Religious communities must be engaged in foreign policy

Mr. Faisal rcommends:
"To achieve peace in the Middle East, one has to understand the role of religion from the Israeli side and from the Palestinian side."

From the Palestinian side I quote from Mosab Hassan Yousif, the son of one of Hamas founders.
“Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels.”

From the Israeli side I quote from the Bible;” God Jehovah had promised the land of the Canaanites to the Jews”

Mr. Rauf maybe you can address this:

How do you get extremists to stop using your religion to promote violence?

The current Federal policy of involving religion in foreign policy is guided by IRFA 1998 law and USCIRF report. It is fraught with conflict of interest and many other problems.

There is a quite a difference between theory (i.e. IRFA 1998 law) and practice (i.e. USCIRF).

In theory, All USCIRF report must comply with IRFA 1998 but reality is some what different.

In theory, Religion in foreign policy would serve national interest. However, In practice, What would stop it from serving religious interest and harming national interest?

Both "chicago council" and USCIRF are misrepresenting and painting negative portrait of Hinduity.

Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.

This is an elaboration on my last post, particularly related to my editing, (please forgive the intrusion), of Mr. Feisal Rauf's comment "only by reaching people at their core religious values can diplomacy build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace." My adjustments deleted "only" and "religious" and left "by reaching people at their core values diplomacy can build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace."

We can say without hesitation that there are dramatic differences in human cultures, races and religions that make commonality challenging, particularly when we focus on what separates us. However it is nearly as easy to say that there is a well of common ground when we look at the true core issues that we share as a species. It is in the ability to focus on these shared needs and interests that will build cooperation and harmony between the myriad of human cultures, religions and governments.

One example of this ability to build bridges across cultural and religious differences is written in Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea" and "{Stones into Schools". Here it is an essential human bond that is made and built upon that does not share cultural grounding or religious affinity but nonetheless produces lasting benefit for all. Cultural and religious languaging is shared, recognized and respected, but it is not religion that is the "core value" that is focused upon. It is the benefit of the least among us, borrowing the Christian motif, that inspires cooperation. It is to build schools for the children of the impoverished communities in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan that fuels this effort. It is non-governmental, between peoples, and it does not have direct involvement of religion, though agreement of religious councils or leaders is required for work to move forward, in that part of the world.

It is important to note that one of the requirements for this to have succeeded is that Mortenson's NGO is non-governmental, non-military, and non-religious. There is much to be gleaned from that fact.

Basic respect for the religious beliefs of others is an essential ingredient, as well as that the work at hand benefit both sides evenly. To further press the point, the intent that motivates the action must be for the benefit of other than the actor, as well as the actor, and that benefit should affect what is core to the life of those receiving the work.

Clearly America will look out for it's own interests. For too long, however, and too consistently, that came at a cost to other peoples and countries around the world. That cannot go on indefinitely before cause and effect requires payment.

If America, or anyone else for that matter, re-focused on the greater good instead of personal interests and gain then this equation would fall into place.

Religion can be a source for ending conflict or a source of conflict. There are religious sources for secularism and in American history religious foundations for democracy. Judge Learned Hand was I believe correct when he stated that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. I think there are profound religious sources for the humility Judge Hand expresses. I believe Pres. Obama was expressing somewhat the same thing in his Nobel acceptance speech when he said "No holy war is a just war."
Unfortunately most of the time this kind of humility is not generated by debate or argument but only through concession that we share with the other a common humanity (according to several religions created in the image of God), a common planet and as a species a common destiny.
With all this said diplomats should not be promoting religion at all even as they take into account the importance of religion to people in every country.

What a mixture of common sense and pure stupidity Mr. Abdul Rauf has given us. Common sense: American diplomats, as an intellectual exercise, should pay more attention to the role of religion in driving other countries' foreign policies.

Pure stupidity: "Religion is the solution to conflict." "...religion should be viewed 'as a source of creativity, inspiration, and commitment to human flourishing that can and often does provide enormous opportunities.' "

Religious-inspired actions and policies almost always produce animosity and conflict, breed fanaticism and extremism, sharpen differences, and diminish the chances of peaceful co-existence. That's what American diplomats need to know. Approaching the issue from the other direction, American diplomats should decisively avoid any belief that filling their own brains with religious claptrap will help them do their jobs better.

Just one shining fact that, somehow, seems lost on Muslim commentators and their American champions: If Islam at its core promotes peace and "higher ethics," how can it be that nowhere in the native soil of Islam has it ever produced a democratic society with respect for basic human rights, including the rights of political and religious minorities? Or women? And if Muslims have such disregard for each other, why in heaven's name would anyone expect Islam ever to foster Muslims' respect for non-Muslim foreigners?

Whose religion? Different sects of Islam kill each other over differences dating from the time of the Prophet's death. Christians have been fighting and killing each other over doctrine since shortly after the death of Jesus. Jewish sects disagree on everything from kosher laws to West Bank settlements.

And that's just the Abrahamic religions. There are billions of people in the world, mostly in Asia, who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, animism, etc. and millions more who are atheists. Do they get a voice in all of this religious foreign policy?

"Religion is the solution to conflict."

This first statement is wildly generalized, and generally false historically. Something to consider when throwing out sweeping generalization regarding controversial and polarizing subjects. Not that religion cannot be a solution to conflict, potentially. But you say "the" source. Shades of exclusivity arise...

"But we believe that if the highest ethics of religion are mixed with politics rooted in justice, the combination can be positively powerful and extremely effective."

This is a nice if not idealistic concept, and in it's more pure form, as suggested, I believe that religion can be positive as well as effective in solving some of the fundamental human issues. However, when are "the highest ethics" applied in religious context? And when is "politics rooted in justice" the common manifestation of that profession?

"Only by reaching people at their core religious values can diplomacy build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace."

Ah, here is that only word. One of the most destructive and corrosive descriptives that can be applied to any religion, or religions in general. Generally, each apply it to themselves. A weighty cause for the reasons why religions do not mix well, or work well, together.

I would take out the only, conditionally, and religious completely, and your statement may be even more truthful:

y reaching people at their core values diplomacy can build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace.

I am clear that a majority of humans couch their core values in a specific religious mantle, so it is foolish to avoid religion and religious comprehension and dialogue. But people will respond with languaging and negotiations that address their core values, with or without direct religious dialogue.

In the end what would serve best is finding common ground as humans, especially in a way that eclipses religion altogether. Religions may have a lot of common ground at their cores, but we hardly see that dynamic at work. There is far more conflict than cooperation in inter-religion relations. Do not trust religions to cooperate before they are positioning to compete.

I look forward to religious cooperation and assistance, but I believe that would require a further rejection of the exclusivity clause built into most religious dogma.