The Economics of Polarization Focus on Nadal Malik Hasan’s Religion

Polarization.  Watching it happen is watching history repeat itself.  American media is focusing on Hasan’s religion more than the cause for his meltdown.   The negligence of the American military to adhere to the precepts of their own American Constitution, First Amendment and take the human condition seriously seems to be ignored by the pre-programmed media. If Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press … then the US Military has failed Congress and the people of the United States.  The American Military Complex is equally responsible for the environment that caused the unnecessary tragedy at Ft Hood.  Failing to enforce the American motto of “Liberty and Justice for All”

Troops’ mental health in spotlight

Civilization has experimented with polarization to achieve goals sought by it’s leaders throughout history. Today, the children of Abraham reach for their ‘self-fulfilling’ moment as described by their prophets.  They seek Armageddon to vindicate themselves.  They reach for it using terror.  Pointing their fingers at every crime, associating it with a specific religion allow their followers to fan the flames of hatred.  Each side feels they have exclusive possession of God. Each side feels divinely justified to suppress or destroy in the name of their prophet.  Whatever tipped Hasan over the edge, he just used his religion to justify his actions.  Tragedies don’t JUST happen.  We see Christians harass people every day, especially Muslims.  Anything to justify making another person’s life miserable, demeaning their means of worship, ethnicity, heritage or preference. Abraham is the common patriarch of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The infighting among Abraham’s children will make Armageddon happen, as long as each sibling insists it will justify their abominable behavior.

The United States Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”  No where in the Declaration or Constitution does it permit radical, self proclaimed “warriors of Jesus” to be exempt from law or the rules founding this country.  Each sibling challenges and taunts the other without regard for collateral damage or consequences.  This is what took place in Kileen Texas.  Bible toting preachers have rallied thoughtless behavior from their congregations and given blessings, in the name of Jesus, to break America’s laws of equal rights.  Conversely, Imams have rallied equally radical behavior in the name of Muhammad.  Rabbis have justified the exclusion of non-jews from the land of their fathers, by quoting old scriptures claiming rights to disputed land from thousands of years ago.  Each child of Abraham has soiled it’s beginnings with extremism, corruption, and flaunting contradictions as truth.

Is Nadal Malik Hasan’s Religion Relevant? by Amy Sullivan

In general, conservatives have held up the shooting as a “we told you so” moment and lectured liberals about the dangers of trusting Muslims, especially in the armed forces. For their part, liberals have insisted Hasan was simply a lunatic whose rampage was unrelated to his religious affiliation and decry attempts to draw a connection as “double standards.”

Religious extremism: the good, the bad, and the deadly Laurence R. Iannaccone Department of Economics, George Mason University, Eli Berman Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego’ Prepared for a special issue of Public Choice on the Political Economy of Terrorism, edited by Charles Rowley.

Adam Smith laid the foundation for the economic analysis of religion in 1776. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith (1965, pp. 740-766) argued that self-interest motivates clergy just as it does secular producers; that market forces constrain churches just as they constrain secular firms; and that the benefits of competition, the burdens of monopoly, and the hazards of government regulation are as real for religion as for any other sector of the economy.

The political economy of freedom, democracy and terrorism PETER KURRILD-KLITGAARD, MOGENS K. JUSTESEN & ROBERT KLEMMENSEN,  Dept. of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark

Social Fractionalization, Political Instability, and the Size of Government ANTHONY ANNETT (IMF) Working Paper No. 00/82 Published:  April 1, 2000

This paper explores the relationship between the degree of division or fractionalization of a country’s population (along ethnolinguistic and religious dimensions) and both political instability and government consumption, using a neoclassical growth model. The principal idea is that greater fractionalization, proxying for the degree of conflict in society, leads to political instability, which in turn leads to higher government consumption aimed at placating the opposition. There is also a feedback mechanism whereby the higher consumption leads to less instability as government consumption reduces the risk of losing office. Empirical evidence based on panel estimation supports this hypothesis. [JEL E62, 023]

When countries are heavily divided along ethnic, religious, communal, and regional lines, they are likely to experience bouts of political violence and are prone to the frequent breakdown of law and order. Clearly, serious conflict between competing groups, especially violent conflict, would be harmful to economic growth and the process of development. In such a divided country, can the government use expenditure to appease the competing groups and will this contain the potential conflict?

On The Roots of Religious Fractionalization by Murat Iyigun

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM – RELIGIOUS RIGHT article collection compiled by Sheila Musaji

A very illuminating series by Professor Steven Yates

• The Four Cardinal Errors That Almost Destroyed America, Part 4, 10-1-09
• The Four Cardinal Errors That Almost Destroyed America, Part 3, 9-17-09
• The Four Cardinal Errors That Almost Destroyed America, Part 2, 9-27-09
• The Four Cardinal Errors That Almost Destroyed America, Part 1, 9-13-09

Looking to Other Religions, and to Atheism, for Clarity in Faith

Colin Powell speech at the University of Oklahoma: “What is the greatest threat facing us now?” Powell asked. “People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. … The only thing that can really destroy us is us.

We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.”

We’re spending an enormous amount of money on homeland security, and I think we should spend whatever it takes. But I think we have to be careful that we don’t get so caught up in trying to throw money at the terrorist and counter-terrorist problem that we’re essentially creating an industry that will only exist as long as you keep the terrorist threat pumped up. … Let’s make sure that we are spending money on the right things and not spending money just to spend money.”

The original model for Powell’s statements — President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address — was primarily concerned with the threat to a free society of granting “unwarranted influence” over US policy to a “military-industrial complex” of defense contractors and national security think-tanks that might “endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

Don’t forget Timothy McVeigh was a radical Christian who prayed before he set off the bomb in Oklahoma City.

Shooting Violence: A Reason Why?