‘He's making it clear that this is Jesus versus Muhammad,’ the founder of a religious freedom advocacy group tells Brendan Rascius, while a former US ambassador calls Hegseth’s war religiosity ‘performance art’
Religious framing is ‘completely, totally unprecedented,’ experts say
It’s really not. McKinley invaded the Philippines on the grounds that we need to bring (Protestant) Christianity to their savage (Catholic) nation. The Crucified Soldier was propaganda used by the US and Canadian governments to mobilize troops for WW1. Coolidge’s backing of the KMT in China and Truman’s support for the Rhee dictatorship in Korea both fell along religious lines (Western Christianity versus Marxist Atheism). As did the Eisenhower/Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon escalation in Vietnam. Hell, the whole “John Birch Society” and its advocacy for a global thermonuclear war was rooted in the apocryphal US military intelligence officer who went behind Japanese lines to bring Christianity to China (a thing that had already happened centuries earlier, but - hey - it doesn’t count until an American does it).
Tbf wrt the Philippines, McKinley and co. moreso pretended that the Philippines was the same as any group of non-christian people that held indigenous beliefs. But in spite of the several hundred years of catholicism being present in the country.
That said, there were also huge areas of the Philippines that were never colonized despite the Spanish being there for hundreds of years. So in some ways it was a half truth that many people there were not practicing christianity
Western American reactionary governments love framing overseas military conflicts in religious language.
FTFY. No Western government has done that outside of the US since at least WWII. And while Hitler often used pseudo-religious rethoric, he certainly wasn’t motivated by Christianity.
No Western government has done that outside of the US since at least WWII.
The French did it in Vietnam, before they were forced out in the 50s. “Defending Catholicism against the heathen communists” has been a rallying cry across Europe straight into the end of the Cold War.
It’s really not. McKinley invaded the Philippines on the grounds that we need to bring (Protestant) Christianity to their savage (Catholic) nation. The Crucified Soldier was propaganda used by the US and Canadian governments to mobilize troops for WW1. Coolidge’s backing of the KMT in China and Truman’s support for the Rhee dictatorship in Korea both fell along religious lines (Western Christianity versus Marxist Atheism). As did the Eisenhower/Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon escalation in Vietnam. Hell, the whole “John Birch Society” and its advocacy for a global thermonuclear war was rooted in the apocryphal US military intelligence officer who went behind Japanese lines to bring Christianity to China (a thing that had already happened centuries earlier, but - hey - it doesn’t count until an American does it).
FFS, George Bush Jr described the US invasion of Iraq as a Crusade.
Western reactionary governments love framing overseas military conflicts in religious language.
Tbf wrt the Philippines, McKinley and co. moreso pretended that the Philippines was the same as any group of non-christian people that held indigenous beliefs. But in spite of the several hundred years of catholicism being present in the country.
That said, there were also huge areas of the Philippines that were never colonized despite the Spanish being there for hundreds of years. So in some ways it was a half truth that many people there were not practicing christianity
Either way, still bullshit colonial behavior
FTFY. No Western government has done that outside of the US since at least WWII. And while Hitler often used pseudo-religious rethoric, he certainly wasn’t motivated by Christianity.
The French did it in Vietnam, before they were forced out in the 50s. “Defending Catholicism against the heathen communists” has been a rallying cry across Europe straight into the end of the Cold War.