much of the population actually supported or was passive to this whole process. Similarly, many Americans have expressed their willingness to forfeit their privacy rights in the name of national security.

It was demonstrated how in Pakistan, criticisms of Bhutto and Zia’s leadership were equated with a rejection of the Islamic state. Similarly, domestic criticism of the Bush administration was considered to be unpatriotic, while criticism abroad was seen as undemocratic. These coercive strategies increase public and global compliance while minimizing dissent due to their multifaceted approach.

While these attempts minimized dissent, they did not eliminate it. There still existed an overwhelmingly anti-invasion sentiment with regards to the Iraq, especially from leftist groups. A need to reconcile both bodies of political thought presented itself. Thus, enter the veil of modern Human Rights. Reports of alleged human rights violations such as tortures, rape and mass murders of Iraqis at the hands of Sadam Hussein were at the forefront of global media. This provided moral grounds for many who were otherwise against the invasion, to show support in the name of humanitarianism.

The problem with this humanitarian campaign was that while some forms of aid were provided, it was coupled with the military agenda. Costas Douzinas does well to elaborate on this notion: “Despite differences in content, colonialism and the human rights movement form a continuum, episodes in the same drama, which started with the great discoveries of the new world and is now carried out in the street of Iraq: bringing civilization to the barbarians.”26

This exploitation of human rights has been taking place long before the Iraqi invasion. Unfortunately, as voiced by Slavoj Zizek, the aid provided by western powers has invariably come with the catch of embracing western democracy and economic values.27 This is especially true when looking at war-torn and 3rd World countries. These nations are, due to their instability, the most vulnerable to covert manipulation through the various coalitions and agencies in place to help them. Douzinas explains, “If the colonial prototypes were the missionary and the colonial administrator, the post-colonial are the human rights campaigner and the NGO operative.”28

Through the examination of the notoriously corrupt regimes in Pakistan, one cannot help but notice the similarities to American and other Western regimes. While Bhutto and Zia’s manipulative use of Islam furthered their grip on political power in Pakistan, Western Power’s dual manipulation of religion has been implemented to assert control over much of the world, especially those nations considered 3rd world.

The hard-line political right in America is appeased by the proliferation of Christian ideals while the leftist groups believe that that their nation’s transgression of foreign borders is in the name of human-rights protection. It is, in essence, the perfect way in which to advance covert economic and colonial agendas such as the securing of oil resources and increasing military presence.

Perhaps it is easier for a people to look outside their own borders to find faulty leadership and corruption instead of looking at their own nation. Or, Perhaps the American people are aware of the awful similarities and choose, themselves, to be ignorant of such wrong-doings so as to ensure the status-quo.

1 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 )

,144

2 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), 144

3 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), 158

4 Stephen Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan (Washington: Brooking Institution Press, 2004), 169

5 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), 150

6 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ),169

7 Omar Norman, Pakistan: Political and Economic History Since 1947 ( London: Kegan Paul International, 1988 ),109

8 Hasan-Askari ,Rizvi, “The Paradox of Military Rule in Pakistan.” Asian Survey, Vol.24,No.5,534-555, May 1984 ,545

9 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ),165

10 Mohammed, Ayoob, “Two Faces of Political Islam.” Asian Survey, Vol.19, No.6, 535-546 June 1979, 540

11 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ),168

12 Shahid, Burki, “Pakistan under Zia, 1977-1988” Asian Survey, Vol.28, No.10,1082-110. October 1988, 1091

13 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), 165

14 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), 167

15 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ),202

16 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 ), p167

17 Hasan-Askari, Rizvi, “The Paradox of Military Rule in Pakistan.” Asian Survey, Vol.24,No.5,534-555. May 1984

18 Omar Norman, Pakistan: Political and Economic History Since 1947 ( London: Kegan Paul International, 1988 ),145

19 Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan: at the Crosscurrent of History ( Oxford: Oneworld, 2003 )176

20 Omar Norman, Pakistan: Political and Economic History Since 1947 ( London: Kegan Paul International, 1988 ), 147

21 Omar Norman, Pakistan: Political and Economic History Since 1947 ( London: Kegan Paul International, 1988 ), 125

22 CIA World Factbook – United States

23 John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, James L. Guth, and Lyman A. Kellstedt, The American Religious Landscape and the 2004 Presidential Vote: Increased Polarization

24 George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, – (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2001)

25 JS Landres, M Berenbaum, After the Passion Is Gone: American Religious Consequences, (2004)

26 Douzinas, Costas. 2006. “Humanitarianism and Politics.” http://www.re-public.gr/en/wp-print.php?p=30

27 Slavoj Zizek, Against Human Rights, (2005) p. 126

28 Douzinas, Costas. 2006. “Humanitarianism and Politics.” http://www.re-public.gr/en/wp-print.php?p=30