Respectfully, Atlas, I think you're confusing the terms "imperialist Capitalism" with "secularism".
As you and others have pointed out, religious motivations only matter to the cannon fodder, ever since the Crusades (and the Muslim versions of same, as they conquered Turkey and Spain, etc.), and even an Introduction to World History course will teach that every supposed "religious" war can be traced to economics. We see the use of nationalism and religion both as ways the wealthy elites can manipulate their people into seeing people who have things we want as "The Other", "The Enemy", "barbaric animals", etc.
Again, I'd like to repeat for you: all secularism means is that the government maintains a position of utter neutrality with respect to the religious beliefs of its people, and no one can use the power of government to help or hinder private religious practices. That's it.
All the rest of the stuff you're talking about is greed, and has nothing to do with secularism. In fact, I'd say secularism is what maintains a modicum of restraint in our dealings with other peoples: imagine if the Saudis had the firepower/manpower that the USA has, and could project its power directly, as we do. Imagine if the United States was an openly Christian theocracy, ruled by a puppet President and a cabal of priests who tell him what he is allowed to do/say... do you think we'd have failed to use nuclear weapons in this war by now, in that case?
In the case of Truman and the bomb, we did need to send a message to the Communist Soviets (who did not yet possess this weapon) that the Red Army had to stop when it met the US/UK forces at the Elbe river. They could have rolled us, otherwise. The entire war (and the first one) was a battle over land and resources--in the Pacific theatre, it was about the Belgian, Dutch, and British oil interests, which the US wanted (and got) control of--and it is well documented that the USA did everything in its power to goad the Japanese into attacking us, even sailing a fleet of our heavy cruisers up and down the coastline in Japanese territorial waters, an overt act of war. The Japanese, of course, were trying to get the same resources. Many, many of our war-adventures from 1900 to the present can be traced to the national leaders acting at the behest of corporate interests, like the Banana wars, and not the secularism of our ideals.
Finally, we do not oppose Israel as a secular state, regardless of how it was created, or the wisdom of doing so. It's there, it exists. Deal with that fact. On the other hand, to the degree they have become a Zionist-ideology-led theocratic state, we do condemn their actions and mistreatment of Arabs and other Muslims in their country, of the Palestinians, and anyone else they mistreat for religious reasons.
As you and others have pointed out, religious motivations only matter to the cannon fodder, ever since the Crusades (and the Muslim versions of same, as they conquered Turkey and Spain, etc.), and even an Introduction to World History course will teach that every supposed "religious" war can be traced to economics. We see the use of nationalism and religion both as ways the wealthy elites can manipulate their people into seeing people who have things we want as "The Other", "The Enemy", "barbaric animals", etc.
Again, I'd like to repeat for you: all secularism means is that the government maintains a position of utter neutrality with respect to the religious beliefs of its people, and no one can use the power of government to help or hinder private religious practices. That's it.
All the rest of the stuff you're talking about is greed, and has nothing to do with secularism. In fact, I'd say secularism is what maintains a modicum of restraint in our dealings with other peoples: imagine if the Saudis had the firepower/manpower that the USA has, and could project its power directly, as we do. Imagine if the United States was an openly Christian theocracy, ruled by a puppet President and a cabal of priests who tell him what he is allowed to do/say... do you think we'd have failed to use nuclear weapons in this war by now, in that case?
In the case of Truman and the bomb, we did need to send a message to the Communist Soviets (who did not yet possess this weapon) that the Red Army had to stop when it met the US/UK forces at the Elbe river. They could have rolled us, otherwise. The entire war (and the first one) was a battle over land and resources--in the Pacific theatre, it was about the Belgian, Dutch, and British oil interests, which the US wanted (and got) control of--and it is well documented that the USA did everything in its power to goad the Japanese into attacking us, even sailing a fleet of our heavy cruisers up and down the coastline in Japanese territorial waters, an overt act of war. The Japanese, of course, were trying to get the same resources. Many, many of our war-adventures from 1900 to the present can be traced to the national leaders acting at the behest of corporate interests, like the Banana wars, and not the secularism of our ideals.
Finally, we do not oppose Israel as a secular state, regardless of how it was created, or the wisdom of doing so. It's there, it exists. Deal with that fact. On the other hand, to the degree they have become a Zionist-ideology-led theocratic state, we do condemn their actions and mistreatment of Arabs and other Muslims in their country, of the Palestinians, and anyone else they mistreat for religious reasons.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
