An illogical relationship - Political opposites sustaining each other

It was an odd experience I had while looking into our current government’s relationships with Middle Eastern political parties. President Bush is trying to develop a Middle East where religious fundamentalism and narrow-mindedness are absent. This is a noble objective, but there is something irregular about his vision for these Arab states and his plan for our own country. The ambition of President Bush and his Evangelical followers is to remove the separation of church and state in this country. Between opposing same sex marriage in an effort to impose biblical ethics on the American people, to initiating a process which is trying to lead us to prayer in publicly funded schools, his vision is very clear, and in no way is it hidden. Yet, the individuals in the Arab world supported by our country today, ideologically; are diametrical opposites of what the ‘religious right-wing’ wants for our own country.

Interestingly, the moderates which President Bush and our government support and wish to be in control of the Middle East would be considered very liberal in our country. They aspire to remove religion from public life, they dream of a day when the Arab world will contribute greatly to scientific discovery and development instead of the current status quo: Quran memorization. The moderates we sustain have the goal for the Middle East that secular progressive minded liberals have for our very own country. Why does our government support the movements trying to Christianize our nation, yet support the secular groups with the intent of reversing the current religious dominance over politics in the Arab world? Islamic moral principles are not so different from Christian ethical values. After all, Muslims in the United States agree with the Christian right-wing movement on about all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prayer; the only difference being their view of American foreign policy relating to Muslims.

On the other hand liberals can be accused of the same thing. In general, liberal progressives in the Western world are very keen on disagreeing with United States intervention in the Arab world. There hastiness to disagree on imposing secular progressive ethics on the Arab world and interfering with their affairs is an odd difference of opinion to have since they are generally very supportive of separating religion from politics. Why if you hold such a stance would you oppose the removal of religious extremism in the Middle East and the replacement of more moderate voices in the Arab world? This is partially, because the removal of religious extremism is not the main influence on our foreign policy decisions. The factors which contribute to our assessment process, in fact, have to do with capitalism and our economic interests overseas. In reality, ‘freedom’ and the democratic process have nothing to do with religious extremism and the moderation of Islam. As seen in the Palestinian territories, religious extremists like Hamas, who are set on our destruction, can easily win fair elections through the electoral route. It is a matter of who will benefit our economy the most. It is irrelevant if he is a tyrant, a man of the people, a fanatic, or a freethinker. It is about money. The reason the United States are empowering political figures in the Middle East with the same ideas as political figures in America who they oppose is simply because one side will benefit us more. As the saying goes, “Cash is king”.