EVIL COMMITTED IN the name of god and religion

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts are examples in man's bloody history when atrocities were committed in the name of God. Had anyone bothered to remember the Sixth Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill" - hundreds of thousands of lives - Muslim, Jew, Christian - could have been spared. Regardless of the professed zeal of these campaigns, accounts reveal they were started off by little, if anything, to do with God.

Today, religion continues to be exploited by people to further their own secular and base aims. The United States is the probably the only country in the Western world where large numbers of people still go to church regularly on Sundays. It is therefore not a surprise that politicians invoke God's name in ways to appeal to segments of the community whose votes they want to get.

There was loads of "God talk" or "Jesus name-dropping" by the 2008 presidential candidates, particularly the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton - a lifelong Methodist -talked about her belief in "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". She even "felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions". She also said she believed in the "physical resurrection of Jesus" of the orthodox Christian faith - to appeal to the Evangelical segment of the population - the core constituents of Bush's conservative support.

Obama occasionally drops a line or two about the "realisation of one's own sin" and "submission to God's will, and carrying out His work".

Those are the central notions of the evangelists who carried Bush to the White House.

When the Israelis were bombing Lebanon for a second week in 2006 to destroy Hezbollah, an evangelical pastor from San Antonio dispatched a message to members of the US Congress and to the White House that "Supporting Israel is God's foreign policy". But "All this and Jesus too" exploits led many to abandon the Christian faith altogether.

In Thailand today, it is convenient to invoke loyalty to the throne to justify almost anything. It is shamelessly expedient. How many among the warring factions genuinely hold dear a true appreciation of this invaluable institution, the "soul of the nation"?

Last week, crocodile tears were shed at the resignation of a Cabinet member. "My highest reverence is for the king," he said. Anyone who read the transcript of his remarks at the Foreign Correspondents' Club last year and became furious must have a warped mind.

His mea culpa was less believable than the "dog ate my homework" excuse. If he has the audacity to say what he said, he should have enough chutzpah to admit it straight up.

The PM has questioned the "loyalty" of protesters at Rajadamnoen Bridge, saying they were "blocking members of the royal family." He went on to overtly indicate he would not be hesitant to use force to disperse the demonstrators.

This is the same PM who did absolutely nothing to reprimand a member of his team, despite the latter's well documented and extremely infuriating defamatory remarks.

Over the last few years, the public has been inundated by explicit and implicit references to "loyalty". It has been used by so many to justify actions that seem devoid of loyalty's true nature. The hypocrites have weakened the very institution they publicly claim to guard.

The duplicity trivialises the principles and path for Thailand's sustainable peace, stability and prosperity that His Majesty has been trying to show us.

It is so sad that we have had the blessing of his benevolent reign for more than sixty years and still learnt so little.

Some sixty years ago Time magazine published an interview with the new monarch. The part that strikes me most when I read it is the account about the need to build foundations for institutions "brick by brick". It is an old-fashioned principle - power has to be earned, not bestowed.

Over the years, His Majesty has trod the land, often off the beaten path, initiating project after project that, in the short-term or the long-term, will truly benefit the people who are the backbone of the country. He has time and again stressed the importance of national unity and sacrifice for the greater good. He uses his power judiciously. He exemplifies the true meaning of magnanimity. He has done all this the hard way. There simply is no other, or better way.

These days power and wealth are believed to be an entitlement that comes in the time it takes to click a computer mouse.

There is no shame to "take a lot and scatter so little". There is no dishonour in robbing the country of its future. There is no twinge of conscience at tearing apart the country to protect and satisfy personal interests and ambition.

There is nothing worth losing sleep over, even when the majority live day by day, in quiet desperation, with dire prospects.

We have become a people who love to fight it out in the streets. We have pretty much abandoned all the things "needful for the shaping of the soul".

Loyalty is about being faithful, being true to a person, an institution, a cause, or a mission. And we call all these displays of kitsch loyalty?

Never before have I witnessed such levels of unscrupulous exploitation. Maybe I have not lived long enough.